Home / M. Wild animals, new minds and the future / Part DIR
"That's science fiction; we have real problems now"
factory farming, with tens of billions of birds bred and killed every year, would also have seemed like science fiction a hundred years ago. An unlikely risk that could cause suffering on an immense scale can deserve attention even when it competes with certain, present problems. And much of what reduces these risks, such as teaching that all sentient beings matter, also helps animals now.
Short answer
Factory farming would also have seemed like science fiction a hundred years ago. An unlikely but enormous risk can deserve attention, as we do with pandemics and climate. And the two don't compete much: teaching that all sentient beings matter helps today's animals and protects against tomorrow's suffering.
For children
Before going out on your bike, you put on your helmet, even though you probably won't fall. Why? Because if you do fall, you could get badly hurt. Thinking about the future is similar: some bad things might never happen, but if they do, they could be enormous. So it's worth preparing, without stopping caring for those who need help now.
"Do you think preparing the world for a pandemic before it happened was science fiction?"
Como pode aparecer
"That's science fiction."
"Today's animals first, future ones later."
"Risks of future suffering are nerd paranoia."
"People who talk about s-risks only think about AI."
"Tiny probabilities shouldn't guide decisions."
"There are more important human problems." (which is J6)
The strongest version
"Robot suffering, space colonization, future risks? That's science fiction. Animals are suffering now."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Resources and attention are limited.
- P2Present problems are certain; future risks are speculative.
- P3We should prioritize what is certain and urgent.
- CSo discussing risks of future suffering wastes resources that should go to today's real problems.
P1 is true, and P3 carries weight. The problem lies in P2, which treats "uncertain" as "irrelevant", and in the conclusion, which assumes the two concerns always compete.
The argument is valid in form, but P2 ignores that importance depends on probability and also on the size of what's at stake.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
A risk's importance depends on three things, and the argument looks at only one:
Factor Question What the argument considers Probability What's the chance it happens? Considers it, and finds it low Scale How many beings would be affected, and how much? Ignores it Tractability Can we do anything to reduce the risk? Ignores it So-called s-risks, risks of suffering on an astronomical scale, combine uncertain probability with immense scale. That combination is what makes them worth attention.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Yesterday's unlikely is today's reality.
A hundred years ago, the idea of raising tens of billions of birds a year in closed sheds, with genetics selected to grow so fast that many can barely walk, would have seemed like fantasy. Technologies can multiply suffering faster than ethics keeps up.
2. We already take future risks seriously.
Plans against pandemics, climate change, nuclear safety and asteroids deal with uncertain, future risks. No one calls them science fiction.
3. The human test.
If there were a risk, even a small one, that billions of people would suffer extremely in the future because of decisions made now, no one would say thinking about it is a waste of time. S-risks include animals, artificial minds and humans; dismissing them because they mostly involve non-humans is speciesism.
4. It isn't just AI.
Risk factors for future suffering include the expansion of animal farming, wild animal suffering, the possible creation of artificial minds, and political institutions that ignore those who don't vote. Each person can work on one part.
5. Many actions serve both.
Widening the moral circle, strengthening consideration for all sentient beings and creating institutions that represent them help animals today and reduce risks tomorrow.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Center for Reducing Suffering, introduction to s-risks Defines s-risks as risks of suffering on an astronomical scale in the future Baumann, *Avoiding the Worst* (2022) Introduces s-risks and focuses on those that are realistic and avoidable A free book Tomasik, "Risks of astronomical future suffering" Discusses scenarios in which future suffering could far exceed today's *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. IX, ch. 1 Future risks for sentient beings: an introduction See also chs. 5 and 7 - d
The strongest counter-reply: Pascal's mugging
The most serious version says: if any tiny risk multiplied by astronomical numbers can dominate our priorities, we'll be manipulated by imaginary scenarios. This is the problem known as "Pascal's mugging": accepting arguments like this leads to absurd decisions.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Not every future risk is tiny.
The s-risks seriously discussed involve real trends, such as the growth of factory farming and the rapid advance of AI, not infinitesimal probabilities.
The answer to the problem is prudence, not indifference.
One can avoid betting everything on extreme scenarios and still devote part of one's efforts to plausible risks.
The recommended actions are robust.
Advocating consideration for all sentient beings is good in almost any scenario, not only the unlikely ones.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dilemma
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Ignoring scale
Normalcy bias
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Speciesism
Biases
Normalcy bias
The future seems a calm continuation of the present
Literature on risk perception
Temporal discounting
What's far away seems less important
Literature on hyperbolic discounting
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "future, uncertain risks don't deserve attention while there are present problems".
If it applied to…PandemicsTap to see
Preparing in advance would be wasteful
Covid-19 showed otherwise
If it applied to…ClimateTap to see
Cutting emissions could wait
Contradicts climate science
If it applied to…Nuclear safetyTap to see
Preventing unlikely accidents wouldn't be worthwhile
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Future and uncertain risks.
Against unlikely but serious risks.
Which shows the "impossible" happens.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that there is real, urgent suffering now, that resources are limited, and that discussions about the distant future can turn into empty speculation or an excuse to ignore the present. It's also right that arguments with tiny probabilities and huge numbers call for caution.
But
But ignoring the future is also a bet, and a risky one. Preventing is cheaper than fixing, and many of the best ways to protect the future are the same ones that help animals today.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Future Risks for Sentient Beings: An Introduction Vol. IX, ch. 1
- Should We Focus on Preventing S-Risks or X-Risks? Vol. IX, ch. 5
- What Does the Focus on S-Risks Consist Of? Vol. IX, ch. 7