I would still say there are actions which are robustly beneficial in expectation, such as donating to SWP. It is possible SWP is harmful, but I still think donating to it is robustly better than killing my family, friends, and myself, even in terms of increasing impartial welfare.
It’s kinda funny to reread this 6 months later. Since then, the sign of your precise best guess flipped twice, right? You argued somewhere (can’t find the post) that shrimp welfare actually was slightly net bad after estimating that it increases soil animal populations. Later, you started weakly believing animal farming actually decreases the number of soil nematodes (which morally dominate in your view), which makes shrimp welfare (weakly) good again.
(Just saying this to check if that’s accurate because that’s interesting. I’m not trying to lead you into a trap where you’d be forced to buy imprecise credences or retract the main opinion you defend in this comment thread. As I suggest in this comment, let’s maybe discuss stuff like this on a better occasion.)
Since then, the sign of your precise best guess flipped twice, right?
I only looked into the impact of improving the conditions of farmed shrimps (in particular, by electrically stunning them) accounting for shrimps and soil animals in a recent post. However, I mentioned on June 28 “I am glad farmed shrimp are the animal-based food from Poore and Nemecek (2018) requiring the least agricultural land per food-kg. This means replacing farmed shrimp with other animal-based foods tendentially increases cropland, thus having the added benefit of increasing the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails”. I was thinking that increasing cropland would decrease soil-animal-years. I commented on November 3 I am now uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land (cropland or pastures) increases or decreases soil-animal-years.
I have not spent much time figuring out whether my best guess is that increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. I am sufficiently uncertain to believe the priority is further research on the welfare of soil animals, and what increases or decreases their population.
However, I would still say there are actions which are robustly beneficial in expectation, such as donating to SWP.
I was a bit overconfident here, although I flagged I may be wrong (see the 1st sentence of the quote just below). I do not know whether electrically stunning farmed shrimps, which has been the primary outcome of SWP, increases or decreases welfare due to uncertain effects on soil animals.
It is possible SWP is harmful, but I still think donating to it is robustly better than killing my family, friends, and myself, even in terms of increasing impartial welfare.
I still very much stand by this. Killing my family, friends, and myself would not help get more research on how to increase the welfare of soil animals.
It’s kinda funny to reread this 6 months later. Since then, the sign of your precise best guess flipped twice, right? You argued somewhere (can’t find the post) that shrimp welfare actually was slightly net bad after estimating that it increases soil animal populations. Later, you started weakly believing animal farming actually decreases the number of soil nematodes (which morally dominate in your view), which makes shrimp welfare (weakly) good again.
(Just saying this to check if that’s accurate because that’s interesting. I’m not trying to lead you into a trap where you’d be forced to buy imprecise credences or retract the main opinion you defend in this comment thread. As I suggest in this comment, let’s maybe discuss stuff like this on a better occasion.)
I found this funny!
I only looked into the impact of improving the conditions of farmed shrimps (in particular, by electrically stunning them) accounting for shrimps and soil animals in a recent post. However, I mentioned on June 28 “I am glad farmed shrimp are the animal-based food from Poore and Nemecek (2018) requiring the least agricultural land per food-kg. This means replacing farmed shrimp with other animal-based foods tendentially increases cropland, thus having the added benefit of increasing the welfare of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails”. I was thinking that increasing cropland would decrease soil-animal-years. I commented on November 3 I am now uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land (cropland or pastures) increases or decreases soil-animal-years.
I have not spent much time figuring out whether my best guess is that increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. I am sufficiently uncertain to believe the priority is further research on the welfare of soil animals, and what increases or decreases their population.
I was a bit overconfident here, although I flagged I may be wrong (see the 1st sentence of the quote just below). I do not know whether electrically stunning farmed shrimps, which has been the primary outcome of SWP, increases or decreases welfare due to uncertain effects on soil animals.
I still very much stand by this. Killing my family, friends, and myself would not help get more research on how to increase the welfare of soil animals.