Dominant very uncertain effects on soil animaks make me think it very unclear whether interventions targeting farmed animals increase or decrease animal welfare in expectation relative to burning money. If organisation targeting farmed animals were burning money, I would want to discuss this. Likewise, I believe it makes sense to discuss effects on soil animals. I understand being agnostic about whether funding interventions targeting farmed animals is better or worse than burning money, due to effects on soil animals, is contentious. However, conditional on you having that view, would you find it reasonable to discuss effects on soil animals?
I am completely unopposed to discussing soil animals and the extent to which our actions affect their welfare. I actually think that doing so is valuable. My EA Forum post explicitly highlights that there is more exploration to be done in this regard that I want to see done.
I take zero issue with the fact that you have authored multiple EA Forum posts about this topic. While I fundamentally disagree with your assumptions/methodology/conclusions, from a position of epistemic modesty, I think it is good that people with wildly differing views can share such ideas in this forum. If you could find interventions that improve the welfare of soil nematodes significantly that are well-evidenced and robust to many moral frameworks, I would be really happy to see it.
However, there is a distinction between discussing soil animals and derailing otherwise productive conversations. Continuing to reply to what feels like every single animal welfare post with a comment about nematodes even when the connection is tenuous, despite multiple people trying to communicate why you should stop, is not just bothersome to many within the community. It also has negative long-term implications, since you are alienating EA animal welfare advocates, one of the groups I expect to be most open to your beliefs regarding nematodes.
Given your final statement in this comment, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on my ending call to action:
Dominant very uncertain effects on soil animaks make me think it very unclear whether interventions targeting farmed animals increase or decrease animal welfare in expectation relative to burning money. If organisation targeting farmed animals were burning money, I would want to discuss this. Likewise, I believe it makes sense to discuss effects on soil animals. I understand being agnostic about whether funding interventions targeting farmed animals is better or worse than burning money, due to effects on soil animals, is contentious. However, conditional on you having that view, would you find it reasonable to discuss effects on soil animals?
I am completely unopposed to discussing soil animals and the extent to which our actions affect their welfare. I actually think that doing so is valuable. My EA Forum post explicitly highlights that there is more exploration to be done in this regard that I want to see done.
I take zero issue with the fact that you have authored multiple EA Forum posts about this topic. While I fundamentally disagree with your assumptions/methodology/conclusions, from a position of epistemic modesty, I think it is good that people with wildly differing views can share such ideas in this forum. If you could find interventions that improve the welfare of soil nematodes significantly that are well-evidenced and robust to many moral frameworks, I would be really happy to see it.
However, there is a distinction between discussing soil animals and derailing otherwise productive conversations. Continuing to reply to what feels like every single animal welfare post with a comment about nematodes even when the connection is tenuous, despite multiple people trying to communicate why you should stop, is not just bothersome to many within the community. It also has negative long-term implications, since you are alienating EA animal welfare advocates, one of the groups I expect to be most open to your beliefs regarding nematodes.