Like a two minute speech to the general public, what would be the most utilitarian, convincing topic?

Hi LunarLeo. My response is predictable for those who know me, but I'll say it anyway. I think the most important value-shifts that society needs to embrace are that (1) animal suffering matters as much as comparable human suffering (even if the animals are ugly and disgusting, like cockroaches) and (2) animal suffering should be prevented even if it's "natural" and not the result of human cruelty.

It seems to me that if humans embrace these ideals, they probably can't go too far astray in their deliberate actions, whether or not they're maximizing utilitarians. Point (2) should cause our descendants to think carefully before multiplying wild-animal suffering through directed panspermia, sentient simulations, or lab universes.

This isn't to say that things couldn't go wrong even if society adopted these ideas. Post-humans could make mistakes, be factually igorant, or lose control over the future to non-human-like forces. But the above seem to be the crucial moral sentiments that need to be cultivated before I'm willing to trust our descendants to flex their technological muscles safely.

If I had a two minute speech, I would give Peter Singer's Shallow Pond analogy.

I'd regard Alan Dawrst's speech as also entirely correct, but difficult for the public relations of utilitarianism.

I'm not sure I would attempt to go into the issues that Alan Dawrst mentions, not because I disagree with them, but because I don't think there would be any way to fit them into a two minute speech - and make it convincing.

Maybe what I would try to convey in two minutes is that the road is long ahead of us. And that we should not hope to make the world well, but only to advance along the road by making the world a bit better.

People tend to think that today, after a long history of barbarity and ignorance, at last we have science (almost complete), human rights (not everywhere but it's just a matter of some time) and democracy (not perfect but then what is?). In other words, that we're not quite there, but that the end of history is in sight. Two thousand years of Christianity, and some 150 years of Marxism, ingrained in us the impression that the return of Christ, or the advent of communism, is at hand. This makes any really long term vision appear absurd.

This I think is one reason why people are conservative regarding animals. The task is too immense, and obviously cannot be accomplished in a lifetime or two. So it's as if it couldn't be accomplished at all.

David

Thanks, David Oliver! That's a very insightful reply. I gave the speech this morning, and focused on "doing the most good" and threw in a plug for vegetarianism, not too exciting but I didn't want to step too far and be dismissed so easily.

I share the concerns that others expressed about the wild-animal topic. I would still talk about it myself, because -- unlike Third-world aid or vegetarianism -- if I don't talk about it, no one will, either now or perhaps in the future. But depending on the audience, it could be too big a leap to make. I do like the drowning-child analogy for something closer-to-home for most people.

Anyway, nice job with the speech, LunarLeo.

I would've suggested (though the drowning-child analogy might be better) the importance of quantifying. E.g. *build up* "...some charities provide 10 000 times the health benefit as some of the NHS's programmes/some other charities for the same money. 10 000 times. That's huge. Our brains haven't evolved in such a way as to be able to comprehend such a magnitude properly but try anyway!" *helpful comparisons to help people appreciate how big and important that number is*

Alan Dawrst wrote:if I don't talk about it, no one will, either now or perhaps in the future.

I'm pretty sure this isn't as bleak a picture as you think. As long as the idea of utility (not even necessarily in the form of utilitarianism) sticks around, concern for any suffering anywhere should follow as a consequence of it. Case in point - everyone on here seems to agree with you that it's an issue in principle (I think I've seen Rob Wiblin and Robin Hanson mention it too), the point of disagreement is only on how valid it is to pursue as a goal now.

Thanks, Arepo! You may be right. There are others who acknowledge that wild suffering is a problem. However, I think fewer people have highlighted the point that wild-animal suffering isn't just bad in principle, but that it should affect (dominate?) practical decisions that humans might take, like whether to preserve a given ecosystem or -- further in the future -- whether to terraform other planets / engage in directed panspermia / create lab universes.

Alan Dawrst wrote:I think the most important value-shifts that society needs to embrace are that (1) animal suffering matters as much as comparable human suffering (even if the animals are ugly and disgusting, like cockroaches) and (2) animal suffering should be prevented even if it's "natural" and not the result of human cruelty.

Alan, can I take your word for it?

I know you have written a lot on the issue, but have you in store something like a 5000 character article (spaces included) specifically on the issues you mention above; and if not, could you write one?

I contribute to the magazine of the French Vegetarian association and I'm looking for good material to publish (in addition to the very good stuff I write myself). If you have such a text, I think it would be very useful to translate and publish it.

The magazine is quarterly and the next deadline is end of July.

David

Hi David,

Yes, actually, I do already have such an article.

It's this one on my website. And in fact, a friend of mine, Nathan Uyttendaele, already translated it into French (.pdf or .docx).

I would be glad to have it spread more widely.

Alan

Thanks, Alan, that's perfect!

The magazine in question doesn't have a very large circulation, but serves a bit as a platform for texts to spread in the French animal activist community.

I'll keep you updated.

David

In the end, it turns out that David has published the article on his own website: "Devrait-on intervenir dans la nature?" Thanks, David and Nathan.