Hello. Have you considered adding answers to question 1 of the Donor Compass for which animals matter more than exactly 0, but have sufficiently small sentience-adjusted welfare ranges that interventions targeting humans are prioritised? This holds for the answer âOnly humans matterâ, but this is not a reasonable view. It requires all animals having a probability of sentience of exactly 0.
The answer where animals matter the least, but more than exactly 0 is âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ. The sentience-adjusted welfare ranges of this answer are below. That of shrimps is 0.1 % that of humans. There are many reasonable values which are above exactly 0, but much smaller than 0.1 %? I would say one could reasonably believe that sentience-adjusted welfare ranges are proportional to âindividiual number of neuronsâ, and shrimps have 10^-6 times as many neurons as humans.
I would let users specify sentience-adjusted welfare ranges covering the values given by âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ from 0 to 2. An exponent of 0.188 explains pretty well the welfare ranges in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species, as illustrated below.
We agree having more low moral weight options for animals could be valuable but the Donor Compass is a simplification. We made some tradeoffs for simplification that reduced complexity given feedback from initial testers but may need to recalibrate if current users donât find this the right tradeoff. Generally, if you want to do something more complex on animal weights (or just given the fact you have detailed opinions about the moral weights of animals), the quiz version of the Donor Compass probably isnât the right tool and you should probably use the advanced mode.
I wonder whether the initial testers included people with views on welfare comparisons across species similar to those that I, @NickLaing, @trammell, and @William_MacAskill have. None of us believe that animals matter exactly 0. However, wealsohave best guesses that the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps should be much smaller than 0.1 % of that of humans. So our views would be described by an option where animal welfare matters much more than in âOnly humans matterâ (where animals matter exactly 0), but still significantly less than in âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ (where the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps is 0.1 % of that of humans).
I think adding an option with sentience-adjusted welfare ranges proportional to the individual number of neurons would let people specify their views. I suspect users would not be much bothered by having 5 options instead of 4. However, if keeping 4 options is important, I would add the option I suggested, and then have a single option replace the current intermediate options (âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ, and âAnimals matter, but somewhat less than humansâ).
I understand one could use the advanced mode to specify other ways of comparing welfare across species. However, I am thinking that it is also important for the default options to cover the range of reasonable disagreement, and I believe a large part of that range for welfare comparisons across species is not covered with the current default options.
Hello. Have you considered adding answers to question 1 of the Donor Compass for which animals matter more than exactly 0, but have sufficiently small sentience-adjusted welfare ranges that interventions targeting humans are prioritised? This holds for the answer âOnly humans matterâ, but this is not a reasonable view. It requires all animals having a probability of sentience of exactly 0.
The answer where animals matter the least, but more than exactly 0 is âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ. The sentience-adjusted welfare ranges of this answer are below. That of shrimps is 0.1 % that of humans. There are many reasonable values which are above exactly 0, but much smaller than 0.1 %? I would say one could reasonably believe that sentience-adjusted welfare ranges are proportional to âindividiual number of neuronsâ, and shrimps have 10^-6 times as many neurons as humans.
I would let users specify sentience-adjusted welfare ranges covering the values given by âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and âexponentâ from 0 to 2. An exponent of 0.188 explains pretty well the welfare ranges in Bob Fischerâs book about comparing welfare across species, as illustrated below.
Hey Vasco,
We agree having more low moral weight options for animals could be valuable but the Donor Compass is a simplification. We made some tradeoffs for simplification that reduced complexity given feedback from initial testers but may need to recalibrate if current users donât find this the right tradeoff. Generally, if you want to do something more complex on animal weights (or just given the fact you have detailed opinions about the moral weights of animals), the quiz version of the Donor Compass probably isnât the right tool and you should probably use the advanced mode.
Hi Marcus. Thanks for the reply.
I wonder whether the initial testers included people with views on welfare comparisons across species similar to those that I, @NickLaing, @trammell, and @William_MacAskill have. None of us believe that animals matter exactly 0. However, we also have best guesses that the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps should be much smaller than 0.1 % of that of humans. So our views would be described by an option where animal welfare matters much more than in âOnly humans matterâ (where animals matter exactly 0), but still significantly less than in âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ (where the sentience-adjusted welfare range of shrimps is 0.1 % of that of humans).
I think adding an option with sentience-adjusted welfare ranges proportional to the individual number of neurons would let people specify their views. I suspect users would not be much bothered by having 5 options instead of 4. However, if keeping 4 options is important, I would add the option I suggested, and then have a single option replace the current intermediate options (âAnimals matter, but much less than humansâ, and âAnimals matter, but somewhat less than humansâ).
I understand one could use the advanced mode to specify other ways of comparing welfare across species. However, I am thinking that it is also important for the default options to cover the range of reasonable disagreement, and I believe a large part of that range for welfare comparisons across species is not covered with the current default options.