Why Focus on Consideration for Sentient Beings and on the Future?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume IX, p. 68 of the PDF edition · English translation

10.1. Why is the way we will affect future beings so rarely discussed?

Reflection on how our decisions may affect future sentient beings is relatively recent and still little discussed. This is partly due to the following two factors.

• Disregard for those who are not human. Given the prevalence of anthropocentric speciesism⁸⁵, the discussion of how our decisions may affect the long-term future is usually limited to how humans will be affected.
• Neglect of the future. When people think about which problems to prioritize and which strategies to choose for dealing with these problems, they tend to think of the beings who are alive now (or, at most, who will live in the near future).

These two factors result in a double neglect.

• Because of the first factor, some people who care about how our decisions affect the future do not take into account their impact on those who do not belong to the human species.
• Because of the second factor, most people who already consider all sentient beings tend to neglect the impact of their decisions on the sentient beings who will exist in the future.

One way to combat this double neglect is, obviously, to advocate the importance of consideration for all sentient beings as well as the importance of concern for the long-term future⁸⁶. In this chapter we will see more about these two strategies.

Both of these are broad strategies. One of the advantages of broad strategies is that their effectiveness does not depend on our knowing what the future will be like. For example, increasing consideration

for all sentient beings and concern about s-risks probably tend to influence the future positively, regardless of what the future turns out to be like.

10.2. Why it is important to promote consideration for all sentient beings

S-risks are risks of suffering of astronomical magnitude arising in the future⁸⁷. Many s-risks (perhaps the vast majority) are related to disregard for nonhuman beings. For this reason, promoting the moral consideration of all sentient beings (regardless of species, of whether they are victims of human practices or of natural harms⁸⁸, of their degree of intelligence, of their size, of the time in which they will exist, of whether or not they will be organic, and so on) is an important broad strategy for reducing one of the greatest risk factors for s-risks.

10.3. Risks in advocating consideration for sentient beings

As with every strategy, there are also risks related to advocating consideration for all sentient beings. Two examples are listed below. However, this strategy has the potential to be vastly positive in preventing s-risks if these risks are avoided.

10.3.1. Risk of rejection and antagonism

One risk is that advocating consideration for sentient beings may generate rejection and antagonism. This may happen especially if it is associated with controversial ideas. In Chapter 11 we will look at some suggestions for avoiding this risk.

10.3.2. Risk of unintentionally promoting the opposite values

Animal advocates often use anthropocentric or environmentalist arguments in order to persuade people to stop consuming animals or exploiting them in other ways. The reasoning behind this kind of strategy is that, since

people are speciesist, it will be easier to persuade them to stop exploiting animals with arguments that are not centered on consideration for animals.

This strategy is sometimes defended by pointing out that many people defend speciesism not because they believe it is correct, but simply because they enjoy consuming the products of animal exploitation. Thus, if people stop consuming animals (even if not out of consideration for animals), they no longer have a self-interested reason to defend speciesism, and so they may more easily accept consideration for all sentient beings.

Although it is important to take this possibility into account, there are also great risks in using this strategy⁸⁹. Some of the main ones are the following:

• It does not change the view people have of animals, which is precisely the reason animals find themselves in the situation they are in, and one of the risk factors for s-risks.
• It reinforces environmentalist and anthropocentric values. This, in turn, is another risk factor for s-risks, since it may influence people to: (1) lack the will to prevent s-risks (or even oppose their prevention), (2) expand nature without taking into account the immense suffering that would be generated⁹⁰, (3) colonize space, (4) create digital sentient beings, and so on⁹¹.

Thus, it seems safer to focus the argument on consideration for sentient beings itself, and not on these indirect reasons.

10.4. Promoting concern about s-risks and about the future

What we have seen above seems to show that it is of crucial importance to promote consideration for all sentient beings. However, another essential thing is to promote concern for the long-term future and for preventing s-risks. This would involve increasing the degree to which

people and social movements are motivated to reduce s-risks and are able to do so. In other words, the will to reduce s-risks is not enough: one must know how to do it, so that the efforts are not of little effect, ineffective, or even counterproductive.

For these reasons, it is essential that activists keep an open mind and always want to learn more. It is important always to remember that all of us may be mistaken about many things. For example, most animal advocates so far have paid little attention to the suffering of wild animals, to the vast number of invertebrates, to the long-term future, and to the possibility of nonorganic sentience⁹². It is quite likely that there are many other important things that no one has noticed yet. That is why constantly revising our views (not only about strategies, but about priorities, values, and so on) is always important.

10.5. Conclusion

What we have seen above suggests that seeking to increase consideration for sentient beings and concern for the long-term future has great potential to reduce s-risks, if done carefully.

This does not mean, however, that there cannot be other strategies that are just as important or even more important. To find out whether or not this is the case, we have to compare the time it would take for these values to be assimilated on a large scale with the degree of effectiveness of other interventions over the same period of time.

Unfortunately, we do not currently have these data. The fact is that, at this stage, we simply do not know what the most efficient way to prevent s-risks is. Hence the crucial importance of keeping an open mind and being ready to change our position in the face of new evidence.