mal_graham🔸

Karma: 882

mal_graham🔸 1 Jun 2026 22:15 UTC
48 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Marcus Abramovitch 🔸’s comment on: A chance to speak up for mosquito eradication in the USA (by June 5)
I am not at all an expert in mosquitoes, but I think it would be hard to figure out more than the direct effects on mosquitoes, which are sex specific. A few assorted thoughts:
- Scale: the Google Debug program website says when applied, they need to releases 100s of thousands to millions of mosquitoes each week, so the scale is reasonably high.
- They release only male mosquitoes, but it’s not possible to rear only male mosquitoes (AFAIK), so they are killing all the females. The Debug project’s Nature Biotechnology article says that they sort males from females as pupae (which may involve low welfare cost, I don’t know when sentience emerges in insects and especially whether it’s possible to feel pain as a pupa), and again as adults (which, if insects are sentient, probably is painful for those females). They report that 95% of females are removed as pupae, so a much smaller amount are being killed as adults. About 2.5% of what make it through the first sort are females, so we can estimate that to achieve daily releases of ~ 75k males, ~2000 females are killed as adults daily. The paper does not seem to report how the females are killed for either pupae or adults, which is a big gap from a welfare perspective.
- According to this, Wolbachia often shorten lifespans. But several strains also seem to enhance immune function and have other mutualisms. So in some cases it could have positive welfare effects. I asked Claude about the specific strain used in the Debug program, and it reported that most of the welfare effects land on females, who are already just being killed. Of course, we don’t know that much about measuring mosquito welfare, but at least in terms of survival, ability to find a mate (which correlates to locomotor and sensory performance), etc., this strain isn’t bad. And if they use something that really harms the released males they won’t outcompete the local males, which would drive up costs (because you have to release more mosquitoes to compensate).
- The technique will result in a reduction in number of mosquitoes. It’s not clear to me how other populations would respond to that—I’m not sure what competitors there are for mosquito resources. But if you think mosquitoes have bad lives this could be a good thing (or neutral if you have person-affecting leanings). The FAQ on the Debug page claims that in urban areas, because the mosquitoes are invasive, it will just be a “return to normal”—but that ignores the fact that many other things have changed (reductions in native insect populations, for example). If it’s true that this specific species doesn’t make up a meaningful part of any other animal’s diet the effect is likely to be small, but that sounds like something we don’t really know (well-resolved urban food webs are rare). They might mean “no animal anybody in ecology especially cares about.”
- For many bugs, high mortality during captive rearing is common. That doesn’t seem to be the case for mosquitoes—survival rates in the 90s are reported in many captive colonies and mass die offs are unusual (according to this, thanks Claude). But the success rates for male mosquitoes in the Debug project is around 70%. The paper is fairly detailed on the rearing approach so someone with more mosquito expertise than I might be able to say more about welfare. Broadly, I’d still expect it’s much better than wild mosquitoes—they’re fed, kept at comfortable temperatures, spared from predators, etc.
- An interesting question long term would be how this affects pesticide use in urban areas. If most pesticide applications in cities aims at reducing mosquitoes, and we start using Wolbachia to control them instead, pesticide application might go down, resulting in recoveries of other insect populations and reduced sub-lethal harms. If you think bugs have good lives, yay. If you think they have awful ones, uh oh.
I’d likely support doing this—effects on humans are good (which to be clear I weight very highly!), male mosquitoes seem broadly fine, and females are killed mostly as pupae, I’m clueless about the welfare interpretation of population effects. That said, others might feel more concerned about population effects, which probably depends a lot on how you feel about insects generally and how much you think this could alter insecticide usage.

I spent less than an hour on this comment though, so obviously this is not the final word!

mal_graham🔸 23 May 2026 0:38 UTC
10 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Announcing the Rethink Priorities Cross-Cause Fund
Hi Nick—just regarding the team page issue, are you thinking of this page: https://rethinkpriorities.org/our-research-areas/worldview-investigations/ ? It has the people listed in your screenshot from Claude.

