To be clear, to me, āmaking progressā may mean realizing that we should be and (tentatively?) remain deeply uncertain about inter-species tradeoffs[1] and hence prioritize interventions that are most likely good independently of (non-obvious) tradeoffs assumptions (e.g., interventions that are ecologically inert and avoid substitution effects, or close to that).
I am very pessimistic about finding interventions that robustly increase welfare in expectation in my view across all reasonably plausible ways of comparing welfare across individuals. In addition, I would be surprised if such interventions were the ones increasing welfare the most cost-effectively.
I partly share your pessimism. I hope weāll have occasions to discuss specific proposals soon!
I would be surprised if such interventions were the ones increasing welfare the most cost-effectively.
If you define cost-effectiveness as something close to āwhatās best in expectation according to my specific favorite among all the plausible ways of comparing welfare across individualsā, I agree. I would also be surprised. Iām justāas you probably have realizedāvery sympathetic to Anthony and Malās arguments (in the above-linked posts) that this is not what we should look for when we seek cost-effectiveness.
I saw you already discussed this and adjacent cruxes with them. I might write something relevant to this (precise vs imprecise beliefs, etc.) in the very context of moral weights at some point. Iāll reach back to you then, and maybe weāll be able to hit finer-grained cruxes and advance this discussion. :)
If you define cost-effectiveness as something close to āwhatās best in expectation according to my specific favorite among all the plausible ways of comparing welfare across individualsā, I agree.
Yes, that is how I was thinking about it, with the caveat that the specific favourite would involve weighting many ways of comparing welfare by their plausibility, at least implicitly.
I saw you already discussed this and adjacent cruxes with them. I might write something relevant to this (precise vs imprecise beliefs, etc.) in the very context of moral weights at some point. Iāll reach back to you then, and maybe weāll be able to hit finer-grained cruxes and advance this discussion. :)
I [Jim] think maybe we should be more uncertain about inter-species tradeoffs than you seem to be, here.
I agree I have underestimated the uncertainty in comparisons between the individual (expectedhedonistic) welfare per unit time of different species. I now recommend decreasing this uncertainty.
I am very pessimistic about finding interventions that robustly increase welfare in expectation in my view across all reasonably plausible ways of comparing welfare across individuals. In addition, I would be surprised if such interventions were the ones increasing welfare the most cost-effectively.
I partly share your pessimism. I hope weāll have occasions to discuss specific proposals soon!
If you define cost-effectiveness as something close to āwhatās best in expectation according to my specific favorite among all the plausible ways of comparing welfare across individualsā, I agree. I would also be surprised. Iām justāas you probably have realizedāvery sympathetic to Anthony and Malās arguments (in the above-linked posts) that this is not what we should look for when we seek cost-effectiveness.
I saw you already discussed this and adjacent cruxes with them. I might write something relevant to this (precise vs imprecise beliefs, etc.) in the very context of moral weights at some point. Iāll reach back to you then, and maybe weāll be able to hit finer-grained cruxes and advance this discussion. :)
Yes, that is how I was thinking about it, with the caveat that the specific favourite would involve weighting many ways of comparing welfare by their plausibility, at least implicitly.
Thanks for letting me know!
I agree I have underestimated the uncertainty in comparisons between the individual (expected hedonistic) welfare per unit time of different species. I now recommend decreasing this uncertainty.
Interesting, thanks for the update!