Welcome to the EA Forum, Riccardo! Thanks for the comment. I strongly upvoted it.
There are ways of increasing agricultural land which benefit farmed animals. I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns, and buying beef increase agricultural-land by 16.4, 93.9, and 51.6 mĀ²-year/ā$. I think it is safe to say such campaigns increase the welfare of chickens, and I also guess pasture-raised cows have positive lives.
Uncertain effects cannot be neglected if one wants to increase welfare in expectation as I do. Consider these 2 options:
A. 100 % chance of decreasing suffering by 1 h, 10 % chance of decreasing suffering by 5 M hours, and 10 % chance of increasing suffering by 15 M hours. Suffering is increased by 1.00 M hours in expectation (= 1*(-1) + 0.1*(-5 + 15)*10^6).
B. 100 % chance of increasing suffering by 1 h, 10 % chance of increasing suffering by 5 M hours, and 10 % chance of decreasing suffering by 15 M hours. Suffering is decreased by 1.00 M hours in expectation (I just changed the sign of all the effects relative to the scenario above).
Based on the certain effects alone, A is better than B. Decreasing suffering by 1 h with certainty (A) is better than increasing suffering by 1 h with certainty (B). However, accounting for all effects, B is much better than A. Decreasing suffering by 1.00 M hours in expectation (B) is much better than increasing suffering by 1.00 M hours in expectation (A) if one wants to decrease suffering in expectation.
I am now very uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. So I now recommend even more strongly investigating the effects on soil animals over increasing animal farming, or funding HIPF. In any case, I agree there are ways of increasing agricultural land much more cost-effectively than through increasing animal farming. āI estimated buying beef is 3.72 % as cost-effective as funding HIPF, and that this decreases 5.07 billion soil-animal-years per $ā. It is just worth having in mind that the popularity of those interventions matters. I guess it will be very difficult to justify pursuing an intervention based on its effects on soil animals. So identifying the popular interventions which increase the welfare of soil animals the most cost-effectively may be the best one can do.
Thank you Vasco for the welcome and for your prompt reply!
Yes, I understand the underlying logic of your reasoning; my intention was only to highlight how paradoxical it might seem when interpreted from a ānarrativeā perspective. This is, after all, the way most of us instinctively tend to think/āfeel, even if itās often not strictly correct.
Thank you for the update on agricultural land use. I hadnāt seen your comment. I am absolutely in agreement with you on that point (regarding the need for more research due to uncertainty).
I was wondering ifāin the case that it were true that agricultural land decreases the number of nematodes & Co.āgiven that we write here so that new ideas might be put into action, and thus based on the consensus these ideas can obtain, wouldnāt it be more advantageous to highlight more the non-problematic cases for someone who cares about animals?
For example, for a person deeply committed to the animal cause, it will be harder to accept the solution of purchasing animal products. But confirming the idea that itās better to finance cage-free or broiler chicken campaigns for this additional reason (reducing soil animals) could be much more easily accepted, and thus put into practice. Whereas an idea like consuming more beef might risk provoking repulsion and rejection, perhaps even in a place like this (though this is just a hypothesis, as I donāt know this forum that well).
We could call this the āProbability that someone will act upon reading the post.ā Though I suppose itās difficult to quantify.
Conversely, strongly advocating for a controversial/ācounter-intuitive thesis, as you have partly done, could also contribute to attracting attention and thus generating the desired effects.
Thinking better about the whole issue, even if nematodes had net-positive lives, the course of action could still be controversial, as it would be practically a perfect example of the Repugnant Conclusion.
In general, you are absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. One could argue that itās probably not a relevant topic. But if it were relevant, it would be extremely relevant. And that fact makes it effectively relevant (at least given our current state of knowledge).
I was wondering ifāin the case that it were true that agricultural land decreases the number of nematodes & Co.āgiven that we write here so that new ideas might be put into action, and thus based on the consensus these ideas can obtain, wouldnāt it be more advantageous to highlight more the non-problematic cases for someone who cares about animals?
I would still be very uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases welfare even if I was confident it decreased soil-animal-years. This is because I am very uncertain about whether soil animals have positive or negative lives. However, if increasing agricultural land increased welfare, and the increase in welfare per $ is roughly proportional to the increase in mĀ²-years of agricultural land per $, as I calculated for my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I think it would make sense to advocate for global health interventions over ones targeting farmed animals. There is much more funding going to global health interventions than ones targeting farmed animals, which suggests the fundraising multiplier is higher for the former. Moreover, I estimate global health interventions increase agricultural land more cost-effectively.
In general, you are absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. One could argue that itās probably not a relevant topic. But if it were relevant, it would be extremely relevant. And that fact makes it effectively relevant (at least given our current state of knowledge).
