I am glad you wrote this. I was feeling sad about stuff. But this optimistic post about the world and all sentient beings really does make me feel good. Thanks Matt. God bless you, friend.
The natural world is _not_ actually horrible and better off not existing. Applauding ecosystem destruction is indeed what you ought to do if you really believe that it is.
I wrote a little thing where I talk about this crazy idea that nature is actually a good thing overall:
There are some arguments that nature isn’t bad in there, but it’s not the focus, that’s true. That’s because the consequences of the belief are very clear and easy to discuss. The arguments about how much suffering there is in the world are much more wooly and hand-wavey. They depend on vibes about how much a squirrel suffers when it gets chased by a dog and whether shrimp have feelings. So the most I can really do on that score is point out that the ‘arguments’ saying that the suffering massively outweighs the upside are vibes-based and eminently contestable, which I do. I just don’t have it in me to write a paper trying to estimate how much sex rabbits have and whether the amount they enjoy it outweighs the times they are very cold in the winter. Thats why I think the choice about what to believe should be at least somewhat influenced by whether the one view has absolutely insane implications, which it does.
I don't think you can infer what the world is like based on the moral consequences of what you should do if it's true. Like, it can't be that if we were in Germany in 1930 it would be some evidence against the holocaust happening that if it were, that would have crazy moral implications.
We can enfer that if we're theist. If the universe really us created by an omnibenevolent entity we ought to find worlds that contain less evil more plausible than worlds that contain more evil.
No, but people condition their beliefs based on the consequences of those beliefs all the time. I mean, Pascal’s wager is a famous example, but generally choosing beliefs that are amenable to our personal flourishing and so forth makes sense, but only when there is some reasonable doubt as to what is true. It’s pretty clear that there is substantial doubt about what is true here considering we have very little idea which animals suffer, or how much, and even less idea about how satisfying it is to be a turtle or an eel when things are going ok.
Regarding historic life expectancy, one needs to be cautious when extrapolating from the averages given they are greatly distorted by infant mortality. That is a tragedy in itself (and also mentioned) but we should also be conscious that plenty of ancient hunter gatherers who made it to adulthood reached 60 and 70 years of age. There are clear gains overall, but (outside of war) there have never been societies where the mode decade of death is in the 30s. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00171.x
Hopefully more young people will see this. Things are not as bad as, I think, many have been led to believe.
Pessimism is not new. When I was a kid growing up in an American suburb in the '60s, Barry McGuire released his "Eve of Destruction" song and a few years later there was "In the Year 2525" song, both real downers. Despite this stuff, I felt that there was a future, and a good one, and I was correct. I know someone who is alive today thanks to a heart control system that he had implanted this summer - not just a pacemaker, but a real controller with an array of sensors. When one lets creative people ask "Why?" and then lets them gather enough wealth and time to pursue the answer, we get great things.
If I may make a pitch: If you are in SE Michigan, you might like the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, as their exhibits will help show how technology has improved over the years and thus corroborating with what you have shared with us here. The place is full of upbeat, cheerful and passionate people, including young people.
If you're confident that wild animals in general lead net negative lives, how are you confident that, from a utilitarian standpoint, going vegan is morally correct? Seems at least plausible that the net primary productivity of agricultural land is lower than the alternatives, and animal products seem to use up more agricultural land than non-animal ones.
I tend to be pretty uncertain (1) whether reducing wild animal populations is clearly good, (2) whether the alternatives to agricultural land are actually less productive, (3) whether the suffering of small invertebrates matters comparably or we can think about aggregating them in similarly sensible ways (although I often donate to the Shrimp Welfare Project after I learned Good Ventures doesn't plan to fund invertebrate welfare work), and (4) whether utilitarianism is true (veganism or some approximation seems like it would be morally required under most non-utilitarian moral theories), so the effects of factory farming dominate. You don't seem to share my uncertanties on (1), (3), and (4) – is your uncertainty on (2) large enough that factory farming dominates anyway?
Relatedly, it seems as though the effects of fish farming on wild fish populations are pretty uncertain (since most carnivorous/omnivorous farmed fish, like salmon, are fed at least some amount of fishmeal that is made disproportionately from wild-caught fish). So if wild animal effects dominate, that also seems like it should be pretty uncertain.
By far the lives of wild living things do not consist of suffering. They are experiencing pleasures and purpose in their acts just like we do. Crows even enjoy a good grudge. What amount of suffering cancels all the good?
It’s not adjusting for that. The table in Wikipedia under Human Patterns -> Variation over time, shows life expectancy at birth and usually notes remaining years after different ages. For instance, Paleolithic humans averaged 54 years of they survived to 15.
I am glad you wrote this. I was feeling sad about stuff. But this optimistic post about the world and all sentient beings really does make me feel good. Thanks Matt. God bless you, friend.
The natural world is _not_ actually horrible and better off not existing. Applauding ecosystem destruction is indeed what you ought to do if you really believe that it is.
I wrote a little thing where I talk about this crazy idea that nature is actually a good thing overall:
https://open.substack.com/pub/eugeneearnshaw/p/life-is-good-actually?r=2pinl&utm_medium=ios
But you didn't give any arguments against nature being bad, you just wrote that it would have depressing implications!
