Of course this analysis involves ignoring other sentient beings. If we take their lives into account, we probably live in a time of unprecedented genocide.
Yes, kind of (depends on how genocide exactly is defined).
I would speculate most of the impact is through insects not being born because their predecessors starving at a higher-than-normal rate because of the reduction of ecosystems, and not by being directly killed (e.g. crushed or killed by insecticides).
The posts above rest on the assumption of total hedonic utilitarianism, with no moral uncertainty being considered, and on several other empirical assumptions.
Of course this analysis involves ignoring other sentient beings. If we take their lives into account, we probably live in a time of unprecedented genocide.
The term “genocide” is not appropriate for describing the killing of any number of animals.
Agreed, it’s more appropriate for making an entire species of animal go extinct though.
What dictionary are you using?
“Xenocide” is an acceptable alternative.
If we take wild animals (and possibly insects ) into account, humanity might be net positive.
Right, but as far as I can tell the method by which we’ve been positive has been genocide?
Yes, kind of (depends on how genocide exactly is defined).
I would speculate most of the impact is through insects not being born because their predecessors starving at a higher-than-normal rate because of the reduction of ecosystems, and not by being directly killed (e.g. crushed or killed by insecticides).
The posts above rest on the assumption of total hedonic utilitarianism, with no moral uncertainty being considered, and on several other empirical assumptions.
Happy to ignore them.