I’m right on the side of ignoring the effects on tiny creatures.
1. I don’t think Rethink’s calculation techniques work as well for smaller animals as for larger ones. As I’ve discussed before, BOTH their sentience ranges and their behavior scores rely heavily on the presence of pain response behavior. This means if a creature have any pain averse behavior (like just withdrawing from anything), it is guaranteed a highish welfare range. If it has a few of these behaviors the numbers get high fast. Their methodology doesn’t really have scope for tiny welfare ranges.
2. By my lights I consider this a mugging: I don’t consider probabilities this small (for me probability of sentience is <0.0001) worth considering in calculations. Everyone has a different “mugging threshold” as it were, and for me this falls below that. If I bought RP’s sentience probability of 0.07, I wouldn’t consider this a mugging.
3. Net Positive lives:On the off chance these creatures are sentient, I think they most likely have net positive lives for a few reasons.
First I buy many of the arguments in this article that both wild animal deaths and lives aren’t as bad as are often claimed.
Second if we’re going to index welfare ranges on human behavior, why don’t we index animal wellbeing on human wellbeing? I feel like its a bit “choke on your cake an vomit it too” to suggest that animals are much like humans in their sentience and ability to experience pain, yet don’t have similar positive and negative ranges of experience that usually end up net-positive for humans, even those who live in pretty tough situations? I get this is a bit basic...
Third soil nematodes mostly just go about their business, and aren’t necessarily under the continuous stress that wild prey are like deer or mice are, where I think there are better arguments for wild animal net-negativity. Yes they have plenty of predators, but I don’t think they don’t spend a huge proportion of their efforts avoiding them.
4. I’m not just a consequentialist utilitarian. Enough said and on this note I appreciate the recent article by @Rethink Priorities and @Marcus_A_Davis which claims we should be more uncertain about our philosophical judgements.
I buy most of @Michael St Jules 🔸 top 3 arguments as well, which are mostly practical considerations downstream of mine. I suspect he would disagree with my 3 considerations above (but could be wrong).
I think its reasonable to talk about why they are excluded, but in many cases it might be better EV not to communicate it, even when the org has considered these creatures in its calculation. The general public might well distrust orgs that consider these creatures’ welfare. Like @Henry Howard🔸 said it can look crazy, but not only that, for most people it can rightly seem offensive or cruel to consider microscopic creature’s welfare taking precedent over the welfare of humans or even larger animals. I have graet sympathy for people who criticize our community for indulging in discussions like this.
I could be convinced in the other direction through more compelling research that disagrees with my consideratoins above, but I think its unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nick! I very much agree with your 1st point (not with the other points), but I guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventions. In any case, AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP use RP’s mainline welfare ranges without adjusting downwards those of less complex species, and I believe this clearly implies that effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of interventions they assess. So I think AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP should still explain why they are not accounting for those effects.
Thanks @Vasco Grilo🔸 Yes I agree that if you are using RP’s mainline welfare ranges, if you choose to ignore small creatures or even adjust downwards you need a reason to do so . Even one line “we think its a low probability and a mugging” would satisfy me (if that was the reason). But using RP’s ranges for other animals while ignoring smaller creatures with zero explanation doesn’t fly.
I think there are good reasons though as I outlined for not expressing their reasons publicly. I would suspect that those organisations you listed might have discussed this in-house, and have decent reasons why they aren’t considering small creatures but just don’t want to make it public because of potential bad optics
Maybe if you reached out to them they would share some of their reasons?
Also I think the statement “I guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventions” is not technically correct. I think what you mean is that based on RP’s moral weights effects on those animals might carry the highest expected value. Even if their methods are reasonable, there’s still a 93% chance that effects on those animals have no effect on any intervention right?
I guess AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP publicly explaining why they are not considering effects on soil animals would improve their reputation inside and outside the effective altruism community.
I guess the methodology RP used to obtain their mainline welfare ranges would imply higher welfare ranges for soil nematodes, mites, and springtails than the ones I estimated, so I think I am already adjusting downwards. My best guess is that I should adjust downwards even more, but that the expected change in the welfare of soil microorganisms, nematodes, mites, and springtails is still the major driver of the expected change in welfare caused by the vast majority of interventions.
