Natural history DNA is subject to statistical analysis. This analysis can provide insight into previous environments and the adaptations needed to survive them. Humans may have a future use for a solution already encoded by another species.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
Undiscovered potential Most models would place a non-negligible value upon an unknown self-replicating organism that has been adapted to the modelers environment after several million generations. At the very least, identification, classification, and understanding would be attempted before placing a value.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Protection from disease When there are a variety of species, a single pathogen is less likely able to ravage an ecosystem.
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
Protecting minority humans A species of negligible value to a dominant society may be of critical value to a marginal society.
If so, then protecting that species is in the interests of the human population in question, and it then becomes of question of how best to serve their human interests. But that doesn’t get you anywhere as far as biodiversity, in and of itself, having instrumental value.
Value from scarcity Economics. As supply decreases, cost increases.
You probably mean price, not cost… but what does that have to do with anything? We’re trying to establish that biodiversity has a utilitarian purpose… how does this address that? If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
Ethics Treat others as you would have yourself be treated. Don’t afflict others with the negative consequences of your actions. Protect the oppressed. Be a good neighbor. Share. Improve your environment for the next visitor. Because you may be judged by the rules you apply to others.
Protection of sentient species Some endangered species are capable of learning language. Some humans are not. I typically value worth on a combination of mental traits. Some animals are capable of holding jobs. Some humans are not. Many people often value worth by productivity. Some animals are more valuable than some humans.
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection, both because their existence has utility (in understanding the phenomenon of intelligence), and because I consider the protection of sentient life to be a terminal value. But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
The current environment supports human life. The recent bee scare was a multi-continent threat to a species very important to our way of life.
You probably mean price, not cost...
Pardon me, I thought I had changed that.
If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
People who value money. Valdimir_M wrote: “If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?”
[Ethical arguments are] just begging the question.
I took the creation of Friendly AI to be an ethical consideration which was accepted by all commenters. I think the relationships are parallel.
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection.… But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
I had in mind elephants, primates, and cetaceans. Each of these groups faces existential risks. Maintaining biodiversity is protecting species from extinction. Sentient species are a specific subset.
I was trying to argue for the propagation of the biodiversity meme. I felt that Vladimir_M was contradicting that meme. I thought I was being clear that my argument was not meant to be purely utilitarian (in which case I would have used values, or at least comparisons), but instead to argue that biodiversity has value within a variety of systems.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
I believe it’s false. Good-sized animals are still being discovered. The ecology of micro-organisms is still being explored.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
A lot of what’s worth finding out at our present level of knowledge isn’t about whole organisms, it’s about specific aspects—consider the work being done with spider silk. Spider silk would probably still be valuable even if there weren’t any living spiders.
If biodiversity is a terminal value of yours, then I can absolutely respect that, to exactly the same degree as anybody else’s terminal values. But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
I reference here only the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism (with the former being often referenced but largely naive).
Come to think of it if ‘providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings’ is actually the measure of instrumental value then you really only need a dozen species of plant and you’ve got all the ‘happiness and pleasure’ humans are likely to need.
Biologists have DNA samples of every known species.
Ok, but how much value would it place on an organism which wasn’t adapted to the modelers environment, as demonstrated by the fact that it was selected against and went extinct?
OK, but what reason, other than status quo bias, is there to prefer one result over the other?
If so, then protecting that species is in the interests of the human population in question, and it then becomes of question of how best to serve their human interests. But that doesn’t get you anywhere as far as biodiversity, in and of itself, having instrumental value.
You probably mean price, not cost… but what does that have to do with anything? We’re trying to establish that biodiversity has a utilitarian purpose… how does this address that? If something is useless, who cares how much supply of it there is, or how it’s priced?
This is just begging the question
I agree that non human sentient species deserve protection, both because their existence has utility (in understanding the phenomenon of intelligence), and because I consider the protection of sentient life to be a terminal value. But what does that have to do with “biodiversity”?
Thanks for the reply.
I do not believe that be true. Even if it is, a single sample is insufficient for a meaningful statistical analysis.
Non-negligible, depending on the criteria. It was my belief that human caused environmental destruction was the issue at hand. The organism was adapted for human’s natural environment (most of Earth), the environment changed.
The current environment supports human life. The recent bee scare was a multi-continent threat to a species very important to our way of life.
Pardon me, I thought I had changed that.
People who value money. Valdimir_M wrote: “If a particular species is useful for some concrete purpose, then someone with deep enough pockets can easily be found who will invest into breeding it for profit. If not, who cares?”
I took the creation of Friendly AI to be an ethical consideration which was accepted by all commenters. I think the relationships are parallel.
I had in mind elephants, primates, and cetaceans. Each of these groups faces existential risks. Maintaining biodiversity is protecting species from extinction. Sentient species are a specific subset.
I was trying to argue for the propagation of the biodiversity meme. I felt that Vladimir_M was contradicting that meme. I thought I was being clear that my argument was not meant to be purely utilitarian (in which case I would have used values, or at least comparisons), but instead to argue that biodiversity has value within a variety of systems.
I believe it’s false. Good-sized animals are still being discovered. The ecology of micro-organisms is still being explored.
A lot of what’s worth finding out at our present level of knowledge isn’t about whole organisms, it’s about specific aspects—consider the work being done with spider silk. Spider silk would probably still be valuable even if there weren’t any living spiders.
On the small side, but pea-sized frog recently discovered.
We were? Pardon me, my mistake. Please consider anything I wrote on the subject retracted. I’m a conscientious objector to utilitarianism.
If biodiversity is a terminal value of yours, then I can absolutely respect that, to exactly the same degree as anybody else’s terminal values. But the commenter I was replying to clearly seemed to be arguing that biodiversity has instrumental value.
I reference here only the difference between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism (with the former being often referenced but largely naive).
Come to think of it if ‘providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings’ is actually the measure of instrumental value then you really only need a dozen species of plant and you’ve got all the ‘happiness and pleasure’ humans are likely to need.