I don’t wish to directly argue the question at the moment, but let’s say insect suffering is in fact the highest-priority issue we should consider. If so, I’m fairly sure that practically, little would be changed as a result. X-risk reduction is just as important for insects as it is for us, so that should still be given high priority. The largest effect we currently have on insect suffering—and in fact an X-risk factor in itself for insects—is through our collective environmental pollution, so stopping human pollution and global warming as much as possible will be paramount after high-likelihood X-risk issues. In order to effectively treat issues of global human pollution of the environment, some form of global political agreement must be reached about it, which can be best achieved by [Insert your pet political theory here]. In other words, whatever you believe will be best for humans long-term will probably also be best for insects long-term.
I think doesn’t work if you think insects lead overwhelmingly net negative lives right now, and the world would be a better place if fewer insects are around to reproduce/create huge numbers of awful lives. But I might be missing something.
At the same time, it’s more than plausible that the extinction of humans would be very bad for insects, because their habitats would grow significantly without humans.
But anyway, I agree that even if insect suffering is really massive, it doesn’t swamp x-risk consideration. (Personally, I don’t think insect suffering matters much at all, though that’s really more of an instinct on “torture vs. dust specks” in general, though it does confuse me as an issue.) I’m just wondering how important it is in the scale of things.
I don’t wish to directly argue the question at the moment, but let’s say insect suffering is in fact the highest-priority issue we should consider. If so, I’m fairly sure that practically, little would be changed as a result. X-risk reduction is just as important for insects as it is for us, so that should still be given high priority. The largest effect we currently have on insect suffering—and in fact an X-risk factor in itself for insects—is through our collective environmental pollution, so stopping human pollution and global warming as much as possible will be paramount after high-likelihood X-risk issues. In order to effectively treat issues of global human pollution of the environment, some form of global political agreement must be reached about it, which can be best achieved by [Insert your pet political theory here]. In other words, whatever you believe will be best for humans long-term will probably also be best for insects long-term.
I think doesn’t work if you think insects lead overwhelmingly net negative lives right now, and the world would be a better place if fewer insects are around to reproduce/create huge numbers of awful lives. But I might be missing something.
At the same time, it’s more than plausible that the extinction of humans would be very bad for insects, because their habitats would grow significantly without humans.
But anyway, I agree that even if insect suffering is really massive, it doesn’t swamp x-risk consideration. (Personally, I don’t think insect suffering matters much at all, though that’s really more of an instinct on “torture vs. dust specks” in general, though it does confuse me as an issue.) I’m just wondering how important it is in the scale of things.
Thanks for the response though! I appreciate it.