Hi Vasco, thank you for encouraging us to think about the downstream effects of farmed animal interventions on wild animals whose experiences are so neglected. As you noticed by the selection of charities we’ve made, we are not confident enough yet of the potential impact on the wellbeing of free ranging individuals like nematodes or even insects and larger wild animals. It is possible that in our theory of change analyses of charities this question will come up. But we expect that the uncertainty will mean we won’t give the answer much weight in this evaluation round. Thanks.
Could you elaborate on which type of uncertainty makes you discount effects on wild animals? I assume you are not neglecting these just because they have a high chance of being negligible. This also applies to interventions helping farmed insects, and you have made a grant to the Insect Welfare Research Society (IWRS). Rethink Priorities’ (RP’s) estimate for the probability of sentience of silkworms is just 1.21 (= 0.082/0.068) times their estimate for nematodes.
I guess you are neglecting effects on wild animals because the probability of them being beneficial is similar to that of them being harmful. Do you have any thoughts on the reasons I presented for that not being a sufficient reason to neglect the effects?
Hi Vasco, we intend to publish a blog post on the consequences of farmed animal welfare interventions for wild animals, after the busy work of charity evaluations is wrapped up for the season. Thank you.
Thanks for that! I would be happy to review a draft (for free).
@Animal Charity Evaluators, I would be curious to know what made you have that intention to publish a post about effects on wild animals. In particular, whether my posts had any influence.
Hi Vasco, thank you for encouraging us to think about the downstream effects of farmed animal interventions on wild animals whose experiences are so neglected. As you noticed by the selection of charities we’ve made, we are not confident enough yet of the potential impact on the wellbeing of free ranging individuals like nematodes or even insects and larger wild animals. It is possible that in our theory of change analyses of charities this question will come up. But we expect that the uncertainty will mean we won’t give the answer much weight in this evaluation round. Thanks.
Thanks for the reply.
Could you elaborate on which type of uncertainty makes you discount effects on wild animals? I assume you are not neglecting these just because they have a high chance of being negligible. This also applies to interventions helping farmed insects, and you have made a grant to the Insect Welfare Research Society (IWRS). Rethink Priorities’ (RP’s) estimate for the probability of sentience of silkworms is just 1.21 (= 0.082/0.068) times their estimate for nematodes.
I guess you are neglecting effects on wild animals because the probability of them being beneficial is similar to that of them being harmful. Do you have any thoughts on the reasons I presented for that not being a sufficient reason to neglect the effects?
Hi Vasco, we intend to publish a blog post on the consequences of farmed animal welfare interventions for wild animals, after the busy work of charity evaluations is wrapped up for the season. Thank you.
Thanks for that! I would be happy to review a draft (for free).
@Animal Charity Evaluators, I would be curious to know what made you have that intention to publish a post about effects on wild animals. In particular, whether my posts had any influence.