
The Importance of Insect Suffering - monort
https://reducing-suffering.org/the-importance-of-insect-suffering/
======
IdiocyInAction
I wonder about the implications of believing animals and insects to be agents
with subjective experiences. Would that not imply some form of moral
culpability for animals? If animals inflict untold amounts of suffering on
each other and we consider them to be beings capable of experiencing
subjective experiences, would the most logical path not somehow be to
eliminate all animals and insects?

~~~
chr1
That assumes that suffering by itself is inherently bad, but there is no
evidence for this. As far as we understand brain can be simulated on a
computer, so pain and joy are simply computations, and minimizing one kind of
computation isn't all that nobel goal. I would say not living is much worse
than suffering.

~~~
IdiocyInAction
With suffering I mean the subjective experience of "bad" feelings, which I fo
think is inherently bad. I'd imagine you try to optimize your life in a way
such that you avoid "bad" feelings.

~~~
chr1
If that was my main goal i would use drugs, or just kill myself. Maximize
"good" feelings is a better heuristic because most people accept arbitrary
large amount of "bad" feelings, if that promises something good at the end.

If a theory leads to conclusion that you should kill someone to help it, then
something in its axioms is clearly wrong. Though looking at your username i am
not sure if you were suggesting the above seriously or simply were trolling
people who think that way.

------
scotty79
Oh come one. We'll sooner have AIs that will wonder if humans can truly
suffer, than we will be able to determine if insects suffer.

~~~
rebuilder
Proving subjective experiences is pretty tricky indeed. If I were to poke you
with a needle, I'd assume your vocalisations and gesticulations meant you
experienced suffering, because your behaviours map to what I would do, myself,
were I suffering from a needle poke. I can't prove that, however, any more
than I can prove a fly suffers.

When it comes to humans, we generally don't worry about that lack of rigorous
proof. But why does that generosity extend only to our own kind?

~~~
harimau777
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in animal physiology or psychology so I don't
intend to present this as a rigorous description of animal suffering.

I think that it's reasonable to assume that the degree to which something can
experience suffering is proportionate to the sophistication of its ability to
think.

When I'm playing a video game, enemies respond to my attacks and attempt to
keep from dying. However, we generally don't consider that suffering because
we don't believe that the associated program has a concept of pain.

Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However, they might not
be able to experience suffering as a condition. That is they don't appear to
be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.

More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand
suffering in a psychological sense.

Very sophisticated animals, most notably humans, can also understand suffering
more philosophically. E.g. by understanding the way that suffering is
preventing them from reaching their longterm goals, how suffering could be due
to injustice, etc.

My point here, is that while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids
death, it is not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they
experience suffering. My understanding is that it was previously thought that
insects were more like the computer program: able to avoid injury but without
actually having an experience of pain.

~~~
Sinergy2
GP's point is that we give humans the benefit of the doubt. You have
reinforced that notion.

>> the degree to which something can experience suffering is proportionate to
the sophistication of its ability to think.

But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or
intellectual "sophistication".

>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't
appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain.

But we would not say that a human with a mental disorder that renders them
unable to think ahead is no longer capable of suffering.

>> More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand
suffering in a psychological sense.

By "appear to", do you mean that dogs react to suffering in a way that reminds
us of other humans? That they have learned to make the right noises, to
flinch, to yelp?

>> ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is not
necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience suffering.

I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are implicitly not
questioning whether humans can experience suffering.

~~~
logicprog
> But we do not assert that human suffering is at all related to IQ or
> intellectual "sophistication".

Here's the thing though, high-IQ humans are much more likely to be depressive
and so on, so in a sense yes, you can suffer more if you're smarter. Although
what you were suggesting was a bit of a straw man, because the gap between a
100 and 150 IQ person is nowhere near as much as the gap between a 100 IQ
person and a lizard. That is a massive quantitative difference that's not
comparable to the differences between any two humans.

>> Simple animals appear to be able to experience pain. However ... they don't
appear to be able to creatively imagine and dread pain. > But we would not say
that a human with a mental disorder that renders them unable to think ahead is
no longer capable of suffering

Well, I think what he's getting at is that "suffering" seems more like an
state of mind than just feeling pain at a given moment, and an important part
of it is being upset about past pain and dreading future pain. So he's saying
that they suffer _less_ because they don't dread pain, imagine it, torture
themselves with the idea of it. As someone who has a problem with working
myself into spirals of dread about things, I'll tell you-- that's suffering
too.

> > More sophisticated animals (e.g. dogs) appear to be able to understand
> suffering in a psychological sense. > By "appear to", do you mean that dogs
> react to suffering in a way that reminds us of other humans? That they have
> learned to make the right noises, to flinch, to yelp?

Well that wouldn't imply understanding the psychological sense of it, now
would it? I think what he means is that dogs can seem to have sympathy for
you, when you're hurting, and be concerned about you, etc.

> > ... while it is clear that virtually every organism avoids death, it is
> not necessarily clear in which of these or other senses they experience
> suffering. > I suspect that, though you never mention humans here, you are
> implicitly not questioning whether humans can experience suffering.

Um yeah in his framework he doesn't really have to? I'm not sure I understand
your point here?

In summary: please stop straw-manning people just because you don't like their
arguments.

------
bencollier49
Strongly in favour of encouraging this lunacy.

Let's all autoeuthenise and let the other animals get on with the stuff we
stopped doing because it was morally wrong.

