The Nonlinear Library EA - Is there any way to be confident that humanity won't keep employing mass torture of animals for millions of years in the future? by Eduardo
Apr 29, 2024
01:04
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Is there any way to be confident that humanity won't keep employing mass torture of animals for millions of years in the future?, published by Eduardo on April 29, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Currently, I'm pursuing a bachelor degree in Biological Sciences in order to become a researcher in the area of biorisk, because I was confident that humanity would stop causing tremendous amounts of suffering upon other animals and would assume a net positive value in the future.
However, there was a nagging thought in the back of my head about the possibility that it would not do so, and I found this article suggesting that there is a real possibility that such horrible scenario might actually happen.
If there is indeed a very considerable chance that humanity will keep torturing animals at an ever growing scale, and thus keep having a negative net-value for an extremely large portion of its history, doesn't that mean that we should strive to make humanity more likely to go extinct, not less?
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org
Currently, I'm pursuing a bachelor degree in Biological Sciences in order to become a researcher in the area of biorisk, because I was confident that humanity would stop causing tremendous amounts of suffering upon other animals and would assume a net positive value in the future.
However, there was a nagging thought in the back of my head about the possibility that it would not do so, and I found this article suggesting that there is a real possibility that such horrible scenario might actually happen.
If there is indeed a very considerable chance that humanity will keep torturing animals at an ever growing scale, and thus keep having a negative net-value for an extremely large portion of its history, doesn't that mean that we should strive to make humanity more likely to go extinct, not less?
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org