I don’t really understand how you’re achknowleging the uncertainty here? Basing on RPs weights is one way of making these comparisons, and even those have enormous uncertainty. I was just saying I don’t like it when someone is very confident that one cause or set of causes are better than others. I think there’s still enormous uncertainty that animal welfare interventions are better than human ones. Are you saying that’s not the case?
As a side note I don’t think there really are a wide range of meaningfully different RP “Models” in the way I think of models anyway. A separate “model” for me implies genuinely different inputs and assumptions, which are basically all the same for RPs models—which is why they differ far less than even an order of magnitude.
”After the project decided to assume hedonism and dismiss neuron count, the cumulative percent of these 90 behavioral proxies became the basis for their welfare range estimates. Although the team used a number of models in their final analysis, these models were mostly based on different weightings of these same behavioral proxies.[12]. Median final welfare ranges are therefore fairly well approximated by the simple formula.
(Behavioral proxy percent) x (Probability of Sentience) = Median Welfare range”
To me then it becomes a question of whether or you agree with the assumptions that RP make along the way (and how strongly)
I think there’s still enormous uncertainty that animal welfare interventions are better than human ones. Are you saying that’s not the case?
I think it is clear that the best animal welfare interventions are much more cost-effective than the best human welfare interventions.
After the project decided to assume hedonism and dismiss neuron count, the cumulative percent of these 90 behavioral proxies became the basis for their welfare range estimates. Although the team used a number of models in their final analysis, these models were mostly based on different weightings of these same behavioral proxies.
The welfare range of chickens is higher than RP’s median under the 2 models besides the neuron count one which do not rely on behaviour:
If one puts at least 10 % weight on the quantitative model, which “aggregates several quantifiably characterizable physiological measurements related to activity in the pain processing system”, the welfare range of chickens will be at least 16.9 % (= 0.1*1.69) of RP’s median.
I don’t really understand how you’re achknowleging the uncertainty here? Basing on RPs weights is one way of making these comparisons, and even those have enormous uncertainty. I was just saying I don’t like it when someone is very confident that one cause or set of causes are better than others. I think there’s still enormous uncertainty that animal welfare interventions are better than human ones. Are you saying that’s not the case?
As a side note I don’t think there really are a wide range of meaningfully different RP “Models” in the way I think of models anyway. A separate “model” for me implies genuinely different inputs and assumptions, which are basically all the same for RPs models—which is why they differ far less than even an order of magnitude.
As I said in my post here
”After the project decided to assume hedonism and dismiss neuron count, the cumulative percent of these 90 behavioral proxies became the basis for their welfare range estimates. Although the team used a number of models in their final analysis, these models were mostly based on different weightings of these same behavioral proxies.[12]. Median final welfare ranges are therefore fairly well approximated by the simple formula.
(Behavioral proxy percent) x (Probability of Sentience) = Median Welfare range”
To me then it becomes a question of whether or you agree with the assumptions that RP make along the way (and how strongly)
I think it is clear that the best animal welfare interventions are much more cost-effective than the best human welfare interventions.
The welfare range of chickens is higher than RP’s median under the 2 models besides the neuron count one which do not rely on behaviour:
For the quantitative model, it is 1.69 (= 0.641*0.876/0.332) times as high.
For the equality model, it is 2.51 (= 0.953*0.876/0.332) times as high.
If one puts at least 10 % weight on the quantitative model, which “aggregates several quantifiably characterizable physiological measurements related to activity in the pain processing system”, the welfare range of chickens will be at least 16.9 % (= 0.1*1.69) of RP’s median.