Not commenting on WAI specifically, I kind of dislike the “wild animal suffering in not very tractable” meme because it feels like it emerged before anyone ever even tried to figure out how tractable it was, and before basically any science happened in the space, but has just stuck, based on armchair philosophizing by non-scientists (me among them, to be clear). It sometimes feels a bit like saying curing polio is intractable before anyone ever tried to look into making a vaccine or think about what we could do to try to cure it — we’re not going to know the tractability of interventions until we actually look into it in detail, and people with the right kind of expertise to evaluate WAW’s tractability have barely started doing so.
It’s also just a massive space — it seems pretty unreasonable to say that, given that hundreds of quadrillions of animals at least as complicated as insects, live vastly different lives across the world in thousands of kinds of biomes/ecosystems, etc, that helping ~none of them is going to be possible without at least trying to look into it for a minute.
My personal belief is that we will probably have good wild animal welfare interventions sooner than we’ll have good marginal uses for farmed animal money beyond current interventions, which suggests that the research seems pretty worth it.
I also think that wild animal welfare just remains a problem for ~everyone, given that wild animal welfare impacts are downstream from most other interventions, so solving it should be a big priority. Insofar as people think that wild animal suffering is intractable because of uncertain impacts of your intervention on other wild animals, surely that would basically just apply to anything you do in the world that impacts wild animals (which is probably basically everything). If you buy the case for wild animals mattering morally, but think that downstream effects make it impossible to act on it, most charity seems to get stuck.
I also think that wild animal welfare just remains a problem for ~everyone, given that wild animal welfare impacts are downstream from most other interventions, so solving it should be a big priority. Insofar as people think that wild animal suffering is intractable because of uncertain impacts of your intervention on other wild animals, surely that would basically just apply to anything you do in the world that impacts wild animals (which is probably basically everything). If you buy the case for wild animals mattering morally, but think that downstream effects make it impossible to act on it, most charity seems to get stuck.
Agreed. Here are some calculations illustrating the effects of GiveWell’s top charities on wild animals can easily be much larger than those on humans. I would say accounting for effects on farmed animals alone is enough to make it unclear whether extending human lives increases or decreases welfare.
Not commenting on WAI specifically, I kind of dislike the “wild animal suffering in not very tractable” meme because it feels like it emerged before anyone ever even tried to figure out how tractable it was, and before basically any science happened in the space, but has just stuck, based on armchair philosophizing by non-scientists (me among them, to be clear). It sometimes feels a bit like saying curing polio is intractable before anyone ever tried to look into making a vaccine or think about what we could do to try to cure it — we’re not going to know the tractability of interventions until we actually look into it in detail, and people with the right kind of expertise to evaluate WAW’s tractability have barely started doing so.
It’s also just a massive space — it seems pretty unreasonable to say that, given that hundreds of quadrillions of animals at least as complicated as insects, live vastly different lives across the world in thousands of kinds of biomes/ecosystems, etc, that helping ~none of them is going to be possible without at least trying to look into it for a minute.
My personal belief is that we will probably have good wild animal welfare interventions sooner than we’ll have good marginal uses for farmed animal money beyond current interventions, which suggests that the research seems pretty worth it.
I also think that wild animal welfare just remains a problem for ~everyone, given that wild animal welfare impacts are downstream from most other interventions, so solving it should be a big priority. Insofar as people think that wild animal suffering is intractable because of uncertain impacts of your intervention on other wild animals, surely that would basically just apply to anything you do in the world that impacts wild animals (which is probably basically everything). If you buy the case for wild animals mattering morally, but think that downstream effects make it impossible to act on it, most charity seems to get stuck.
Great points, Abraham!
Agreed. Here are some calculations illustrating the effects of GiveWell’s top charities on wild animals can easily be much larger than those on humans. I would say accounting for effects on farmed animals alone is enough to make it unclear whether extending human lives increases or decreases welfare.