IEET > Rights > Life > Vision > Technoprogressivism > Directors > George Dvorsky
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(12) Comments •
(4104) Hits •
 subscribe •
 •
 •
 •
 •
 •
Designing Lions to Lie with Lambs
George Dvorsky
Sentient Developments
Posted: Oct 28, 2010
This is one of the most important and thought-provoking articles I’ve read in the New York Times in quite some time: The Meat Eaters by Rutgers philosopher Jeff McMahan. In the article, McMahan asks the question, “Would the controlled extinction of carnivorous species be a good thing?” His conclusion is yes:
The conflict, therefore, must be between preventing suffering and respecting the alleged sacredness — or, as I would phrase it, the impersonal value — of carnivorous species. Again, the claim that suffering is bad for those who experience it and thus ought in general to be prevented when possible cannot be seriously doubted. Yet the idea that individual animal species have value in themselves is less obvious. What, after all, are species? According to Darwin, they “are merely artificial combinations made for convenience.” They are collections of individuals distinguished by biologists that shade into one another over time and sometimes blur together even among contemporaneous individuals, as in the case of ring species. There are no universally agreed criteria for their individuation. In practice, the most commonly invoked criterion is the capacity for interbreeding, yet this is well known to be imperfect and to entail intransitivities of classification when applied to ring species. Nor has it ever been satisfactorily explained why a special sort of value should inhere in a collection of individuals simply by virtue of their ability to produce fertile offspring. If it is good, as I think it is, that animal life should continue, then it is instrumentally good that some animals can breed with one another. But I can see no reason to suppose that donkeys, as a group, have a special impersonal value that mules lack.
Even if animal species did have impersonal value, it would not follow that they were irreplaceable. Since animals first appeared on earth, an indefinite number of species have become extinct while an indefinite number of new species have arisen. If the appearance of new species cannot make up for the extinction of others, and if the earth could not simultaneously sustain all the species that have ever existed, it seems that it would have been better if the earliest species had never become extinct, with the consequence that the later ones would never have existed. But few of us, with our high regard for our own species, are likely to embrace that implication.
Here, then, is where matters stand thus far. It would be good to prevent the vast suffering and countless violent deaths caused by predation. There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation. The claim that existing animal species are sacred or irreplaceable is subverted by the moral irrelevance of the criteria for individuating animal species. I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species, and I await the usual fate of heretics when this article is opened to comment.
It’s worth noting that McMahan, like a number of abolitionist transhumanists, have advocated something like this for quite some time now—a group of thinkers that includes myself, David Pearce, Pablo Stafforini, Michael Anissimov and others. David Pearce’s contribution to the discussion is the most significant, and it would have been nice to have seen McMahan make mention of it.
As for me, I’ve argued for something even more extreme and sweeping than selective extinction or the reprogramming of predators; I’ve made the case that we are morally obligated to uplift the entire animal kingdom so that they may join posthumanity in postbiological existence.
With McMahan’s contribution hitting the mainstream, however, I am excited beyond words. The meme is out there; now let’s see where we take it.
George Dvorsky serves as Chair of the IEET Board of Directors and also heads our Rights of Non-Human Persons program. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(12) Comments •
(4105) Hits •
subscribe •
•
•
•
•
•
COMMENTS
Read this article awhile ago and was simultaneously stunned and elated that it got published. “One small step” as they say.
P.S. Even more interesting is his follow up where he address’s several comments and criticisms that commentators had for him. Seriously good read.
Very interesting argument. I guess my reservation would relate to the kinds of lives and deaths that ‘prey’ animals could expect in the absence of predators. I’m sure being run down and killed by a lion or a cheetah can’t be a lot of fun for an antelope, but it is at least a relatively quick death. If the only alternative to death by predator involves succumbing to decrepitude, and a slow death through starvation, exposure or disease, then perhaps we would be doing them no favours.
I don’t know enough about the lifecycles of prey animals in the wild to conclude whether this is or is not the case, but a maximising consequentialist would require such information before pronouncing on the value of this suggestion.
Shouldn’t we get our own house in order before attempting to transform the rest of the ecosystem?
Colin, I like what you wrote.
> (From McMahan) “I am therefore inclined to embrace the heretical conclusion that we have reason to desire the extinction of all carnivorous species”
How about omnivorous species? (Frankly, I can’t figure out why he neglected this category.)
How about carnivorous people?
> “There is therefore one reason to think that it would be instrumentally good if predatory animal species were to become extinct and be replaced by new herbivorous species, provided that this could occur without ecological upheaval involving more harm than would be prevented by the end of predation.”
It was very wise for McMahan to hedge his bets like that!
To tell the truth, I thought the comments under the NYTimes blog’s MeatEaters article, over all, expressed more thoughtfulness than the article itself.
The right to life is easily defended against the desire to kill. It’s less simple to demand that human’s should take responsibility for the lot of the universe.
If the goal is to maximize happiness and eliminate suffering in line with Utilitarian values - then less intelligent sentient species or especially those who don’t want to go along with the hedonic plan would be a threat.
Is there such a thing as a logical ethic that is logical in both foundation and implementation? Or is there merely a social contract which succumbs to darwinian forces?
Should animals be allowed to choose their evolution (if they could)?
Also, is it more accurate to say that human beings are the bigger threat to the hedonic calculus than the ‘natural’ system?
We talk about the possibility for humans to accomplish great things, but this hasn’t been evaluated in terms of a hedonic calculus, nor could it be.
Great posting, George! Anyone interested further in this topic should check out the “Hedonistic Imperative” by David Pearce.
Cheers, Veronica. Yes, I subsequently read Jeff M’s piece (which, really, I should have done in the first place), and saw that he had indeed acknowleged that very point.
Genocide is a brutal unimaginative way to influence behaviour.
There are few killer carnivores and many humans.
If volunteers can be found to feed hunters so that they don’t need to kill, then genocide is unnecessary.
Yes, of course. It is much preferable for say, an antelope, to die along with untold hundreds of its herd from thirst and starvation after it has reproduced ad infinitum, unchecked by predators, than to die within 30 seconds by a lion’s jaws crushing its esophagus. Blood is just so icky. You folks are probably among those that given the option, would prefer to see an unwanted kitten put in a 2’x2’ wire cage in a room with 50 others while waiting 3 years to be adopted than to see it euthanized.
The thoughts expressed in these articles are best described as completely unrealistic, unproductive intellectual diarrhea.
Sir, you are nothing more than an intellectual troll.. Enjoy the comments while you smirk at all the useless eaters of the world.
I wouldn’t want some hyper dominant and powerful species who views themselves at the top of the food chain to redesign my world.
If I were an aware animal - I might be thinking it would be better if the humans just kept to themselves and stopped destroying the ecosystem.
I have to wonder why underlying selfish desire motivates the interest in redesigning the ecosystem? It’s not compassion for the global suffering (which can’t be felt subjectively).
It’s not a rational attempt at improving the hedonic calculus - which is inherently ir-rational.
I think it’s bad for the Abolitionist project to propose that a nanny state should make everyone happy forcefully. That implies an unprecedented tyranny.
(with decisions made by ‘friendly AI’)?
Much better to focus on useful research and revolutionary technologies along with a focus on human rights and the individual pursuit of happiness.
It’s not the rightful place of a governing body to make everyone happy.
YOUR COMMENT
Next entry: What you can't say about Islam - The backlash against Elizabeth Moon
Previous entry: New Articles in JET
| 
IEET Blog