> Increase the population of wild animals, which I do not know whether it is good or bad. I think the welfare of terrestrial wild animals is driven by that of terrestrial arthropods, but I am very uncertain about whether they have good or bad lives.
I'm pretty sure this is saying they could be persuaded to destroy all wildlife because wild animals might have bad lives.
In the link linked in my quoted part the blogger argues that the increase in algae might feed more fish. (In reality the algae grow faster than the fish can eat and also have less nutrients so the fish suffocate or starve the algae then bloom and cause no light to pass through which wrecks the ecosystem). Amateur ecology done drom first principles.
They also argue that climate change will increase insect populations so that vs the dying wildlife is net plus in animals.
This lake contains 2 kg/m3 of biomass, distributed over 2000 species of algae, 50 species of macroscopic plants, 800 of plankton, and 30 species of fish. The biomass is distributed log-normally over 5 trophic levels and there are > 10k trophic linkages. All populations are in a dynamic equilibrium with each other, and individual populations are in a state of constant co-evolution, making the overall ecosystem absurdly resilient to perturbation. The water is drinkable and we can harvest 20 tons of fish per year without reducing their population.
But I read that warming water + agricultural runoff can bump those numbers up to 2.1 kg/m3 of toxic sludge algae and inedible mussels (and nothing else). That's more living things, so who can say what's better?
you have neatly outlined their entire worldview.
"AGI is scary because it's very smart. I am *also* very smart and arrive at completely batshit conclusions all the time. ergo, AGI must arrive at even *more* batshit conclusions, which is bad because it's not me making them."
The bonus word garnish is even more lmao when it's stuck in things this stupid:
"population of wild animals" > "welfare of terrestrial wild animals"
fUcK tHeM tArDiGrAdEs, eh?
“Figuring out whether farmed shrimps and prawns have good/bad lives
seems especially important, since they are arguably the driver for the
welfare of farmed animals” I thought the shrimp thing was a meme
😭😭😭😭😭
Not a meme, there are organisations actively working on it. They're from EA's better side, so they're not even doing a bad job... assuming you care enough about shrimp welfare.
the fact that you thought of that, while not being a revolutionary genius like they are, means that the idea itself must not be a genius one, and the only effective forms of altruism HAVE to be genius. like shrimp suffering matrices.
seriously though god *damn* it.
the human conciousness is not even in the top three most effective parts of the human brain and the human brain is barely in the top five of effective individual brains we know of and any individual mind is always, *always* inferior to a collective effort, and all that is *more* inferior to stochastic processes over time
and this guy thinks he is on his way to solving the problem of shrimp suffering when the collective trillions of shrimp who have existed across a good chunk of the ocean's existence haven't? because he's *just that smart?*
maybe he could work on the problem of solving *my* suffering. and make huge strides in that regard by *not saying shit like this anymore*.
Wow this is pretty bonkers
An EA degrowther who thinks climate change might be good? That’s a new one
“Figuring out whether farmed shrimps and prawns have good/bad lives seems especially important, since they are arguably the driver for the welfare of farmed animals” I thought the shrimp thing was a meme 😭😭😭😭😭
Well, shit. I thought effective altruism meant figuring which charities got the most bang per buck.