EA - Don’t Balk at Animal-friendly Results by Bob Fischer

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Don’t Balk at Animal-friendly Results, published by Bob Fischer on January 16, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.Key TakeawaysThe Moral Weight Project assumes hedonism. It also assumes that in the absence of good direct measures of the intensities of valenced experiences, the best way to assess differences in the potential intensities of animals’ valenced experiences is to look at differences in other capacities that might serve as proxies for differences in hedonic potential.Suppose that these assumptions lead to the conclusion that chickens and humans can realize roughly the same amount of welfare at any given time. Call this “the Equality Result.” The key question: Would the Equality Result alone be a good reason to think that one or both of these assumptions is mistaken?We don’t think so. To explain why not, we consider three bases for skepticism about the Equality Result. Then, we consider whether the Equality Result should be surprising given hedonism.Three Bases for SkepticismFirst, someone might balk at the implications of the Equality Result given certain independent theses. For instance, given utilitarianism, the Equality Result probably implies that there should be a massive shift in neartermist resources toward animals, and someone might find this unbelievable. But the Equality Result isn’t to blame: utilitarianism is.Second, someone might be inclined to accept some theory of welfare that does not support the Equality Result. Fair enough, but as we’ve argued elsewhere, that only gets you so far.Third, someone might balk at the Equality Result even given hedonism. The basic problem with this is that the anti-Equality-Result intuition is uncalibrated, uncalibrated intuitions are vulnerable to various biases, and there are some highly relevant biases in the present context.If Hedonism, Then the Equality Result Shouldn’t Be SurprisingWe quickly consider three popular theories valenced states and argue that there are plausible assumptions on which each one leads to the Equality Result.This isn’t an argument for the Equality Result. It is, however, a check against knee-jerk skepticism.IntroductionThis is the seventh post in the Moral Weight Project Sequence. The aim of the sequence is to provide an overview of the research that Rethink Priorities conducted between May 2021 and October 2022 on interspecific cause prioritization—i.e., making resource allocation decisions across species.As EAs, we want to compare the cost-effectiveness of all interventions, including ones that benefit (sentient) animals with the cost-effectiveness of interventions that benefit humans. To do that, we need to estimate the value of each kind of animal relative to humans. If we understand each individual’s value in terms of the welfare they generate, whether positive or negative, then this means we need to estimate the amount of welfare that each kind of animal realizes relative to the amount of welfare that humans realize.How should we react if our method for generating these estimates produces a surprising result? Suppose, for instance, that we make various assumptions and generate a method for estimating how much welfare animals can realize relative to how much welfare humans can realize (which is the first step toward estimating how much welfare animals actually realize). And suppose that, when applied, our method suggests that chickens and humans can realize roughly the same amount of welfare at any given time. Call this “the Equality Result.” Would getting the Equality Result itself be a reason to think we made a mistake?Let’s make this concrete. The Moral Weight Project assumes hedonism—i.e., that all and only positively valenced experiences are good for you and all and only negatively valenced experiences are bad for you. Moreover, it assumes that, in the ab...