Finally: If we did ultimately endorse bracketing, it wouldnât mean that we could always base our decisions on the proximal or immediately obvious consequences of our actions; it wouldnât absolve us from thinking about knock-on effects, which unfortunately afflict the analysis of near-term interventions even under bracketing. What if saving the lives of the global poor leads to more meat-eating and thus more farmed animal suffering? What about the effects on wild animals? The answers to these questions affect the composition and recommendations of our maximal bracket-sets and so canât be ignored.
I think it is very important to keep this in mind. I think electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare in expectation, and I would say it is still unclear whether it increases or decreases welfare in expectation due to effects on soil animals[1], and even more so accounting for microorganisms. However, very very little effort has been dedicated to understanding these. So I believe it makes all sense to remain open to the possibility of accounting for them.
An example inspired by recent Effective Altruism Forum discourse (e.g., here): Consider an intervention to reduce the consumption of animal products. This prevents the terrible suffering of a group of farmed animals, call them F. But, perversely, it may increase expected suffering among wild animals, call them W. This is because farmed animals reduce wild animal habitat, and wild animals may live net-negative lives, so that preventing their existence might be good.
The post you linked analyses the effects of chicken welfare reforms on wild animals. I have another one which looks into the effects of changing the consumption of animal-based foods.
For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I determined electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.00144 QALY/âshrimp. Thereare 94.3 shrimps per shrimp-kg. So infer electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.136 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 0.00144*94.3). For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I estimate replacing farmed shrimp with farmed fish changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes by 364 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 522 â 158). So I conclude electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % (= 0.136/â364) of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.
Thanks for the post, Jesse!
I think it is very important to keep this in mind. I think electrically stunning shrimp is one of the interventions outside research which more clearly increases welfare in expectation, and I would say it is still unclear whether it increases or decreases welfare in expectation due to effects on soil animals[1], and even more so accounting for microorganisms. However, very very little effort has been dedicated to understanding these. So I believe it makes all sense to remain open to the possibility of accounting for them.
The post you linked analyses the effects of chicken welfare reforms on wild animals. I have another one which looks into the effects of changing the consumption of animal-based foods.
For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I determined electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.00144 QALY/âshrimp. There are 94.3 shrimps per shrimp-kg. So infer electrically stunning shrimp increases the welfare of these by 0.136 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 0.00144*94.3). For my individual welfare per animal-year proportional to ânumber of neuronsâ^0.5, I estimate replacing farmed shrimp with farmed fish changes the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes by 364 QALY/âshrimp-kg (= 522 â 158). So I conclude electrically stunning farmed shrimp changes the welfare of soil animals more than it increases the welfare of shrimps if it results in the replacement of more than 0.0374 % (= 0.136/â364) of the consumption of the affected farmed shrimp by farmed fish. I can easily see this happening for even a slight increase in the cost of shrimp.