It would be nice if the Welfare Footprint Institute (WFI) determined the time in pain and pleasure of for the most abundant species of terrestrial nematodes, mites, and sprintails, whichare the most numerous terrestrial animals.
WFI looks at farmed animals that are farmed in a consistent way and in places where we can easily observe lives of individuals from beginning to the end. This sounds like a very different and a much much much more complex project.
And even if we got precise WFI estimates for all species, we still might disagree about whether increasing wild animal populations is good or bad because disagreements about how to weigh:
Suffering vs happiness
Short and intense suffering vs long-lasting milder suffering
Welfare of different species
I think it’s difficult to improve on the handwavy argument that maybe wild animals suffer more, so we are better off if there are fewer of them. I think that people who care about small invertebrates are probably better off supporting invertebrate charities that you mentioned than funding such complex research project, which might not end up changing the behaviour of that many people (unless it changes Open Philanthropy’s grantmaking).
Btw, I think it’s unlikely that nematodes are sentient because they are so simple. The most commonly studied one has like 300 neurons. But I see they are excluded from your estimate anyway because they are not arthropods.
Btw, I think it’s unlikely that nematodes are sentient because they are so simple. The most commonly studied one has like 300 neurons. But I see they are excluded from your estimate anyway because they are not arthropods.
I think nematodes matter. I calculate soil nematodes, mites, and springtails have (in expectation) a welfare of −4.36*10^-6, −1.57*10^-5, and −2.35*10^-5 QALY/animal-year, and an annual welfare of −296 k, −13.9 k, and −10.4 k times that of humans.
I think it’s difficult to improve on the handwavy argument that maybe wild animals suffer more, so we are better off if there are fewer of them. I think that people who care about small invertebrates are probably better off supporting invertebrate charities that you mentioned than funding such complex research project, which might not end up changing the behaviour of that many people (unless it changes Open Philanthropy’s grantmaking).
Persuading people to improve the lives of wild arthropods is hard, but the welfare of arthropods can also be increased by increasing/decreasing forest area if they have positive/negative lives, and there many interventions causing this which are more broadly appealing. For example, one could double down on nature conservation, and promote terraforming if one thought wild arthropods to have positive lives.
WFI looks at farmed animals that are farmed in a consistent way and in places where we can easily observe lives of individuals from beginning to the end. This sounds like a very different and a much much much more complex project.
And even if we got precise WFI estimates for all species, we still might disagree about whether increasing wild animal populations is good or bad because disagreements about how to weigh:
Suffering vs happiness
Short and intense suffering vs long-lasting milder suffering
Welfare of different species
I think it’s difficult to improve on the handwavy argument that maybe wild animals suffer more, so we are better off if there are fewer of them. I think that people who care about small invertebrates are probably better off supporting invertebrate charities that you mentioned than funding such complex research project, which might not end up changing the behaviour of that many people (unless it changes Open Philanthropy’s grantmaking).
Btw, I think it’s unlikely that nematodes are sentient because they are so simple. The most commonly studied one has like 300 neurons. But I see they are excluded from your estimate anyway because they are not arthropods.
I think nematodes matter. I calculate soil nematodes, mites, and springtails have (in expectation) a welfare of −4.36*10^-6, −1.57*10^-5, and −2.35*10^-5 QALY/animal-year, and an annual welfare of −296 k, −13.9 k, and −10.4 k times that of humans.
Thanks for the additional thoughts, Saulius!
Persuading people to improve the lives of wild arthropods is hard, but the welfare of arthropods can also be increased by increasing/decreasing forest area if they have positive/negative lives, and there many interventions causing this which are more broadly appealing. For example, one could double down on nature conservation, and promote terraforming if one thought wild arthropods to have positive lives.