Lucas Lewit-Mendes

What mat­ters to shrimps? Fac­tors af­fect­ing shrimp welfare in aquaculture

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 19 Apr 2022 12:45 UTC

  42 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: jessica_mccurdy’s comment on: FTX/​CEA—show us your num­bers!

  Hi Jessica,

  Thanks for outlining your reasoning here, and I’m really excited about the progress EA groups are making around the world.

  I could easily be missing something here, but why are we comparing the value of CEA’s community building grants to the value of Mckinsey etc?

  Isn’t the relevant comparison CEA’s community building grants vs other EA spending, for example GiveWell’s marginally funded programs (around 5x the cost-effectiveness of cash transfers)?

  If CEA is getting funding from non-EA sources, however, this query would be irrelevant.

  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts :)

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 6 Jun 2022 13:35 UTC

  17 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How effec­tive is your Altru­ism?

  Thank you for writing this Mitra, it’s always valuable to hear critiques of current approaches in the EA community. As Peter noted above, your experiences and views would be greatly valued by the community.

  I will attempt to respond to some of these questions, but note that my responses may not reflect the views of everyone in the community, and I may miss some crucial points.

  • Are you effective enough to notice that you could be 10x more effective if instead of selling wells to villages, you focused resources of finding and supporting local entrepreneurs to build their own businesses doing so ?

  • I think many EAs share this concern. You may be interested in this post, which is a critque of the current “EA” approach to global poverty.

  • Is your altruism effective enough to notice who is building them for $2200?

  • In the global poverty space, GiveWell aims to find charities who produce the most bang for buck. Of course, they may get this wrong sometimes in practice. But in theory, if someone achieves the same benefit for less cost, GiveWell would prioritise this opportunity.

  • Have you measured the return on impact well enough to know that $100 is the cost of the measurement, that it mostly collects meaningless numbers, and you could dig 5% more wells if you eliminated that?

  • I’d be interested to hear why you think measurement numbers are meaningless? Take the case of malaria control—if some areas are much more malarious than others, it seems important to spend some money to know which areas to focus on.

  • Have you noticed that as many as half the wells, or solar panels or toilets sit there broken waiting for the next donor? Are you measuring the right thing, would you notice if those $2000 wells fail in 5 years while $2500 wells might fail in 10 ?

  • GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness analyses look at costs per treated person, so they try to account for situations where some of the treatments/​materials are not used. They also account for the length of time a treatment lasts, which may resolve the second question.

  • Are you innovative enough to figure out that if you got the village to invest $1000, not only could you support twice as many villages but the village would be more likely to maintain it and use it, if they had skin in the game. Are you flexible enough to create a social enterprise rather than a charity, and to fund its overheads rather than expecting it to make a profit?

  • If you’re interested, this interview with Karen Levy of Evidence Action has sections on both “participatoriness” and “sustainability”. The issue may be too complex to cover here, but it would be valuable to understand the crux of your disagreement.

  • Are you innovative enough to invest in someone developing a cheaper machine, or one that reduces the cost even further, or are you demanding certainty and measurability too much to consider them anything that pays off at scale, but in the long term.

  • This is not precisely what you described, but Charity Entrepeneuship aims to find innovative solutions to challenging problems, such as the Lead Elimination Exposure Project, which advocates for lead paint regulation to reduce health and economic damage in the long term.

  Hopefully this didn’t come across as dismissive, but I think it’s worth giving due credit to GiveWell and other members of the EA community.

  All the best,

  Lucas

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 7 Nov 2022 10:07 UTC

  14 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MHR’s comment on: What mat­ters to shrimps? Fac­tors af­fect­ing shrimp welfare in aquaculture

  Hi MHR, thank you very much for your questions, these are important considerations!

  1. We certainly aim to consider the long-term effects on the total number of shrimps farmed when designing our interventions. Though we have not yet had an opportunity to precisely model the net effect, we expect a full analysis would need to account for:

  • The reduction in mortality due to improved shrimp health

  • The opportunity for farmers to produce larger shrimps (and hence fewer individuals) due to improved health

  • The long-term impacts of profitability on shrimp production

  • The supply and demand effects of a change in shrimp production

  This uncertainty is one reason why we see our supply-side work (i.e. work with farmers) as the first part of a long-term strategy to improve shrimp welfare, which may include other mechanisms such as corporate outreach and legislative change. In the short-term, our supply-side work aims to provide a proof of concept that shrimps can be farmed at higher welfare.

  As a short-term policy to partially mitigate the risk of more shrimps being farmed, our Asks require farmers not to increase their stocking densities above their baseline.

  2. We have not yet investigated these issues in detail, but we understand there may be a couple of ways to implement EE without affecting harvesting. One option is to remove EE structures prior to harvest. Alternatively, EE could even mean having a slightly shallower area of the pond, which should not affect harvesting. In general, however, the impact of EE on harvesting will likely depend on the type of EE and the type of harvesting method (e.g. nets or mechanical systems).

