Hi Nick! Thanks for engaging. Iâm not reading you as being anti WAW interventions, and I think youâre bringing up something that many people will wonder about, so I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to comment on it.
Basically, letâs say the type of intractability worry I was mainly addressing in the post is âintractability due to indirect ecological effects.â And the type youâre talking about is âintractability due to palatabilityâ or something like that.
I think for readers who broadly buy the arguments in my post, but donât think WAW interventions are palatable, are not correct but for understandable reasons. I think the reason is either (1) underexposure to the most palatable WAW ideas because WAW EAs tend not to focus on/âenjoy talking about those or (2) using the âecologically inertâ framework when talking about WAW and one of the other frameworks when talking about other types of interventions.
Letâs first assume youâre okay with spotlighting, at least to a certain degree. Then, âpreventing bird-window collisions with bird safe glass legislationâ and âbanning second generation anti-coagulant rodenticidesâ are actually very obviously good things to do, and also seem quite cost-effective based on the limited evidence available. I think people donât really realize how many animals are affected by these issuesâmy current best-guess CEA for bird safe glass suggest itâs competitive with corporate chicken campaigns, although I want to do a little more research to pin down some high-uncertainty parameters before sharing it more widely.
Anti-coagulant bans and bird-safe glass are also palatable, and the proof is in the pudding: California, for example, has already passed a state-wide ban on these specific rodenticides, and 22 cities (including NYC and Washington DC) have already passed bird-safe glass regulations. I think I could provide probably at least 5 other examples of things that fit into this bucket (low backfire under spotlighting, cost effective, palatable), and I donât really spend most of my time trying to think of them (because WAI is focused on field-building, not immediate intervention development, and because Iâm uncertain if spotlighting is okay or if I should only be seeking ecologically inert interventions).
The important thing to note is that WAW is actually more tractable, in some cases, then FAW interventions because it doesnât require anyone to change their diet, and people in many cultures have been conditioned to care about wild animals in a way theyâve been conditioned to reject caring about farmed animals. Thereâs also a lot of âI love wild animalsâ sentiment being channelled into conservation, but my experience is that when you talk to folks with that sentiment, they also get excited about bird window collision legislation and things like that.
But perhaps youâre actually hoping for ecologically inert interventions. Then, Iâm not sure which interventions youâd think would be acceptable instead? Sure, humane insecticides could end up being hard (although I think much less hard than you think, for reasons I wonât go into here). But literally nothing elseâin FAW, in GHD, in AIâseems reasonably likely to be ecologically inert while still plausibly causing a reduction in suffering (maybe keel bone fracture issues in FAW?). But the folks who say âWAW interventions arenât palatableâ have not generally, in my experienced, said âand I also donât do GHD because itâs not ecologically inertââso I suspect in at least some instances they are asking for ecologically inert interventions from WAW, and something else from their cause area of preference.
Thanks @mal_grahamđ¸ this is super helpful and makes more sense now. I think it would make your argument far more complete if you put something like your third and fourth paragraphs here in your main article.
And no Iâm personally not worried about interventions being ecologically inert.
As a side note its interesting that you arenât putting much effort into making interventions happen yetâmy loose advice would be to get started trying some things. I get that youâre trying to build a field, but to have real-world proof of this tractability it might be better to try something sooner rather than later? Otherwise it will remain theory. Iâm not too fussed about arguing whether an intervention will be difficult or notâin general I think we are likely to underestimate how difficult an intervention might be.
Show me a couple of relatively easy wins (even small-ish ones) an Iâll be right on board :).
Thanks! I think I might end up writing a separate post on palatability issues, to be honest :)
On the intervention front, the movement of WAW folks is turning now to interventions in at least some cases (in WAIâs case, rodenticide fertility control is something theyâre trying to fundraise for, and at NYU/âArthropoda Iâm working on or fundraising for work on humane insecticides and bird window collisions). I just meant that perhaps one reason we donât have more of them is that thereâs been a big focus on field-building for the last five years.
For field-building purposes, thereâs still been some focus on interventions for the reasons you mention, but with additional constraintsânot just cost-effective to pursue but also attractive to scientists to work on and serves to clarify what WAW is, etc., to maximize the field-building outcomes if we can.
Iâm not familiar with the examples you listed @mal_grahamđ¸(anticoagulant bans and bird-safe glass), are these really robustly examples of palatability? Iâm betting that they are more motivated by safety for dogs, children and predatory birds, not the rats? And Iâm guessing that even the glass succeeded more on conservation grounds?
Certainly, even if so, itâs good to see that there are some palatability workarounds. But given the small-body problem, this doesnât encourage great confidence that there could be more latent palatability for important interventions. Especially once the palatable low-hanging fruit are plucked.