There are some arguments that nature isn’t bad in there, but it’s not the focus, that’s true. That’s because the consequences of the belief are very clear and easy to discuss. The arguments about how much suffering there is in the world are much more wooly and hand-wavey. They depend on vibes about how much a squirrel suffers when it gets chased by a dog and whether shrimp have feelings. So the most I can really do on that score is point out that the ‘arguments’ saying that the suffering massively outweighs the upside are vibes-based and eminently contestable, which I do. I just don’t have it in me to write a paper trying to estimate how much sex rabbits have and whether the amount they enjoy it outweighs the times they are very cold in the winter. Thats why I think the choice about what to believe should be at least somewhat influenced by whether the one view has absolutely insane implications, which it does.
I don't think you can infer what the world is like based on the moral consequences of what you should do if it's true. Like, it can't be that if we were in Germany in 1930 it would be some evidence against the holocaust happening that if it were, that would have crazy moral implications.
https://benthams.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-tree-huggers?utm_source=publication-search
We can enfer that if we're theist. If the universe really us created by an omnibenevolent entity we ought to find worlds that contain less evil more plausible than worlds that contain more evil.
But theists should think that something in the world went wrong and a bunch of bad stuff happened.
Still, less bad things happening is more plausible than more bad things happening.
No, but people condition their beliefs based on the consequences of those beliefs all the time. I mean, Pascal’s wager is a famous example, but generally choosing beliefs that are amenable to our personal flourishing and so forth makes sense, but only when there is some reasonable doubt as to what is true. It’s pretty clear that there is substantial doubt about what is true here considering we have very little idea which animals suffer, or how much, and even less idea about how satisfying it is to be a turtle or an eel when things are going ok.
Regarding historic life expectancy, one needs to be cautious when extrapolating from the averages given they are greatly distorted by infant mortality. That is a tragedy in itself (and also mentioned) but we should also be conscious that plenty of ancient hunter gatherers who made it to adulthood reached 60 and 70 years of age. There are clear gains overall, but (outside of war) there have never been societies where the mode decade of death is in the 30s. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2007.00171.x
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2625386/
The problem of the graph of the CO2 emissions is not that it seems to stabilize, it is that it MUST decrease significantly.
Bravo to you for writing this!
Hopefully more young people will see this. Things are not as bad as, I think, many have been led to believe.
Pessimism is not new. When I was a kid growing up in an American suburb in the '60s, Barry McGuire released his "Eve of Destruction" song and a few years later there was "In the Year 2525" song, both real downers. Despite this stuff, I felt that there was a future, and a good one, and I was correct. I know someone who is alive today thanks to a heart control system that he had implanted this summer - not just a pacemaker, but a real controller with an array of sensors. When one lets creative people ask "Why?" and then lets them gather enough wealth and time to pursue the answer, we get great things.
If I may make a pitch: If you are in SE Michigan, you might like the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, as their exhibits will help show how technology has improved over the years and thus corroborating with what you have shared with us here. The place is full of upbeat, cheerful and passionate people, including young people.
As much as I may think climate change will actually decrease suffering in the long term, I'm still going to act environmentally conscious as a flex.
You might as well also add another thing: The spread of national self-determination, democracy, and liberalism.
If you were to tell those grudge holding crows they should all die because you think they suffer too much they would probably put you on their list.
If co2 continues it's flatline from here we're in trouble. Emissions are flat but ppm is not. Methane is far from flatlining.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/09/methane-emissions-are-rising-faster-than-ever
If you're confident that wild animals in general lead net negative lives, how are you confident that, from a utilitarian standpoint, going vegan is morally correct? Seems at least plausible that the net primary productivity of agricultural land is lower than the alternatives, and animal products seem to use up more agricultural land than non-animal ones.
I tend to be pretty uncertain (1) whether reducing wild animal populations is clearly good, (2) whether the alternatives to agricultural land are actually less productive, (3) whether the suffering of small invertebrates matters comparably or we can think about aggregating them in similarly sensible ways (although I often donate to the Shrimp Welfare Project after I learned Good Ventures doesn't plan to fund invertebrate welfare work), and (4) whether utilitarianism is true (veganism or some approximation seems like it would be morally required under most non-utilitarian moral theories), so the effects of factory farming dominate. You don't seem to share my uncertanties on (1), (3), and (4) – is your uncertainty on (2) large enough that factory farming dominates anyway?
Relatedly, it seems as though the effects of fish farming on wild fish populations are pretty uncertain (since most carnivorous/omnivorous farmed fish, like salmon, are fed at least some amount of fishmeal that is made disproportionately from wild-caught fish). So if wild animal effects dominate, that also seems like it should be pretty uncertain.
Still curious for a take on this if you have one!
The world is getting better for a few but not for all. Material or technological improvements aren’t everything. Moral and social decline is obvious.
We feed the deer here a lot of carrots. Yesterday I stepped out the door emptyhanded. Behold a big buck. He snorts at me. Translated : "where's
my carrots you lowlife servant"
By far the lives of wild living things do not consist of suffering. They are experiencing pleasures and purpose in their acts just like we do. Crows even enjoy a good grudge. What amount of suffering cancels all the good?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/28/science/crows-grudges-revenge.html
Sorry, didn't mean to remove this.
It’s not adjusting for that. The table in Wikipedia under Human Patterns -> Variation over time, shows life expectancy at birth and usually notes remaining years after different ages. For instance, Paleolithic humans averaged 54 years of they survived to 15.
Oh oops.