By the stated ratio of 1:14 for bees to humans, the welfare of bees as a whole exceeds the welfare of human civilization by a large margin. There are trillions of bees but only a few billion humans. We should be devoting almost all of global production to extending bee lifespan and improving their quality of life even if that means that most of humanity suffers horribly for it.
Even with their short lifespans (which we must help them increase), destroying a single hive for virtually any reason should be considered a crime of similar gravity to human mass-murder.
For (1): Given the criteria outlined in their documents, ants likely outweigh everything else. There are tens of quadrillions of them, with a weight adjusted by credence of sentience on the order of 0.001 estimated from their evaluations of a few other types of insects. So current ant population would account for thousands of times more moral weight than current humanity instead of only the few dozen times more for bees.
Regarding (2): Extending moral weight to potential future populations presumably would mean that we ought to colonize the universe with something like immortal ants—or better yet, some synthetic entities that requires less resources per unit of sentience. As it is unlikely that we are the most resource-efficient way to maintain and extend this system, we should extinguish ourselves as the project nears completion to make room for more efficient entities.
By the stated ratio of 1:14 for bees to humans, the welfare of bees as a whole exceeds the welfare of human civilization by a large margin. There are trillions of bees but only a few billion humans. We should be devoting almost all of global production to extending bee lifespan and improving their quality of life even if that means that most of humanity suffers horribly for it.
Even with their short lifespans (which we must help them increase), destroying a single hive for virtually any reason should be considered a crime of similar gravity to human mass-murder.
“We should be devoting almost all of global production...” and “we must help them increase” are only the case if:
There are no other species whose product of [moral weight] * [population] is higher than bees, and
Our actions only have moral relevance for beings that are currently alive.
(And, you know, total utilitarianism and such.)
True.
For (1): Given the criteria outlined in their documents, ants likely outweigh everything else. There are tens of quadrillions of them, with a weight adjusted by credence of sentience on the order of 0.001 estimated from their evaluations of a few other types of insects. So current ant population would account for thousands of times more moral weight than current humanity instead of only the few dozen times more for bees.
Regarding (2): Extending moral weight to potential future populations presumably would mean that we ought to colonize the universe with something like immortal ants—or better yet, some synthetic entities that requires less resources per unit of sentience. As it is unlikely that we are the most resource-efficient way to maintain and extend this system, we should extinguish ourselves as the project nears completion to make room for more efficient entities.