This sounds very welcome. I wanted to mention that The Unjournal is looking to expand our agenda and our team of field specialists into this area in particular. We have a few economists with an interest in animal welfare involved, but we are looking for a few more to have a sort of quorum. Please reach out if you are interested. 

Great! Perhaps at a conference like this, dedicated to this particular field of inquiry, there could be commitment to start writing papers in a non-anthropocentric fashion? There's a problem I've written about before where academics tend to presume the obvious human interests on topics like climate change and environmental harms where discourse norms are normalized, but for anything pertaining to animal welfare, they slip into "and animal rights groups have historically called for", rather than "lessened meat-eating (or other adjacent welfare concern) lessens animal suffering".

This is less problematic in philosophy and in economics to a degree, but it tends to persist in other sciences. Part of the problem is a lack of interdisciplinary connection - just what this conference is posed to help with! 

Thanks for doing this!

By supporting interventions which save lives more cost-effectively, organisations and people aligned with effective altruism, namely GiveWell and its supporters, often took the lead in acting upon the principle that all human experiences are equally valuable regardless of nationality. I am glad this happened. I believe it would also be good to see a similar dynamic around considering:

• All experiences of similar intensity and valence equally valuable regardless of species.
• The effects of human activities on animals.

I have argued that:

Thinking at the margin, I would say scope-sensitive ethics imply prioritising animal welfare over global health and development. I think the scale of the welfare of farmed animals and wild terrestrial arthropods is 4.64 and 253 k times as large as that of humans, so accounting for them seems crucial a priori.

So I encourage organisations, especially the ones I discussed above aligned with effective altruism, to:

• Increase their support of animal welfare interventions relative to those of GHD (at the margin).
• Account for effects on animals in the cost-effectiveness analyses of GHD interventions.

What follows is more outside the scope of your post, but, to the extent there is disagreement with the above, I think it would be good if organisations explained more their prioritisation. For example, it is quite unclear how much of a role the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions played in Open Philanthropy's planned allocation to GiveWell’s recommendations for the next few years^[1].

Going back to more within the scope of your post, have you considered a similar call related to the economics of digital (or LLM's) welfare^[2]?

1. ^{^}

   I asked for further details, but got not reply. Open Philanthropy only discusses prioritisation related to animals in the following point:

   we [Open Philanthropy] are a much larger portion of the funding available in many other areas where we work. Relative to the size of the opportunity space in farm animal welfare (to name one example), the amount of funding from other donors is quite low, and some of our highest-ROI opportunities would often go unfunded without our support.

2. ^{^}

   I have no familiarity with the literature, but I noted economic considerations are not discussed in Moral Consideration for AI Systems by 2030, although I assume they are outside scope.