New-ish to the community and trying to resolve the following question - where do existential risks that threaten the future of [insert any non-human species] fit into discussions about prioritisation?
Though it's rarely presented in this way, I understand most conversations/conclusions about priority areas to consider:
Humans
- Immediate causes of human suffering and/or loss of life
- Long-term risk to the ongoing existence of human life
Animals
- Immediate causes of non-human suffering and/or loss of life
I understand that some long-term risks to the ongoing existence of human life will also impact on non-humans, but suppose that there are some risks that exist only for (some or all) non-humans.
As well as direct answers to my question, I'm wondering if anyone can point me in the direction of further reading/discussion about this, so I might:
- Update my understanding - it's likely I've just missed or misinterpreted some of the discussion about this
- Consider the argument for/against prioritising animal x-risk - I instinctively feel it is odd that this doesn't figure in most attempts at prioritising cause areas that I have seen. This seems a little incoherent with (1) the focus on longtermism within the EA community and (2) the fairly wide moral circle drawn by EA community
Thank you for this answer. I am not sure I agree with this, for the reasons outlined below (in case useful information for you, I upvoted and disagree-voted this):
Paragraph 1: Somewhat minor point, I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference, i.e. extinction being bad because of the effects of it (no future human happiness, flourishing etc) is putting a disvalue on extinction, because it inherently causes those effects.
In an animal context I would put this as: if an animal species has net positive lives, then extinction is inherently bad,... (read more)