I appreciate you pushing back on the idea that insects live net-negative lives. However, when I opened my door to leave my apartment today, I crushed the legs of a bug that I didn't know was by the hinge of the door. I saw it limping it away on the door. I didn't kill it, but not sure that was the right decision.
I think these types of injuries are a stronger argument for wild animals living net-negative lives than violent deaths. (Though I am uncertain on the manner.)
Edit: A candidate for a net-positive insect life: "Because juvenile cicadas (known as “nymphs”) live underground, Yanega says that they “are probably almost never eaten by predators.” This is a potential indicator that periodical cicadas could have better welfare expectancy than many other insect species. Periodical cicadas spend 99.5% of their unusually long lives underground, enjoying an abundance of food and a relative lack of predators. It’s likely that predation becomes a serious threat only in the final few weeks of their lives, when they emerge and become adults." Source: WAI
Because sentience is a binary question, and intensity of subjective experience is a scale, I feel like that should also be asked separately. People might being conflating the two by giving a low confidence probability in sentience, when they really mean they are sentience but just have experiences which aren't that intense.
Hey, have you written out your reasoning for why you believe shrimp have a 20% chance of sentience? I appreciate all the work you have done in this space, and am curious how you approach this.
Thank you for doing this research! Stunning not consider halal isn't something I would have expected but valuable to know. Any plans on open accessing the data so anyone could analyze it?
That's an example of a stat illustrating impact, but I'm looking for examples that support the statement it is often the case that if you have impacts there are stats to illustrate that.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this James. It was refreshing to read.
However, I am not sure that impact is often measurable. What evidence do you have for that intuition? Can you provide any examples to illuminate this point?
My prior is that measurement in the social sciences is really, really hard, and people often update too much on social science statistics. And that the social world has a lot of uncertainty. It seems that people update too much on them because the social scientists who end up promoting findings to the public aren't that forthcoming about their limitations and the ongoing disagreements in the field. One examples is social media's affect of minors' mental health, and the ongoing debate between Jon Haidt and Candice Odgers.
I appreciate you pushing back on the idea that insects live net-negative lives. However, when I opened my door to leave my apartment today, I crushed the legs of a bug that I didn't know was by the hinge of the door. I saw it limping it away on the door. I didn't kill it, but not sure that was the right decision.
I think these types of injuries are a stronger argument for wild animals living net-negative lives than violent deaths. (Though I am uncertain on the manner.)
Edit: A candidate for a net-positive insect life: "Because juvenile cicadas (known as “nymphs”) live underground, Yanega says that they “are probably almost never eaten by predators.” This is a potential indicator that periodical cicadas could have better welfare expectancy than many other insect species. Periodical cicadas spend 99.5% of their unusually long lives underground, enjoying an abundance of food and a relative lack of predators. It’s likely that predation becomes a serious threat only in the final few weeks of their lives, when they emerge and become adults." Source: WAI
This seems directionality correct. I would love some qualitative responses as well to try to gauge how people are understanding the question.
Because sentience is a binary question, and intensity of subjective experience is a scale, I feel like that should also be asked separately. People might being conflating the two by giving a low confidence probability in sentience, when they really mean they are sentience but just have experiences which aren't that intense.
Hey, have you written out your reasoning for why you believe shrimp have a 20% chance of sentience? I appreciate all the work you have done in this space, and am curious how you approach this.
2011 is pretty old, do know of any other issues or now updated info regarding Compassion, by the Pound?
Thank you for doing this research! Stunning not consider halal isn't something I would have expected but valuable to know. Any plans on open accessing the data so anyone could analyze it?
That's an example of a stat illustrating impact, but I'm looking for examples that support the statement it is often the case that if you have impacts there are stats to illustrate that.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this James. It was refreshing to read.
However, I am not sure that impact is often measurable. What evidence do you have for that intuition? Can you provide any examples to illuminate this point?
My prior is that measurement in the social sciences is really, really hard, and people often update too much on social science statistics. And that the social world has a lot of uncertainty. It seems that people update too much on them because the social scientists who end up promoting findings to the public aren't that forthcoming about their limitations and the ongoing disagreements in the field. One examples is social media's affect of minors' mental health, and the ongoing debate between Jon Haidt and Candice Odgers.
Thank you for sharing Ulf. I found your comment validating and clarifying.
Hi-quality post that deserves more upvotes! Thanks for taking the time to research this. I wish it explored the counter-argument more tho.