As a reference, I got to this from CCF page --> support our work --> under the “our team” section. Notably, the link is from this text:

“The Rethink Priorities Cross-Cause Fund sits on top of work done by our Worldview Investigations Team (WIT), and Interdisciplinary Research Team, groups established specifically to tackle the hard questions that most donors don’t have time to engage with: how to compare welfare across species, how to reason under deep uncertainty, how to weigh present benefits against future ones, how to aggregate competing moral views into a single allocation.

The team brings together training in philosophy, economics, statistics, cognitive science, moral psychology, and decision theory . The fund’s allocations also draw on the in-house expertise of RP’s Global Health and Development, Animal Welfare, AI departments, so the cross-cause model is informed by researchers working directly in each area, not just secondary literature. ”

So I’m interpreting that paragraph as saying that WIT work goes into the report, but not necessarily that the WIT team did all the work (in particular, the interdisciplinary research team clearly was also involved, and the second paragraph suggests other teams contributed as well).

mal_graham🔸 1 Apr 2026 15:18 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Nope, I just mean that on average, a bird who avoids a collision would live for a few more years based on typical lifespans. I meant “fully recovers from or avoids the collision.” Of course if they have some lingering injury or issue their life expectancy will be lower.

mal_graham🔸 28 Mar 2026 13:48 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Lorenzo Buonanno🔸’s comment on: Controlling the fertility of rodents may impact soil ants and termites much more than rodents?
It’s definitely correct that rats do not consume their entire daily liquid needs from contrapest in field conditions. I can’t quickly find evidence for the 1.8L figure—this study includes a DC trial, but might not be the same one (the citation links in the EA Forum post weren’t working for me). Based on figure 9, 0 to 1200 mL of bait per month were consumed, depending on site and month. That’s not a good indicator of the effective dose, since treated adult rats might still consume some of it, but it could be a reasonable indicator of how much bait you’d need to buy to treat a given alley—although for the study I link, that’s complicated by the fact that I wouldn’t take their reports of reductions particularly seriously. Issues include: camera traps have to be used quite carefully to be good estimates of population abundance, and pairing them with a bait station is not good for that; it’s hard to tell whether rats are adults or juveniles once they’ve left the burrow and especially using camera traps; there’s no control sites, there were only two treatment sites, the treatment sites varied considerably in their features, etc.

mal_graham🔸 28 Mar 2026 13:09 UTC
18 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Controlling the fertility of rodents may impact soil ants and termites much more than rodents?
Thanks for pointing out that the production mechanism might have an influence on land use. I think that’s interesting and will reflect on it.
Unfortunately I think this post is otherwise not very relevant, mainly because no one uses Contrapest—the liquid bait formulation doesn’t work in any context where water is readily available because rats don’t drink it, it’s extremely messy and hard for people to use. If you wanted to do this comparison more seriously, I’d encourage you to focus on Evolve, which has a more similar profile production-wise (it’s a solid bait, like most rodenticides) and conservationists have proven more willing to try it (whether it works outside the lab is still unclear, the company has not made its test data particularly accessible for review and no independent test runs have been published yet).
To clarify, the reason I viewed (at time of writing of the previous post) that rodenticide replacement on islands might be approximately ecologically inert is that conservationists use products until rats are entirely eradicated and then stop. This means any ecological impact differences between product 1 for eradication and product 2 for eradication are essentially transient. You have this short duration of time during the eradication, and then a long period after where conditions on the island are basically the same. On reflection, you’re probably right that this is not sufficient to mean they are ecologically inert in the strict sense.^[1] Overall I suppose I was imagining that people might have degrees of commitment to the ecologically inert concept, but I could have written more carefully.
A few other notes, not comprehensive:
- I strongly doubt that comparing “cost to prevent one birth/cause one death” is the right comparison. The population dynamics of suppressing fertility are different than those from killing adults, so the timeline to eradication (in the island context) and the application volumes would likely be different, among other things.
- The dosages are difficult to determine. Although the paper you cite reports bait consumption in ideal laboratory conditions—“the median rat (ranked by consumption) consumed an average of 74 ml of bait per day; individual means ranged from 66 to 83 ml per day”—all the male rats in this study gained weight. These are wild rats who have been taken into captivity and given ad libitum access to food, water, and Contrapest—these are just not realistic conditions to estimate field consumptions. Senestech itself recommends 400mL tank as a 1 month supply (for an unclear area based on my quick review of the website).
- Other complications: The dosing requirements also seem to be quite different between species of rats. Published studies are almost all co-authored by Senestech staff, and therefore somewhat less confidence-inducing than independent validations would be.
- If we’re talking about use in settings other than islands, I want to reiterate that those are definitely not ecologically inert even to some approximation, and there are tons of things you’d have to look at besides production method if you wanted to estimate total animal effects. Age structure changes in rat populations, food web dynamics, most rodent fertility control agents appear to have reasonably strong insecticidal effects while brodifacoum doesn’t affect most invertebrates we’ve studied, etc.
- Since I’m not sure Evolve works either, it may be that any fertility control product used in the future has an entirely different formulation, making speculation here quite difficult.
- I think I’m just generally more comfortable than you balancing my uncertainties with a combination of direct work on arthropods, and work on things that have (1) high non-arthropod upsides and (2) where I’m clueless about the effects on arthropods. I’m not sure I’m perfectly actioning my own values (given my moral uncertainty, I’m not sure how I could be) but I would burn out if I only worked on insects all the time; it’s too depressing.
1. ^
  although I do wonder if the limited duration of these eradications and amount of use for island conservation relative to overall production is high enough to make a meaningful impact on land use? I don’t think these things are continuous so a small enough demand shift signal might not have any impact? Just speculating...