  In terms of disease, one thing to note is that ponds require an ecologically balanced system, so the intention is typically not to completely disinfect the pond. Depending on the disease issue, implementing biosecurity protocols such as treating the pond with lime could also mitigate disease risk. However, having said that, it’s possible substrates could serve as vectors in disease transmission, particularly if biosecurity standards are not met.

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 7 Feb 2023 22:44 UTC

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: If Adult In­sects Mat­ter, How Much Do Ju­ve­niles Mat­ter?

  Hi Bob, thanks for this post, really interesting stuff.

  I’m a researcher at the Shrimp Welfare Project. Do you have a sense of whether any of the broad conclusions are likely to apply to shrimps as well, or do you think it would require an entirely new research project?

  Thanks,

  Lucas

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 7 Nov 2022 10:09 UTC

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Holly_Elmore’s comment on: What mat­ters to shrimps? Fac­tors af­fect­ing shrimp welfare in aquaculture

  Hi Holly, we’re not aware of how toxic ammonia is for other aquatic life. We believe it is always toxic, but some species may be more tolerant than others. Fish Welfare Initiative notes here that ammonia from mariculture farms may threaten aquatic life due to harmful algae blooms.

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 15 Aug 2022 12:30 UTC

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Pri­ori­tiz­ing x-risks may re­quire car­ing about fu­ture people

  Thanks for this really well-written post, I particularly like how you clarified the different connotations of longtermism and also the summary table of cost-effectiveness.

  I think one thing to note is that an X-risk event would not only wipe out humans, but also the billions of factory farmed animals. Taking into account animal suffering would dramatically worsen the cost-effectiveness of X-risk from a neartermist point of view. I think this implies longtermism is necessary to justify working on X-risk (at least until factory farming is phased out).

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 25 Nov 2022 21:55 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Effec­tive Altru­ism: Not as bad as you think

  This is an awesome and beautifully written post, thanks James!

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 27 Dec 2021 14:10 UTC

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: I was a COVID-19 re­cip­i­ent. Now, I’m an employee

  Fantastic story! All the best :)

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 11 Feb 2023 7:33 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: No Silver Bul­let Solu­tions for the Were­wolf Crisis

  Haha this is brilliant!

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 7 Nov 2022 10:18 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: What’s Hap­pen­ing in Australia

  This is awesome, go Aussies!

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 28 Jul 2022 8:31 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: De­worm­ing and de­cay: repli­cat­ing GiveWell’s cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis

  Full disclosure: I’m the primary author of a yet to be published SoGive report on deworming, however I’m commenting here in a personal capacity.
  
  Thanks for this thought provoking and well-written analysis!

  I have a query about whether the exponential decay model appropriately reflects the evidence:

  • If I understand the model correctly, this cell seems to imply that the annual consumption effect of deworming in the first year of adulthood is 0.006 logs.

  • As HLI is aware, this is based on GiveWell’s estimated annual earnings effect—GiveWell gets 0.006 by applying some adjustments to the original effect of 0.109.

  • However, 0.109 is not the effect for the first year of adulthood. Rather, it is the effect across the first ~11 years of adulthood (ie. pooled earnings across KLPS rounds conducted ~10-20 years after treatment). *

  • I think this implies that the total effect over the first 11 years of adulthood (without discounting) is 0.006*11 = 0.061.

    • Currently, the HLI exponential decay /​ no discounting model suggests the total effect over these 11 years is only 0.035. Should this instead be 0.061 to reflect the 11 years of evidence we have?

    • To make the total effect 0.061 over these first 11 years (without discounting), the first year annual effect would need to be 0.010 rather than 0.006 (I used the Goal Seek function to get this number).

  • As a result, HLI’s exponential decay model with 4% discounting produces lifetime earnings of 0.061 (coincidently the same number as above). This is still a lot lower than GiveWell’s figure (0.115), but is higher than HLI’s (0.035, also coincidently the same number as above).

  • Under this new approach, decaying earnings would reduce cost-effectiveness by 46%, compared to 69% in the HLI model.

  • As a sense check, we can set the number of years of impact in GiveWell’s model to 11 years (instead of 40 years), which gives us total earnings of 0.051. Therefore, I don’t think it would make sense if the decay model produced lifetime earnings of only 0.035.

  Looking forward to hearing HLI’s thoughts on whether this approach better reflects the evidence or if I have misunderstood.

  * Note that I have included both the 10th and 20th year, hence the 11 years.

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 29 Nov 2021 4:16 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Charles He’s comment on: Open Thread: Novem­ber 2021

  Thanks Charles for your thoughtful response.

