If You Care About Nematodes...

TL;DR

Recently, an argument has circulated claiming that factory farming is net positive because of the effects on soil animals. While I do not personally agree with this argument, I believe nematodes and other soil animals are worth caring about and respect the spirit with which it has been presented. However, I argue that if you truly believe that soil animal welfare is our top priority, arguing in favor of factory farming is not the most efficient way to pursue soil animal welfare, and there are much better, ethically safer levers for change.

Background

If you have browsed the comments under almost any animal welfare related EA Forum post recently, you have likely seen claims that the effect of ending factory farming would actually be net negative because of what I will call The Nematode Argument:

1. Factory farmed animals are outnumbered by springtails and soil nematodes by several orders of magnitude,
2. There is at least a small chance that these animals are sentient to some degree,
3. These animals are slightly more likely than not to live net negative lives, and
4. Ending factory farming would cause more of these animals to come into existence.
5. Thus, the total suffering caused by ending factory farming would be greater than letting it continue.

The Nematode Argument is not without critique. In fact, it seems that the vast majority of people on the EA Forum (including myself) do not believe its conclusion. Some disagree that wild animals are likely to live negative lives, some disagree that such suffering could outweigh the suffering of factory farming, and some believe that we are simply too uncertain about the lives of wild animals to justify continuing factory farming.^[1] I am strongly sympathetic to all of these arguments, but I did not make this post to argue them. I restate them here primarily to highlight that there are many good reasons not to accept the conclusion of this argument.

It’s Worth Caring About Nematodes

Because I have started this post highlighting the flaws of The Nematode Argument, you might assume that I don’t care about wild animal welfare or am opposed to controversial arguments. Neither are true. I believe that wild animals, including nematodes, are worth significant moral consideration. I call myself Nematode Lover not ironically but out of genuine regard for an underrepresented species.^[2] Furthermore, I would describe myself as particularly open to arguments like this, even within EA spaces.

So while I do not agree with the conclusions of the few who push The Nematode Argument, I do believe that considering The Nematode Argument is worthwhile, and if I believed it, I would hold myself to the standard of its conclusion. If you personally believe in The Nematode Argument, please keep in mind where I am coming from as you continue on to the next section.

If You Care About Nematodes…

Suppose that you believe all of the following statements, which are cruxes for The Nematode Argument.

1. Springtails and soil nematodes are so numerous such that if they suffer, their suffering is vastly more important than that of humans or farmed animals.
2. There is at least a small chance that these animals are sentient to some degree.
3. These animals are slightly more likely than not to live net negative lives.
4. Our confidence in statements 1, 2, and 3 is high enough such that we should take action to reduce the number of springtails and soil nematodes.

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, that is an arbitrary target. Just because we started to consider these soil animals because of evaluations of the impact of factory farming does not mean that factory farming is the best way to reduce soil animal populations. This doesn’t even address the massive amount of cruelty required to continue factory farming which would not be required with other approaches.

I would argue that, assuming you believe that reducing soil animal populations is your top moral priority, you should work in the Real Estate Development sector. (Note that the Real Estate Development sector is one arbitrary choice of many potential options that are likely to be better than arguing in favor of factory farming. I chose one specific sector for illustrative purposes.)

This has a few advantages relative to arguing in favor of factory farming.

1. Counterfactually increasing development (particularly if it is done in regions currently facing a housing crisis) has large beneficial impacts for human wellbeing.
2. Your effects on farmed animals will be approximately zero, as opposed to actively advocating for their continued torture.

3. Most importantly for those who believe The Nematode Argument, I expect you will be able to reduce soil animal populations significantly more. According to The Nematode Argument, factory farming affects nematodes through transforming grassland regions. It seems highly plausible that you could counterfactually affect many more acres of this land (and thus many more soil animals) through building houses or other structures than trying to maintain factory farms.^[4]

As a result, working in Real Estate Development seems likely to be better for humans, farmed animals, and wild animals relative to arguing in favor of factory farming.

As a quick caveat, I have not researched this specific pathway in depth. Rather, Real Estate Development is just one of the top options recommended by ChatGPT 5.1. Normally, I would not include something like this in a post, as I do not believe that a result pulled straight from an LLM with minimal scrutiny should be used to make important decisions like this. However, Real Estate Development is merely one sample career path that I am not trying to rigorously defend. I believe the burden of investigation is on those who believe in The Nematode Argument to find the best career pathway to support soil animals.

More importantly, I do believe the underlying claim: It seems highly unlikely that arguing in favor of factory farming is the best use of your time, even if you believe that reducing soil nematodes is our top moral priority.

As a result, we are all in one of two situations. If we don’t believe The Nematode Argument, we shouldn’t argue in favor of factory farming because doing so is morally wrong. If we do believe The Nematode Argument, we shouldn’t argue in favor of factory farming because we have better things to focus on.

If you truly believe in The Nematode Argument, I believe your best option is to explore which careers are best for reducing soil animal populations and take action (so long as there is no good reason to believe your career might be particularly harmful to humans or non-human animals).

And please, from someone who truly does care about nematodes, stop derailing discussions of farmed animal welfare.

1. ^{^}

    There are also other reasonable counter arguments which I do not include here for brevity.

2. ^{^}

    As a humorous side note, [email protected] was already taken when I tried to create it. If you would like to contact me about this piece privately, you can reach me at [email protected], which was available.

3. ^{^}

    Which I personally disagree with strongly, but am considering for the sake of argument.

^{^}

 For the sake of completeness, I will say that I object to and do not endorse the harms of habitat destruction. I am only willing to accept this premise for the sake of argument because I am more strongly opposed to arguing in favor of factory farms, which entails the same types of habitat destruction while also torturing farmed animals in the process.

Show all footnotes