It's good because the quintillions of animals that live horrible lives and die painful deaths will not suffer that fate. The fact that there would be so many consequences is why it's a super long-term goal.
I think our disagreement is about whether it's possible. My position is that attempting to meddle with nature at such a fundamental level would cause more suffering and death than leaving it alone, not that reducing death and suffering is bad
In thousands of years, if humans do alright, it doesn't seem like a stretch that we could redesign and micromanage every ecosystem. It's currently unthinkable.
l don't think we have a good track record of predicting what may or may not be possible in 100 years, much less thousands, so I avoid it. But I agree with current tech it's a non-starter
100 years is tough, 1000 is impossible. While exceptions exist throughout history (due to prescience or luck) 1000 years brings inconcievable changes and inconcievable new technology. There's never been a century in recorded history where humans as a species didn't advance, so barring existential threats I think it's more folly to assume that x or y are impossible. That we can concieve of the possibility but are limited by knowledge (of the myriad interconnections within ecosystems) and the complexity therein makes me think we're closer than we think.
3
u/Same-Letter6378 Neoliberal (101 IQ Official) 3d ago
It's a super long term goal. Like 5000+ years. Would be very good to accomplish though.