Hi Vasco, I’m commenting here because you asked for my opinion on this article in a private message. From what I see, it assumes that nematodes have moral significance. Personally, I don’t care about nematodes, and I don’t think any text could change that. My caring comes from the heart, and my heart just isn’t open to caring about nematodes. So I’m not very interested in the article, since its starting assumptions don’t align with my values. I hope you understand, and I wish you a good day💚
Thanks for the comment, Saulius! How about soil ants and termites? For my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I estimate funding HIPF increases the welfare of target beneficiaries, and soil ants and termites (considered all together) 1.09 k (= 203⁄0.186) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns. For the exponent of 0.19 which explains the welfare ranges in Bob’s book very well (an exponent of 0.188 explains 78.6 % of their variance), I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns decrease the welfare of chickens, and soil ants and termites, having a cost-effectiveness accounting for these of −86.3 and −518 QALY/$, whereas funding HIPF would have a cost-effectiveness of 9.69 kQALY/$.
Hi Vasco, I’m commenting here because you asked for my opinion on this article in a private message. From what I see, it assumes that nematodes have moral significance. Personally, I don’t care about nematodes, and I don’t think any text could change that. My caring comes from the heart, and my heart just isn’t open to caring about nematodes. So I’m not very interested in the article, since its starting assumptions don’t align with my values. I hope you understand, and I wish you a good day💚
Thanks for the comment, Saulius! How about soil ants and termites? For my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I estimate funding HIPF increases the welfare of target beneficiaries, and soil ants and termites (considered all together) 1.09 k (= 203⁄0.186) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns. For the exponent of 0.19 which explains the welfare ranges in Bob’s book very well (an exponent of 0.188 explains 78.6 % of their variance), I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns decrease the welfare of chickens, and soil ants and termites, having a cost-effectiveness accounting for these of −86.3 and −518 QALY/$, whereas funding HIPF would have a cost-effectiveness of 9.69 kQALY/$.