The total number of cows probably stays about the same, because if they had space to raise more cows they would have just done that—I don’t think that availability of semen is the main limiting factor. So the amount of suffering averted by this intervention can be found by comparing the suffering per cow per year in either cases.
Model a cow as having two kids of experiences: normal farm life where it experiences some amount of suffering x in a year, and slaughter where it experiences some amount of suffering y all at once.
In equilibrium, the population of cows is 5⁄6 female and 1⁄6 male. A female cow can, in the next year, expect to suffer an amount (x+y/10), and a male cow can expect to suffer an amount (x+y/2). So a randomly chosen cow suffers (x+y/6).
If male cows are no longer created, this changes to just the amount for female cows, (x+y/10).
So the first-order effect of the intervention is to reduce the suffering per cow per year by the difference between these two, y/15; i.e. averting an amount of pain equal to 1⁄15 of that of being slaughtered per cow per year.
Yes, the first-order effect makes sense. I am worried about the second-order effects.
Assuming that a cow is kept alive usually for 6 calvings, the cow would have produced 3 male and 3 female calves. If sex-sorted semen is used, the cow will now produce 6 female calves, i.e. (10x + y quantum of suffering units)*6 per cow per 10 years that is inseminated with sex-sorted semen.
The ripple effects of that would only produce more and more suffering (at an exponential scale), assuming that all of the female calves that are born via sex-sorted semen will again be inseminated with sex-sorted semen.
Also, can you please clarify your calculation wherein you arrive at y/15.
The total number of cows probably stays about the same, because if they had space to raise more cows they would have just done that—I don’t think that availability of semen is the main limiting factor. So the amount of suffering averted by this intervention can be found by comparing the suffering per cow per year in either cases.
Model a cow as having two kids of experiences: normal farm life where it experiences some amount of suffering x in a year, and slaughter where it experiences some amount of suffering y all at once.
In equilibrium, the population of cows is 5⁄6 female and 1⁄6 male. A female cow can, in the next year, expect to suffer an amount (x+y/10), and a male cow can expect to suffer an amount (x+y/2). So a randomly chosen cow suffers (x+y/6).
If male cows are no longer created, this changes to just the amount for female cows, (x+y/10).
So the first-order effect of the intervention is to reduce the suffering per cow per year by the difference between these two, y/15; i.e. averting an amount of pain equal to 1⁄15 of that of being slaughtered per cow per year.
Yes, the first-order effect makes sense. I am worried about the second-order effects.
Assuming that a cow is kept alive usually for 6 calvings, the cow would have produced 3 male and 3 female calves. If sex-sorted semen is used, the cow will now produce 6 female calves, i.e. (10x + y quantum of suffering units)*6 per cow per 10 years that is inseminated with sex-sorted semen.
The ripple effects of that would only produce more and more suffering (at an exponential scale), assuming that all of the female calves that are born via sex-sorted semen will again be inseminated with sex-sorted semen.
Also, can you please clarify your calculation wherein you arrive at y/15.