All of Kelly_Witwicki's Comments + Replies

Sentience Institute 2017 Accomplishments, 2018 Plans, and Room for Funding

Thank you Kieran! I will look into global numbers for farmed bait fish and fish mortality, and either update the sheet on that or qualify it with info about this if I cannot find/make estimates. Will update our US estimates too, and also qualify about these numbers being vertebrates. :)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Since I'm already working on inclusionary practices myself, there's not much else to do but private or public discussion.

The private discussions I have had explicitly around the issue have varied a lot in their content and purpose and can be characterized as any of the following or a combination thereof: Listening to people's experiences; sharing my own; discussing solutions; actively (beyond just listening) supporting people who were treated poorly; sharing information and concern about the issue with people in a better or still good position to do someth... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I think we score quite a bit worse on "feeling" than most altruistically-driven communities and individuals, men included.

[Edit: Point being, yes we're lacking in feeling, but "thinking vs. feeling" is not a tradeoff we have to make to increase our A (or our gender parity, which isn't an inherent problem but is tightly related to our problems). EA's whole purpose is to combine both and we should aim to recruit people who score high on both, not just one or the other. Sorry for the excessive edits.]

0Michael_Wiebe4yMy understanding of Myers Briggs is that 'thinking' and 'feeling' are mutually exclusive, at least on average, in the sense that being more thinking-oriented means you're less feeling-oriented. The E vs. A framing is different, and it seems you could have people who score high in both. Is there any personality research on this?
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Risk does come with greater publicity of such behavior, but that's part of the point of making it more public (in addition to the information value for people who want to avoid or address it). This is the first I've ever publicly said something about these issues in EA, after three years of many private conversations that seem to have resulted in limited or no impact. Greater publicity means greater accountability and motivation for action, both for the people who behave poorly and the people who let them do so without consequence.

0xccf4yOut of curiosity, have you tried anything besides private conversations?
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Regarding your "red flags":

1) The post does not advocate for identity categories over competence, but competence over identity categories. As I've argued, we're missing out on a lot of people because they don't match irrelevant criteria.

2) No skepticism of questionable claims has been suspended. You are welcome, as others have, to point out what claims are too confident and why. You'll note that I've edited the post to qualify a claim I made that a commenter pointed out is debated in the literature, and an implication I made that a commenter conv... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I already commented this on your earlier, similar comment, but since you're repeating this here I will too so it's not missed:

I entirely appreciate the concern of going too far. Let's just be careful not to assume that risks only come with action -- the opposite path is an awful one too, and with inaction we risk moving further down it.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I entirely appreciate the concern of going too far. Let's just be careful not to assume that risks only come with action -- the opposite path is an awful one too, and with inaction we risk moving further down it.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Animal advocates definitely discuss inclusion in their movement(s) more, or at least more productively. A small organization was even established in the space recently to increase racial inclusion in the movement. EA discussion on the issue has led to far less action and results in a lot more pushback and hostility. If EAs do discuss it more, I'd say the excess is in people expressing frustration and that not going anywhere.

(My source is observation -- I have been heavily involved in both communities for several years.)

In terms of wider society, it's an is... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

The same person, in response to the point "Don’t dismiss or trivialize the altruistic concerns ordinary people have," said:

Agree – this is one of the most alienating parts of EA groups I have come across. Charity snobbishness has become quite extreme in some contexts I’ve been in, and I found it to be a somewhat closed-minded approach to altruism generally. At one point, I became persuaded by this attitude and even noticed myself becoming judgmental with the people around me. It was only when my mum told me she thought I had become more judgmenta... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Someone who prefers to remain anonymous shared with me that there were multiple issues that made her and other women interns feel excluded at an EA organization, but she felt it was too intimidating to bring them up because the staff seemed too tight, including the women, and the interns felt too separate from them.

