Hide table of contents
The host has requested RSVPs for this event
11 Going1 Maybe2 Can't Go
Hannah Tookey
Ben Stevenson
Janique
William McAuliffe
Daniela R. Waldhorn
Hannah McKay
Camille Lavoix
Constance Li
juliaq
Rían O.M
Neil_Dullaghan
AllisonA
Fabricio
Leire

Human consumption of shrimp has increased rapidly in recent decades. Yet, there are few requirements or guidelines for how farmers and fishers should treat shrimp used for food. Rethink Priorities is completing a series of reports, the Shrimp Welfare Sequence, to orient readers to a nascent field dedicated to incorporating welfare considerations into shrimp production. 

Our upcoming webinar, Shrimp Farming: Vast in Scale, Diverse in Welfare Challenges, provides a formal preview of the initial outputs of this work. We invite you to join Hannah McKay, Associate Researcher at Rethink Priorities, for a short presentation, followed by a Q&A to a panel of RP’s shrimp welfare researchers. The webinar will take place on Monday, November 20 from 11:00 am to 11:45 am EST (5:00 - 5:45 pm CET).

Please register here. You can also let us know via the form if you can’t attend but would like to be sent a recording. The rest of this post provides a preview of what the webinar will cover. 

Why Shrimp?

Is protecting the welfare of shrimp a worthwhile goal? Few studies have tested whether shrimp are sentient – i.e., capable of having positive or negative experiences – and some commentators are skeptical about existing confirmatory evidence (Crump et al., 2022Diggles, 2023). Given indefinite uncertainty about shrimp sentience, the Animal Sentience Precautionary Principle provides criteria for how to proceed:

Where there are threats of seriousnegative animal welfare outcomes, lack of full scientific certainty as to the sentience of the animals in question shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent those outcomes. (Birch, 2017, p. 3; emphasis is ours).

Accordingly, our goal is to assess whether shrimp used for food face serious and negative welfare threats. Upon determining that the animal sentience precautionary principle is indeed applicable, we also want to identify cost-effective measures to mitigate negative outcomes in shrimp production. 

The Scale of Potential Harm

The number of individuals affected by shrimp production is a key metric for the seriousness of potential welfare problems (ibid, p. 4). Hence, we begin by estimating how many shrimp are used for food each year. By converting data on the biomass of animals slaughtered each year to numbers of individuals, we find that wild-caught shrimp represent the majority of animals directly killed for food each year (~25 trillion). Meanwhile, we find that there are more shrimp alive on farms at any time than any other type of animal (~230 billion). 

Of course, if farmers and fishers treat shrimp well, then the large scale of production would not necessarily pose a welfare issue. However, suffering might be quite common, at least on farms. In particular, pre-slaughter mortality rates across a range of sources indicate that over half of farmed shrimp die before farmers deem them ready for slaughter

Welfare Threats on Farms

Why are shrimp so vulnerable on farms? We provide an overview of shrimp aquaculture to contextualize the answer. Although farming practices are highly heterogeneous, they vary on a continuum from "extensive" to "intensive." Extensive farms construct ponds near a water source where wild shrimp drift in due to the tide, where they remain confined due to dikes and screens. Extensive farms stock shrimp at low densities because the ponds have a limited amount of oxygen and food. Welfare issues on extensive farms are in large part due to a failure to control external threats, such as predation and environmental pollutants from other farms. 

Welfare issues on intensive farms, on the other hand, largely result from attempts to control the aquatic environment. In particular, intensive farmers employ technology and proactive management practices to increase aeration and food availability, allowing them to stock shrimp at higher densities. Higher densities result in greater amounts of leftover food and excrement, which can cause toxic levels of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. Intensive farmers try to solve these issues, but in doing so create yet more welfare problems. For example, lining the bottom of the tank with plastic prevents the buildup of sludge, but it also prevents shrimp from burrowing, a potentially rewarding behavior. Even putting its effects on water quality aside, crowding increases cannibalism, disease transmission, and limits access to resting areas. 

Ranking Welfare Threats

Which of these issues is most concerning? We adapt Welfare Footprint's pain-track framework (Alonso & Schuck-Paim, 2021) to model the scale of each threat according to its duration, severity, and prevalence. We find that the issues which cause the most suffering in aggregate are (a) chronic and (b) affect the majority of shrimp, like high stocking density and poor water quality.

If you are interested in shrimp welfare, and concerned by threats to farmed shrimp, do come along to hear more from Hannah and participate in our Q&A with shrimp welfare experts. We look forward to seeing you on 20 November.

Comments
Everyone who RSVP'd to this event will be notified.


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f