mal_graham🔸 17 Jan 2026 14:57 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Michael St Jules 🔸’s comment on: Improving wild animal welfare reliably
Re: your footnote: I think this depends heavily on how severe we are talking. I don’t have a strong opinion, because I really think no one has looked at it, about how much more severe things can get from disease than from something like keel bone fractures. A priori it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that the artificial conditions of factory farming enable a chicken to live in pain much longer, and therefore have higher overall suffering, than we would ever see in the wild—but I’m not that confident in that idea, so it would be good to look at more diseases. The point being that a severe enough disease could still be worth working on in dalys/dollar terms even if it doesn’t affect that many individuals, and that would also make it more ecologically inert in many cases (since changing the circumstances of very large numbers of animals seems riskier).

WAI facilitated a grant from Coefficient (then OP) years ago to look at disease severity; they came out with a few papers recently here and here. As is perhaps unsurprising, but disappointing, much of the research on disease in wildlife doesn’t provide enough info to do a good job estimating the welfare burden. But the high scoring bacterial zoonoses in the first paper could be a good place to start a research project attempting to better assess the severity and numerosity compared to FAW conditions (as a cost effectiveness bar).

mal_graham🔸 17 Jan 2026 14:47 UTC
16 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Tristan Katz’s comment on: Improving wild animal welfare reliably
I’ve been thinking about this approach since last year, and haven’t had time to prioritize it to do detailed work on a framework, but I have some initial thoughts. I think you’re right that, if you’re comfortable with that sort of cluelessness, this kind of thing is relatively safe to do (although as @Michael St Jules 🔸 notes, I’d also want to do some proper population modeling in a highly studied ecosystem to get some grounding for the idea).

But I think you can actually do better than focusing on only the very worst diseases depending on population parameters. For example, in populations that are top-down regulated (i.e., the population size is held under the carrying capacity of the resource by an external factor), you would not expect increases in starvation as a result of removing a disease (caveat: if that disease *is* the top down regulator, than you would have a problem—which unfortunately is the case in many CWD contexts). So then the disease doesn’t need to be worse than both starvation and predation, say, but rather just worse than predation. The population size would equilibriate somewhere a bit higher, but the top-down regulation creates a buffer between population size and resource carrying capacity, and at high enough predation pressures you might reasonably expect almost no population increase.
So I think in an ideal case, you’d identify (1) a high suffering disease that (2) affects a population primarily controlled by intense predation pressure in (3) a predator that mainly eats the target population (so the increases in predator population sizes don’t affect other animals, who aren’t having a disease treated and for whom this would just represent an increase in suffering).

Of course, if you have a population with high predation pressure, the target population probably dies very quickly after getting the disease, so the suffering caused by the disease might not be very long in duration. But if its a really awful disease that could still be a lot of suffering.

