You might think we can precisely estimate the value of these coarse outcomes ābetter than chanceā in some sense (more on this below)
Yes, I do.
You might think we can precisely estimate the value of these coarse outcomes ābetter than chanceā in some sense (more on this below), but at the part of the post youāre replying to, Iām just making this more fundamental point: āSince we lack access to possible worlds, our precise guesses donāt directly come from our value function v, but from some extra model of the hypotheses weāre aware of (and unaware of).ā Do you agree with that claim?
Yes, I agree.
I donāt think anything is āobviousā when making judgments about overall welfare across the cosmos.
I think the vast majority of actions have a probability of being beneficial only slightly above 50 %, as I guess they decrease wild-animal-years, and wild animals have negative lives with a probability slightly above 50 %. However, 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.
I recommend checking out the second post, especially thesetwo sections, for why I donāt think this is valid.
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.
Itās kinda funny to reread this 6 months later. Since then, the sign of your precise best guess flipped twice, right? You argued somewhere (canāt 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 thatās accurate because thatās interesting. Iām not trying to lead you into a trap where youād be forced to buy imprecise credences or retract the main opinion you defend in this comment thread. As I suggest in this comment, letās 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 āI 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 springtailsā. 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.
Thanks for clarifying, Anthony.
Yes, I do.
Yes, I agree.
I think the vast majority of actions have a probability of being beneficial only slightly above 50 %, as I guess they decrease wild-animal-years, and wild animals have negative lives with a probability slightly above 50 %. However, 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.
Thanks. I will do that.
Itās kinda funny to reread this 6 months later. Since then, the sign of your precise best guess flipped twice, right? You argued somewhere (canāt 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 thatās accurate because thatās interesting. Iām not trying to lead you into a trap where youād be forced to buy imprecise credences or retract the main opinion you defend in this comment thread. As I suggest in this comment, letās 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 āI 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 springtailsā. 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.