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 RPās 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 Grilošø Yes I agree that if you are using RPās mainline welfare ranges, if you choose to ignore small creatures or even adjust downwards you need a reason to do so . Even one line āwe think its a low probability and a muggingā would satisfy me (if that was the reason). But using RPās ranges for other animals while ignoring smaller creatures with zero explanation doesnāt 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 arenāt considering small creatures but just donāt 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 āI guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventionsā is not technically correct. I think what you mean is that based on RPās moral weights effects on those animals might carry the highest expected value. Even if their methods are reasonable, thereās 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 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 RPās 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 Grilošø Yes I agree that if you are using RPās mainline welfare ranges, if you choose to ignore small creatures or even adjust downwards you need a reason to do so . Even one line āwe think its a low probability and a muggingā would satisfy me (if that was the reason). But using RPās ranges for other animals while ignoring smaller creatures with zero explanation doesnāt 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 arenāt considering small creatures but just donāt 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 āI guess effects on microorganisms, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are still the driver of the overall effect of the vast majority of the interventionsā is not technically correct. I think what you mean is that based on RPās moral weights effects on those animals might carry the highest expected value. Even if their methods are reasonable, thereās 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.