If I understand it correctly, you see it as a tentative negative. Iād be interested to know why.
I say in the post āmy very uncertain best guess [is] that increasing cropland harms arthropods due to decreasing positive arthropod-yearsā. I estimate broilers in a conventional scenario, and hens in cage-free aviaries have slighly negative lives, and I feel like wild arthropods have a higher welfare as a fraction of the welfare range than those. However, I do not really know whether wild arthropods have positive or negative lives. 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.
On the other hand, I see it as a bad thing that vegan advocacy probably seriously increases wild animal numbers.
Are you also concerned about other interventions outside vegan advocacy which push for the replacement of animal-based with plant-based foods? These decrease cropland, thus tending to increase arthropod-years, which you believe is bad.
Are you also concerned about other interventions outside vegan advocacy which push for the replacement of animal-based with plant-based foods?
Yes, the same argument applies for other types of reduction of animal products, especially beef. Chickens tend to use the much less cropland per calorie, reformed or not. Iām not so much concerned, as Iām resigned about figuring out whether decreasing meat consumption is good or bad. Itās almost surely good for farmed animals, Iād give say 55% that itās bad for wild animals. But then there is also impact on the environment (like global warming) which could also be a factor for x-risks and stuff. But Iām not even that sure that some x-risks are bad from a utilitarian POV. Also vegan advocacy might also increase moral circle expansion. But even that could be bad. For example, if people care more about animals, maybe they will care more about preserving natural habitats, which might contain a lot of suffering. There are so many factors that go into all kinds of directions. Weāre clueless.
For me, chicken welfare reforms look like an unusually good bet in this uncertain world. They help big farmed animals, reduce the populations of small wild animals, and maybe increase moral circle expansion a bit. All of these seem likely good. They do harm the environment, but itās a relatively small effect, and I think it can be outweighed by donating a little to some environmental charity. So to me, chicken welfare reforms look good from many different worldviews.
Charities that help invertebrates that you mentioned seem very good as well from many perspectives. But we are clueless about their long-term effects too.
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 itās 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 Philanthropyās grantmaking).
Btw, I think itās 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 itās 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 ā4.36*10^-6, ā1.57*10^-5, and ā2.35*10^-5 QALY/āanimal-year, and an annual welfare of ā296 k, ā13.9 k, and ā10.4 k times that of humans.
I think itās 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 Philanthropyās grantmaking).
Persuading people to improve the lives of wild arthropods is hard, but the welfare of arthropods can also be increased by increasing/ādecreasing forest area if they have positive/ānegative 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.
Thanks for the comment, Saulius.
I say in the post āmy very uncertain best guess [is] that increasing cropland harms arthropods due to decreasing positive arthropod-yearsā. I estimate broilers in a conventional scenario, and hens in cage-free aviaries have slighly negative lives, and I feel like wild arthropods have a higher welfare as a fraction of the welfare range than those. However, I do not really know whether wild arthropods have positive or negative lives. 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, which are the most numerous terrestrial animals.
Are you also concerned about other interventions outside vegan advocacy which push for the replacement of animal-based with plant-based foods? These decrease cropland, thus tending to increase arthropod-years, which you believe is bad.
Yes, the same argument applies for other types of reduction of animal products, especially beef. Chickens tend to use the much less cropland per calorie, reformed or not. Iām not so much concerned, as Iām resigned about figuring out whether decreasing meat consumption is good or bad. Itās almost surely good for farmed animals, Iād give say 55% that itās bad for wild animals. But then there is also impact on the environment (like global warming) which could also be a factor for x-risks and stuff. But Iām not even that sure that some x-risks are bad from a utilitarian POV. Also vegan advocacy might also increase moral circle expansion. But even that could be bad. For example, if people care more about animals, maybe they will care more about preserving natural habitats, which might contain a lot of suffering. There are so many factors that go into all kinds of directions. Weāre clueless.
For me, chicken welfare reforms look like an unusually good bet in this uncertain world. They help big farmed animals, reduce the populations of small wild animals, and maybe increase moral circle expansion a bit. All of these seem likely good. They do harm the environment, but itās a relatively small effect, and I think it can be outweighed by donating a little to some environmental charity. So to me, chicken welfare reforms look good from many different worldviews.
Charities that help invertebrates that you mentioned seem very good as well from many perspectives. But we are clueless about their long-term effects too.
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 itās 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 Philanthropyās grantmaking).
Btw, I think itās 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 ā4.36*10^-6, ā1.57*10^-5, and ā2.35*10^-5 QALY/āanimal-year, and an annual welfare of ā296 k, ā13.9 k, and ā10.4 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/ādecreasing forest area if they have positive/ānegative 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.