While we believe searching for opportunities in areas that do not already have dedicated funding is a key instrument for finding counterfactual value, we will not support more fringe areas unless we find opportunities with promising paths to impact.
Have you considered funding work targeting soil animals? I think this is more cost-effective at the margin than funding work targeting farmed invertebrates.
On finding opportunities with promising paths to impact, how are you thinking about the effects on soil animals of work on farmed animals? I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. Iestimate cage-free welfare reforms change the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 1.15 k times as much as they increase the welfare of chickens for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species. Moreover, I suspect electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare, as it narrowly focuses on decreasing pain during slaughter, and I still do not know whether it increases or decreases animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. For my preferred way of comparing welfare across species, I calculate electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.
Thanks for your question Vasco, and raising this issue in the community. Currently, we believe reducing uncertainty about the sentience and conditions of such animals is the first step, before considering interventions to affect them or how interventions aiming to reduce suffering of other animals affects these soil animals. Figuring out ways to reduce this uncertainty is an area weād be happy to receive applications about.
Thanks for the reply, Neil! I agree the priority is decreasing uncertainty about the individual welfare per animal-year (not sentience) of soil animals, and how to increase it. Have you considered actively working to get applications related to that? I think it would be worth it. As I commented above, I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals.
Thanks, Neil. Relatedly, Mal Graham said the Arthropoda Foundation would be interested in funding research on soil animals if they had sufficient funding.
That said, our [of Bob Fischer and Mal Graham, who āmake most of the strategic and granting decisionsā] confidence in our own position is not high. So, weād be willing to fund things to challenge our own views: If we had sufficient funding from folks interested in the question, Arthropoda would fund a grant round specifically on soil invertebrate sentience and relevant natural history studies (especially in ways that attempt to capture the likely enormous range of differences between species in this group).
Thanks for the post, Karolina and Neil!
Have you considered funding work targeting soil animals? I think this is more cost-effective at the margin than funding work targeting farmed invertebrates.
On finding opportunities with promising paths to impact, how are you thinking about the effects on soil animals of work on farmed animals? I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. I estimate cage-free welfare reforms change the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 1.15 k times as much as they increase the welfare of chickens for my preferred way of comparing welfare across species. Moreover, I suspect electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare, as it narrowly focuses on decreasing pain during slaughter, and I still do not know whether it increases or decreases animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. For my preferred way of comparing welfare across species, I calculate electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.
Thanks for your question Vasco, and raising this issue in the community. Currently, we believe reducing uncertainty about the sentience and conditions of such animals is the first step, before considering interventions to affect them or how interventions aiming to reduce suffering of other animals affects these soil animals. Figuring out ways to reduce this uncertainty is an area weād be happy to receive applications about.
Thanks for the reply, Neil! I agree the priority is decreasing uncertainty about the individual welfare per animal-year (not sentience) of soil animals, and how to increase it. Have you considered actively working to get applications related to that? I think it would be worth it. As I commented above, I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to dominant uncertain effects on soil animals.
Hi Vasco,
Please see the response to Faiās question on caged broiler farming, where the answer is the same in this case.
Thanks, Neil. Relatedly, Mal Graham said the Arthropoda Foundation would be interested in funding research on soil animals if they had sufficient funding.