I don’t think anyone’s done a scan of the literature for diseases with these properties, and I doubt you’d easily find a perfect case—most populations are a mixture of top-down and bottom-up regulation. But I also think that probably my few hours of playing around with these ideas on the side of my other work are not likely to be the final word on the question :) so I’m optimistic someone spending a lot more time with this could identify other “ecological profiles” of diseases that make them “safer” in indirect effects terms to work on than others (I think there’s some things to say about bottom-up regulated populations as well, for example—probably there you would want a disease that is a lot worse than starvation).

mal_graham🔸 25 Nov 2025 19:00 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Eli Rose🔸’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
@Eli Rose🔸 I think Anthony is referring to a call he and I had :)

@Anthony DiGiovanni I think I meant more like there was a justification of the basic intuition bracketing is trying to capture as being similar to how someone might make decisions in their life, where we may also be clueless about many of the effects of moving home or taking a new job, but still move forward. But I could be misremembering! Just read your comment more carefully and I think you’re right that this conversation is what I was thinking of.

mal_graham🔸 24 Nov 2025 22:25 UTC
13 points
3 ∶ 1
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: Donation Election Discussion Thread
This is not an unreasonable take, but just in the interest of having an accurate public record, I’m actually the strategy director for WAI (although I was the executive director previously). Also, none of us at Arthropoda are technically animal welfare scientists. Our training is all in different things (for example, my PhD is in engineering mechanics and Bob’s a philosopher who published a lot of skeptical pieces on insects).

Basically, I think we came to Arthropoda because the work we did before that changed our minds. More importantly, I don’t think the majority of Arthropoda’s work will be about checking for sentience? Rather, we’re taking a precautionary framework about insects being sentient and asking how to improve their welfare if they are. In this context our views on sentience seem less likely to cause a COI—although I also expect all our research to be publicly available for people to red-team as needed :)

Finally, fully agree on the extreme personnel overlap. I would love to not be co-running a bug granting charity as a volunteer in addition to my two other jobs! But the resource constraints and unusualness of this space are unfortunately not particularly conducive to finding a ton of people willing to take on leadership roles.

mal_graham🔸 23 Nov 2025 23:56 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Eli Rose🔸’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
All very interesting, and yes let’s talk more later!

One quick thing: Sorry my comment was unclear—when I said “precise probabilities” I meant the overall approach, which amounts to trying to quantify everything about an intervention when deciding its cost effectiveness (perhaps the post was also unclear).
I think most people in EA/AW spaces use the general term “precise probabilities” the same way you’re describing, but perhaps there is on average a tendency toward the more scientific style of needing more specific evidence for those numbers. That wasn’t necessarily true of early actors in the WAW space and I think it had some mildly unfortunate consequences.

But this makes me realize I should not have named the approach that way in the original post, and should have called it something like the “quantify as much as possible” approach. I think that approach requires using precise probabilities—since if you allow imprecise ones you end up with a lot of things being indeterminate—but there’s more to it than just endorsing precise probabilities over imprecise ones (at least as I’ve seen it appear in WAW).

mal_graham🔸 23 Nov 2025 17:18 UTC
7 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Eli Rose🔸’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Thanks Eli!

I sort of wonder if some people in the AI community—any maybe you, from what you’ve said here? -- are using precise probabilities to get to the conclusion that you want to work primarily on AI stuff, and then spotlighting to that cause area when you’re analyzing at the level of interventions.

I think someone using precise probabilities all the way down is building a lot more explicit models every time they consider a specific intervention. Like if you’re contemplating running a fellowship program for AI interested people, and you have animals in your moral circle, you’re going to have to build this botec that includes the probability an X% of the people you bring into the fellowship are not going to care about animals and likely, if they get a policy role, to pass policies that are really bad for them. And all sorts of things like that. So your output would be a bunch of hypotheses about exactly how these fellows are going to benefit AI policy, and some precise probabilities about how those policy benefits are going to help people, and possibly animals to what degree, etc.
I sort of suspect that only a handful of people are trying to do this, and I get why! I made a reasonably straightforward botec for calculating the benefits to birds of bird-safe glass, that accounted for backfire to birds, and it took a lot of research effort. If you asked me how bird-safe glass policy is going to affect AI risk after all that, I might throw my computer at you. But I think the precise probabilities approach would imply that I should.

