Thanks for providing the examples! A couple of questions:
1) Can I check Iāve understood: the āEstimated population sizeā and āOdds of feeling painā columns are not factored into the ātotal welfare scoreā (which is made up of adding together scores from the various criteria which then end up somewhere between ā100 and +100) at all; they are to be used separately.
So if you wanted to work out whether sparing 10 broiler chickens or 20 beef cows from existence was more impactful, youād have to multiply your result by the odds of feeling pain etc. E.g. for chickens: 10 * ā56 * 0.7 = ā392 units of suffering prevented. For beef cows: ā20 * 20 * 75% = ā300 units of suffering prevented. So sparing chickens slightly better by this metric (also: note that people might not agree with that the rough estimates from the OPP on consciousness mean the same thing as āodds of feeling pain,ā e.g. if you subscribe to consciousness eliminativism, although I havenāt read the OPP report in a while so might be misremembering the specifics)
2) I donāt understand where the ārangeā figure comes from?
1) As you correctly observed, we didnāt adjust welfare points for population size and odds of feeling pain in this spreadsheet. But we just publish another report summarizing our animal prioritization research where we aggregated information about baseline welfare points, population size, odds of feeling pain, neglectedness, and amount of suffering caused by a smaller number of specific reasons.
Generally, when we are calculating the cost-effectiveness of a given intervention we take into account the number of welfare points āgainedā (baseline welfare points changed counterfactually by the intervention) multiplied by odds of feeling pain and number of animals affected.
We also need to adjust for length of life. For example, if the baseline welfare points per year for a cow is ā20 and for broiler chicken is ā56, but beef cow spends 402 days on a farm, their WP would be multiplied by the percentage of year they spend on the farm, so 402 days /ā 365 days in a year = 110%, and broiler chicken spend 42 days, then WPs would be multiplied by 12% resulting in: Cow: ā22 welfare points per lifetime of an individual Broiler chicken: ā6.72 welfare points per lifetime of an individual.
2) The range is the minimum and maximum values of welfare points as rated by our external reviewers. āTotal welfare scoreā (second column) is an average of internal and external reviewerās ratings.
We had applied this system to 15 different animals/ābreeds and recently posted the summary of our research here.
Thanks for providing the examples! A couple of questions:
1) Can I check Iāve understood: the āEstimated population sizeā and āOdds of feeling painā columns are not factored into the ātotal welfare scoreā (which is made up of adding together scores from the various criteria which then end up somewhere between ā100 and +100) at all; they are to be used separately.
So if you wanted to work out whether sparing 10 broiler chickens or 20 beef cows from existence was more impactful, youād have to multiply your result by the odds of feeling pain etc. E.g. for chickens: 10 * ā56 * 0.7 = ā392 units of suffering prevented. For beef cows: ā20 * 20 * 75% = ā300 units of suffering prevented. So sparing chickens slightly better by this metric (also: note that people might not agree with that the rough estimates from the OPP on consciousness mean the same thing as āodds of feeling pain,ā e.g. if you subscribe to consciousness eliminativism, although I havenāt read the OPP report in a while so might be misremembering the specifics)
2) I donāt understand where the ārangeā figure comes from?
1) As you correctly observed, we didnāt adjust welfare points for population size and odds of feeling pain in this spreadsheet. But we just publish another report summarizing our animal prioritization research where we aggregated information about baseline welfare points, population size, odds of feeling pain, neglectedness, and amount of suffering caused by a smaller number of specific reasons.
Generally, when we are calculating the cost-effectiveness of a given intervention we take into account the number of welfare points āgainedā (baseline welfare points changed counterfactually by the intervention) multiplied by odds of feeling pain and number of animals affected.
We also need to adjust for length of life. For example, if the baseline welfare points per year for a cow is ā20 and for broiler chicken is ā56, but beef cow spends 402 days on a farm, their WP would be multiplied by the percentage of year they spend on the farm, so 402 days /ā 365 days in a year = 110%, and broiler chicken spend 42 days, then WPs would be multiplied by 12% resulting in:
Cow: ā22 welfare points per lifetime of an individual
Broiler chicken: ā6.72 welfare points per lifetime of an individual.
2) The range is the minimum and maximum values of welfare points as rated by our external reviewers. āTotal welfare scoreā (second column) is an average of internal and external reviewerās ratings.