~~~
wruza
To stop all the suffering, we need to exterminate all life on the planet. I’m
not doing that cause it makes sense to check other planets beforehand (better
the universe, but sadly ftl is not a thing irl).

No kidding, I believe that _presence of “you”_ in a particular body is not a
local phenomena, but a continuous field that resonates with complex-enough
signal delivery systems. It is isolated by voids, but isn’t discontinuous.
Basically, we all are the same field that is situationally locked into
suffering states. Few happy islands cannot justify the ocean of pain out
there.

------
pontifier
I have an abundance of empathy, and agree that suffering should be minimized.
I do my best to minimize the suffering of those around me.

I still kill insects sometimes, but do my best to ensure that it is as
painless and swift as possible.

Empathy is also a driving force for me in my interactions with others. I have
a deep desire to end societal problems that cause suffering, and I deeply
oppose war.

~~~
Kaiyou
The way you say this makes me wonder if excessive empathy is a mental illness.

~~~
pontifier
Lack of empathy is the real illness. I hope someday to live in a technological
utopia in which even naysayers like yourself can be happy.

~~~
Kaiyou
Lack of empathy leads to the top of society, so even if it is an illness, it
won't be treated, since it's a trait that is profitable. Living in a society
where everyone is happy is easy with these types of leaders, too. They just
have to murder all the unhappy people. But unlike you, they do not wish for
such a thing.

~~~
pontifier
What is your problem?

~~~
Kaiyou
That's a really broad question. I'm not sure what you're asking here exactly,
since I can't remember complaining about something that could be taken as a
problem.

~~~
pontifier
Your posts are filled with pessimism augmented by learned helplessness.

It's like you're playing a chess game and are so focused on the current state
of the board, that you can't imagine how it could change a couple of moves
into the future.

I feel concern about you.

~~~
Kaiyou
If you know my problem, why are you even asking? Unless you know how to solve
it...

~~~
pontifier
I'm just seeing symptoms... no idea what the root cause is.

Things in this world are getting better, maybe just keep that in mind?

------
furi
I can't help but feel that without also adding a right to life for insects or
similar this swiftly leads to the conclusion that we should pave over the
rainforests to minimize long-term suffering.

~~~
ForHackernews
Well, the good news on that front is we're already eliminating insects
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeti...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-
insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature)

------
karmakaze
Let us not get ourselves caught up in binary views. Insects may suffer, even
plants may suffer, but it's not on the same level as the suffering of higher
life forms. Let's concentrate on reducing suffering there first. The rest is
more of an academic affair at this point or our understanding.

------
gregoryexe
Millions of human beings are dying of starvation, but no let's fret about the
insects we might step on while we walk across the lawn.

~~~
linnaeus
It's not a zero-sum game, we can recognise and work to solve both issues
simultaneously.

Tomasik's recommendations are moderate:

> Given how many insects each of us harms or helps by our choices,
> consideration of insect suffering should play a significant role in our
> actions. For instance, we should generally avoid buying silk and shellac,
> reduce driving especially when roads are wet, and minimize walking on grass
> or in the woods.

We aren't responsible for the vast majority of insect suffering but can
potentially in the future do something about it:

> Most insect suffering results from natural causes such as predation,
> parasitism, physical injury, and dehydration. We should encourage concern
> for wild-insect suffering and research ways in which human environmental
> policies can reduce it. Our descendants should also think twice before
> spreading insects and insect-like creatures to new realms, which could
> multiply suffering manyfold.

~~~
gregoryexe
lol you support an article that includes the following:

"consider the ethical implications of virtual insects, including insect brain
“uploads” and insect-like artificial intelligences that will emerge in the
next few decades."

