These are in conflict. Sometimes the thing that does the most good in expectation has a low chance of doing any good.
I think the desire people in the effective altruism community have besides doing the most good is not so much making sure they do some good, but making sure they are overall doing good instead of harm. Doing some good, but lots of harm would not be appealing.
I also believe trying to do the most expected good makes more sense because it can vary a lot across portfolios, whereas these being net positive or negative in expectation will in my mind remain very unclear. I think electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare in expectation, and I would say it is still unclear whether it increases or decreases welfare in expectation due to effects on soil animals, and even more so accounting for microorganisms. For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I determined electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.00144 QALY/âshrimp. Thereare 94.3 shrimps per shrimp-kg. So infer electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.136 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 0.00144*94.3). For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I estimate replacing farmed shrimp with farmed fish changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes by 364 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 522 â 158). So I conclude electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % (= 0.136/â364) of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.
I think the desire people in the effective altruism community have besides doing the most good is not so much making sure they do some good, but making sure they are overall doing good instead of harm. Doing some good, but lots of harm would not be appealing.
I also believe trying to do the most expected good makes more sense because it can vary a lot across portfolios, whereas these being net positive or negative in expectation will in my mind remain very unclear. I think electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare in expectation, and I would say it is still unclear whether it increases or decreases welfare in expectation due to effects on soil animals, and even more so accounting for microorganisms. For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I determined electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.00144 QALY/âshrimp. There are 94.3 shrimps per shrimp-kg. So infer electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.136 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 0.00144*94.3). For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I estimate replacing farmed shrimp with farmed fish changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes by 364 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 522 â 158). So I conclude electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % (= 0.136/â364) of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.