Small note: I don't know if it's my own English at fault, but I interpreted "7x below the WHO threshold" as meaning "7 times worse than the threshold" and only understood the actual meaning as I looked at the actual numbers later. Might be worth wording it differently.

Great result I think!

Mentioned many real dangers, gave a pretty realistic outlook, and was approachable and funny without making it all look ridiculous.

Well, you can now see that you don't know who upvoted your comment (but it was me).

I'm not sure if admins know or not.

I'd argue that this doesn't measure the harms I was talking about.

Still, I like that you replied to a 3 year old comment with actual data.

Sorry for being this blunt, but EA is about using evidence and reason to identify the most effective ways to help others. I can't possibly see how operating on a vague guess is on par with that.

This criticism is independent of the fact that I still claim a "negative life" is not a concept we should incorporate into moral theories, and that we definitely shouldn't aim to just cull all animals whose lives we somehow think are negative.

Strongly up voted.

Compare with this quote from MacAskill's "What We Owe the Future chapter 7", showing exactly the problem you describe:

If scientists with Einstein-level research abilities were cloned and trained from an early age, or if human beings were genetically engineered to have greater research abilities, this could compensate for having fewer people overall and thereby sustain technological progress.

estimate the cropland- and pasture-years per $ for the interventions they fund.

What would they do with such an estimate? I don't think anyone, you included, knows with any more than very slim confidence, if it's good or bad for soil animals to turn wild land into cropland or vice versa.

The title is really confusing and I didn't understand it. Maybe try "Recommended interventions for X when considering Y" or something instead of an explicit bottom line?

I largely agree with you but I want to point to a small issue with terminology: what does "supporting Palestine" mean here?

I think it's both vague (do you mean a current entity? A future state? Something else? And what does supporting it mean?) and unnecessary (in my view strongly objecting to what Israel's doing in Gaza and in the West Bank is consistent with most political views other than those who for some reason put extremely low value on the lives of Palestinians compared to Israelis).

FWIW the latest estimate I heard from Gaza was 100,000 dead (many of which haven't been reported by Hamas) (sorry for the paywall) which is on the same order of magnitude - and as opposed to the Ukraine war, most of them aren't combatants. It's up to you what to make of that.