Great post, Matthew! I agree thinking that insects have positive or negative lives results in counterintuitive consequences. I personally have little idea about whether they are positive or negative, but this also results in a counterintuitive conclusion. I am practically agnostic about the vast majority of actions, in the sense of not knowing whether they are beneficial or harmful, although I think some like GiveWell’s top charities are super beneficial or harmful due to very cost-effectively changing the population of insects.
I couldn’t have said it better. I also read the linked paper, and it really resonated with a lot of doubts I already had about the apparent consensus about net-negative insect lifes. So thank you both!
I think it is worth noting that, even given the immense scale of insect welfare/​suffering, some longtermist projects (especially those trying to prevent X-risks) might still be extremely important—not because humanities continued existence is so important in and of itself, but because humanity might have an enormous instrumental value for wild animal suffering. After all, if evolution (or AI) does not give rise to another lifeform with our means of altering the planet (and maybe beyond) before the sun runs out, we are the only ones who could actively change the insect’s lifes for the better. Of course, we might also make it worse (for example by spreading them to other planets if they do have net-negative lifes after all), so I guess this thought depends on the optimistic assumption that we either will actually care about (and for) them at some point or that our interests coincide with theirs (which seems a lot more plausible if they have net-positive lifes).
Considering there are 10^10 (= 10^(20 − 10)) times as many marine arthropods as humans, and my guess that the absolute value of the welfare of a random arthropod-year is 5*10^-5 of the welfare of a random human-year[1], I estimate the absolute welfare of marine arthropods is 500 k (= 10^10*5*10^-5) times the welfare of humans. Since there is lots of uncertainty about whether marine arthropods have positive or negative lives now, and whether humans or our descendents will improve them in the future, I do not know whether the future welfare of life on Earth is positive or negative. So I would focus on improving welfare instead of decreasing the risk of human extinction. In any case, I think reducing the nearterm risk of human extinction would not be astronomically cost-effective even if the future welfare of life on Earth was robustly positive. I am also sceptical of the possibility of meaningful longterm impacts.
25 % times my guess for the welfare range of a random arthropod of 2*10^-4, which is 10 % of Rethink Priorities’ median welfare range of silkworms of 0.002. 25 % is the absolute value of the mean of a uniform distribution ranging from −0.75 to 0.25, or from −0.25 to 0.75.
These are valid concerns and I wouldn’t really argue against them. I at least partially share your scepticism about meaningful longterm impacts, after all. (Though if anything, then preventing our extinction in the next centuries seems like the most promising candidate for longterm change—but of course it is also questionable wether we can actually predictably decrease the X-risk probability within this timeframe, let alone on a larger scale.)
I guess I am just very pessimistic about our ability (and willingness) to do something meaningful about wild animal welfare (especially for insects) within the next few (hundred) years. Aside of in- or decreasing their numbers, which is not a consideration, as long as we don’t even know (with some certainty) if their lifes are net-positive or net-negative. So it seems to me as if the only possibility for a substantial change with a predictable outcome in the area of wild animal suffering/​welfare might happen only if we survive at least a few hundred more years and have 1. the time to investigate the most crucial questions and 2. a shift within political/​ethical considerations which would allow to implement larger-scale programs solely for the purposes of wild animal welfare. I have no idea if the second condition will ever be met, though...
Nevertheless, given the massive uncertainty about the solvabilty of wild animal suffering and X-risk prevention, I still think that the fight for farmed animals (especially the more overlooked ones like fish and shrimps) might actually be one or maybe even the top priority right now. At least it might be the most impactful action where we actually know that we have a positive impact at all… (And who knows, maybe if we finally abolish factory farming some day, our view on animals might also change and make the second condition more likely—but I’m just speculating at this point, so I’ll leave it at that.)
Nevertheless, given the massive uncertainty about the solvabilty of wild animal suffering and X-risk prevention, I still think that the fight for farmed animals (especially the more overlooked ones like fish and shrimps) might actually be one or maybe even the top priority right now.
I recommend focussing on invertebrates. I do not know whether interventions targeting vertebrates which change feed production, like chicken welfare reforms, but more so ones which aim to decrease the consumption of animal-based foods, are beneficial or harmful due to unclear possibly dominant effects on wild arthropods.
