Awesome post! I strongly agree with the central claim on tractability.
I think this is great food for thought for the farmed animal advocates who may think “I agree wild animal welfare matters more in theory, but I’m too uncertain about the overall consequences of WAW work on wild animals”. The consequences of their farmed-animal work on wild animals are just as uncertain, if not more. And, unless they intentionally seek ecologically inert interventions,[1] it’s gonna be hard to convincingly argue that these effects are obviously too negligible for them not to dwarf the farmed-animal effects they focus on (your Spotlighting section is especially relevant, here).[2] And if they endorse ignoring (some) indirect effects in order to justify focusing on farmed animals, then they have to explain how their original concern regarding WAW work still applies! (as you suggest in your first two sub-sections on the approaches to handling uncertainty.)
Maybe one defensible position would be holding both that i) wild vertebrates are only trivially affected by their farmed-animal work (see this paper some evidence in favor of this), and ii) wild invertebrates are immensely affected but their welfare matters so much less morally (compared to that of whatever farmed animals they’re helping) that this compensates. But then they’re going against what experts on tradeoffs between species believe and they’re gonna need arguments.
I actually have a lot of sympathy with farmed animal advocates who feel the way you describe, despite disagreeing that WAW should be seen as intractable by their lights. I think in the scheme of things, if I had to choose, I’d prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects. But I’m not sure that’s a well-calibrated view as opposed to frustration with how little people care about animals in general.
I’d prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects.
I think the latter group will/should find your arguments much more convincing, though, yeah… I doubt the potential intractability of WAW is a crux for GDH people—otherwise, they’d be working on farmed animals?[1] And same for many AI safetists, I think. If they work on AI safety for neartermist reasons, then what I say about the crux of GDH people applies to them too. If they’re longtermists, they can just say they happen to think that AI safety is more pressing than current WAW work for magnitude reasons (as I suggest in our other comment thread), even if they also think long-term WAW is what matters most!
But yeah, I don’t doubt that many GDH and AI safety folks gave you the tractability of WAW concern as a reason to favor their work over yours. And you’re right to argue this is a bad argument. I just don’t think this is their real crux, or would be their real crux under more reflection. It’d instead most likely be either the above magnitude longtermist argument or reasons not to morally care about non-human animals nearly as much as you do.
I get the frustration, though. Focusing on convincing farmed animal advocates, specifically, because of the above feels like infighting. (Your response made me slightly edit my phrasing in my first comment to make it less adversarial-looking towards farmed animal advocates who feel the way I describe, thanks). :)
just stepping back a bit, i don’t think the biggest issues here are about infighting within animal welfare or whether GHD and AI people care enough about animals. I think zero sum games aren’t a great framing.
for a start i think close to zero GHD people are not working on WAW because they “think it’s intractable”. Most of them are likely just really into their current work, have a better skillset/experience for GHD or just don’t think WAW is their jam to work on in general. i would be surprised if there were even 10 people working in GHD thinking “oh, if WAW was a bit more tractable i would change careers”. there might be one or 2 tho...?
i think if you keep making good arguments for WAW and then start to get a few practical real world wins attributible to your work, then more people will gradually fund you and work with you.
Awesome post! I strongly agree with the central claim on tractability.
I think this is great food for thought for the farmed animal advocates who may think “I agree wild animal welfare matters more in theory, but I’m too uncertain about the overall consequences of WAW work on wild animals”. The consequences of their farmed-animal work on wild animals are just as uncertain, if not more. And, unless they intentionally seek ecologically inert interventions,[1] it’s gonna be hard to convincingly argue that these effects are obviously too negligible for them not to dwarf the farmed-animal effects they focus on (your Spotlighting section is especially relevant, here).[2] And if they endorse ignoring (some) indirect effects in order to justify focusing on farmed animals, then they have to explain how their original concern regarding WAW work still applies! (as you suggest in your first two sub-sections on the approaches to handling uncertainty.)
I think there is only a very specific handful of people extremely sympathetic to cluelessness concerns in animal welfare who actually do that.
Maybe one defensible position would be holding both that i) wild vertebrates are only trivially affected by their farmed-animal work (see this paper some evidence in favor of this), and ii) wild invertebrates are immensely affected but their welfare matters so much less morally (compared to that of whatever farmed animals they’re helping) that this compensates. But then they’re going against what experts on tradeoffs between species believe and they’re gonna need arguments.
Thanks so much!
I actually have a lot of sympathy with farmed animal advocates who feel the way you describe, despite disagreeing that WAW should be seen as intractable by their lights. I think in the scheme of things, if I had to choose, I’d prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects. But I’m not sure that’s a well-calibrated view as opposed to frustration with how little people care about animals in general.
I think the latter group will/should find your arguments much more convincing, though, yeah… I doubt the potential intractability of WAW is a crux for GDH people—otherwise, they’d be working on farmed animals?[1] And same for many AI safetists, I think. If they work on AI safety for neartermist reasons, then what I say about the crux of GDH people applies to them too. If they’re longtermists, they can just say they happen to think that AI safety is more pressing than current WAW work for magnitude reasons (as I suggest in our other comment thread), even if they also think long-term WAW is what matters most!
But yeah, I don’t doubt that many GDH and AI safety folks gave you the tractability of WAW concern as a reason to favor their work over yours. And you’re right to argue this is a bad argument. I just don’t think this is their real crux, or would be their real crux under more reflection. It’d instead most likely be either the above magnitude longtermist argument or reasons not to morally care about non-human animals nearly as much as you do.
I get the frustration, though. Focusing on convincing farmed animal advocates, specifically, because of the above feels like infighting. (Your response made me slightly edit my phrasing in my first comment to make it less adversarial-looking towards farmed animal advocates who feel the way I describe, thanks). :)
EDIT November 22nd: Oh maybe a few people who don’t want to be associated with veganism or something!
just stepping back a bit, i don’t think the biggest issues here are about infighting within animal welfare or whether GHD and AI people care enough about animals. I think zero sum games aren’t a great framing.
for a start i think close to zero GHD people are not working on WAW because they “think it’s intractable”. Most of them are likely just really into their current work, have a better skillset/experience for GHD or just don’t think WAW is their jam to work on in general. i would be surprised if there were even 10 people working in GHD thinking “oh, if WAW was a bit more tractable i would change careers”. there might be one or 2 tho...?
i think if you keep making good arguments for WAW and then start to get a few practical real world wins attributible to your work, then more people will gradually fund you and work with you.