Thanks for your great work, Aidan and Thom! I really like the idea of offsetting the harm caused to animals with donations. I think you are greatly overestimating these, though. You are currently saying that 281 $/year are needed, which is 13.1 k (= 281⁄0.0214) times my estimate of 0.0214 $/year. I get a much lower value because, from the most to least important:
I assume all donations go to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), whereas “The calculator doesn’t funge different animals’ suffering such that you could donate all of your money to (for example) the Shrimp Welfare Project [SWP]”. I think this leads to more donations because SWP is way more cost-effective than top animal welfare interventions helping other species. I estimate SWP is 412 and 173 times as cost-effectivene as broiler welfare and cage-free campaigns, and 9.01 k (= 1/(1.11*10^-4)) times as cost-effective as Fish Welfare Initiative’s (FWI’s) farm program.
I believe the interventions you modelled increase welfare relatively more than you assumed.
I estimate:
Broiler welfare campaigns increase welfare by 91.1 % (accounting not only for reductions in the time in pain, but also increases in the time in pleasure), whereas you assumed 36 %.
Cage-free campaigns helping hens increase welfare by 79.1 %, whereas you assumed 33 %.
WFP increases welfare per shrimp-year by 52.3 %, whereas you assumed 5 %.
Fish Welfare Initiative’s farm program increases welfare per fish-year by 33.5 %, whereas you assumed 10 %. My estimate of 33.5 % relies on numbers from AIM for improvements in water quality, whereas my 3 estimates above are based on the time animals spend in pain, and my guesses for pain intensities, so I trust them more.
I understand you relied on Ambitious Impact’s (AIM’s) suffering adjusted days (SADs). I left my suggestions for improvements in the SADs’ doc. Readers can askVicky Cox for access.
I strongly disagree with AIM’s estimate of the intensity of excruciating pain. Assuming hurtful pain is as intense as fully healthy life, AIM’s pain intensities imply that excruciating pain is 56.7 times as intense as fully healthy life. Consequently, 25.4 min (= 24*60/56.7), “for example, of scalding and severe burning events [in large areas of the body]”, or dismemberment, or extreme torture would be needed to neutralise 1 day of fully healthy life, whereas I would say adding that amount of excruciating pain would make a life clearly negative. I estimate the past cost-effectiveness of SWP is 639 DALY/$. For AIM’s pain intensities, and hurtful pain as intense as fully healthy life, I get 0.484 DALY/$, which is only 0.0757 % (= 0.484/639) of my estimate.
AIM does not account for increases in the time in pleasure.
I consider the animal-years of a random diet globally, whereas you rely on Western countries. I think this makes sense given your target audience, so I agree with your assumption here.
I try to use unbiases guesses, whereas your calculator has an explicit “Adjustment for conservatism”, which increases. I think the 2 points above are way more important that this 3rd point. Removing the adjustments for conservatism brings the donations to 198 $/year, which is only 29.5 % (= 1 − 198⁄281) less than yours.
I think the priority now should be incresing donations, not getting an accurate estimate for the amount of donations needed to offset the harms to animals. However, you may still want to flag your estimate is likely conservative in your public-facing materials, and revisit your estimates later having the above in mind.
Thanks for your great work, Aidan and Thom! I really like the idea of offsetting the harm caused to animals with donations. I think you are greatly overestimating these, though. You are currently saying that 281 $/year are needed, which is 13.1 k (= 281⁄0.0214) times my estimate of 0.0214 $/year. I get a much lower value because, from the most to least important:
I assume all donations go to the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP), whereas “The calculator doesn’t funge different animals’ suffering such that you could donate all of your money to (for example) the Shrimp Welfare Project [SWP]”. I think this leads to more donations because SWP is way more cost-effective than top animal welfare interventions helping other species. I estimate SWP is 412 and 173 times as cost-effectivene as broiler welfare and cage-free campaigns, and 9.01 k (= 1/(1.11*10^-4)) times as cost-effective as Fish Welfare Initiative’s (FWI’s) farm program.
I believe the interventions you modelled increase welfare relatively more than you assumed.
I estimate:
Broiler welfare campaigns increase welfare by 91.1 % (accounting not only for reductions in the time in pain, but also increases in the time in pleasure), whereas you assumed 36 %.
Cage-free campaigns helping hens increase welfare by 79.1 %, whereas you assumed 33 %.
WFP increases welfare per shrimp-year by 52.3 %, whereas you assumed 5 %.
Fish Welfare Initiative’s farm program increases welfare per fish-year by 33.5 %, whereas you assumed 10 %. My estimate of 33.5 % relies on numbers from AIM for improvements in water quality, whereas my 3 estimates above are based on the time animals spend in pain, and my guesses for pain intensities, so I trust them more.
I understand you relied on Ambitious Impact’s (AIM’s) suffering adjusted days (SADs). I left my suggestions for improvements in the SADs’ doc. Readers can ask Vicky Cox for access.
I strongly disagree with AIM’s estimate of the intensity of excruciating pain. Assuming hurtful pain is as intense as fully healthy life, AIM’s pain intensities imply that excruciating pain is 56.7 times as intense as fully healthy life. Consequently, 25.4 min (= 24*60/56.7), “for example, of scalding and severe burning events [in large areas of the body]”, or dismemberment, or extreme torture would be needed to neutralise 1 day of fully healthy life, whereas I would say adding that amount of excruciating pain would make a life clearly negative. I estimate the past cost-effectiveness of SWP is 639 DALY/$. For AIM’s pain intensities, and hurtful pain as intense as fully healthy life, I get 0.484 DALY/$, which is only 0.0757 % (= 0.484/639) of my estimate.
AIM does not account for increases in the time in pleasure.
I consider the animal-years of a random diet globally, whereas you rely on Western countries. I think this makes sense given your target audience, so I agree with your assumption here.
I try to use unbiases guesses, whereas your calculator has an explicit “Adjustment for conservatism”, which increases. I think the 2 points above are way more important that this 3rd point. Removing the adjustments for conservatism brings the donations to 198 $/year, which is only 29.5 % (= 1 − 198⁄281) less than yours.
I think the priority now should be incresing donations, not getting an accurate estimate for the amount of donations needed to offset the harms to animals. However, you may still want to flag your estimate is likely conservative in your public-facing materials, and revisit your estimates later having the above in mind.