These are very interesting. The electric stunning can be both beneficial in the way that animals, if they are at least intuitively aware what they live for—to maybe be eaten or produce animal products and be eaten, then if this is they all their life just chill and then it is just a stun, then it’s quite ok. If they could they would probably contribute further, by some advancement, but since we currently only can use their contributions in this way, they may be quite ok just chilling taking care of their life. I read there at least were issues with the stunning machines in US slaughterhouses—simple technical issues—poor placement or inadequate current. Also, ritual killing is an issue. Stunning is more elegant and should be the new ritual.
Electrical bath for crayfish makes sense too. It can be just a simple electrode which prevents the issues of crawling (and thus loss of crayfish and capital). Of course, the alternative of eating rare tofus can be even better but for the time being—there should be manufacturers that would gladly produce this device.
AI monitoring welfare—I would not implement it, maybe in a few years when institutions become more interested in monitoring—it’s a moonshot plus there may be other tech solutions with higher marginal cost-effectiveness. For example, actually, if you focus on cricket farms—I think that if they miss simple nutrients, such as salt, they eat each others. This can extensively slump the atmosphere there for large numbers of individuals. So, some maybe salinity/humidity/etc monitoring device that even a worker can go around with and just poke around and depending on the values nutrients are automatically dispersed. Of course, insect welfare research should perhaps be prioritized because what if crickets just love the thrill of eating others and being eaten since they live to the fullest or suffer in any case so optimal salinity makes very little difference.
I think plant-based is more promising with the cost right now than cultured meat. Still, the equipment is suboptimal since it is made for meat. Probably, these are relatively simple engineering solutions.
Animal language can be deciphered based on evolutionary empathy. For example, when one really eats some vegetable, they can feel like a bug in the same situation. When they are unsure about an unfamiliar object and looking at it, like a bird in that situation. You probably do not need to ‘require’ animals to communicate, since it is quite clear what they want—or, it is similar to what one can perceive in some globally poor/disempowered contexts: individuals do not have their own objectives since no one has asked them. I wonder if this should be different with animals: if developing their own interests would be a challenge/detrimental to their subjective wellbeing since they are used to/capable of only very simple lives.
You need research on wild animal welfare before you can be reasonably certain that interventions will be welcome. For example, animals can negotiate/make agreements/cooperate by the exhibit of power. Since they cannot imagine treatment and specialize in order to increase efficiencies by trade little (are independent of others outside of their family/tribe, more competing for scarce resources or benefiting from others’ death), they can just have very different attitudes to concepts such as longevity, disability-adjusted life year. For them, it can be ‘are what they should and protect those who they should’ or not. It is a good life—righteousness transcends pain, which is accepted by its inevitability. Maybe. Engagement of similar humans can help elucidate non-humans’ way of thinking.
Yes, you would need to know the quality of the lives of the number of animals to have valuable data. Even the number, and other metrics, can be beneficial, if maybe in the future the quality is associated with these metrics and historical developments inform optimal solutions as well as present welfare states.
Hm, yes, computer models that track the developments of populations, e. g. based on predation rates are ok but the welfare is missing.
These are very interesting. The electric stunning can be both beneficial in the way that animals, if they are at least intuitively aware what they live for—to maybe be eaten or produce animal products and be eaten, then if this is they all their life just chill and then it is just a stun, then it’s quite ok. If they could they would probably contribute further, by some advancement, but since we currently only can use their contributions in this way, they may be quite ok just chilling taking care of their life. I read there at least were issues with the stunning machines in US slaughterhouses—simple technical issues—poor placement or inadequate current. Also, ritual killing is an issue. Stunning is more elegant and should be the new ritual.
Electrical bath for crayfish makes sense too. It can be just a simple electrode which prevents the issues of crawling (and thus loss of crayfish and capital). Of course, the alternative of eating rare tofus can be even better but for the time being—there should be manufacturers that would gladly produce this device.
AI monitoring welfare—I would not implement it, maybe in a few years when institutions become more interested in monitoring—it’s a moonshot plus there may be other tech solutions with higher marginal cost-effectiveness. For example, actually, if you focus on cricket farms—I think that if they miss simple nutrients, such as salt, they eat each others. This can extensively slump the atmosphere there for large numbers of individuals. So, some maybe salinity/humidity/etc monitoring device that even a worker can go around with and just poke around and depending on the values nutrients are automatically dispersed. Of course, insect welfare research should perhaps be prioritized because what if crickets just love the thrill of eating others and being eaten since they live to the fullest or suffer in any case so optimal salinity makes very little difference.
I think plant-based is more promising with the cost right now than cultured meat. Still, the equipment is suboptimal since it is made for meat. Probably, these are relatively simple engineering solutions.
Animal language can be deciphered based on evolutionary empathy. For example, when one really eats some vegetable, they can feel like a bug in the same situation. When they are unsure about an unfamiliar object and looking at it, like a bird in that situation. You probably do not need to ‘require’ animals to communicate, since it is quite clear what they want—or, it is similar to what one can perceive in some globally poor/disempowered contexts: individuals do not have their own objectives since no one has asked them. I wonder if this should be different with animals: if developing their own interests would be a challenge/detrimental to their subjective wellbeing since they are used to/capable of only very simple lives.
You need research on wild animal welfare before you can be reasonably certain that interventions will be welcome. For example, animals can negotiate/make agreements/cooperate by the exhibit of power. Since they cannot imagine treatment and specialize in order to increase efficiencies by trade little (are independent of others outside of their family/tribe, more competing for scarce resources or benefiting from others’ death), they can just have very different attitudes to concepts such as longevity, disability-adjusted life year. For them, it can be ‘are what they should and protect those who they should’ or not. It is a good life—righteousness transcends pain, which is accepted by its inevitability. Maybe. Engagement of similar humans can help elucidate non-humans’ way of thinking.
Yes, you would need to know the quality of the lives of the number of animals to have valuable data. Even the number, and other metrics, can be beneficial, if maybe in the future the quality is associated with these metrics and historical developments inform optimal solutions as well as present welfare states.
Hm, yes, computer models that track the developments of populations, e. g. based on predation rates are ok but the welfare is missing.