Re:
It might be interesting to move out of high-level reason zone entirely and just look at the interventions, e.g. directly compare the robustness of installing bird-safe glass in a building vs. something like developing new technical techniques to help us avoid losing control of AIs.

I’m definitely interested in robustness comparisons but not always sure how they would work, especially given uncertainty about what robustness means. I suspect some of these things will hinge on how optimistic you are about the value of life. I think the animal community attracts a lot more folks who are skeptical about humans being good stewards of the world, and so are less convinced that a rogue AI would be worse in expectation (and even folks who are skeptical that extinction would be bad). So I worry AI folks would view “preserving the value of the future” as extremely obviously positive by default, and that (at least some) animal folks wouldn’t, and that would end up being the crux about whether these interventions are in fact robust. But perhaps you could still have interesting discussions among folks who are aligned on certain premises.
Re:
What would the justification standards in wild animal welfare say about uncertainty-laden decisions that involve neither AI nor animals: e.g. as a government, deciding which policies to enact, or as a US citizen, deciding who to vote for President?
Yeah, I think this is a feeling that the folks working on bracketing are trying to capture: that in quotidian decision-making contexts, we generally use the factors we aren’t clueless about (@Anthony DiGiovanni—I think I recall a bracketing piece explicitly making a comparison to day-to-day decision making, but now can’t find it… so correct me if I’m wrong!). So I’m interested to see how that progresses.
I suspect though, that people generally just don’t think about justification that much. In the case of WAW-tractability-skeptics, I’d guess some large percentage are likely more driven by the (not unreasonable at first glance) intuition that messing around in nature is risky. The problem of course is that all of life is just messing around in nature, so there’s no avoiding it.

mal_graham🔸 23 Nov 2025 15:46 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jacob_Peacock’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Yeah, I could have made that more clear—I am more focused on the sociology of justification. I supposed if you’re talking pure epistemics, it depends whether you’re constructivist about epistemological truth. If you are, then you’d probably have a similar position—that different communities can reasonably end up with justification standards, and no one community have more claim to truth than the other.
I suspect, though, that most EAs are not constructivists about epistemology, and so vaguely think that some communities have better justification standards than others. If that’s right, then the point is more sociological: that some communities are more rigorous about this stuff than others, or even that they might use the same justification standards but differ in some other way (like not caring about animals) that means the process looks a little different. So the critic I’m modeling in the post is saying something like: “sure, some people do justification better than others, but these are different communities so it makes sense that some communities care more about getting this right than others do.”

I guess another angle could be from meta-epistemic uncertainty. Like if we think there is a truth about what kinds of justification practices are better than others, but we’re deeply uncertain about what it is, it may then still seem quite reasonable that different groups are trying different things, especially if they aren’t trying to participate in the same justificatory community.

Not entirely sure I’ve gotten all the philosophical terms technically right here, but hopefully the point I’m trying to make is clear enough!

mal_graham🔸 21 Nov 2025 19:49 UTC
16 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: To a first approximation, all farmed animals are bugs
Hi Vasco! As we’ve discussed in other threads/emails/etc, we have different meta-ethical views and different views about consciousness. So I’m not surprised we’ve landed in somewhat different places on this issue :)
Bob and I make most of the strategic and granting decisions for Arthropoda, and we have slightly different views, so I don’t know exactly where we will land (he’ll reply in a second with his thoughts). But broadly, we both agree that we don’t think soil nematodes and some other soil invertebrates have enough likelihood of being sentient to be a high priority, nor do we think that (for those that are sentient) we have a good enough understanding of what would help them to make action-oriented grants (which is Arthropoda’s focus) — in part because we don’t endorse precise-probabilities approaches to handling uncertainty, and so want to make grants that are aimed towards actions that appear robustly positive under a range of possible probability assignments/ways of handling uncertainty.
That said, our confidence in our own position is not high. So, we’d be willing to fund things to challenge our own views: If we had sufficient funding from folks interested in the question, Arthropoda would fund a grant round specifically on soil invertebrate sentience and relevant natural history studies (especially in ways that attempt to capture the likely enormous range of differences between species in this group). Currently, much of our grant-making funds are restricted (at least informally) to farmed insects and shrimp, so it’s not an option.
As a result, I expect that Arthropoda is probably still one of the better bets for soil invertebrate interested donors. As a correction to your comment, Arthropoda is not restricted in focus as a matter of principle, but just has happened for contingent reasons to focus on farmed animals in its first rounds. We collaborate with Wild Animal Initiative (I’m the strategy director at WAI) to reduce duplication of effort, and have a slightly better public profile for running soil invertebrate studies, so we expect it will generally be Arthropoda rather than WAI who would be more likely to run this kind of program. I don’t want to speak for CWAW, so I’ll let them reply if they have interests in this area; but from my own conversations I doubt they would be in a good position to make soil invertebrates a priority in the next couple of years. Finally, you haven’t mentioned them, but Rethink Priorities may also be open to some work in this area (I’m not sure though).
What links here?
- Vasco Grilo🔸's comment on Poll: Wild animal vs Farm Animal welfare by Toby Tremlett🔹 (2 Dec 2025 20:35 UTC; 4 points)
- Vasco Grilo🔸's comment on EA Animal Welfare Fund’s 3-Year Grantmaking Strategy by KarolinaSarek🔸 (26 Nov 2025 19:06 UTC; 2 points)

