Now I think ensuring good future of human civilisation is perhaps the best way to reduce suffering, especially in far future, rather than advocating antinatalistic or promortalistic empty universe as a practical alternative. This will be especially so if there are sentient beings in places other than our planet. If ensuring good future of the humanity is what is the most important for the reduction of suffering in far future, some near future suffering-focused considerations will be outweighed. For example, there may be wild animal suffering considerations against veg*anism and family planning. The argument goes, that as veg*anism and family planning reduces human environmental impact and/or habitat destruction, veg*anism and family planning might increase WAS. However, if the overwhelming majority of the future potential possible suffering might exist in far future, not near future, ensuring peaceful, prosperous, antispecisist, antisubstratist, and compassionate future of our civilisation seems to be the most practical way to reduce suffering, family planning and veganism seem to be a good intervention. Even if only this planet in the universe has sentient beings, anti-natalist/pro-mortalist/efilist idea of omnicide of sentient beings is simply unacceptable and considered evil by the overwhelming majority of humans, even if some negative utilitarians, anti-natalists, pro-mortalists, efilists will consider it as a desirable thing to happen. It will even violate the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. But even if we don’t consider co-operation and compromise considerations with people with other value systems, Yes, the universe is very silent, and too our knowledge with current science and technology we seem to be the only intelligent civilisation in the observable universe. However, that does not mean only our planet has sentient beings. Given the fact it took billions of years of evolution from the first life to us, it is very plausible assumption that perhaps we are the most intelligent and advanced species/civilisation within billions of light years of distance. However, within the sphere of billions of light years of radius around our planet, there could be countless of planets populated with sentient beings who are suffering an immense amount of WAS. Given that we are the most intelligent species on our planet out of ~1 trillion species (, it may as well possible that at present, about 13.8 billion years after big bang, civilisation planet : sentient planet ratio might be as high as 10^3 to 10^12 or even higher. Even if we are not the only civilisation (of which threshold is let us say, radio (wireless) telecommunication) of the universe, it seems quite plausible that we are the only telecommunication civilisation within millions or billions of light years of distance from us, and even if that is the case it is entirely possible there are countless planets with sentient beings suffering WAS but without intelligent technological civilisation within the aforementioned millions or billions of light years of distance. If my conjecture is the case, then we have a duty to reduce WAS in countless planets within millions or billions of light years, and we need to ensure our species do not go extinct and will have peaceful, prosperous, antispeciest, antisubstratist, compassionate (in other words, suffering-focused) future by doing earth-scale interventions (eg, peace research, vegan advocacy, WAS-research, suffering-focused ethics advocacy, poverty alleviation, family planning, global public health intervention, IQ-improvement intervention), and perhaps more (entire universe or multiverse, etc.). Space-WAS consideration is why I recently became against the empty planet (the extinction of all sentient beings of our planet) as a solution of suffering, and became in favour of MIRI and FHI, despite being very suffering-focused, while I was only in favour of FRI in the past.
What do you think?
Outer space wild animal considerations against ’empty planet’ projects (antinatalism, promortalism, efilism)