How did you come to these numbers for the P-sentience ? Why not between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 ?
My personal feeling, while reading these kind of numbers, is that they seem conveniently in the ballpark of ‘wide enough that I recognize I am not really sure about what is causing sentience, but low enough that I don’t have anything to do about it’. Maybe this is not how you came up with them, but this is what I would come up with I had to justify not working on the topic.
I understand that it’s possible that insects may have a lower ability to feel suffering, but I don’t see how we can be confident enough to find it unlikely that they are morally relevant.
Thanks @CB🔸 I’d rather not get into this here in detail (its not what the post is about), but these numbers come from something like starting from the moral weights project numbers then discounting pretty heavily due to skepticism about the methodology being biased towards animals at most junctures. My starting point of 1 in a thousand isn’t far off RPs numbers. Your between 1 in 10 and one in 100 billion is also entirely reasonable.
I’m not at all confident they are morally irrelevant, my point was only that there’s a chance their suffering is relevant on the ballpark of human suffering—not necessarily all or nothing.
How did you come to these numbers for the P-sentience ? Why not between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 ?
My personal feeling, while reading these kind of numbers, is that they seem conveniently in the ballpark of ‘wide enough that I recognize I am not really sure about what is causing sentience, but low enough that I don’t have anything to do about it’. Maybe this is not how you came up with them, but this is what I would come up with I had to justify not working on the topic.
I understand that it’s possible that insects may have a lower ability to feel suffering, but I don’t see how we can be confident enough to find it unlikely that they are morally relevant.
Thanks @CB🔸 I’d rather not get into this here in detail (its not what the post is about), but these numbers come from something like starting from the moral weights project numbers then discounting pretty heavily due to skepticism about the methodology being biased towards animals at most junctures. My starting point of 1 in a thousand isn’t far off RPs numbers. Your between 1 in 10 and one in 100 billion is also entirely reasonable.
I’m not at all confident they are morally irrelevant, my point was only that there’s a chance their suffering is relevant on the ballpark of human suffering—not necessarily all or nothing.