If we assume these 4 statements to be true,[3] then the question becomes: What is the best way to reduce soil animal populations?
While we could pursue this through increasing factory farming
In my last post about the effects of farming on soil animals, I assumed increasing agricultural land decreases soil-animal-years, which means replacing plant- with animal-based foods would decrease soil-animal-years. However, I am now more uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. My best guess is that it tends to decrease soil-arthropod-years, but increase soil-nematode-years. I recommend research on the welfare of soil animals in different biomes over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively look the most cost-effective. This is in agreement with my top recommendation in my last post about the effects of farming on soil animals. “I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land [I no longer do], the most cost-effective global health interventions [I no longer do], and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives [I still do]”.
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.
In my last post about the effects of farming on soil animals, I assumed increasing agricultural land decreases soil-animal-years, which means replacing plant- with animal-based foods would decrease soil-animal-years. However, I am now more uncertain about whether increasing agricultural land increases or decreases soil-animal-years. My best guess is that it tends to decrease soil-arthropod-years, but increase soil-nematode-years. I recommend research on the welfare of soil animals in different biomes over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively look the most cost-effective. This is in agreement with my top recommendation in my last post about the effects of farming on soil animals. “I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land [I no longer do], the most cost-effective global health interventions [I no longer do], and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives [I still do]”.
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.