I think this piece could be more effective if it more clearly spells out the relationship between human life expectancy, land use, and invertebrate welfare. E.g. when you say “I estimate it increases the welfare of humans, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 10.5 k QALY/$” I’m having trouble understanding what the relationship is between humans eating a healthier diet and invertebrate welfare.
Ok, thanks, that does make it easier to follow the argument.
Whatever one’s goals, I’d caution against taking quick micromort estimates literally. E.g. I think the “walking on public roads is bad for you” data only includes your risk of getting hit by a car, and doesn’t include the health benefits of walking, nor that pedestrian deaths are disproportionately at night and the victims are often intoxicated. Daytime walking while sober is overall good for longevity.
David and Mike do not say what is included in the risk of death from walking on public roads in the UK. I guess it does not include health benefits.
The reductions in life expectancy apply to random exposure covered in the estimation of the risk. For example, a random 1 km of walking on public roads in the UK considered in David and Mike’s estimations, which should include walking at night and intoxicated. However, I agree it makes sense to assume a lower risk if one’s exposure avoids the conditions where the risk is concentrated.
I think this piece could be more effective if it more clearly spells out the relationship between human life expectancy, land use, and invertebrate welfare. E.g. when you say “I estimate it increases the welfare of humans, and soil nematodes, mites, and springtails by 10.5 k QALY/$” I’m having trouble understanding what the relationship is between humans eating a healthier diet and invertebrate welfare.
Thanks for the comment, Julia! The 1st sentence of the post and introduction is supposed to clarify that.
I have now updated that sentence to the following.
Ok, thanks, that does make it easier to follow the argument.
Whatever one’s goals, I’d caution against taking quick micromort estimates literally. E.g. I think the “walking on public roads is bad for you” data only includes your risk of getting hit by a car, and doesn’t include the health benefits of walking, nor that pedestrian deaths are disproportionately at night and the victims are often intoxicated. Daytime walking while sober is overall good for longevity.
Thanks for the good points, Julia.
David and Mike do not say what is included in the risk of death from walking on public roads in the UK. I guess it does not include health benefits.
The reductions in life expectancy apply to random exposure covered in the estimation of the risk. For example, a random 1 km of walking on public roads in the UK considered in David and Mike’s estimations, which should include walking at night and intoxicated. However, I agree it makes sense to assume a lower risk if one’s exposure avoids the conditions where the risk is concentrated.