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.
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.