Thanks for the relevant quotes, Mo! 

Thanks for sharing, Aaron!

Nitpick. The flyer says 2024 instead of 2025.

True! Employers paying more will more easily attract people who want to donate more, but I do not think this plays a meaningful role in setting pay.

Thanks for the post, Cameron! I strongly upvoted it. I think it is very valuable to have posts unpacking jobs.

Hi Hannah and Sophie.

The series evaluates the innovation, deployment, and animal welfare impacts of these technologies to help animal advocates and funders identify which developments should be endorsed and what actions should be taken to prevent increased animal suffering.

Will the series assess the cost-effectiveness of potentially promising interventions? There has been significant discussion about how AI will affect animals, but I do not recall any cost-effectiveness analyses.

Thanks for the post, Seema! Staying at a higher-paying less directly impactful job may make sense to donate more. Impact can be doubled by donating 10 pp more of gross income to interventions 10 times as cost-effective as one's own direct work.

Thanks for the analysis, Julia! I strongly upvoted it.

Have you considered estimating the cost-effectiveness of each of the 3 channels? This could help you decide which ones to scale up or down.

Meta-analyses of suicide prevention programs show effectiveness rates ranging from 10% to 40%, with significant heterogeneity based on:

• Intervention type (universal vs. indicated)
• Population (general vs. high-risk)
• Implementation quality
• Follow-up duration

I used 25% effectiveness as a central estimate. This assumes that among youths who would otherwise die by suicide, our intervention prevents death in 1 out of 4 cases.

Why 25%?

• Gatekeeper training programs (similar to our workshops): 10-30% reduction in suicidal ideation
• Crisis hotlines: 10-20% reduction in immediate suicide risk (short-term)
• Combined interventions: Potentially higher, but limited long-term data

Do you think the risk of the students reached via all channels was decreased by 25 %? What you write above seems to have in mind the direct channels (Suicide Prevention Workshops, and Crisis Hotline Youth Callers), but I suspect the effectiveness will be significantly lower for the indirect one (School Awareness Packages). This accounts for 86.1 % (= 10,875/12,635) of the people you estimate to have reached, so I guess you are overestimating the cost-effectiveness. However, not as much as suggested by that fraction. I believe you are overestimating the students you reached via the indirect channel.

A. School Awareness Packages (Indirect reach)

• Sent mental health resource packets to 145 schools
• Assumed 300 students per school (conservative estimate for Japanese high schools)
• Assumed 25% engagement rate (materials opened, read, or discussed)
• Total: 10,875 youths

You are assuming the materials were delivered to all students, but you only contacted at most a few representatives of each school? If so, did they all share the materials with all students? You can add a factor representing the number of students who received the materials as a fraction of all students of the schools you contacted.

Thanks for the post. Would it be worth just adding this bit of context at the start of the post?

The All-Party Parliamentary Group [APPG] for Future Generations was established in 2017 with a view to represent and to safeguard the rights of future generations and to push back on political short termism. We support our Members and Parliamentarians to fairly consider the interests of all future generations and ensure that they have the resources to work and plan for the long-term.

Thanks for the great initiative! Strongly upvoted. I would like to see more cost-effectiveness analyses from EA groups.

Hi Cynthia.

I do not think we can say with certainty that the ratio is preserved across species

This seems in tension with what you and @Wladimir J. Alonso say here.

In the Welfare Footprint framework, pain intensities are defined as absolute measures, meaning that one hour of Excruciating pain in humans is assumed to be hedonically equivalent to one hour of Excruciating pain in shrimps, if shrimps were capable of experiencing Excruciating pain. This approach treats pain intensities as fixed, anchoring them to human experience rather than scaling them based on a species’ welfare range, to ensure comparability across species.

Coming back to the 1st situation I presented, if 1 h of disabling pain in humans was 10 times as bad as 1 h of hurtful pain in humans, I think 1 h of disabling pain in shrimps should also be 10 times as bas as 1 h of hurtful pain in shrimps.

Even with humans, there is high variability in preference for intense but short aversiveness, as compared to moderate but longer aversion.

There may be a misunderstanding. In the 2nd situation I presented, the experiences being compared have the same duration. If 1 h of disabling pain in humans was x times as bad as 1 h of hurtful pain in humans, I think N h of disabling pain in humans should also be x times as bad as N h of hurtful pain in humans. I believe the badness of a painful experience with a given intensity is proportional to its duration.