As a veterinarian practicing in Nigeria, this perspective deeply resonates with how we navigate animal welfare versus public health in the tropics. In our field, we are trained to alleviate suffering, yet we constantly battle vectors like mosquitoes that carry devastating diseases like malaria, which ravages our communities. If we accept the mounting evidence that a mosquito can experience pain, it introduces a profound ethical nuance to our work. However, in veterinary medicine, an animal’s capacity to feel pain must be balanced against its capacity to inflict catastrophic harm. Recognizing insect sentience doesn’t mean we stop managing mosquito populations; rather, it challenges us to pioneer pest control and research methods that neutralize these threats as swiftly and humanely as possible, minimizing unnecessary suffering while fiercely protecting human and livestock health. Even when dealing with our most destructive disease vectors, it is still a conversation worth having as we shape the future of ethical public health interventions.
Hi Phalox. Thanks for the comment. You may be interested in my post “Insecticide-treated nets [ITNs] significantly harm mosquitoes, but one can easily offset this?”, where I compared the effects of ITNs on humans and mosquitoes.
Relatedly, saving human lives also affects soil invertebrates due to resulting in more agricultural land to feed the people who are saved, and I think the effects on soil invertebrates may be much larger or smaller than the benefits to humans. I calculate that GiveWell’s top charities change the living time of soil invertebrates by 539 M animal-years per $, and that of soil arthropods by 10.8 M animal-years per $. As illustrated in the graph below, I estimate such charities may change the welfare of soil invertebrates much more or less than they they benefit humans. The title of graph says “Increase in the welfare”, not “Change in the welfare”, because I assumed expanding agricultural land increases the welfare of soil invertebrates, but I am very uncertain about this. The estimates below suppose welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year is proportional to “individual number of neurons”^”exponent”. An exponent between 0 and 2 covers the best guesses that I consider reasonable.
As a veterinarian practicing in Nigeria, this perspective deeply resonates with how we navigate animal welfare versus public health in the tropics. In our field, we are trained to alleviate suffering, yet we constantly battle vectors like mosquitoes that carry devastating diseases like malaria, which ravages our communities.
If we accept the mounting evidence that a mosquito can experience pain, it introduces a profound ethical nuance to our work. However, in veterinary medicine, an animal’s capacity to feel pain must be balanced against its capacity to inflict catastrophic harm. Recognizing insect sentience doesn’t mean we stop managing mosquito populations; rather, it challenges us to pioneer pest control and research methods that neutralize these threats as swiftly and humanely as possible, minimizing unnecessary suffering while fiercely protecting human and livestock health. Even when dealing with our most destructive disease vectors, it is still a conversation worth having as we shape the future of ethical public health interventions.
Hi Phalox. Thanks for the comment. You may be interested in my post “Insecticide-treated nets [ITNs] significantly harm mosquitoes, but one can easily offset this?”, where I compared the effects of ITNs on humans and mosquitoes.
Relatedly, saving human lives also affects soil invertebrates due to resulting in more agricultural land to feed the people who are saved, and I think the effects on soil invertebrates may be much larger or smaller than the benefits to humans. I calculate that GiveWell’s top charities change the living time of soil invertebrates by 539 M animal-years per $, and that of soil arthropods by 10.8 M animal-years per $. As illustrated in the graph below, I estimate such charities may change the welfare of soil invertebrates much more or less than they they benefit humans. The title of graph says “Increase in the welfare”, not “Change in the welfare”, because I assumed expanding agricultural land increases the welfare of soil invertebrates, but I am very uncertain about this. The estimates below suppose welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year is proportional to “individual number of neurons”^”exponent”. An exponent between 0 and 2 covers the best guesses that I consider reasonable.