Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on To a first approximation, all farmed animals are bugs

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

I also want robustness in the case for sentience, so I’m much less inclined to make the kinds of extrapolations you’re suggesting here

I guess you are saying you prefer narrower distributions of the probability of sentience holding the expected probability of sentience constant. This contributes towards you prioritising BSF larvae over soil springtails, mites, and nematodes (all else equal) because there is more uncertainty about the probability of sentience of the latter. What matters for me is expected welfare, which only depends on the expected probability of sentience. However, I think one would have to value narrower distributions of the probability of sentience to an unreasonable amount to prioritise BSF larvae and mealworms over soil springtails, mites, and nematodes if one prioritises farmed BSF larvae and mealworms over chickens. The distribution of the probability of sentience of chickens is much narrower than that of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms, and I estimate the population of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms is just 1.40 times that of chickens (see my last comment). In contrast, I believe the distribution of the probability of sentience of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms is not that much narrower than that of soil springtails, mites, and nematodes, and I estimate the population of soil springtails, mites, and nematodes is 83.0 M, 166 M, and 12.8 billion times that of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms (see my last comment).

Furthermore, I estimate the population of soil ants and termites is 1.31 M (= 5*10^16/​(3.82*10^10)) and 2.62 M (= 1*10^17/​(3.82*10^10)) times that of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms, and I suspect the probability of sentience of soil ants and termites is both higher in expectation and narrower, as I calculate soil ants and termites have 22.3 (= 250*10^3/​(11.2*10^3)) and 8.93 (= 100*10^3/​(11.2*10^3)) times as many neurons as BSF larvae and mealworms. In any case, I would prioritise soil ants and termites even if I thought the distribution of the probability of their sentience was much wider than that of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms. I would just focus on research on the sentience of soil ants and termites instead of ways of increasing their welfare.

I have the same view about our moral weight work: I put very little stock in any specific numbers

Me too. Yet, I do not think the points I am making depend on a specific way of comparing welfare across species. I estimate the absolute value of the total welfare of soil animals is many OOMs larger than that of farmed BSF larvae and mealworms for indidividual welfare per animal-year proportional to “number of neurons”^”exponent of the number of neurons”, and this exponent ranging from 0 to 2 (see the 1st graph below), which covers dramatically different welfare ranges (see the 2nd graph below).

[Bob Fischer]

Thanks, all. Let me add something that may help clarify why we’re always at loggerheads. I’m not actually thinking about these questions in probabilistic terms at all. In my view, the evidential situation for most arthropods is so sparse that I don’t actually believe we’re in a position to assign meaningful probabilities of sentience—even extremely rough ones. We’re squarely in the domain of the precautionary, not the probabilistic. When the evidence is this patchy and the mechanisms this poorly understood, numerical probability assignments feel more like artifacts of modeling choices than reflections of the world. So, when I talk about “robustness,” I’m not covertly appealing to narrower or wider probability distributions; I’m saying that the entire framework of attaching numbers to these uncertainties feels inappropriate.

This is one of several reasons why focusing on well-studied insects makes sense to me. It’s not that I think BSF larvae are 10× or 100× more likely to be sentient than springtails. It’s that we have a type of evidence for some insects—convergent behavioral, physiological, and neuroanatomical findings—that simply doesn’t exist at all for mites, springtails, and nematodes. And without that evidential base, I’m wary of using a first-pass model to set priorities. Expected value becomes extremely fragile under those conditions, as the inputs aren’t grounded: they’re guesses stacked on guesses.

So the way I think about prioritization has less to do with estimated probabilities and more to do with where precautionary reasoning can actually get traction. Work on farmed and research arthropods produces immediate welfare improvements, helps develop welfare indicators, and builds the scientific ecosystem we’ll need if we ever hope to understand smaller arthropods. That’s a much more stable basis for action than trying to set priorities via BOTECs.

Anyway, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, as we just keep running up against the same issues over and over!

[Bob Fischer]

Lastly, this article is good. The possibility the they’re right is one of the things that makes me inclined to see insects as the limit case.

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Thanks for the clarifications, Bob! @Bentham’s Bulldog, you may be interested in the 2 comments above from Bob.

In my view, the evidential situation for most arthropods is so sparse that I don’t actually believe we’re in a position to assign meaningful probabilities of sentience—even extremely rough ones. We’re squarely in the domain of the precautionary, not the probabilistic. [...]

This is one of several reasons why focusing on well-studied insects makes sense to me. It’s not that I think BSF larvae are 10× or 100× more likely to be sentient than springtails. It’s that we have a type of evidence for some insects—convergent behavioral, physiological, and neuroanatomical findings—that simply doesn’t exist at all for mites, springtails, and nematodes. And without that evidential base, I’m wary of using a first-pass model to set priorities. Expected value becomes extremely fragile under those conditions, as the inputs aren’t grounded: they’re guesses stacked on guesses.

In this case, I feel like it would also be reasonable to argue that the evidential situation with respect to comparing the individual welfare per animal-year (not probability of sentience) of different species is so sparse that one should just focus on increasing the welfare of vertebrates. At least from my perspective, any comparison of the welfare (not probability of sentience) of shrimps with that of humans involves “guesses stacked on guesses”.

In addition, I see the lack of robust evidence for the sentience of soil springtails, mites, and nematodes as a case for further research on their sentience (although I would be surprised if it updated me towards thinking their expected individual welfare per animal-year is much lower than suggested by “number of neurons”^”exponent”). At some point, there was not robust evidence for the sentience of BSF larvae.

In any case, I assume the points about the robustness of evidence do not apply to soil ants and termites.

So the way I think about prioritization has less to do with estimated probabilities and more to do with where precautionary reasoning can actually get traction. Work on farmed and research arthropods produces immediate welfare improvements, helps develop welfare indicators, and builds the scientific ecosystem we’ll need if we ever hope to understand smaller arthropods.

This makes sense to me. I ranked Arthropoda 1st in the Donation Election on that basis. At the same time, I suspect the optimal spending on research on soil animals is not 0. I got no results for “ants”, “termites”, “springtails”, “mites”, or “nematodes” on WAI’s grantees page.

That’s a much more stable basis for action than trying to set priorities via BOTECs.

I wonder whether there are some calculations one could do to compare the cost-effectiveness of building capacity for research on soil animals via doing this directly, or indirectly through research on farmed invertebrates.

Lastly, this article is good. The possibility the they’re right is one of the things that makes me inclined to see insects as the limit case.

Thanks for sharing! I will have a look.

[Bob Fischer]

Strongly agree about “the evidential situation with respect to comparing the individual welfare per animal-year”! I’ve always taken the numbers from the MWP much less seriously than others. I see that work as one part of a large picture, depending heavily on other arguments.

And thank you for voting for Arthropoda!