6Kelly_Witwicki4yThe same person, in response to the point "Don’t dismiss or trivialize the altruistic concerns ordinary people have," said: Agree – this is one of the most alienating parts of EA groups I have come across. Charity snobbishness has become quite extreme in some contexts I’ve been in, and I found it to be a somewhat closed-minded approach to altruism generally. At one point, I became persuaded by this attitude and even noticed myself becoming judgmental with the people around me. It was only when my mum told me she thought I had become more judgmental, and not for the better, that I took initiative to really analyse why I was behaving like I was, and to understand that this is not a way to do the most good for people around you nor for trying to encourage people to give their time and money more effectively. I think many people in EA should take a step back and realise that in their attempt to do the most good, they are acting in a closed-minded way, which is actually preventing them to be able to achieve the most good they can.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I like this idea. It will be skewed towards people who aren't turned off by the culture, as those who are will have less interest in, and in some or many cases may not even be exposed to, the survey, but getting more systematic info on people's feelings here would be very useful.

9xccf4ySome more thoughts: * I mentioned my concern that pro-diversity efforts in EA might "spiral" towards a mob mentality. I think one way in which this might happen is if the people working towards diversity in EA recruit people from underrepresented groups that they know through other pro-diversity groups, which, as you mention, frequently suffer from a mob mentality. If the pool of underrepresented people we draw from is not selected this way (e.g. if the majority of black people who are joining EA are against affirmative action, as is true for the majority of the black population in general), then I'm less worried. * I think some of your suggestions are not entirely consistent. For example, you mention that EA should not "throw around the term “AI” with no qualification or explanation". From my perspective, if I was hearing about EA for the first time and someone felt the need to explain what "AI" was an acronym for, I would feel condescended to. I imagine this effect might be especially acute if I was a member of a minority group ("How dumb do these people think I am?") Similarly, you suggest that we cut our use of jargon. In practice, I think useful jargon is going to continue getting used no matter what. So the way this suggestion may be interpreted in practice is: Don't use jargon around people who are members of underrepresented groups. I think people from underrepresented groups will soon figure out they are being condescended to. I think a better idea is to remember that we were once ignorant about jargon ourselves, and make an effort to explain jargon to newbies. Hopefully they feel like members of the ingroup after they've mastered the lingo. * Relatedly, there is a question which I think sometimes gets tied up with the diversity question, but perhaps should not get tied up, which is the question of whether EA should aim more to be a committed, elite core vs a broad

Even after clarification, your sentence is misleading. The true thing you could say is "Among outsiders to projects, women are more likely to have their contributions accepted than men. Both men and women are less likely to have their contributions accepted when their genders are revealed; the effect was measured to be a percentage point different between the genders and may or may not be statistically significant. There are also major differences between the contribution patterns of men and women."

As a side note, I find the way you're using soci... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Julia,

I appreciate the work you've done and continue to do on community-building. It seems though that there is a lot more productive work that can done than can be achieved by one part-time role, and that there are angles we're not addressing.

For instance, we could bring in someone who can advise on all forms of communication from job postings to website UX to social media content and strategy; assist with speaker recruitment and selection and provide feedback for presentations at conferences; and conduct reviews of inclusionary performance in organizations' hiring and management practices, in outreach efforts, and in local communities' practices.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

An explanation of what you mean by "turn out OK" would be helpful. For instance, do movements that err more towards social justice fare worse than those that err away from it (or than those that sit at the status quo)?

Whether that's the case for the atheism movement or the open source community is a heavy question that merits more explanation.

Actually, I would think that any overshooting you see in these communities is a reaction to how status-quo (or worse) both of those communities are. Note for instance that when women are not collaborators on... (read more)

3xccf4yI'm referring to mob mentality, trigger-happy ostracization, and schisms. I don't think erring towards/away from social justice is quite the right question, because in these failure cases, the distribution of support for social justice becomes a lot more bimodal. Sounds plausible. That's a big reason why I support thoughtful work on diversity: as a way to remove the motivation for less thoughtful work.

