Thanks for another great question. Similar to the answer about pain intensities, we’re trialing this in our cost-effectiveness models (though we are using the full range of the RP welfare capacity placeholder estimates, not just the median). ( I, Neil, also an employee in the RP animal welfare department, want to be cautious of any bias before the RP moral weights become a permanent feature). I also think the broader point about the RP placeholder welfare capacity ranges still holds- it is non-welfare capacity range factors that will often be more decisive. Based on the evidence assembled so far, using that methodology, the welfare capacity ranges between species are likely not many orders of magnitude different and so it mostly matters when you’re comparing animal populations of similar sizes which just doesn’t seem to be the comparison we’re making very often—in most cases, it still comes down to raw number of animals affected or years of suffering, cost to achieve the impact, and probability of success.
Similar to the answer about pain intensities, we’re trialing this in our cost-effectiveness models (though we are using the full range of the RP welfare capacity placeholder estimates, not just the median).
Note Rethink Priorities (RP) now only stands behind what is in Bob Fischer’s book about comparing welfare across species, and its welfare rangesare different from the ones RP initially presented.
in most cases, it still comes down to raw number of animals affected or years of suffering, cost to achieve the impact, and probability of success.
In this case, why not accounting for soil animals? I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns improve 10.8 and 3.00 chicken-years per $, butdecrease 57.7 M and 331 M soil-animal-years per $. In addition, I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns increase the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 1.15 k and 18.0 k times as much as they increase the welfare of chickens.
Thanks for another great question.
Similar to the answer about pain intensities, we’re trialing this in our cost-effectiveness models (though we are using the full range of the RP welfare capacity placeholder estimates, not just the median). ( I, Neil, also an employee in the RP animal welfare department, want to be cautious of any bias before the RP moral weights become a permanent feature). I also think the broader point about the RP placeholder welfare capacity ranges still holds- it is non-welfare capacity range factors that will often be more decisive. Based on the evidence assembled so far, using that methodology, the welfare capacity ranges between species are likely not many orders of magnitude different and so it mostly matters when you’re comparing animal populations of similar sizes which just doesn’t seem to be the comparison we’re making very often—in most cases, it still comes down to raw number of animals affected or years of suffering, cost to achieve the impact, and probability of success.
Note Rethink Priorities (RP) now only stands behind what is in Bob Fischer’s book about comparing welfare across species, and its welfare ranges are different from the ones RP initially presented.
Thanks, Neil.
In this case, why not accounting for soil animals? I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns improve 10.8 and 3.00 chicken-years per $, but decrease 57.7 M and 331 M soil-animal-years per $. In addition, I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns increase the welfare of soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes 1.15 k and 18.0 k times as much as they increase the welfare of chickens.