The point I was trying to make is: do we really believe insect suffering is a larger problem than mammal suffering? The author of the article linked above impl

The point I was trying to make is: do we really believe insect suffering is a larger problem than mammal suffering? The author of the article linked above implements some moral calculus where insect suffering is weighted lower, but since there is such a huge number of insects, they still end up concluding that insect suffering is a huge problem. My claim is that instead it's correct to give zero weight to insect suffering, since it's not a "difficult problem", it's a literally unsolvable problem. Well, the only way to solve it would be to exterminate all insects in order to end their cycle of suffering, and that would entail so much destruction and ecosystem collapse it would literally render the entire earth barren and lifeless. TL;DR: when someone claims we have a big problem where the only possible solution is killing all living organisms on planet Earth, I say they're wrong: that what they claim is a problem is, in fact, not a problem.