The Atheism Plus split was pretty bad. They were a group that wanted all atheists to also be involved in social justice. Naturally many weren't happy with this takeover of the movement and pushed back. The Atheism Plus side argues that this was due to misogyny, ect, ignoring the fact that some people just wanted to be atheists and do atheist stuff and not get involved in politics. The end result was Atheism Plus was widely rejected, many social justice leaning atheists left the movement, Atheism widely defamed, remaining atheists not particularly open to social justice.

I don't know very much about open source, but I've heard that there's been some pretty vicious/brutal political fights over codes of conduct, ect.

Kelly, I don't think the study you cite is good or compelling evidence of the conclusion you're stating. See Scott's comments on it for the reasons why.

(edited because the original link didn't work)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

If people have to opt into it, we can assume the people who currently misuse their votes won't.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I think that's a huge part of the reason why we overrepresent people the demographics we do. But offloading responsibility onto part of the pipeline below us isn't sufficient, least of all when we can source from other pipelines.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

The problem is that those thoughts, as I noted, become actions, just actions we can usually only see as systematic trends. Just because someone does not say "women are incompetent" does not mean they aren't underestimating women's competence and e.g. hiring them less than he should. Taking action on this just requires a more systematic approach than explicit discrimination does.

I agree that in terms of what works, just pointing out bias doesn't seem to help and can even backfire, as I mentioned, which is why I provided a list of other possible solutions.

6David_Moss4yThe flip side of it being hard to discern whether people have bad thoughts and act biasedly except by drawing inferences from broader patterns is that it's also hard to discern whether people actually do have bad thoughts and acted biasedly from those broader patterns. (c.f. the many fields where women dominate men in terms of prevalence and performance, as well as EAs many other demographic biases which don't receive the same treatment e.g. a 14:1 left-right bias, and a 4:1 20-35:any age over 35 bias).
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I can't address all of this but will say three quick things:

I'm broadly skeptical of the social psychology research you cite

I appreciate it's weakness, but it's at least some evidence against people's intuitions and in addition to the literature on how those intuitions are demonstrably false and discriminatory it should update people away from those discriminatory beliefs.

[Edit: I appreciate that I should generally behave as though my community will behave well, and as such I should not have requested that people upvote even if I just asked them to &qu... (read more)

Another idea I had: add questions to the EA Survey to understand how people feel about the issues you are describing. This accomplishes a few things:

  • It allows us to track progress more effectively than observing our demographic breakdown. Measuring how people feel about EA movement culture gives us a shorter feedback loop, since changes in demographics lag behind culture changes. Furthermore, by attempting to measure the climate issue directly, we can zero in on factors under our control.

  • It helps fight selection effects that occur in online discussi

... (read more)
1xccf4yThanks. I'm also finding the voting in this thread frustrating. Sorry about that. Glad to hear it :) I'm an excessive editor too, I'm not sure it's something you need to apologize for :)
2Buck4yI don't think it is, at all, any more than Daryl Bem's research updates me towards thinking ESP is real. Like, who knows, the world is a crazy place, maybe the papers here are in the 36% of published psychology papers which hold up under replication [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716]. But I don't think that it makes sense to update against your beliefs about this stuff based on the published science--if you think that the scientists would have published these papers regardless of their truth, as I do, you shouldn't regard them as evidence.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

While I thoroughly appreciate your thoughts here and I'm glad you voiced them, I think you started on a miscommunication:

I don't think the fact that there are costs to this, as anything, is controversial (though I know its cost-effectiveness is), and it sounds to me like Tyler just meant "intrinsic benefits," in addition to the instrumental benefits to EA community-building. If he thought improving diversity and inclusion in the community had no cost, I would think he'd say its case is irrefutable, not that these benefits merely "strengthen" its case.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

The difficulty for movements against discrimination (between humans) in a lot of modern society lies in that definition of what constitutes "clear" discrimination. For instance, people don't say explicitly discriminatory things as much as they used to, but they still hold discriminatory beliefs that make them e.g. mistrust, discredit and undervalue others, and we can for the most part only assess e.g. hiring bias by looking at whole samples, not at any one individual.

