Thanks for sharing, Thomas! I expect benchmarks whose scores are closer to being proportional to economic output improve slower.

Thanks for the post, Jim!

Hence, holding the “temporary setback” view necessitates explicitly arguing that the benefit of these strategies outweighs this cost.

I agree, and would say the nearterm effects on wild animals are the driver of the overall impact.

E.g., the wild animal replacement problem (see Tomasik 2019; Shulman 2013)-- which is also alluded to in my descriptions of Sentientia and Reversomelas -- and backfire risks from moral circle expansion (see, e.g., Vinding 2018).

I estimated broiler welfare (cage-free) reforms increase or decrease the welfare of wild arthropods 47.7 (4.66) times as much as they increase the welfare of broilers (hens). My results suggest it is unclear whether chicken welfare reforms are beneficial or harmful. The effects on arthropods may well be larger than those on chickens, which would imply chicken welfare reforms being beneficial/harmful if they benefit/harm arthropods. I think these conclusions apply to any intervention targeting vertebrates which change the consumption of feed or food, especially if it mainly aims to increase/decrease positive/negative vertebrate-years.

Thanks for the context, Joel!

Hi Axelle,

Rethink Priorities (RP) assumed 76.3 billion broilers were slaughtered in 2023, and FAOSTAT says 76.3 billion chickens were slaughtered for meat in 2023. Some of the chickens slaughtered for meat not being broilers (they could be laying hens, breeders, or male chicks) would contribute towards RP having overestimated the number of broilers.

I think my estimate for the number of broilers is higher than it should be due FAOSTAT overestimating the number of chickens. They say the following about livestock numbers (emphasis mine).

The data on livestock numbers are intended to cover all domestic animals irrespective of their age and the place or purpose of their breeding. Estimates have been made for non-reporting countries as well as for countries reporting incomplete data. However, in certain countries, data for chickens, ducks and turkeys do not yet seem to represent the total number of these birds [so I may have underestimated the number of chickens, and therefore ]. Certain other countries give a single figure for all poultry; data for these countries are shown under “Chickens”.

On the other hand, I would expect the vast majority of poultry birds to be chickens, so I do not think the above alone would explain my estimate being 1.86 times RP's.

Another consideration is that RP used a single value for the harvest age and mortality of broilers. In reality, they both vary, and the mean weighted by broilers slaughtered could be lower than what RP assumed, which would lead to a lower number of broilers alive.

Welcome to the EA Forum, Robert! That makes sense.

For all the analyses relying on pain intensities I am aware of, from AIM and RP, the ratio between the intensity of a pain of a given category and that of another is the same across species. I have now asked Cynthia Schuck-Paim, who is the research director of WFP (the organisation defining the pain intensities).

Cynthia has just clarified the answer to both of the following questions can be "yes".

If I understand correctly, even if it was known with certainty that:

• 1 h of disabling pain in humans was 10 times as bad as 1 h of hurtful pain in humans, 1 h of disabling pain in shrimps could be more/less than 10 times as bas as 1 h of hurtful pain in shrimps? I think you are implying it could indeed be more/less than 10 times as bad.
• 1 h of disabling pain in humans was 10 times as bad as 1 h of hurtful pain in humans, 10 h of disabling pain in humans could be more/less than 10 times as bad as 10 h of hurtful pain in humans? I think you are implying it could indeed be more/less than 10 times as bad.

I think my assumption of constant ratios within and across species still makes sense as the most agnostic assumption.

Thanks for clarifying, Cynthia!

Hi Joel,

Have you followed up on this shallow report in some way? Do you plan to do an intermediate report? Arsenal limitation is the intervention for which you estimated the highest cost-effectiveness, although I agree it is likely to fall in deeper evaluations.

Thanks for sharing, Sarah! I agree with your takes. I think it would be good to survey the users before making major changes like the ones described in 2 or 3.

Thanks for the comment, Cynthia! I would only neglect the uncertain effects on wild arthropods of chicken welfare reforms if I expected them to be much smaller than those on chickens. I do not think uncertainty per se is enough to discount a given effect. For example, it is very unclear whether a deal where there is a 50 % chance of one's risk of deaths decreasing by 50 %, and a 50 % chance of it increasing by 70 % would increase or decrease one's risk of death. However, I think it would be harmful due to increasing the risk of death in expectation by 10 % (= 0.5*(-0.5 + 0.7)). @cynthiaschuck, I have updated my comment.