I’m right on the side of ignoring the effects on tiny creatures.
1. I don’t think Rethink’s calculation techniques work as well for smaller animals as for larger ones. As I’ve discussed before, BOTH their sentience ranges and their behavior scores rely heavily on the presence of pain response behavior. This means if a creature have any pain averse behavior (like just withdrawing from anything), it is guaranteed a highish welfare range. If it has a few of these behaviors the numbers get high fast. Their methodology doesn’t really have scope for tiny welfare ranges.
2. By my lights I consider this a mugging: I don’t consider probabilities this small (for me probability of sentience is <0.0001) worth considering in calculations. Everyone has a different “mugging threshold” as it were, and for me this falls below that. If I bought RP’s sentience probability of 0.07, I wouldn’t consider this a mugging.
3. Net Positive lives: On the off chance these creatures are sentient, I think they most likely have net positive lives for a few reasons.
First I buy many of the arguments in this article that both wild animal deaths and lives aren’t as bad as are often claimed.
Second if we’re going to index welfare ranges on human behavior, why don’t we index animal wellbeing on human wellbeing? I feel like its a bit “choke on your cake an vomit it too” to suggest that animals are much like humans in their sentience and ability to experience pain, yet don’t have similar positive and negative ranges of experience that usually end up net-positive for humans, even those who live in pretty tough situations? I get this is a bit basic...
Third soil nematodes mostly just go about their business, and aren’t necessarily under the continuous stress that wild prey are like deer or mice are, where I think there are better arguments for wild animal net-negativity. Yes they have plenty of predators, but I don’t think they don’t spend a huge proportion of their efforts avoiding them.
4. I’m not just a consequentialist utilitarian. Enough said and on this note I appreciate the recent article by @Rethink Priorities and @Marcus_A_Davis which claims we should be more uncertain about our philosophical judgements.
I buy most of @Michael St Jules 🔸 top 3 arguments as well, which are mostly practical considerations downstream of mine. I suspect he would disagree with my 3 considerations above (but could be wrong).
I think its reasonable to talk about why they are excluded, but in many cases it might be better EV not to communicate it, even when the org has considered these creatures in its calculation. The general public might well distrust orgs that consider these creatures’ welfare. Like @Henry Howard🔸 said it can look crazy, but not only that, for most people it can rightly seem offensive or cruel to consider microscopic creature’s welfare taking precedent over the welfare of humans or even larger animals. I have graet sympathy for people who criticize our community for indulging in discussions like this.
I could be convinced in the other direction through more compelling research that disagrees with my consideratoins above, but I think its unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nick! I very much agree with your 1st point (not with the other points), but I guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventions. In any case, AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP use RP’s mainline welfare ranges without adjusting downwards those of less complex species, and I believe this clearly implies that effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of interventions they assess. So I think AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP should still explain why they are not accounting for those effects.
Thanks @Vasco Grilo🔸 Yes I agree that if you are using RP’s mainline welfare ranges, if you choose to ignore small creatures or even adjust downwards you need a reason to do so . Even one line “we think its a low probability and a mugging” would satisfy me (if that was the reason). But using RP’s ranges for other animals while ignoring smaller creatures with zero explanation doesn’t fly.
I think there are good reasons though as I outlined for not expressing their reasons publicly. I would suspect that those organisations you listed might have discussed this in-house, and have decent reasons why they aren’t considering small creatures but just don’t want to make it public because of potential bad optics
Maybe if you reached out to them they would share some of their reasons?
Also I think the statement “I guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventions” is not technically correct. I think what you mean is that based on RP’s moral weights effects on those animals might carry the highest expected value. Even if their methods are reasonable, there’s still a 93% chance that effects on those animals have no effect on any intervention right?
Thanks, Nick.
I guess AIM, ACE, AWF, and RP publicly explaining why they are not considering effects on soil animals would improve their reputation inside and outside the effective altruism community.
I guess the methodology RP used to obtain their mainline welfare ranges would imply higher welfare ranges for soil nematodes, mites, and springtails than the ones I estimated, so I think I am already adjusting downwards. My best guess is that I should adjust downwards even more, but that the expected change in the welfare of soil microorganisms, nematodes, mites, and springtails is still the major driver of the expected change in welfare caused by the vast majority of interventions.