Before reading this, I would have believed it was the job of the top executive officer (e.g. an ED, CEO, president, etc.) to set the org's agenda. It sounds like that's what you're currently doing at your org. That would seem right to me. And I THINK I still believe that? Although you're making me question it.

You say, "I, as the founder, have a lot of control—but not a clean mandate, not an explicit delegation." To me, you having a lot of control sounds right. But you lacking a clean mandate would seem like a problem to me. I'd think you should ask the board to give you "a clean mandate" and "explicit delegation" to make these kinds of strategy and goal decisions. E.g. write up some kind of document for the board to sign officially delegating that power to you.

THAT SAID, your post is pointing out that all nonprofits are different and so we shouldn't assume the same thing is best for all of them. So now, I guess, I don't know! Maybe at your organization, it is somehow right for the top executive officer NOT to have a clean mandate and explicit delegation?

I'm just thinking, in my limited life experience, things seem to go best if there is ONE person who cares a lot, is very focused, and works hard to make things happen according to a single plan. A top executive officer (e.g. you, or someone you hire to fill that role if you don't want to) seems best poised to be that person. But I don't know if my life experience gives me an accurate sense of how the world works. And I take your point that maybe what is best for one organization to achieve its goals is different than what's best for another organization to achieve its goals.

Thank you so much for your support, Jason!

Thank you Joey!

Thank you Akber!!!!

Thank you Kathleen!!!!

Got it. Thank you so much for explaining so patiently! 

Got it. I think I understand what you're saying. I'm not as good with math so I'm not sure if I followed the calculations. But to try to put what you're saying in less mathy terms, I think you're basically saying:

1) There are WAY WAY WAY more nematodes than farmed animals. 

2) Nematodes are significantly less likely to be sentient than farmed animals. 

3) But the fact that there are WAY WAY WAY more nematodes than farmed animals still means that, from an expected value perspective, one would still expect the effect of farming on nematodes to be much bigger than the effect of farming on farmed animals.

Is that right?

Like, if you could enter a deal where a person is guaranteed to pay you $1 up front, but in exchange you accept a 6% chance that the person will later take $4,810,000 from you, it'd be a bad deal to make, even though the most likely outcome is you simply gain a dollar and don't pay anything. Is that a good analogy?

Thank you for this interesting, weird, surprising, and important post. It is a mind f*ck. 

--

Question: You say, "In particular, it is crucial to know whether [soil nematodes, mites, and springtails] have positive or negative lives."

Is another crucial question to find out whether soil nematodes, mites, and springtails are sentient at all? 

To me, reading this, the main emotional / System 1 reaction I had was, "But those animals are SO small and SO different from me. I can't even see them! It's hard for me to believe they're sentient." I looked briefly on the EA Forum and found this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jYdmcrgAj5odTunCT/demodex-mites-large-and-neglected-group-of-wild-animals ("Strictly speaking, it's unclear whether Demodex mites are sentient. But this is mostly because nobody has researched this question - for many groups of invertebrates where people have looked (e.g. insect groups), the science does support these groups being sentient. To me, it seems plausible enough that Demodex mites are sentient that we should be giving serious consideration to their interests.").

What is your opinion on how likely these small animals are to be sentient? E.g. do you think it's more like 10% likelihood or more like 90% likelihood? 

To me "whether they have positive or negative lives" seems to imply that you think they likely do have lives with a valence one way or the other, as opposed to just unvalenced lives like we imagine plants and bacteria have. But maybe that's not what you meant. 

I realize that there are SO many animals that even a small chance of them being conscious is a big important moral thing for us to consider. So to be clear I'm not trying to push back on caring about them even if the likelihood of them being conscious is only like 10%. I'm just curious what you think. 

--

Update: After posting this, I just googled to see what soil mites look like up close. And the pictures I found of them are SO CUTE. They just look like little bugs, with cute little legs and stuff. So that makes me change my System 1 reaction to a new System 1 reaction of "Oh, of course these little cuties are sentient."  :-)

This is SUCH a great post. Very needed. Thank you Aaron! 

Woah! This is really interesting and surprising to me. Thank you so much for letting people know!