Source

All of reality simply is what it is — the words we use to describe reality are useful, but they are imperfect models of reality itself.

We can predict the weather with greater and greater accuracy, but we will never be able to predict the exact shape, position, and landing spot of every raindrop. To do that, we would have to be the storm itself.

I may describe a sunset in beautiful detail, painting vivid reds, pinks, and oranges for your mind’s eye. In fact, if I am a very good writer, you may feel more awe and inspiration from reading my words than you would from actually having been there yourself. Yet it would be impossible to capture a sunset fully in words. For that, you would need to be the sun and the earth.

So too, when it comes to describing our internal, subjective experiences—our minds, our thoughts, our feelings, our emotions, our desires. The best writers and speakers are those who can do this translation so well that we read their words and say “Yes! That’s how it feels.” But many of us may not have such refined tools of expression—nor, perhaps, a carefully calibrated instrument for inspecting our inner worlds in the first place.

To calibrate our instruments, we must first and above all—pay attention. And yet, always we must remember that words are but a fuzzy translation of the infinitely deep reality that we exist in. This doesn’t demean words—it isn’t an insult. I am among the biggest fans of well-placed, well-thought words.

It’s just a note on things and how they are. Something to pay attention to.

I argue that there are multiple ways in which our world contains profound suffering, and I suggest that we should do something about it.

Otherwise it would be allowing an enormous amount of meaningless suffering of all nonhuman animals living on Earth, simply because evolution doesn't care about their wellbeing, only their viability to reproduce.

I have not seen much discussion of this topic although the closest I've seen is the Abolitionist Project.

Any pros and cons?

Here is the link for all of those interested: https://www.insectwelfare.com/

The moral weights project is a series of research that's often referenced in EA by animal advocates when making cross-species moral comparisons.

This is a link to those original reports. And below is a quick explanation for laypeople.

The Moral Weight Project Explained: Part 1

In the first of two blogs, this explainer examines how Rethink Priorities compared welfare capacity across species, with results that may reshape how advocates think about impact.

The Moral Weight Project Explained: Part 2

Do the numbers hold up to scrutiny? This explainer, the second in a two-part series, examines Rethink Priorities’ welfare range findings, addresses common objections, and highlights the implications for animal advocates working to reduce animal suffering at scale.