[BurningFrog]

I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything, while being neutral about which animals live or die.

I suppose I agree that just calling something "natural" isn't a great argument on its own.

My main disagreement here is the arbitrary decision that this is a "negative outcome".

[lisper]

> I don't have a problem with valuing human life over pretty much anything

OK, but then you still have to decide whether you value quantity over quality. Is it better to have N people living comfortable fulfilled lives, or 10N people living in poverty and misery?

Even if you decide to cast your lot with quantity over quality, you have to decide whether the quantity you're going to value is head-count of person-years: is it better to have N people with a life expectancy of 100 years, or 10N people with a life expectancy of 20 years?

[BurningFrog]

Well, I have a hard time seeing how to ethically influence any of those things.

I assume we're not talking about killing 90% of the population if it happens to be 10N...

So I'll happily just defer to accepting any people who happen to exist.

[lisper]

OK, but then you still have the problem of how to balance the needs of the people who already exist. For example, I really like animals. I place a very high value on the possibility that I might some day see a Sumatran rhino in the wild. If Sumatran rhinos go extinct then I, a human who already exists, will be very sad and have a lower quality of life. How do you balance that against the needs and desires of others who don't value Sumatran rhinos as much as I do?