Yes, this is how I think about it. I would not be surprised if the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals was negligible compared with that of farmed animals. However, based on my current knowledge, I believe the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals is much larger in expectation than that of farmed animals.
Welcome to the EA Forum, Riccardo! Thanks for the comment. I strongly upvoted it.
There are ways of increasing agricultural land which benefit farmed animals. I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns, and buying beef increase agricultural-land by 16.4, 93.9, and 51.6 mĀ²-year/ā$. I think it is safe to say such campaigns increase the welfare of chickens, and I also guess pasture-raised cows have positive lives.
Uncertain effects cannot be neglected if one wants to increase welfare in expectation as I do. Consider these 2 options:
A. 100 % chance of decreasing suffering by 1 h, 10 % chance of decreasing suffering by 5 M hours, and 10 % chance of increasing suffering by 15 M hours. Suffering is increased by 1.00 M hours in expectation (= 1*(-1) + 0.1*(-5 + 15)*10^6).
B. 100 % chance of increasing suffering by 1 h, 10 % chance of increasing suffering by 5 M hours, and 10 % chance of decreasing suffering by 15 M hours. Suffering is decreased by 1.00 M hours in expectation (I just changed the sign of all the effects relative to the scenario above).
Based on the certain effects alone, A is better than B. Decreasing suffering by 1 h with certainty (A) is better than increasing suffering by 1 h with certainty (B). However, accounting for all effects, B is much better than A. Decreasing suffering by 1.00 M hours in expectation (B) is much better than increasing suffering by 1.00 M hours in expectation (A) if one wants to decrease suffering in expectation.
I am now very uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. So I now recommend even more strongly investigating the effects on soil animals over increasing animal farming, or funding HIPF. In any case, I agree there are ways of increasing agricultural land much more cost-effectively than through increasing animal farming. āI estimated buying beef is 3.72 % as cost-effective as funding HIPF, and that this decreases 5.07 billion soil-animal-years per $ā. It is just worth having in mind that the popularity of those interventions matters. I guess it will be very difficult to justify pursuing an intervention based on its effects on soil animals. So identifying the popular interventions which increase the welfare of soil animals the most cost-effectively may be the best one can do.
Thank you Vasco for the welcome and for your prompt reply!
Yes, I understand the underlying logic of your reasoning; my intention was only to highlight how paradoxical it might seem when interpreted from a ānarrativeā perspective. This is, after all, the way most of us instinctively tend to think/āfeel, even if itās often not strictly correct.
Thank you for the update on agricultural land use. I hadnāt seen your comment. I am absolutely in agreement with you on that point (regarding the need for more research due to uncertainty).
I was wondering ifāin the case that it were true that agricultural land decreases the number of nematodes & Co.āgiven that we write here so that new ideas might be put into action, and thus based on the consensus these ideas can obtain, wouldnāt it be more advantageous to highlight more the non-problematic cases for someone who cares about animals?
For example, for a person deeply committed to the animal cause, it will be harder to accept the solution of purchasing animal products. But confirming the idea that itās better to finance cage-free or broiler chicken campaigns for this additional reason (reducing soil animals) could be much more easily accepted, and thus put into practice. Whereas an idea like consuming more beef might risk provoking repulsion and rejection, perhaps even in a place like this (though this is just a hypothesis, as I donāt know this forum that well).
We could call this the āProbability that someone will act upon reading the post.ā Though I suppose itās difficult to quantify.
Conversely, strongly advocating for a controversial/ācounter-intuitive thesis, as you have partly done, could also contribute to attracting attention and thus generating the desired effects.
Thinking better about the whole issue, even if nematodes had net-positive lives, the course of action could still be controversial, as it would be practically a perfect example of the Repugnant Conclusion.
In general, you are absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. One could argue that itās probably not a relevant topic. But if it were relevant, it would be extremely relevant. And that fact makes it effectively relevant (at least given our current state of knowledge).
I would still be very uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases welfare even if I was confident it decreased soil-animal-years. This is because I am very uncertain about whether soil animals have positive or negative lives. However, if increasing agricultural land increased welfare, and the increase in welfare per $ is roughly proportional to the increase in mĀ²-years of agricultural land per $, as I calculated for my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I think it would make sense to advocate for global health interventions over ones targeting farmed animals. There is much more funding going to global health interventions than ones targeting farmed animals, which suggests the fundraising multiplier is higher for the former. Moreover, I estimate global health interventions increase agricultural land more cost-effectively.
Yes, this is how I think about it. I would not be surprised if the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals was negligible compared with that of farmed animals. However, based on my current knowledge, I believe the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals is much larger in expectation than that of farmed animals.