Have you considered accounting for effects on soil invertebrates? One of the âkey takeawaysâ from your work on risk aversion was that âSpending on corporate cage-free campaigns for egg-laying hens is robustly[8] cost-effective under nearly all reasonable types and levels of risk aversion considered hereâ. However, I suspect the vast majority of interventions perform worse than inaction accounting for effects on soil invertebrates under moderate levels of any type of risk aversion you considered (âavoiding the worstâ risk aversion, difference-making risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion). I estimate cage-free campaigns for laying hens change the welfare of soil ants and termites much more than they increase the welfare of chickens for the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species. I have little idea about whether those campaigns increase or decrease the welfare of soil ants and termites. So I do not know whether they increase or decrease animal welfare.
Of course, inaction is not the solution. I would like to see more research on comparing welfare across species. I can easily see effects on soil ants and termites being negligible, although I believe this would also imply a very low cost-effectiveness for interventions targeting invertebrates (like electrically stunning shrimps). In addition, I would prioritise building capacity to help soil invertebrates. They may well matter.
I think theyâve covered this a number of times and explained why they havenât considered soil invertebrates responding to previous comments youâve made @Vasco Grilođ¸
Hi Nick. Do you know about any public explanations of why indirect effects on macroarthropods like soil ants and termites are not included? I suspect you have in mind the comments below. However, they apply to plants, microorganisms, nematodes, and microarthropods, not to macroarthropods like soil ants and termites.
We didnât do the welfare range calculations for plants, protists, nematodes, etc, because we donât think the methodology is appropriate for organisms that lack a complex brain and/âor nervous system
1. Itâs true that we donât think you can take our methodology and extend it arbitrarily. We grant that itâs very difficult to draw a precise boundary. However, itâs standard to develop a model for a purpose and be wary about its application in a novel context. Very roughly, we take those novel contexts to be ones where the probability of sentience is extremely low. We acknowledge that we donât have a precise cutoff for âextremely low,â as establishing such a cutoff would be a difficult research project in its own right. There are unavoidable judgment calls in this work.
[...]
3. We donât think that the assumptions of our âmainline welfare rangesâ imply anything about the welfare ranges of plants, nematodes, and microorganisms, as the models simply arenât intended to be used the way you are using them. Thatâs why we arenât replying to you about the welfare ranges of plants, nematodes, and microorganisms. We would need to do an independent project to form opinions on your questions. Right now, we donât have the funding for that project.
On the macro-level issue of priorities, Iâve gathered some of my thoughts here.
From the doc linked above:
Second, I want to do good, not just good in expectation. So, as the probability of sentience drops, I become more wary. Insects are fairly close to my limit. Right now, we have some evidence for sentience in some insect orders, which I find reasonably compelling. However, it isnât compelling primarily because it checks some number of boxes in Birchâs precautionary framework; instead, itâs compelling because of its breadth and richness. We have nothing like the evidence for sentience in Drosophila [small fruit fly] for mites, springtails, thrips, and the like. For that reason, we can respond to the stock objections to sentience in insects. We canât do anything analogous for these smaller arthropods. (And recall that their brains are one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the brains of many insects. I doubt thereâs a linear relationship between sentience and any such neurophysiological feature; at some point, Iâm inclined to think that the probability falls off a cliff.)
As I commented above, I estimate the effects of chicken welfare campaigns on ants and termites are much larger than those on chickens for the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bobâs book. For this not to hold, I think the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges of ants and termites would have to be much lower than that of black soldier flies (BSFs). I would be surprised if this was the case under the methodology of Bobâs book. Godfrey et al. (2021) estimated 90 k neurons for a desert ant, and 92.5 k for a fruit fly (âvinegar flyâ), and âindividual number of neuronsâ^0.188 explains pretty well the welfare ranges in Bobâs book, as illustrated below.
Thanks @Vasco Grilođ¸ . Yes I was thinking about all those comments I just forgot exactly which invertebrates they referred to. I suspect they will have a similar answer about any soil invertebrates but we will see!
@NickLaing, I am tagging you because I just updated this comment.
I suspect they will have a similar answer about soil invertebrates
Nitpick. I think you meant âabout any soil invertebratesâ or âabout soil macroarthropodsâ, as they have already commented on soil nematodes and microoarthropods (which are soil invertebrates).
Have you considered accounting for effects on soil invertebrates? One of the âkey takeawaysâ from your work on risk aversion was that âSpending on corporate cage-free campaigns for egg-laying hens is robustly[8] cost-effective under nearly all reasonable types and levels of risk aversion considered hereâ. However, I suspect the vast majority of interventions perform worse than inaction accounting for effects on soil invertebrates under moderate levels of any type of risk aversion you considered (âavoiding the worstâ risk aversion, difference-making risk aversion, and ambiguity aversion). I estimate cage-free campaigns for laying hens change the welfare of soil ants and termites much more than they increase the welfare of chickens for the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species. I have little idea about whether those campaigns increase or decrease the welfare of soil ants and termites. So I do not know whether they increase or decrease animal welfare.
Of course, inaction is not the solution. I would like to see more research on comparing welfare across species. I can easily see effects on soil ants and termites being negligible, although I believe this would also imply a very low cost-effectiveness for interventions targeting invertebrates (like electrically stunning shrimps). In addition, I would prioritise building capacity to help soil invertebrates. They may well matter.
I think theyâve covered this a number of times and explained why they havenât considered soil invertebrates responding to previous comments youâve made @Vasco Grilođ¸
Hi Nick. Do you know about any public explanations of why indirect effects on macroarthropods like soil ants and termites are not included? I suspect you have in mind the comments below. However, they apply to plants, microorganisms, nematodes, and microarthropods, not to macroarthropods like soil ants and termites.
Laura Duffy said on 17 July 2025:
Bob Fischer said on 28 July 2025:
Bob said on 21 November 2025:
From the doc linked above:
As I commented above, I estimate the effects of chicken welfare campaigns on ants and termites are much larger than those on chickens for the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges presented in Bobâs book. For this not to hold, I think the sentience-adjusted welfare ranges of ants and termites would have to be much lower than that of black soldier flies (BSFs). I would be surprised if this was the case under the methodology of Bobâs book. Godfrey et al. (2021) estimated 90 k neurons for a desert ant, and 92.5 k for a fruit fly (âvinegar flyâ), and âindividual number of neuronsâ^0.188 explains pretty well the welfare ranges in Bobâs book, as illustrated below.
Thanks @Vasco Grilođ¸ . Yes I was thinking about all those comments I just forgot exactly which invertebrates they referred to. I suspect they will have a similar answer about any soil invertebrates but we will see!
@NickLaing, I am tagging you because I just updated this comment.
Nitpick. I think you meant âabout any soil invertebratesâ or âabout soil macroarthropodsâ, as they have already commented on soil nematodes and microoarthropods (which are soil invertebrates).
I am not sure. I made a related comment 2 months on the post Introducing Rethink Prioritiesâ Cross-Cause Prioritization Series by @Marcus_A_Davis, and there has been no reply so far.