I get the sense that some in the EA community would solely focus on reducing extinction risk if they could have it their way. But is there a danger with such an extreme focus on reducing extinction risk that we end up successfully prolonging a world that may not even be desirable?
It seems at least slightly plausible that the immense suffering of wild animals could mean that the sum of utilities in the world is negative (please let me know if you find this to be a ludicrous claim).
If this is true, and if hypothetically things were to stay this way, it may not be the case that reducing extinction risk is doing the most good, even under a 'total utilitarian' population axiology.
Whilst I would like to see us flourish into the far future, I think we may have to focus on the 'flourish' part as well as the 'far future' part. It seems to me that reducing extinction risk may only be a worthwhile endeavour if it is done alongside other things such as eradicating wild animal suffering.
What do you think? Can solely focusing on extinction risk be doing the most good or do we need to do it in tandem with other things that actually make the world worth prolonging?