Hi Nick! Thanks for engaging. Iâm not reading you as being anti WAW interventions, and I think youâre bringing up something that many people will wonder about, so I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to comment on it.
Basically, letâs say the type of intractability worry I was mainly addressing in the post is âintractability due to indirect ecological effects.â And the type youâre talking about is âintractability due to palatabilityâ or something like that.
I think for readers who broadly buy the arguments in my post, but donât think WAW interventions are palatable, are not correct but for understandable reasons. I think the reason is either (1) underexposure to the most palatable WAW ideas because WAW EAs tend not to focus on/âenjoy talking about those or (2) using the âecologically inertâ framework when talking about WAW and one of the other frameworks when talking about other types of interventions.
Letâs first assume youâre okay with spotlighting, at least to a certain degree. Then, âpreventing bird-window collisions with bird safe glass legislationâ and âbanning second generation anti-coagulant rodenticidesâ are actually very obviously good things to do, and also seem quite cost-effective based on the limited evidence available. I think people donât really realize how many animals are affected by these issuesâmy current best-guess CEA for bird safe glass suggest itâs competitive with corporate chicken campaigns, although I want to do a little more research to pin down some high-uncertainty parameters before sharing it more widely.
Anti-coagulant bans and bird-safe glass are also palatable, and the proof is in the pudding: California, for example, has already passed a state-wide ban on these specific rodenticides, and 22 cities (including NYC and Washington DC) have already passed bird-safe glass regulations. I think I could provide probably at least 5 other examples of things that fit into this bucket (low backfire under spotlighting, cost effective, palatable), and I donât really spend most of my time trying to think of them (because WAI is focused on field-building, not immediate intervention development, and because Iâm uncertain if spotlighting is okay or if I should only be seeking ecologically inert interventions).
The important thing to note is that WAW is actually more tractable, in some cases, then FAW interventions because it doesnât require anyone to change their diet, and people in many cultures have been conditioned to care about wild animals in a way theyâve been conditioned to reject caring about farmed animals. Thereâs also a lot of âI love wild animalsâ sentiment being channelled into conservation, but my experience is that when you talk to folks with that sentiment, they also get excited about bird window collision legislation and things like that.
But perhaps youâre actually hoping for ecologically inert interventions. Then, Iâm not sure which interventions youâd think would be acceptable instead? Sure, humane insecticides could end up being hard (although I think much less hard than you think, for reasons I wonât go into here). But literally nothing elseâin FAW, in GHD, in AIâseems reasonably likely to be ecologically inert while still plausibly causing a reduction in suffering (maybe keel bone fracture issues in FAW?). But the folks who say âWAW interventions arenât palatableâ have not generally, in my experienced, said âand I also donât do GHD because itâs not ecologically inertââso I suspect in at least some instances they are asking for ecologically inert interventions from WAW, and something else from their cause area of preference.
Thanks @mal_grahamđ¸ this is super helpful and makes more sense now. I think it would make your argument far more complete if you put something like your third and fourth paragraphs here in your main article.
And no Iâm personally not worried about interventions being ecologically inert.
As a side note its interesting that you arenât putting much effort into making interventions happen yetâmy loose advice would be to get started trying some things. I get that youâre trying to build a field, but to have real-world proof of this tractability it might be better to try something sooner rather than later? Otherwise it will remain theory. Iâm not too fussed about arguing whether an intervention will be difficult or notâin general I think we are likely to underestimate how difficult an intervention might be.
Show me a couple of relatively easy wins (even small-ish ones) an Iâll be right on board :).
Thanks! I think I might end up writing a separate post on palatability issues, to be honest :)
On the intervention front, the movement of WAW folks is turning now to interventions in at least some cases (in WAIâs case, rodenticide fertility control is something theyâre trying to fundraise for, and at NYU/âArthropoda Iâm working on or fundraising for work on humane insecticides and bird window collisions). I just meant that perhaps one reason we donât have more of them is that thereâs been a big focus on field-building for the last five years.
For field-building purposes, thereâs still been some focus on interventions for the reasons you mention, but with additional constraintsânot just cost-effective to pursue but also attractive to scientists to work on and serves to clarify what WAW is, etc., to maximize the field-building outcomes if we can.
Iâm not familiar with the examples you listed @mal_grahamđ¸(anticoagulant bans and bird-safe glass), are these really robustly examples of palatability? Iâm betting that they are more motivated by safety for dogs, children and predatory birds, not the rats? And Iâm guessing that even the glass succeeded more on conservation grounds?
Certainly, even if so, itâs good to see that there are some palatability workarounds. But given the small-body problem, this doesnât encourage great confidence that there could be more latent palatability for important interventions. Especially once the palatable low-hanging fruit are plucked.