Hi Vasco. No, I am not confident that biofuel subsidies decrease the population of invertebrates. These are shallow investigations and I expect that additional research would change our minds about many of the conclusions that people reached.
No, I am not confident that biofuel subsidies decrease the population of invertebrates.
This makes sense to me, but I am not sure I fully understand why you describe biofuel subsidies as “quite appealing” for people who are “sufficiently suffering-focused”. Maybe you believe that soil microarthropods are the most important to determine the expected change in welfare? In this case, I would agree that biofuel subsidies would be quite appealing because they seem to robustly decrease the population of microarthropods. However, I can easily see the welfare of soil macroarthropods or nematodes being much larger than that of soil microarthropods, and there is significant uncertainty about whether biofuel subsidies increase or decrease the population of soil macroarthropods/nematodes.
These are shallow investigations and I expect that additional research would change our minds about many of the conclusions that people reached.
This is why I like the intervention “Insecticides and insect welfare: a research agenda”. It is explicitly about doing further research.
I don’t know whether soil microarthropods are the most important to determine the expected change in welfare, but I was assuming that they are when describing biofuel subsidies as attractive to people who are sufficiently suffering-focused. You’re right that other animals could be instead.
Hi Vasco. No, I am not confident that biofuel subsidies decrease the population of invertebrates. These are shallow investigations and I expect that additional research would change our minds about many of the conclusions that people reached.
This makes sense to me, but I am not sure I fully understand why you describe biofuel subsidies as “quite appealing” for people who are “sufficiently suffering-focused”. Maybe you believe that soil microarthropods are the most important to determine the expected change in welfare? In this case, I would agree that biofuel subsidies would be quite appealing because they seem to robustly decrease the population of microarthropods. However, I can easily see the welfare of soil macroarthropods or nematodes being much larger than that of soil microarthropods, and there is significant uncertainty about whether biofuel subsidies increase or decrease the population of soil macroarthropods/nematodes.
This is why I like the intervention “Insecticides and insect welfare: a research agenda”. It is explicitly about doing further research.
I don’t know whether soil microarthropods are the most important to determine the expected change in welfare, but I was assuming that they are when describing biofuel subsidies as attractive to people who are sufficiently suffering-focused. You’re right that other animals could be instead.
Got it.