Our biggest recommendation is: to the extent that youâre targeting animal welfare improvements in the normal era, you probably should discount heavily. Discounting to zero work which pays off in more than ten years is maybe one viable but very simplistic model.
I like Ege Erdilâs median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work (betsarewelcome), and I would not neglect impact after that. So I think a typical discount rate of 3 % implying 33.3 years of impact is fine. However, I agree with your recommendation conditional on your timelines.
Among the organisations working on invertebrate welfare I recommended, I would only recommend the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) ignoring impact after 5 or 10 years. From Vetted Causesâ evaluation of SWP, âSWP also informed us that it typically takes 6 to 8 months for SWP to distribute a stunner and have it operational once an agreement has been signedâ. Assuming 0.583 years (= (6 + 8)/â2/â12) from agreements to impact, and 1 year from donations to agreements, there would be 1.58 years (= 0.583 + 1) from donations to impact. All my other invertebrate welfare recommendations involve research, which I guess would take significantly longer than 1.58 years from donations to impact. For SWP, there would be 3.42 (= 5 â 1.58) and 8.42 years (= 10 â 1.58) of impact neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years. I assumed â10 yearsâ of impact to estimate the past cost-effectiveness of SWPâs Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI). As a result, supposing SWPâs current marginal cost-effectiveness is equal to the past one of HSI including all years of impact, SWPâs current marginal cost-effectiveness neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years would be 34.2 % (= 3.42/â10) and 84.2 % (= 8.42/â10) of the past cost-effectiveness of HSI.
Among the interventions for which I estimated the cost-effectiveness accounting for effects on soil nematodes, mites, and springtails, I would only recommend buying beef ignoring impact after 5 or 10 years. I estimated it is 63.8 % as cost-effective as HSI has been, and I guess it would only take 2 years or so from buying beef to its benefits materialising via an increased agricultural land. For my AI timelines, cost-effectively decreasing human mortality also increases agricultural land cost-effectively. However, for a life expectancy of 70 years, ignoring impact after 5 and 10 years would make the cost-effectiveness 7.14 % (= 5â70) and 14.3 % (= 10â70) as high.
Thanks for the post, Lizka and Ben!
I like Ege Erdilâs median time of 20 years until full automation of remote work (bets are welcome), and I would not neglect impact after that. So I think a typical discount rate of 3 % implying 33.3 years of impact is fine. However, I agree with your recommendation conditional on your timelines.
Among the organisations working on invertebrate welfare I recommended, I would only recommend the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) ignoring impact after 5 or 10 years. From Vetted Causesâ evaluation of SWP, âSWP also informed us that it typically takes 6 to 8 months for SWP to distribute a stunner and have it operational once an agreement has been signedâ. Assuming 0.583 years (= (6 + 8)/â2/â12) from agreements to impact, and 1 year from donations to agreements, there would be 1.58 years (= 0.583 + 1) from donations to impact. All my other invertebrate welfare recommendations involve research, which I guess would take significantly longer than 1.58 years from donations to impact. For SWP, there would be 3.42 (= 5 â 1.58) and 8.42 years (= 10 â 1.58) of impact neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years. I assumed â10 yearsâ of impact to estimate the past cost-effectiveness of SWPâs Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI). As a result, supposing SWPâs current marginal cost-effectiveness is equal to the past one of HSI including all years of impact, SWPâs current marginal cost-effectiveness neglecting impact after 5 and 10 years would be 34.2 % (= 3.42/â10) and 84.2 % (= 8.42/â10) of the past cost-effectiveness of HSI.
Among the interventions for which I estimated the cost-effectiveness accounting for effects on soil nematodes, mites, and springtails, I would only recommend buying beef ignoring impact after 5 or 10 years. I estimated it is 63.8 % as cost-effective as HSI has been, and I guess it would only take 2 years or so from buying beef to its benefits materialising via an increased agricultural land. For my AI timelines, cost-effectively decreasing human mortality also increases agricultural land cost-effectively. However, for a life expectancy of 70 years, ignoring impact after 5 and 10 years would make the cost-effectiveness 7.14 % (= 5â70) and 14.3 % (= 10â70) as high.