4xccf4yI don't think we should police thoughts, only actions. We don't make it a crime to fantasize about killing someone--you only become a criminal when you act on those thoughts. This illustrates a useful and widely applied principle of our legal system. The willingness of some diversity advocates to disregard this principle is a good example of diversity advocates getting overzealous about diversity and sacrificing other values, as I complain about in this [http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1g3/why_how_to_make_progress_on_diversity_inclusion/c9o] comment. Furthermore, I don't think condemning people for having beliefs we don't want is an effective way to change those beliefs--a variety [https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study] of [http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-flamethrower/] research [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-hate-search.html] seems to indicate this doesn't work (though, I generally don't put too much stock in social psychology research, which includes those links, and I'm also not a good paper scrutinizer).
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I see, we're just thinking of "combative" differently.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I agree that that qualification suggests his view on the contribution of biology to the gender gap is weaker than his otherwise definitive framings suggest. [Edit: Sentence here removed because I'm too tired and my thoughts are not in order, will get sleep before responding to any more comments. Replacement: He's still presenting it as a black-and-white issue if he's only presenting one side.]

Google may have had that conversation on prejudice going, but he is very oversimplistic and offers the essentialist view as so definitive that his solutions are the r... (read more)

Can I suggest that the Damore issue be parked? Even though it is currently producing a high quality, civil conversation, I worry that talking about such a highly polarised topic is somewhat risky as you never know who might join the thread.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Regarding discussion style: I think several EAs are great at discussions where they're fully critical of each other but aren't combative (e.g. they don't raise their voices, go ad hominem, tear apart one aspect of an argument to dismiss the rest, or downvote comments that signal an identity that theirs is constructed in opposition to). I think it's possible to get all the benefit of criticism and disagreement without negative emotions clouding our judgement.

I think the key may be to work against the impulse to be right, or the impulse that someone who disa... (read more)

5Michael_PJ4yAs I said, I'm totally in favour of collaborative discussions, i.e. this stuff (except possibly raised voices), but I wanted to argue that sometimes things that look like combative discussion aren't. Imagine: A: B: I think that's a pretty bad argument because . seems much better. A: No, you didn't understand what I'm saying, I said . This could be a snippet of a tense combative argument, or just a vigorous collaborative brainstorming session. A might feel unfairly dismissed by B, or might not even notice it. If we were trying to combat combtiveness by calling out people abruptly shooting down other people's ideas, then we might prevent people from doing this particular style of rapid brainstorming. (Sorry, this stuff is hard to talk about because it's very contextual. I should probably have picked a better example :)) What I'm trying to say is that we just need to be a little bit careful how we shoot for our goals.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Unfortunately since the respondents would be members of the EA community, it would be hard to control that data for cultural fit in order to get at how robustly EA people from each demographic are. People have stuck around in the community for reasons other than how EA they are or can be, as I hope I've shed some light on.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

The histories of many forms of prejudice are histories biological essentialism and biological determinism. Even if such claims are now made out of a "willingness to explore" alternative hypotheses despite this long history of precisely being an unwillingness to explore the much newer hypothesis of prejudice, they tend to be over-simplistic, as in the memo, and tend to have the effect -- if not also the intention -- of dismissing the other, newer hypothesis of prejudice, which is robustly supported by data that the memo's author fails to include.

T... (read more)

Thanks for the reply, Kelly, and I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. I really appreciate your willingness to be charitable and admit your mistakes, and I will strive to emulate your example.

