Hi Vasco. Agreed, I think the relationship between p(sentience) and welfare ranges is very indeterminate.
Also, to be clear, I think p(sentience) is very relevant in theory. It’s just that, in practice, it seems like we have evidence that warrants ruling out assigning tiny probabilities of sentience to, e.g., shrimp and ants. However, I don’t think we have that for very narrow welfare ranges, and this is where uncertainty and disagreements lie.
I agree we cannot rule out very narrow welfare ranges. However, I now alsothink the probability of sentience of invertebrates may be much lower than e.g. 1 %, although I find it difficult to pinpoint the expected value of distributions of the probability of sentience (or welfare range).
Hi Vasco. Agreed, I think the relationship between p(sentience) and welfare ranges is very indeterminate.
Also, to be clear, I think p(sentience) is very relevant in theory. It’s just that, in practice, it seems like we have evidence that warrants ruling out assigning tiny probabilities of sentience to, e.g., shrimp and ants. However, I don’t think we have that for very narrow welfare ranges, and this is where uncertainty and disagreements lie.
I agree we cannot rule out very narrow welfare ranges. However, I now also think the probability of sentience of invertebrates may be much lower than e.g. 1 %, although I find it difficult to pinpoint the expected value of distributions of the probability of sentience (or welfare range).