Wild-animal suffering will be a mainstream moral issue by 2100, conditional on biological humans still existing
20
closes 2100
49%
chance
1D
1W
1M
ALL
Amount
Ṁ0
Ṁ50
Ṁ100
Payout if YES
Ṁ20 +100.4%
New probability
51% +1.2%
Copied over from Elicit
Get Ṁ500 play money
Related questions
Conditional on at least 8 degrees of global warming by 2100, will at least 1 billion people remain alive?
In twenty years, will the best evidence available suggest that sperm counts have been substantially declining across most of the world?
Sort by:
In a hypothetical post-singularity scenario where the vast majority of remaining habitat zones are administered by (or with the assistance of) a superintelligent AI for the purposes of ecosystem preservation/optimisation, do the animals in them still qualify as 'wild'? I assume yes but it's worth clarifying.
Is it one if everyone would agree that it would be immoral, but nobody thinks about it because there aren't wild animals?
1 reply
Sort by:
0 YES payouts
Ṁ93
Ṁ32
Ṁ26
Ṁ23
Ṁ21
Ṁ19
Ṁ19
Ṁ17
Ṁ16
Related questions
Conditional on at least 8 degrees of global warming by 2100, will at least 1 billion people remain alive?
Conditional on at least 5 degrees of global warming by 2100, will at least 1 billion people remain alive?
In twenty years, will the best evidence available suggest that sperm counts have been substantially declining across most of the world?
Conditional on at least 2 degrees of global warming by 2100, will at least 1 billion people remain alive?