That's not to say it's a black and white matter of total biological similarity or total culturally-imposed disparities and prejudice. That's what the author of the memo implies

Hm, that's not how I read it. For example, in the first sentence, he says he doesn't deny that sexism exists. Later, he writes: "Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I couldn't find it unfortunately, and was just relying on the veracity of that rather detailed extract and the credibility of the source publication. I considered not putting that in at all since what matters is that the prejudiced view doesn't seem to have backing, but I figured this was still information, worth a "may be more likely" even if I couldn't confirm that it's been demonstrated.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I haven't thought about prioritization yet, and was hoping other people would discuss that here. Since a lot of these are actions individuals can take, it will vary a lot by what roles an individual plays and what they have the most room for improvement in.

That said... toning down jargon, I suspect you'd agree, is probably pretty cost-effective, as I would think is toning up the visibility of people from underrepresented groups. A Diversity & Inclusion Officer who could review and advise on social media communications, ads, community recruitment, websi... (read more)

3casebash4yI have no doubt that there are things worth doing in this field, but I do worry about the potential for this to take attention away from even higher priorities. One reason why big organisations move slowly is because they have to get approval/input from so many people before they can actually do anything. Secondly, I worry that this is an example of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits in that optimising on second factor tends to be making some sacrifice or compromise on the first. There is likely to be an adverse selection effect in that the kinds of people who would want to be a diversity officer tend to be the kinds of people who also take the strongest stance and hence are more likely to push us toward prioritising this more than we should. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad idea, just it isn't as obviously good as it looks at first glance.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

Thanks! I added a note about the debate.

I'm not sure what your comments about critical discussion style are referring to in the post.

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I believe sexuality is a demographic we do well on.

9Buck4yWe also have way more trans women than society at large.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I only hold this view weakly, but yes, I'm worried that, as you put it, "E first, A second" people are less likely to stick around.

I don't think "A first, E second" people are necessarily easier to get in the first place though, as they are more likely to already have a calling (and so to have less personally to gain) and to be committed to other altruistic pursuits that are hard for them to drop as "ineffective."

That said, I've seen significant movement among heavily committed farmed animal advocates towards thinking more abo... (read more)

3Michael_PJ4yMy gut reaction is that most of the people who have stuck around are "E first", but I think there's probably a higher base rate of those amongst early adopters, so hard to say. It seems like we could gather some data on this, though. It's a vague question, but I suspect most people would be able to answer some variant of "Were you E first or A first? E/A/Other". Then we could see if that had any relationship to tenure in the community, or anything else. Perhaps an item for the next Effective Altruism survey?
7casebash4yFrom what I've heard, most of the people would are A first are already involved in causes. Now, unfortunately, there is a sense in which EA unavoidably is threatening, as the logical implication is often is that the work that they have done is less impactful than it could have been and that their current work or things they are working towards are less effective than it could have been. And we can phrase things as nicely as we want, and talk about how you can do EA plus other things and that all charity work is valuable even if it isn't EA and that there are valuable causes we haven't discovered yet, ect., but at the end of the day, this is still the logical implication and no matter what we do, this will make people uncomfortable. This effect is especially bad since if everyone adopted EA, it is likely certain organisations would cease to exist. Further, because we unavoidably threaten current power structures within charity, many people there have written incredibly unfair articles articles criticising EA and misrepresenting us (there has been valid criticism too, but this is a minority). This makes recruiting A people even harder.
Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

That doesn't seem like what I'm doing. Georgia doesn't seem to be disagreeing with my post's overall argument (that EA would benefit from diversity; she actually seems to explicitly agree with that in her last paragraph), and she doesn't explicitly agree or disagree with the argument of that specific paragraph (that diversity tends to be net beneficial for groups). The quote you cite is about a "clear" effect on groups, from the evidence she evaluates, and I might not have the same bar for robustness that she's thinking of with that claim.

Moreove... (read more)

Why & How to Make Progress on Diversity & Inclusion in EA

I didn’t mean to imply that — I just cited it as a source for the specific claims in that sentence. The other evidence I cite seems to imply it overall, and she doesn’t seem to account for all of that evidence.

