I’ll add that even if I would make different methodological choices, I think it’s still useful to highlight the scale of indirect effects on wild animals. The default in the community seems to be to ignore these effects, and there doesn’t seem to be good justification for that. I think it’s great that Vasco is taking these effects seriously and seeing where they might lead.
(And, as in my other comment, the conclusions and analysis could hold approximately anyway for those sufficiently pessimistic about the lives of wild invertebrates, or who give enough weight to sufficiently suffering-focused views.)
I’ll add that even if I would make different methodological choices, I think it’s still useful to highlight the scale of indirect effects on wild animals. The default in the community seems to be to ignore these effects, and there doesn’t seem to be good justification for that. I think it’s great that Vasco is taking these effects seriously and seeing where they might lead.
(And, as in my other comment, the conclusions and analysis could hold approximately anyway for those sufficiently pessimistic about the lives of wild invertebrates, or who give enough weight to sufficiently suffering-focused views.)
Thanks, Michael!