I really like Our World in Data (OWID), and often check/âuse its data. However, it seems to me that many articles from OWID implicitly argue that nature conservation is good. I think this may well be the case, but more nuance is needed, as it is unclear whether wild animals have good/âbad lives (and the same arguably applies to non-animal beings like plants).
I believe wild animal welfare is an important area. I guess its scale is 50 M and 5 M times as large as that of humans and farmed animals.
Should Our World in Data discuss wild animal welfare in the context of nature conservation? For reference, there are no instances of animal âwelfareâ or âwellbeingâ in the following OWIDâs articles on biodiversity (there are more, but I did not check them):
I also searched for âwild animal welfareâ on OWIDâs website, but only got 2 results for farmed âanimal welfareâ. Even if data about wild animal welfare is scarce, I think it would still be good to at least briefly mention it in some articles discussing wild life.
As I commented there, I think arguing for conservation can be good:
Under large uncertainty, it is better to keep options open.
Although one does not know whether wild animals have good/âbad lives, wiping out nature is easier than building it.
Advocatign against conservation would lead to some wiping out of nature, and make it difficult to increase the number of wild animals if they turn out to have good lives.
However, I think arguing for conservation on the basis that i) it is valuable to humans or that ii) the beings there are having a good time could also be dangerous. i) would make it harder to change nature for the sake of improving the lives of wild animals even if human lives are not improved, and ii) would make it difficult to wipe out nature (which I think might be good if wild animals turn out to have super bad lives).
In my mind, one should argue for conservation mostly on the grounds of option value, and discussing the importance of wild animal welfare, without making strong assumptions about whether the lives of wild animals are good/âbad. It would be nice if OWID included something about these points in their articles.
Animal welfare is an important topic that we want to cover better on OWID. The first step will be to publish more and better content on it. We plan to make significant steps toward this over the summer (stay tuned!).
However, this new content will likely focus on factory farming and related questions. I see the question of wild animal welfare as one on the edge of research, even by EA standards. In other words, more and more people are interested in it, but thereâs no consensus that it constitutes one of the worldâs largest problems. In many ways, from an outside (non-EA) perspective, itâs not so different from longtermism or digital sentience: something most people have never even considered as an issue, but that could become one over the next few years or decades.
Because of that, I could imagine us one day writing about the general idea of wild animal welfare, the philosophical arguments behind it, why some researchers study it, and what the numbers are. This would allow us to introduce more people to it as an âinteresting angleâ to add to their worldview. This could look like Max Roserâs article âThe future is vast â what does this mean for our own life?â.
In other words, more and more people are interested in it [wild animal welfare], but thereâs no consensus that it constitutes one of the worldâs largest problems.
With âlargestâ, are you referring to importance, or pressingness (i.e. importance, tractability and neglectedness)? I agree it is unclear whether it is super pressing (although I wouldsaythesame for global health and development, and farmed animal welfare), but think there is consensus within EA that the scale is huge.
Because of that, I could imagine us one day writing about the general idea of wild animal welfare, the philosophical arguments behind it, why some researchers study it, and what the numbers are. This would allow us to introduce more people to it as an âinteresting angleâ to add to their worldview. This could look like Max Roserâs article âThe future is vast â what does this mean for our own life?â.
That would be great! Then you could potentially link to it in your articles about conservation to introduce some nuance.
Hi Ed,
Thanks for all your work, and doing this AMA! I liked your appearance on Hear This Idea.
Should Our World in Data discuss wild animal welfare in the context of nature conservation?
As I commented there, I think arguing for conservation can be good:
Thanks for the question, Vasco!
Animal welfare is an important topic that we want to cover better on OWID. The first step will be to publish more and better content on it. We plan to make significant steps toward this over the summer (stay tuned!).
However, this new content will likely focus on factory farming and related questions. I see the question of wild animal welfare as one on the edge of research, even by EA standards. In other words, more and more people are interested in it, but thereâs no consensus that it constitutes one of the worldâs largest problems. In many ways, from an outside (non-EA) perspective, itâs not so different from longtermism or digital sentience: something most people have never even considered as an issue, but that could become one over the next few years or decades.
Because of that, I could imagine us one day writing about the general idea of wild animal welfare, the philosophical arguments behind it, why some researchers study it, and what the numbers are. This would allow us to introduce more people to it as an âinteresting angleâ to add to their worldview. This could look like Max Roserâs article âThe future is vast â what does this mean for our own life?â.
Thanks for the reply, Ed!
Nice to know! OWID has been one of my go to sources on factory farming. Some suggestions (just in the unlikely case you have not considered them):
Conditions of animals (e.g. fraction of animals of each species being factory-farmed, and fraction of factory-farmed animals which are in cages).
Success of welfare reforms (e.g. cage-free campaigns).
Opinion polls on factory-farming.
More animal species (e.g. shrimp and crustaceans), namely the ones covered here.
Data about time in various types of pain from the Welfare Footprint Project.
With âlargestâ, are you referring to importance, or pressingness (i.e. importance, tractability and neglectedness)? I agree it is unclear whether it is super pressing (although I would say the same for global health and development, and farmed animal welfare), but think there is consensus within EA that the scale is huge.
That would be great! Then you could potentially link to it in your articles about conservation to introduce some nuance.