Yes, that is basically right[1]. For example, I estimate nematodes are 7.76 % (= 0.068/0.876) as likely to be sentient as chickens (“significantly less”), but that there are 16.7 billion (= 4.89*10^20/(29.2*10^9)) times as many soil nematodes as farmed chickens (“WAY WAY WAY more”).
Yes, I think that analogy illustrates why I think broadly advocating for decreasing the consumption of animal-based foods tends to be harmful to animals.
With the caveat that what matters besides population is the welfare per animal-year, which is the product between the probability of sentience, welfare range given sentience, and welfare per animal-year as a fraction of the welfare range.
Yes, that is basically right[1]. For example, I estimate nematodes are 7.76 % (= 0.068/0.876) as likely to be sentient as chickens (“significantly less”), but that there are 16.7 billion (= 4.89*10^20/(29.2*10^9)) times as many soil nematodes as farmed chickens (“WAY WAY WAY more”).
Yes, I think that analogy illustrates why I think broadly advocating for decreasing the consumption of animal-based foods tends to be harmful to animals.
With the caveat that what matters besides population is the welfare per animal-year, which is the product between the probability of sentience, welfare range given sentience, and welfare per animal-year as a fraction of the welfare range.
Got it. Thank you so much for explaining so patiently!