I can’t tag here, but Georgia, if you see this I’d be curious for your opinion on how the totality of evidence weighs, particularly in expectation regardless of how robust it is.

It feels like a bad practice to take a post which concludes that the effects are mixed or small, then just cite the effects in that post which seem positive and not mention the ones that seem negative or that the post overall disagrees with what you're trying to use it to argue for.

EA Survey 2017 Series: Demographics II

Also, could respondents not say anything about being e.g. Native American, Middle Eastern, or at least "Other"? I'm sure the structure of these questions has been thoroughly discussed in social sciences literature and I don't think the options shown here are in line with the standard style.

0Peter Wildeford4yThese were not options that we presented, but people could implicitly answer "Other" by not answering "Yes" to any of the race questions. We'd be happy to revisit this question if you think we should include additional races or an explicit "Other" option.
EA Survey 2017 Series: Community Demographics & Beliefs

In addition to how people "think" about EA as an "opportunity" or "obligation" (and FYI I for one would have been unclear if I saw both "moral duty" and "obligation"), I'd be interested to see how many people "feel" like EA/A is an obligation as opposed to an opportunity.

EA Survey 2017 Series: Demographics II

I would also be interested to see a question for what value people assign to life on Earth at present.

I imagine for instance this is much higher, and may even be the difference between highly positive and highly negative, for EAs who are most concerned with x-risk as compared to those more interested in animal farming. (And more obviously, s-risk, but it would still be interesting to quantify the difference, if just in terms of e.g. "highly negative" to "highly positive".)

EA Survey 2017 Series: Demographics II

Seeing how e.g. depression correlates with cause area preferences would be interesting.

EA Survey 2017 Series: Demographics II

Mentioned this to Tee -- I would love to see both (1) turnover data, and (2) previous (pre-EA) work with or donations to non-profits/other previous altruistic pursuits.

For the latter, the survey could maybe ask how much volunteer time, career hours, and money respondents previously put into charity, maybe in the last year and/or five and/or lifetime before finding EA. It could also offer categories for the charities' cause areas.

Relatedly, whether the respondent was vegetarian or vegan before finding EA would be interesting, and/or some scale about how imp... (read more)

3Kelly_Witwicki4yI would also be interested to see a question for what value people assign to life on Earth at present. I imagine for instance this is much higher, and may even be the difference between highly positive and highly negative, for EAs who are most concerned with x-risk as compared to those more interested in animal farming. (And more obviously, s-risk, but it would still be interesting to quantify the difference, if just in terms of e.g. "highly negative" to "highly positive".)
The Best of EA in 2016: Nomination Thread

What about doing a poll on FB (instead or additionally, idk)? Or a private poll elsewhere? (FB is good because people can comment explanations.)

The Best of EA in 2016: Nomination Thread

And FRI and SP both have articles on wild animals, not sure which is better for purposes here. SP's is a bit more introductory/accessible maybe, and also expresses more philosophical arguments for why we should care; FRI's a bit more academic and does not address some typical introductory reactions.

FRI's: https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/

3lukeprog5ySeems like this one should probably count for 2009 rather than 2016…
2Kelly_Witwicki5ySP's: https://sentience-politics.org/philosophy/the-relevance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ [https://sentience-politics.org/philosophy/the-relevance-of-wild-animal-suffering/]
The Best of EA in 2016: Nomination Thread

"Altruism, numbers, and factory farms": https://sentience-politics.org/philosophy/altruism-numbers-factory-farms

Sentience Politics recently published a page on the significance of factory farms, which also includes discussion on why it's important to consider numbers and compare suffering.

(Disclaimer, I work at SP/EAF.)

1Kelly_Witwicki5yAnd FRI and SP both have articles on wild animals, not sure which is better for purposes here. SP's is a bit more introductory/accessible maybe, and also expresses more philosophical arguments for why we should care; FRI's a bit more academic and does not address some typical introductory reactions. FRI's: https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ [https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/]