Thanks for the clarifying comment, Jim. I agree with all your points. For individual (expectedhedonistic) welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 1âł, and âexponent 1â from 0.5 to 1.5, which I believe covers reasonable best guesses, I estimatethat the absolute value of the total welfare of:
Farmed shrimps ranges from 2.82*10^-7 to 0.282 times that of humans.
Soil nematodes ranges from 0.00252 to 902 k times that of humans.
Moreover, the above ranges underestimate uncertainty due to considering a single type of model for the individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year. At the same time, the results for individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 1â can be used to get results for individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âproxyâ^âexponent 2â if âproxyâ is proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 3â. All of âexponent 1â, âexponent 2â, and âexponent 3â can vary. I am using different numbers because they are not supposed to be the same.
And you said things that suggests you agree in this recent interview. You seemed to have deviated from your previous ânematodes obviously dominateâ view. Or did I miss something?
I think my previous view was more âit is very difficult for effects on soil animals or ones with a similar number of neurons not to be the major driver of the overall effect in expectationâ. I would say this was my view in this post. The bullet of the summary starting with the following summarises it well. âI believe effects on soil animals are much larger than those on target beneficiariesâ. In any case, I was certainly overconfident about the dominance of effects on soil animals or ones with a similar number of neurons.
Thanks for the clarifying comment, Jim. I agree with all your points. For individual (expected hedonistic) welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 1âł, and âexponent 1â from 0.5 to 1.5, which I believe covers reasonable best guesses, I estimate that the absolute value of the total welfare of:
Farmed shrimps ranges from 2.82*10^-7 to 0.282 times that of humans.
Soil nematodes ranges from 0.00252 to 902 k times that of humans.
Moreover, the above ranges underestimate uncertainty due to considering a single type of model for the individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year. At the same time, the results for individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 1â can be used to get results for individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âproxyâ^âexponent 2â if âproxyâ is proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponent 3â. All of âexponent 1â, âexponent 2â, and âexponent 3â can vary. I am using different numbers because they are not supposed to be the same.
I think my previous view was more âit is very difficult for effects on soil animals or ones with a similar number of neurons not to be the major driver of the overall effect in expectationâ. I would say this was my view in this post. The bullet of the summary starting with the following summarises it well. âI believe effects on soil animals are much larger than those on target beneficiariesâ. In any case, I was certainly overconfident about the dominance of effects on soil animals or ones with a similar number of neurons.