Do you have any thoughts on the effects of HSI on soil animals? For individual welfare per fully-happy-animal-year proportional to “number of neurons”^0.5, I estimate electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp. I do not know whether the welfare of soil animals would be increased or decreases. So it is very unclear to me whether electrically stunning shrimp increases or decreases welfare (in expectation). In any case, I do not think HSI is amongst the most cost-effective ways of increasing animal welfare. I calculate interventions targeting other farmed animals or humans change animal welfare much more cost-effectively accounting for effects on soil animals resulting from land use changes as long as individual welfare per fully-happy-animal-year is proportional to “number of neurons”^”exponent of the number of neurons”, as is illustrated in the graph below. However, given the large uncertainty about the effects on soil animals (“Increase” in the graph below should be interpreted as “Change”), I recommend research informing how to increase the welfare of soil animals over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively seem to achieve that the most cost-effectively.
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.
Thanks for sharing, Aaron! I like the ambition.
Do you have any thoughts on the effects of HSI on soil animals? For individual welfare per fully-happy-animal-year proportional to “number of neurons”^0.5, I estimate electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp. I do not know whether the welfare of soil animals would be increased or decreases. So it is very unclear to me whether electrically stunning shrimp increases or decreases welfare (in expectation). In any case, I do not think HSI is amongst the most cost-effective ways of increasing animal welfare. I calculate interventions targeting other farmed animals or humans change animal welfare much more cost-effectively accounting for effects on soil animals resulting from land use changes as long as individual welfare per fully-happy-animal-year is proportional to “number of neurons”^”exponent of the number of neurons”, as is illustrated in the graph below. However, given the large uncertainty about the effects on soil animals (“Increase” in the graph below should be interpreted as “Change”), I recommend research informing how to increase the welfare of soil animals over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively seem to achieve that the most cost-effectively.
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.