On the code sharing. Yes, I thought about it, but it would take us a bit of effort to pull it all together and publish it online, I didnât want to spend that effort if no one was going to get value from it.
Got it.
On nematodes, I think 169x the total number of neurons compared to humans is a poor/âconfused way to attempt to measure total welfare.
Which metric would you use to compare welfare across species? âWelfare range (difference between the maximum and minimum welfare per unit time) as a fraction of that of humansâ = ânumber of neurons as a fraction of that of humansâ^0.188 explains78.6 % of the variance in the welfare ranges as a fraction of that of humans in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing animal welfare across species. The exponent of 0.188 is much smaller than 1, which suggests the total number of neurons underestimate a lot the absolute value of the welfare of soil animals relative to that of humans.
And I think the second order effects of trying to convince people they should care about nemotodes (unless they are already diehard EA) is likely net negative for the animal suffering cause at large.
I estimate interventions targeting farmed animals change the welfare of soil animals way more than that of farmed animals. So I think advocating for soil animals (of which the vast majority are soil nematodes) would have to decrease the welfare of these for it to decrease global animal welfare.
Which metric would you use to compare welfare across species?
I donât think we know enough about consciousness/âqualia/âetc. to say anything with conviction about what itâs like to be a nematode. And operationally, I donât think you wonât be able to convince enough people/âfunders to take real action on soil animals because itâs just too epistemically unsound and doesnât fit into peopleâs natural world views.
When I say net negative, I donât mean if you try to help soil animals you somehow hurt more animals on the whole.
I mean that you will turn people away from the theory of animal suffering because advocating for soil animals will make them think the field/âstudy of animal suffering as a whole is less epistemically sound or even common sense as they previously thought.
Iâm going to write a post next week about this, but consider the backlash on twitter regarding Benthamâs Bulldogâs post about bees and honey. More people came out in force against him than for him. I think that post, for instance, reduced the appetite for animal suffering discussion/âaction
Thanks. Just one note. There is no need for people to care about soil animals to help these. I estimate the cheapest ways of saving human lives increase the welfare of soil animals much more cost-effectively than interventions targeting farmed animals, and lots of people already care about saving children in low income countries. Saving humans increases the production of food, this increases agricultural land, and this decreases the number of soil animals, which is good for my best guess they have negative lives. If one guesses they have positive lives, one can advocate for cost-effective forestation efforts, which also population already, and does not require convincing people to care about soil animals.
Thanks, Matt.
Got it.
Which metric would you use to compare welfare across species? âWelfare range (difference between the maximum and minimum welfare per unit time) as a fraction of that of humansâ = ânumber of neurons as a fraction of that of humansâ^0.188 explains 78.6 % of the variance in the welfare ranges as a fraction of that of humans in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing animal welfare across species. The exponent of 0.188 is much smaller than 1, which suggests the total number of neurons underestimate a lot the absolute value of the welfare of soil animals relative to that of humans.
I estimate interventions targeting farmed animals change the welfare of soil animals way more than that of farmed animals. So I think advocating for soil animals (of which the vast majority are soil nematodes) would have to decrease the welfare of these for it to decrease global animal welfare.
I donât think we know enough about consciousness/âqualia/âetc. to say anything with conviction about what itâs like to be a nematode. And operationally, I donât think you wonât be able to convince enough people/âfunders to take real action on soil animals because itâs just too epistemically unsound and doesnât fit into peopleâs natural world views.
When I say net negative, I donât mean if you try to help soil animals you somehow hurt more animals on the whole.
I mean that you will turn people away from the theory of animal suffering because advocating for soil animals will make them think the field/âstudy of animal suffering as a whole is less epistemically sound or even common sense as they previously thought.
Iâm going to write a post next week about this, but consider the backlash on twitter regarding Benthamâs Bulldogâs post about bees and honey. More people came out in force against him than for him. I think that post, for instance, reduced the appetite for animal suffering discussion/âaction
Thanks. Just one note. There is no need for people to care about soil animals to help these. I estimate the cheapest ways of saving human lives increase the welfare of soil animals much more cost-effectively than interventions targeting farmed animals, and lots of people already care about saving children in low income countries. Saving humans increases the production of food, this increases agricultural land, and this decreases the number of soil animals, which is good for my best guess they have negative lives. If one guesses they have positive lives, one can advocate for cost-effective forestation efforts, which also population already, and does not require convincing people to care about soil animals.