“If there had been 50 studies which compared mortality between two global health intervention and overall results was unequivocal, we would probably conclude that there was no major difference between the two, rather than say we didn’t have a clear answer and needed more research.”—True, but the goal of cage-free isn’t reducing mortality, it’s reducing suffering. Mortality is one possible (but deeply confounded) indicator of suffering we can look at. If, when doing so, we conclude that there is no major difference between mortality in caged and cage-free systems, this has little to no bearing on whether cage-free reduces suffering.
First I wasn’t making any big claims about what’s most important, I’m just responding to Lewis’s comment there which confused me a bit, and suggesting that perhaps more research in that in particular might not be so useful.
On your comment I would though expect mortality to not be a direct, ideal measure of suffering but still be important as one of the few objective measures we have. If chickens are dying early that could indicate health issues which might also cause suffering Some of the same things that would kill a chicken would be heavily correlated with what makes them suffer I imagine?
I agree it’s not going to be the most important metric but it is objective at least.
“If there had been 50 studies which compared mortality between two global health intervention and overall results was unequivocal, we would probably conclude that there was no major difference between the two, rather than say we didn’t have a clear answer and needed more research.”—True, but the goal of cage-free isn’t reducing mortality, it’s reducing suffering. Mortality is one possible (but deeply confounded) indicator of suffering we can look at. If, when doing so, we conclude that there is no major difference between mortality in caged and cage-free systems, this has little to no bearing on whether cage-free reduces suffering.
First I wasn’t making any big claims about what’s most important, I’m just responding to Lewis’s comment there which confused me a bit, and suggesting that perhaps more research in that in particular might not be so useful.
On your comment I would though expect mortality to not be a direct, ideal measure of suffering but still be important as one of the few objective measures we have. If chickens are dying early that could indicate health issues which might also cause suffering Some of the same things that would kill a chicken would be heavily correlated with what makes them suffer I imagine?
I agree it’s not going to be the most important metric but it is objective at least.