Episode Details

Recently, I have come across a growing number of speculations suggesting that wild animals lead net negative lives. Proponents of this view typically refer to insects, arthropods, invertebrates, or species with r-selective reproductive strategies. The conclusion they draw is usually that we should aim to reduce their numbers in one way or another. Unfortunately, birth control is seldom discussed in this context. Habitat destruction appears to be the preferred method.

There is, of course, some value in speculating about virtually any topic in science. What troubles me is that such speculations may be mistaken for established theories, particularly given the way they are presented to broader audiences through public forums, podcasts, and YouTube videos.

The central argument typically runs as follows: animals with r-selective reproductive strategies produce many offspring, of which only a few survive. The experience of a usually violent death therefore constitutes a large proportion of their lives.

This argument rests on two assumptions:

1. The experience of death itself is something terrible.
2. The experience of death actually makes up a significant proportion of those animals' lives.

I want to push back against both assumptions.

First Assumption: Is a Violent Death Really That Bad?

When I contemplate [...]

---

First published:
April 18th, 2026

Source:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6S9YLXLhdfFBtdyCh/why-we-need-to-resist-the-idea-of-net-negative-lives-in

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.