That’s interesting, but not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting something that would, e.g., explain why you tell people to “ignore the signs of my estimates for the total welfare” when you share posts with them. That is a particular style and it says something about whether one should take your work in a literal spirit or not, which falls under the meta category of why you write the way you write; and to my earlier point, you’re sharing this suggestion here with me in a comment rather than in the post itself 😃 Finally, the fact that there’s a lot of uncertainty about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives is exactly the point I raised about why I have trouble engaging with your work. The meta post I am suggesting, by contrast, motivate and justify this style of reasoning as a whole, rather than providing a particular example of it. The post you’ve shared is a link in a broader chain. I’m suggesting you zoom out and explain what you like about this chain and why you’re building it.
I was not clear in my last comment. I meant my top recommendation of investigating whether soil animals have positive or negative lives does not depend on whether the animal populations I analysed have positive or negative welfare. It depends on interventions changing the welfare of soil animals much more than that of their target beneficiaries in expectation. This is also supported by my estimates that the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals is much larger than that of other animal populations.
Here is some context about how I make recommendations.
That’s interesting, but not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting something that would, e.g., explain why you tell people to “ignore the signs of my estimates for the total welfare” when you share posts with them. That is a particular style and it says something about whether one should take your work in a literal spirit or not, which falls under the meta category of why you write the way you write; and to my earlier point, you’re sharing this suggestion here with me in a comment rather than in the post itself 😃 Finally, the fact that there’s a lot of uncertainty about whether wild animals have positive or negative lives is exactly the point I raised about why I have trouble engaging with your work. The meta post I am suggesting, by contrast, motivate and justify this style of reasoning as a whole, rather than providing a particular example of it. The post you’ve shared is a link in a broader chain. I’m suggesting you zoom out and explain what you like about this chain and why you’re building it.
I was not clear in my last comment. I meant my top recommendation of investigating whether soil animals have positive or negative lives does not depend on whether the animal populations I analysed have positive or negative welfare. It depends on interventions changing the welfare of soil animals much more than that of their target beneficiaries in expectation. This is also supported by my estimates that the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals is much larger than that of other animal populations.
Here is some context about how I make recommendations.