Someone I know also noticed this a couple of months ago, so I looked into the methodology and found some possible issues. I emailed Joey Savoie, one of the authors of the report; he hasnât responded yet. Hereâs the email I sent him:
Someone posted an article you co-authored in 2018 in the Stanford Arete Fellowship mentors group, and the conclusion that wild chimps had a higher welfare score than humans in India seemed off to me. I had the intuition that chimps can control their environment less well than human hunter-gatherers, plus have a less egalitarian social structure, plus the huge amount of infrastructure in food. This seemed like it could reveal either a surprising truth, or a methodological flaw or biases in the evaluators; I read through the full report and have some thoughts which I hope are constructive.
- The way humans are compared to non-humans seems too superficial. I think 6 points to humans in India vs 9 points in wild chimpanzees based on the high level of diagnosed disability among people in India is misleading, because weâve spent billions more on diagnosing human diseases than chimps. - Giving 0 points to humans in India for thirst/âhunger/âmalnutrition, while chimps get 11, seems absurd for similar reasons. If we put as much effort into the diet of chimps as in the diets of wealthy humans to get a true reference point for health, I wouldnât be surprised if more than 15% of chimps were considered malnourished. Also, the untreated drinking water consumed in India is used to support this rating, but though untreated water causes harm through disease, it shouldnât be in the âthirst/âhunger/âmalnutritionâ category. [name of mentor] from the chat sums this up as there not being a âwealthy industrialized chimpsâ group to contrast with.
Iâm wondering if you see these as important criticisms. Do you still endorse the overall results of the report enough that you think we should share it with mentees, and if so, should we add caveats?
Thanks. Iâm glad to see I wasnât profoundly misunderstanding it. Now, I think this is a very important issue: either thereâs something really wrong with Charity Entreneurship assessment of welfare in different species, or I will really have to rethink my priorities ;)
Someone I know also noticed this a couple of months ago, so I looked into the methodology and found some possible issues. I emailed Joey Savoie, one of the authors of the report; he hasnât responded yet. Hereâs the email I sent him:
Thanks. Iâm glad to see I wasnât profoundly misunderstanding it. Now, I think this is a very important issue: either thereâs something really wrong with Charity Entreneurship assessment of welfare in different species, or I will really have to rethink my priorities ;)