mal_graham🔸 19 Nov 2025 19:54 UTC
12 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Hugh P’s comment on: To a first approximation, all farmed animals are bugs
Arthropoda treasurer here—pretty much option 2. We are hoping to increase our expenditure next year to run an extra grants round, add a contractor to help manage some things (currently we’re almost entirely volunteer), add a bit to our strategic reserve (to carry us through donation fluctuations without needing to pause grant-making), and a few other small bits and pieces. A good chunk of this expansion can be covered by our reserves + some existing donor commitments, and 55k is about what’s left.
We have actually a much higher room for more funding in theory, up to several million to run a couple of targeted programs we have in mind. These activities would require hiring someone to run them as a program manager as well as a lot more in grants. But we’re not really expecting EA Forum readers to fill that gap unless they happen to run a large foundation :)

mal_graham🔸 17 Nov 2025 20:15 UTC
11 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: NickLaing’s Quick takes
haha I can confirm I did not karma knock you and I was kind of surprised you had gotten so downvoted! I actually upvoted when I saw that to counteract.

One random thought I’ll add is that since you are most experienced (afaict?) in ghd, I’d expect your arguments to be at their best in that context, so you getting upvoted on GHD and downvoted on AW is at least consistent with having more expertise in one than the other, so not necessarily evidence that AW folks are more sensitive. Although I’m not ruling that out!
The other thing I’m not sure I understand is how much weight a single individual’s downvote can have—is there any chance that a few AW people have a ton of karma here, so that just a few people downvoting can take you negative in a way that wouldn’t happen as much in GHD?

mal_graham🔸 17 Nov 2025 20:09 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Thanks! I think I might end up writing a separate post on palatability issues, to be honest :)

On the intervention front, the movement of WAW folks is turning now to interventions in at least some cases (in WAI’s case, rodenticide fertility control is something they’re trying to fundraise for, and at NYU/Arthropoda I’m working on or fundraising for work on humane insecticides and bird window collisions). I just meant that perhaps one reason we don’t have more of them is that there’s been a big focus on field-building for the last five years.
For field-building purposes, there’s still been some focus on interventions for the reasons you mention, but with additional constraints—not just cost-effective to pursue but also attractive to scientists to work on and serves to clarify what WAW is, etc., to maximize the field-building outcomes if we can.
What links here?
- Controlling the fertility of rodents may impact soil ants and termites much more than rodents? by Vasco Grilo🔸 (28 Mar 2026 9:32 UTC; 10 points)

mal_graham🔸 17 Nov 2025 13:59 UTC
22 points
5 ∶ 0
in reply to: NickLaing’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Hi Nick! Thanks for engaging. I’m not reading you as being anti WAW interventions, and I think you’re bringing up something that many people will wonder about, so I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to comment on it.
Basically, let’s say the type of intractability worry I was mainly addressing in the post is “intractability due to indirect ecological effects.” And the type you’re talking about is “intractability due to palatability” or something like that.