Great post, Matthew! I agree thinking that insects have positive or negative lives results in counterintuitive consequences. I personally have little idea about whether they are positive or negative, but this also results in a counterintuitive conclusion. I am practically agnostic about the vast majority of actions, in the sense of not knowing whether they are beneficial or harmful, although I think some like GiveWell’s top charities are super beneficial or harmful due to very cost-effectively changing the population of insects.
I couldn’t have said it better. I also read the linked paper, and it really resonated with a lot of doubts I already had about the apparent consensus about net-negative insect lifes. So thank you both!
I think it is worth noting that, even given the immense scale of insect welfare/​suffering, some longtermist projects (especially those trying to prevent X-risks) might still be extremely important—not because humanities continued existence is so important in and of itself, but because humanity might have an enormous instrumental value for wild animal suffering. After all, if evolution (or AI) does not give rise to another lifeform with our means of altering the planet (and maybe beyond) before the sun runs out, we are the only ones who could actively change the insect’s lifes for the better. Of course, we might also make it worse (for example by spreading them to other planets if they do have net-negative lifes after all), so I guess this thought depends on the optimistic assumption that we either will actually care about (and for) them at some point or that our interests coincide with theirs (which seems a lot more plausible if they have net-positive lifes).
Anyways, thank you both again.
Thanks, Marc!
Considering there are 10^10 (= 10^(20 − 10)) times as many marine arthropods as humans, and my guess that the absolute value of the welfare of a random arthropod-year is 5*10^-5 of the welfare of a random human-year[1], I estimate the absolute welfare of marine arthropods is 500 k (= 10^10*5*10^-5) times the welfare of humans. Since there is lots of uncertainty about whether marine arthropods have positive or negative lives now, and whether humans or our descendents will improve them in the future, I do not know whether the future welfare of life on Earth is positive or negative. So I would focus on improving welfare instead of decreasing the risk of human extinction. In any case, I think reducing the nearterm risk of human extinction would not be astronomically cost-effective even if the future welfare of life on Earth was robustly positive. I am also sceptical of the possibility of meaningful longterm impacts.
25 % times my guess for the welfare range of a random arthropod of 2*10^-4, which is 10 % of Rethink Priorities’ median welfare range of silkworms of 0.002. 25 % is the absolute value of the mean of a uniform distribution ranging from −0.75 to 0.25, or from −0.25 to 0.75.
These are valid concerns and I wouldn’t really argue against them. I at least partially share your scepticism about meaningful longterm impacts, after all. (Though if anything, then preventing our extinction in the next centuries seems like the most promising candidate for longterm change—but of course it is also questionable wether we can actually predictably decrease the X-risk probability within this timeframe, let alone on a larger scale.)
I guess I am just very pessimistic about our ability (and willingness) to do something meaningful about wild animal welfare (especially for insects) within the next few (hundred) years. Aside of in- or decreasing their numbers, which is not a consideration, as long as we don’t even know (with some certainty) if their lifes are net-positive or net-negative. So it seems to me as if the only possibility for a substantial change with a predictable outcome in the area of wild animal suffering/​welfare might happen only if we survive at least a few hundred more years and have 1. the time to investigate the most crucial questions and 2. a shift within political/​ethical considerations which would allow to implement larger-scale programs solely for the purposes of wild animal welfare. I have no idea if the second condition will ever be met, though...
Nevertheless, given the massive uncertainty about the solvabilty of wild animal suffering and X-risk prevention, I still think that the fight for farmed animals (especially the more overlooked ones like fish and shrimps) might actually be one or maybe even the top priority right now. At least it might be the most impactful action where we actually know that we have a positive impact at all… (And who knows, maybe if we finally abolish factory farming some day, our view on animals might also change and make the second condition more likely—but I’m just speculating at this point, so I’ll leave it at that.)
Thanks for the good points, Marc!
I recommend focussing on invertebrates. I do not know whether interventions targeting vertebrates which change feed production, like chicken welfare reforms, but more so ones which aim to decrease the consumption of animal-based foods, are beneficial or harmful due to unclear possibly dominant effects on wild arthropods.