(Iām assuming weāre ruling out an average welfare of exactly 0 or assigning that negligible probability.)
I would agree any particular value for the welfare per animal-year has a negligible probability because my probability distribution is practically continuous, such that there is lots of values around any particular one.
Fascinating discussion between the two of you here, thanks.
I have one comment: I donāt think their welfare being exactly 0 should have negligible probability. If we consider an animal like the soil nematode, I think there should be a significant probability assigned to the possibility that they are not sentient, unless Iām missing something?
Yes, absolutely right about 0 being possible and reaonably likely. Maybe Iād say āaverage welfare conditional on having any welfare at allā. I only added that so that X% likely to be negative meant (100-X)% likely to be positive, in order to simplify the argument.
I think āprobability of sentienceā*āexpected welfare conditional on sentienceā >> (1 - āprobability of sentienceā)*āexpected welfare conditional on non-sentienceā, such that the expected welfare can be estimated from the 1st expression. However, I would say the expected welfare conditional on non-sentience is not exactly 0. For this to be the case, one would have to be certain that a welfare of exactly 0 follows from failing to satisfy the sentience criteria, which is not possible. Yet, in practice, it could still be the case that there is a decent probability mass on a welfare close to 0.
Thanks for clarifying, Michael.
I would agree any particular value for the welfare per animal-year has a negligible probability because my probability distribution is practically continuous, such that there is lots of values around any particular one.
Fascinating discussion between the two of you here, thanks.
I have one comment: I donāt think their welfare being exactly 0 should have negligible probability. If we consider an animal like the soil nematode, I think there should be a significant probability assigned to the possibility that they are not sentient, unless Iām missing something?
Yes, absolutely right about 0 being possible and reaonably likely. Maybe Iād say āaverage welfare conditional on having any welfare at allā. I only added that so that X% likely to be negative meant (100-X)% likely to be positive, in order to simplify the argument.
Thanks, Toby! Credits go to Michael.
I think āprobability of sentienceā*āexpected welfare conditional on sentienceā >> (1 - āprobability of sentienceā)*āexpected welfare conditional on non-sentienceā, such that the expected welfare can be estimated from the 1st expression. However, I would say the expected welfare conditional on non-sentience is not exactly 0. For this to be the case, one would have to be certain that a welfare of exactly 0 follows from failing to satisfy the sentience criteria, which is not possible. Yet, in practice, it could still be the case that there is a decent probability mass on a welfare close to 0.