3 ms·

No the proposition doesn’t make sense. The 3% number comes from this: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-estimates/ https://rethinkpriori

by jjcm 2y ago

No the proposition doesn’t make sense. The 3% number comes from this: https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-estimates/ https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/welfare-range-es... The page gives 3% to shrimp because their lifespan is 3% that of humans. It’s a terrible avenue for this estimate. By the same estimate, giant tortoises are less ethical to kill than humans. The heavens alone can judge you for the war crimes you’d be committing by killing a Turritopsis dohrnii. Number of neurons is the least-bad objective measurement in my eyes. Arthropods famously have very few neurons, <100k compared to 86b in humans. That’s a 1:1000000 neuron ratio, which feels like a more appropriate ratio for suffering than a lifespan-based ratio, though both are terrible.

aziaziazi 2y ago
Not only lifespan. From the link you quote: > Capacity for welfare = welfare range × lifespan. An individual’s welfare range is the difference between the best and worst welfare states the individual can realize. > we rely on indirect measures even in humans: behavior, physiological changes, and verbal reports. We can observe behavior and physiological changes in nonhumans, but most of them aren’t verbal. So, we have to rely on other indirect proxies, piecing together an understanding from animals’ cognitive and affective traits or capabilities. First time I see this "warfare range" notion and it seems quite clever to me. Also the original article says 3.1% is the median while the mean is 19%. I guess that may be caused by individuals havûg différents experiences each other’s.
- BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
  This is to model uncertainty not difference across species. The 50th percentile guess is that shrimp feel pain 3.1% as intensely as humans while the mean is 19%
BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
No, it's not about lifespan. They have a very complicated report that tries to quantify intensity of suffering relying on a variety of proxies

by jjcm 2y ago

aziaziazi 2y ago

Not only lifespan. From the link you quote: > Capacity for welfare = welfare range × lifespan. An individual’s welfare range is the difference between the best and worst welfare states the individual can realize. > we rely on indirect measures even in humans: behavior, physiological changes, and verbal reports. We can observe behavior and physiological changes in nonhumans, but most of them aren’t verbal. So, we have to rely on other indirect proxies, piecing together an understanding from animals’ cognitive and affective traits or capabilities. First time I see this "warfare range" notion and it seems quite clever to me. Also the original article says 3.1% is the median while the mean is 19%. I guess that may be caused by individuals havûg différents experiences each other’s.

BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
This is to model uncertainty not difference across species. The 50th percentile guess is that shrimp feel pain 3.1% as intensely as humans while the mean is 19%

BenthamsBulldog 2y ago

No, it's not about lifespan. They have a very complicated report that tries to quantify intensity of suffering relying on a variety of proxies