I will respond with my interpretation of the report, so that the author might correct me to help me understand it better.
If you ask āIf we have an option between preventing the birth of Sabs versus preventing the birth of an average chicken, how many chickens is Sabs worth?ā then Sabs might be worth ā10 chickens since chickens have net negative lives whereas you (hopefully) have a net positive life.
If you ask āLetās compare a maximally happy Sabs and maximally happy chickens, how many chickens is Sabs worth?ā, I donāt think these estimates respond to that either. It might be the case that chickens have a very large welfare range, but this is mostly because they have a potential for feeling excruciating pain even though their best lives are not that good.
I think you need to complement this research with āhow much the badness of average experiences of animals compare with each otherā to answer your question. This report by Rethink Priorities seems to be based on the range between the worst and the best experiences for each species.
This is exactly right, Emre. We are not commenting on the average amount of value or disvalue that any particular kind of individual adds to the world. Instead, weāre trying to estimate how much value different kinds of individuals could add to the world. You then need to go do the hard work of assessing individualsā actual welfare levels to make tradeoffs. But thatās as it should be. Thereās already been a lot of work on welfare assessment; thereās been much less work on how to interpret the significance of those welfare assessments in cross-species decision-making. Weāre trying to advance the latter conversation.
Thank you for the prompt reply Bob. Just to be clear, I am happy about the scope of this project and am impressed by its quality. I do not intend to criticise the report for being mindful about its scope.
I will respond with my interpretation of the report, so that the author might correct me to help me understand it better.
If you ask āIf we have an option between preventing the birth of Sabs versus preventing the birth of an average chicken, how many chickens is Sabs worth?ā then Sabs might be worth ā10 chickens since chickens have net negative lives whereas you (hopefully) have a net positive life.
If you ask āLetās compare a maximally happy Sabs and maximally happy chickens, how many chickens is Sabs worth?ā, I donāt think these estimates respond to that either. It might be the case that chickens have a very large welfare range, but this is mostly because they have a potential for feeling excruciating pain even though their best lives are not that good.
I think you need to complement this research with āhow much the badness of average experiences of animals compare with each otherā to answer your question. This report by Rethink Priorities seems to be based on the range between the worst and the best experiences for each species.
This is exactly right, Emre. We are not commenting on the average amount of value or disvalue that any particular kind of individual adds to the world. Instead, weāre trying to estimate how much value different kinds of individuals could add to the world. You then need to go do the hard work of assessing individualsā actual welfare levels to make tradeoffs. But thatās as it should be. Thereās already been a lot of work on welfare assessment; thereās been much less work on how to interpret the significance of those welfare assessments in cross-species decision-making. Weāre trying to advance the latter conversation.
Thank you for the prompt reply Bob. Just to be clear, I am happy about the scope of this project and am impressed by its quality. I do not intend to criticise the report for being mindful about its scope.
Didnāt take it that way at all! I appreciate your taking the time to comment and help clarify what weāve done.