Did you end up estimating a probability of sentience for plants, which you also included in your sentience table? It would be interesting to know how it compares with that of nematodes.
I do not remember where I found the sheet I linked above, but the 1st tab has the estimates below for plants, nematodes, and microorganisms supposedly referring to āWelfare range estimate (adjusted for flicker fusion frequency)ā which look super high. Do the estimates really refer to welfare ranges? If so, are they supposed to account for the probability of sentience, or flicker fusion frequency[1]? The cubic, and pleasure and pain centric models were 2 of the 9 models you used to estimate your mainline welfare ranges. If the values below refer to welfare ranges accounting for the probability of sentience, I am confident that you would get mainline welfare ranges of microorganisms sufficiently high for effects on them to dominate all else.
If the values below refer to welfare ranges accounting for the probability of sentience, I am confident that you would get mainline welfare ranges of microorganisms sufficiently high for effects on them to dominate all else.
Hi Bob and @Laura Duffy.
I do not remember where I found the sheet I linked above, but the 1st tab has the estimates below for plants, nematodes, and microorganisms supposedly referring to āWelfare range estimate (adjusted for flicker fusion frequency)ā which look super high. Do the estimates really refer to welfare ranges? If so, are they supposed to account for the probability of sentience, or flicker fusion frequency[1]? The cubic, and pleasure and pain centric models were 2 of the 9 models you used to estimate your mainline welfare ranges. If the values below refer to welfare ranges accounting for the probability of sentience, I am confident that you would get mainline welfare ranges of microorganisms sufficiently high for effects on them to dominate all else.
I have not seen any adjustments to account for flicker fusion frequency.
Here is the confirmation.