I think for readers who broadly buy the arguments in my post, but don’t think WAW interventions are palatable, are not correct but for understandable reasons. I think the reason is either (1) underexposure to the most palatable WAW ideas because WAW EAs tend not to focus on/enjoy talking about those or (2) using the “ecologically inert” framework when talking about WAW and one of the other frameworks when talking about other types of interventions.

Let’s first assume you’re okay with spotlighting, at least to a certain degree. Then, “preventing bird-window collisions with bird safe glass legislation” and “banning second generation anti-coagulant rodenticides” are actually very obviously good things to do, and also seem quite cost-effective based on the limited evidence available. I think people don’t really realize how many animals are affected by these issues—my current best-guess CEA for bird safe glass suggest it’s competitive with corporate chicken campaigns, although I want to do a little more research to pin down some high-uncertainty parameters before sharing it more widely.

Anti-coagulant bans and bird-safe glass are also palatable, and the proof is in the pudding: California, for example, has already passed a state-wide ban on these specific rodenticides, and 22 cities (including NYC and Washington DC) have already passed bird-safe glass regulations. I think I could provide probably at least 5 other examples of things that fit into this bucket (low backfire under spotlighting, cost effective, palatable), and I don’t really spend most of my time trying to think of them (because WAI is focused on field-building, not immediate intervention development, and because I’m uncertain if spotlighting is okay or if I should only be seeking ecologically inert interventions).

The important thing to note is that WAW is actually more tractable, in some cases, then FAW interventions because it doesn’t require anyone to change their diet, and people in many cultures have been conditioned to care about wild animals in a way they’ve been conditioned to reject caring about farmed animals. There’s also a lot of “I love wild animals” sentiment being channelled into conservation, but my experience is that when you talk to folks with that sentiment, they also get excited about bird window collision legislation and things like that.

But perhaps you’re actually hoping for ecologically inert interventions. Then, I’m not sure which interventions you’d think would be acceptable instead? Sure, humane insecticides could end up being hard (although I think much less hard than you think, for reasons I won’t go into here). But literally nothing else—in FAW, in GHD, in AI—seems reasonably likely to be ecologically inert while still plausibly causing a reduction in suffering (maybe keel bone fracture issues in FAW?). But the folks who say “WAW interventions aren’t palatable” have not generally, in my experienced, said “and I also don’t do GHD because it’s not ecologically inert”—so I suspect in at least some instances they are asking for ecologically inert interventions from WAW, and something else from their cause area of preference.

mal_graham🔸 15 Nov 2025 13:34 UTC
12 points
5 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Hi Vasco! Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that switching is not necessarily worse (depending on your goals and principles) then just pursuing one uncertain intervention. I also agree with you that research is important when you find yourself in such a position—it’s why I’ve dedicated my career to research :) And critically, I appreciate the clarification that “decreasing uncertainty” is your priority—I didn’t realize that from past posts, but I think your most recent one is clear on that.

One thing I’ll just mention as a matter of personal inclination—I feel unenthusiastic about precise probabilities for more reasons than just the switching issue (I pointed it out just to add to the discourse about things someone with that view should reflect on). Personally, it just doesn’t feel accurate to my own epistemic state. When I look at my own uncertainties of this kind, it feels almost like lying to put a precise number on them (I’m not saying others should feel this way, just that it is how I feel). So that’s the most basic reason (among the other sort of theoretic reasons out there) that I feel attached to imprecise probabilities.

mal_graham🔸 15 Nov 2025 4:11 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jim Buhler’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Thanks so much!
I actually have a lot of sympathy with farmed animal advocates who feel the way you describe, despite disagreeing that WAW should be seen as intractable by their lights. I think in the scheme of things, if I had to choose, I’d prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects. But I’m not sure that’s a well-calibrated view as opposed to frustration with how little people care about animals in general.

mal_graham🔸 15 Nov 2025 3:25 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jim Buhler’s comment on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
Yes, totally agree that some longtermist or AI safety oriented types have actually thought about these things, and endorse precise probabilties, and have precise probability assignments to things I find quite strange, like thinking it’s 80% likely that the universe will be dominated by sentient machines instead of wild animals. Although I expect I’d find any precise probability assignment about outcomes like this quite surprising, perhaps I’m just a very skeptical person.

But I think a lot of EAs I talk to have not reflected on this much and don’t realize how much the view hinges on these sorts of beliefs.
What links here?