First a clarification: I'm actually fairly uncertain about whether the experiences of wild animals are net- negative, but if I had to choose I would predict net-negative. I added an edit to clarify that in the main text!
would you stand by reducing it to something close to but below 1 not being "AGI went well for animals"?
That's a great question. I was struggling with how to operationalize the definition of "going well" for animals, while still maintaining empirical (and moral) uncertainty about the current state of affairs. I think it would certainly be a good thing if the ratio increased drastically (all else equal), irrespective of whether the ratio passed 1 or not. But I don't think I would describe it as "going well" for animals in that scenario, if the ratio would still be below 1? I'm not sure, I would have to think about this some more.
Just chiming in to try to answer the following question:
On the point about AI-enabled modelling of wild animal welfare and implications of different interventions: are there any existing promising examples of this?
I don't think I've found any slam-dunk examples where currently available tools are used to predict *outcomes* of conservation interventions / population management decisions.
However, I think there are lots of opportunities to learn from past efforts with the help of AI, and inform decisions around population management using AI, seen from the lens of conservation biology at least (where research in conservation biology is likely indirectly helpful for understanding wild animal welfare as well). See for example van Houtan et al. (2020), Sathishkumar et al. (2023), van Oosterhout (2023), Wu et al. (2023), and Agmata & Guðmundsson (2025). Even if AI wasn't specifically and explicitly used to predict the outcomes of population management decisions (I think it is very likely that we will be able to use AI for that eventually), you may still reap benefits from simply being able to more accurately target the right place at the right time.
Great to hear that you are interested in rat welfare!
we do not know precisely how many rats there are
Have a look here where I give my rough estimate for the average urban rat population density.
For example, hormone-based contraceptives, such as Contrapest, are banned in Europe.
I think this is a big issue. The fact that ContraPest isn't available in Europe despite SenesTech's apparent intentions likely has something to do with the slow, complicated, and expensive process of getting approval for new chemicals/drugs in the EU. (I'm mainly basing this on conversations I've had with people at Innolytics, the producers of OvoControl).
You may also find the discussion of welfare implications of rodenticides in this report by Kim Cuddington at Rethink Priorities useful. The section "Rodents" under "Welfare implications" is the most relevant.
Not much has been published on this question, but there seem to be about 220 rats per km2 in Baltimore, if one extrapolates from the numbers presented in this paper.
Here are some other reports to cross-check against: According to this report from a US agency, "the total rat population of New York City is estimated to be not more than 250, 000 or one rat for 36 persons". A similar claim is made here. Going by the ratio of rats to humans, both of these seem to be at least roughly in accordance with the Baltimore data, which is 47 000 rats and 619 000 humans. According to this source, where they try to estimate the density of rats in urban areas of the UK, "each rat has a rather spacious 5,000 square metres to roam around in." That means that there are 1 rat for every 0.005 km2, which is equivalent to 200 rats per km2. Also very close to the numbers for Baltimore.
could this be a potential area to improve animal welfare?
I think fertility control for rodents is promising, here are some somewhat related thoughts I have on contraceptives for pigeons. Although the only commercially available product for rodents that I'm aware of (ContraPest) is quite expensive as far as I can tell; see my back-of-the-envelope calculation.
I'm skeptical of how much this would change people's views on Moral Circle Expansion, so I don't think this post would have a lot of value, since it might not be concrete/applicable enough.
Speaking for myself here, I'd be very interested in reading a more in-depth critique of Moral Circle Expansion, and I'm open to changing my mind on that topic. Although I'm perhaps most interested in predictions of specific questions, like whether our descendants will care about the welfare of invertebrates and other wild animals, and (relatedly) whether sentience is likely to be the main determinant of moral concern in the future.
First a clarification: I'm actually fairly uncertain about whether the experiences of wild animals are net- negative, but if I had to choose I would predict net-negative. I added an edit to clarify that in the main text!
That's a great question. I was struggling with how to operationalize the definition of "going well" for animals, while still maintaining empirical (and moral) uncertainty about the current state of affairs. I think it would certainly be a good thing if the ratio increased drastically (all else equal), irrespective of whether the ratio passed 1 or not. But I don't think I would describe it as "going well" for animals in that scenario, if the ratio would still be below 1? I'm not sure, I would have to think about this some more.
Given that you mention wild animals in a couple of places, you might be interested in having a look at this post as well!
Just chiming in to try to answer the following question:
I don't think I've found any slam-dunk examples where currently available tools are used to predict *outcomes* of conservation interventions / population management decisions.
However, I think there are lots of opportunities to learn from past efforts with the help of AI, and inform decisions around population management using AI, seen from the lens of conservation biology at least (where research in conservation biology is likely indirectly helpful for understanding wild animal welfare as well). See for example van Houtan et al. (2020), Sathishkumar et al. (2023), van Oosterhout (2023), Wu et al. (2023), and Agmata & Guðmundsson (2025). Even if AI wasn't specifically and explicitly used to predict the outcomes of population management decisions (I think it is very likely that we will be able to use AI for that eventually), you may still reap benefits from simply being able to more accurately target the right place at the right time.
In terms of examples of the use of AI that seems directly relevant for wild animal welfare, see the following papers (Bierlich et al. 2024, Rast et al. 2024, and Murphy et al. 2025).
@Will Howard🔹 It seems like the web tool no longer works (I'm not able to use it at least) - it doesn't accept links to user profiles for example.
Hi Alexandre,
Great to hear that you are interested in rat welfare!
Have a look here where I give my rough estimate for the average urban rat population density.
I think this is a big issue. The fact that ContraPest isn't available in Europe despite SenesTech's apparent intentions likely has something to do with the slow, complicated, and expensive process of getting approval for new chemicals/drugs in the EU. (I'm mainly basing this on conversations I've had with people at Innolytics, the producers of OvoControl).
You may also find the discussion of welfare implications of rodenticides in this report by Kim Cuddington at Rethink Priorities useful. The section "Rodents" under "Welfare implications" is the most relevant.
Hi Louis, great question! Here are my thoughts.
I made some back-of-the-envelope calculations of this a year ago, the goal was to compare the cost of contraceptive treatment per rodent with the cost of contraceptive treatment per pigeon.
Not much has been published on this question, but there seem to be about 220 rats per km2 in Baltimore, if one extrapolates from the numbers presented in this paper.
Here are some other reports to cross-check against:
According to this report from a US agency, "the total rat population of New York City is estimated to be not more than 250, 000 or one rat for 36 persons". A similar claim is made here. Going by the ratio of rats to humans, both of these seem to be at least roughly in accordance with the Baltimore data, which is 47 000 rats and 619 000 humans. According to this source, where they try to estimate the density of rats in urban areas of the UK, "each rat has a rather spacious 5,000 square metres to roam around in." That means that there are 1 rat for every 0.005 km2, which is equivalent to 200 rats per km2. Also very close to the numbers for Baltimore.
I think fertility control for rodents is promising, here are some somewhat related thoughts I have on contraceptives for pigeons. Although the only commercially available product for rodents that I'm aware of (ContraPest) is quite expensive as far as I can tell; see my back-of-the-envelope calculation.
I think I roughly agree with your ranking Brian!
Speaking for myself here, I'd be very interested in reading a more in-depth critique of Moral Circle Expansion, and I'm open to changing my mind on that topic. Although I'm perhaps most interested in predictions of specific questions, like whether our descendants will care about the welfare of invertebrates and other wild animals, and (relatedly) whether sentience is likely to be the main determinant of moral concern in the future.
(Thanks Linch for a great post!)