A friend and I have been exchanging emails, and we've been meaning to transfer the discussion to a public forum so that it can be shared with a wider audience. We're in the middle of a few threads, but I'll start a reply, and we can clarify as needed.

Book: Non-zero, p. 309 Dogs, too, seem capable of pain and hunger and excitement (not to mention shame). Cats, too (except for shame). For that matter, lizards and snakes recoil from heat. And can we really rule out the possibility that bacteria feel some tiny, crude dose of pain? They do recoil from electric shock, after all.

I'm doubtful, because bacteria don't have the types of neural structures that I define as being part of "feeling pain." And I don't think they have the kind of self-reflective "conscious" experience that makes suffering matter. I could change my intuitions on the subject, but doing so would take a good amount of argument.

{I think these reflexes use the distributed neurons for processing. So you might be able to argue that we have as many distributed neurons as an insect has in its brain, so all of the insects’ processes are reflexes.}

Yes, it's certainly possible. The neurons in my gut don't transfer signals to my conscious awareness, so I don't care about them. However, unlike my long intestine, several arthropods display remarkable "non-programmed" behavior, as well as social awareness.

[Problem:] Wild animal suffering

[Solutions:] nonorganic farming (pesticides preventing insects), fertilizing the ocean (algae to fish instead of many arthropod intermediaries), humane pesticides, Singularity (though this could cause far more wild animal suffering though colonizing other worlds, Dyson sphere(s), and simulations of wild animals)

You've mentioned it before, but perhaps you can explain again the idea about fertilizing the ocean. How feasible is it? Are you sure it wouldn't create lots of small zooplankton and such?

Regarding "nonorganic farming," I suspect that pesticides result in more benefit (preventing insect existence) than harm (causing painful death), but I would like to study the matter further. I've been contacting entomology professors to ask their opinions. As far as humane insecticides, I think there's a great deal of opportunity, because some of them, "insect growth regulators" (IGRs), merely prevent adult maturation, rather than (painfully?) disrupting the nervous system (organophosphates and carbamates) or dissolving cells in the insect's gut (Bt). In addition, larvicides seem like a promising option if they kill insect offspring before becoming sentient (do they?).

The neurons in my gut don't transfer signals to my conscious awareness, so I don't care about them.

The neurons in my head don't transfer signals to your conscious awareness either. Do you care about me? Perhaps your gut is a separate consciousness.

DanielLC wrote:The neurons in my head don't transfer signals to your conscious awareness either. Do you care about me? Perhaps your gut is a separate consciousness.

Yeah, other people have made the same point. I guess what I would say is that I care about you because you care about you. In other words, you have self-reflective awareness of your good and bad emotions, and you matter to me for that reason. There isn't anyone (in the sense of a "conscious" mind) who cares about my gut.

You've mentioned it before, but perhaps you can explain again the idea about fertilizing the ocean. How feasible is it? Are you sure it wouldn't create lots of small zooplankton and such?

There is ongoing tests of iron fertilization of the ocean, primarily to sequester carbon dioxide, but some have suggested it to increase ocean productivity to save the whales or create more fish for humans. The problem is that even though it causes algae growth locally, this consumes the macronutrients that are not available down current, so it might not make an overall positive contribution. So what I'm proposing is either artificial upwelling or the addition of macronutrients. Natural coastal upwelling only occurs over 0.1% of the ocean's area, but provides 50% of the fish yield. So I think of this as an environmental thing to take pressure off land ecosystems, and I think it would be nearly economical. I have read in an oceanography book that when the nutrient concentrations are low, the food chain is up to seven trophic levels, many of them arthropods. However, when the nutrient concentrations are high, the primary food chain is fish eating algae. Could there be arthropods eating algae as well? Sure, so I'm not sure if it would reduce the total number of organisms or suffering, but I think it is worth investigating.

In other words, you have self-reflective awareness of your good and bad emotions

I don't generally think about that stuff. Does this mean I should try to self-reflect more, because if I'm not self-aware, then I don't matter?

even though it causes algae growth locally, this consumes the macronutrients that are not available down current, so it might not make an overall positive contribution

How does that work? They get consumed because there's more algae, right? If it made a negative contribution, there'd be less algae, so there'd be extra macronutrients. The closest I could understand is if you dumped it in one spot, and the algae bloom promptly ate all the macronutrients and then died, thus using up far more than normal, but you could prevent that just by not dumping it all in one place.

Recumbent wrote:So what I'm proposing is either artificial upwelling or the addition of macronutrients. Natural coastal upwelling only occurs over 0.1% of the ocean's area, but provides 50% of the fish yield. So I think of this as an environmental thing to take pressure off land ecosystems [...]

Thanks, Recumbent! Hmm, my intuition is dismayed by the idea of increasing the number of fish (and the number of fish eaten by humans). But I agree that we need to do a calm-headed analysis, in case an intervention like this would reduce total animal populations. Still, it does seem counterintuitive that more nutrients could mean fewer animals. When nutrient levels are high and direct consumption of plants is the "primary" feeding pathway for fish, might there still be lots of small animals, and they're just proportionately less important? Or did the book say explicitly that the total number (not just proportion) of small animals decreases?

DanielLC wrote:I don't generally think about that stuff. Does this mean I should try to self-reflect more, because if I'm not self-aware, then I don't matter?

Yes.

It doesn't have to be self-reflection in a deep, Buddhist sense or anything, but just the fact that you're "conscious" of your feelings. And if you're in pain, it's preferable if you *don't* think about it. (In my experience, distraction is the best way to cope with suffering.)