Personally, I agree that pursuing research into soil animal welfare would likely be valuable. In general, I’m extremely impressed by how much salience you have brought to this issue over this past year. My intuitions around how to think about these animals currently seem to generally align with Bob Fischer’s thoughts.
Even if soil animals become the most cost effective use of marginal dollars, I still think we need opportunities in the animal space with high absorbency. I don’t think that this research could absorb millions in the way other animal orgs could. I still think we need more aquatic animal projects and that the animal movement needs to be thought about as an ecosystem, rather than a single org.
My intuitions around how to think about these animals currently seem to generally align with Bob Fischer’s thoughts.
You may be interested in my discussion of the above with Bob.
the animal movement needs to be thought about as an ecosystem, rather than a single org
I very much agree not all resources should go to the organisation with the current highest marginal cost-effectiveness, as this decreases with funding. However, my worry is not just that the best interventions are underfunded. It is that the current ecosystem is pursuing interventions which can easily be better or worse than, for example, burning money, or buying beef. I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to potentially dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. I believe the ecosystem should optimise much more to decrease uncertainty about interspecies hedonistic welfare comparisons, and effects on soil animals and microorganisms.
Personally, I agree that pursuing research into soil animal welfare would likely be valuable. In general, I’m extremely impressed by how much salience you have brought to this issue over this past year. My intuitions around how to think about these animals currently seem to generally align with Bob Fischer’s thoughts.
Even if soil animals become the most cost effective use of marginal dollars, I still think we need opportunities in the animal space with high absorbency. I don’t think that this research could absorb millions in the way other animal orgs could. I still think we need more aquatic animal projects and that the animal movement needs to be thought about as an ecosystem, rather than a single org.
Thanks, Aaron!
You may be interested in my discussion of the above with Bob.
I very much agree not all resources should go to the organisation with the current highest marginal cost-effectiveness, as this decreases with funding. However, my worry is not just that the best interventions are underfunded. It is that the current ecosystem is pursuing interventions which can easily be better or worse than, for example, burning money, or buying beef. I do not know about any interventions which robustly increase animal welfare due to potentially dominant uncertain effects on soil animals. I believe the ecosystem should optimise much more to decrease uncertainty about interspecies hedonistic welfare comparisons, and effects on soil animals and microorganisms.