  “Most informed people agree that beef and dairy cows live the best life of all factory farmed animals, more so than pigs, and much much more so than chickens. ”

  I just wanted to note that I’m referring to 100% pasture fed lamb/​beef. I think it’s very unlikely that it’s ethically permissable to eat factory farmed lamb/​beef, even if it’s less bad than eating chickens, etc. I’d also caution against eating dairy since calves and mothers show signs of sadness when separated, although each dairy cow produces a lot of dairy (as you noted).

  “I think you meant prevents painful deaths?”

  Sorry, I probably could’ve worded this better, but my original wording was what I meant. My understanding is that crop cultivation for grains and beans causes painful wild animal deaths, but grass-fed cows/​lamb do not eat crops and therefore, as far as I’m aware, do not cause wild animal deaths.

  I certainly agree with your conclusion that not eating factory farmed chicken, pork, and eggs (and probably also fish) is the most important step! But I’d still like to do the very best with my own consumption.

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 29 Nov 2021 2:40 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Open Thread: Novem­ber 2021

  Hi everyone!

  I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on whether it is more ethical to eat 100% grass-fed beef/​lamb from trusted suppliers in Australia (i.e. CCTV in slaughter houses and minimal transport) or more tofu/​beans?

  The pros of tofu/​beans are clearly that it does not require taking the life from a cow or lamb who wants to live (although note that it takes lots of meals to cause the death of one cow), and also that it dramatically reduces carbon emissions.

  The pros of instead eating 100% grass-fed beef/​lamb are that it may help me avoid causing wild animal suffering, since crop cultivation causes potentially painful animal deaths. Although, it is worth noting that these animals may counterfactually die painful deaths in the wild anyway, and eating crops could also reduce wild animal populations who may have net negative lives. Eating beef/​lamb once or twice a week would make it somewhat easier to stay healthy and potentially be more productive, and would make my parents less concerned about my health.

  I am assuming that cows/​lamb live a net neutral life, which seems to be a reasonable assumption for trusted suppliers. In terms of monetary cost, I think the cost of buying vitamin supplements is approximately cancelled out by the cost of buying meat. Also, I wouldn’t eat any meat out of the house, so you can assume that the impact of my eating on my friends is irrelevant.

  Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

  Lucas

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 24 Nov 2022 13:14 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: Sean May­berry, Founder & CEO of StrongMinds

  Thanks so much for your awesome work!! :)

  What is StrongMinds’ room for more funding, and do you expect the cost-effectiveness of the marginal dollar (ie. additional funds) to be any worse than the average cost-effectiveness of StrongMinds?

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 28 Jul 2022 9:13 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lucas Lewit-Mendes’s comment on: De­worm­ing and de­cay: repli­cat­ing GiveWell’s cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis

  As a separate note, I’m not sure if it was intentional, but it appears HLI has calculated log effects slightly differently to GiveWell.

  • GiveWell takes the average of earnings and consumption, and then calculates the log change.

  • HLI does the reverse, i.e. calculates the log of earnings and the log of consumption, and then takes the average.

  • If we were to follow the GiveWell method, the effect at the second follow-up would be 0.239 instead of 0.185, i.e. there would be no decay between the first and second follow-up (but the size of the decay between the first and third follow-up would be unaffected).

    • If the decay theory relies only on a single data point, does this place the theory on slightly shakier ground?

  I don’t have a good intuition on which of these approaches is better. Was there any rationale for applying the second approach for this calculation?

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 12 Dec 2021 4:01 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lucas Lewit-Mendes’s comment on: Open Thread: Novem­ber 2021

  Update—I just came across this article, which suggests that harvesting/​pasture deaths are probably higher for beef than plants anyway, so it seems a pretty clear decision that being vegan is best in expectation!

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 27 Nov 2022 6:15 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 1

  on: Why Ad­vo­cacy for Chil­dren in Devel­oped Coun­tries Could be a Top Cause Area

  I’d like to see someone in the EA community do some work related to preventing bullying, which seems likely to be one the most intense forms of suffering for children.

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 27 Sep 2022 9:51 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Open Thread: June — Septem­ber 2022

  Hi everyone,

  In this recent critique of EA, Erik Hoel claims that EA is sympathetic towards letting AGI develop because of the potential for billions of happy AIs (~35 mins) . He claims that this influences EA funding to go more towards alignment rather than trying to prevent/​delay AGI (such as through regulation).

  Is this true, or is it a misrepresentation of why EA funding goes towards alignment? For example, perhaps it is because EAs think AGI is inevitable or it is too difficult to delay/​prevent?

  Thanks very much!

  Lucas

• Lucas Lewit-Mendes 28 Jul 2022 8:33 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vaidehi Agarwalla’s comment on: De­worm­ing and de­cay: repli­cat­ing GiveWell’s cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis

  You can find their replicability adjustment here, and explanations are in this doc :)