âConsidering the main two areas I am considering, food systems climate is more neglected than clean energy climate.â
I think this sort of comparison makes a lot of sense. It is trying to look at the real oppperuntiy cost of what else would be supported by people (or yourself) considering the area. [...]
I think you are suggesting people say i) âX is more neglected than Yâ if ii) âX is more cost-effective than Y at the marginâ. I believe it would be better for people to simply say ii) as applied to the relevant context. For example, that funding X with 10 k$ would save more lives than funding Y by the same amount. As you pointed out, i) could be interpreted in many different ways, and therefore can lead to misunderstandings.
I think a decent proxy for neglect is: what is the group right on the edge?
This is very unclear to me. For individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and a range of 0.5 to 1.5 for âexponentâ, which I believe covers reasonable best guesses, I estimatethat the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs (SWPâs) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI) has increased the welfare of shrimps via increasing the adoption of electrical stunning 0.00167 (= 2.06*10^-5/â0.0123) to 1.67 k (= 20.6/â0.0123) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans. So I can easily see HSI increasing the welfare of shrimps much more or less cost-effectively than GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans.
Thanks for the post, Joey.
I think you are suggesting people say i) âX is more neglected than Yâ if ii) âX is more cost-effective than Y at the marginâ. I believe it would be better for people to simply say ii) as applied to the relevant context. For example, that funding X with 10 k$ would save more lives than funding Y by the same amount. As you pointed out, i) could be interpreted in many different ways, and therefore can lead to misunderstandings.
This is very unclear to me. For individual welfare per fully-healthy-animal-year proportional to âindividual number of neuronsâ^âexponentâ, and a range of 0.5 to 1.5 for âexponentâ, which I believe covers reasonable best guesses, I estimate that the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs (SWPâs) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI) has increased the welfare of shrimps via increasing the adoption of electrical stunning 0.00167 (= 2.06*10^-5/â0.0123) to 1.67 k (= 20.6/â0.0123) times as cost-effectively as GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans. So I can easily see HSI increasing the welfare of shrimps much more or less cost-effectively than GiveWellâs top charities increase the welfare of humans.