Thanks for the flag! I changed to "does not change the cost of shrimp meaningfully" and will look into the land use changes.
I felt like this was a bit too bloggy for the Forum, so wasn't going to post it (e.g. I don't really cite things and am not being the most rigorous with my arguments), but curious if you disagree!
Maybe tagging the crosspost with "Opinion" (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/opinion), and adding a disclaimer at the top would address your concerns? I think many readers would find it valuable. I can also do it myself if you prefer (and agree).
'I also don’t think we should refer to in-ovo sexing as welfare tech — it is on-farm technology, yes, but it doesn’t improve any animal’s welfare — it reduces the number of animals needed to produce a food output.'
Does in-novo sexing not improve the welfare of the male chick that otherwise would have been hatched and killed, in a way very specified to that very chick?
Yeah I guess it depends on some definitions and I’m being pretty pedantic. But by these same lights isn’t a reduction in meat consumption also a welfare intervention? It feels like welfare loses a bit of meaning if used this way. I guess the more important thing to me is that someone who opposes improving welfare on farms should still like in-ovo sexing, even if they dislike other welfare tech initiatives.
I found your point that “welfare tech” bundles together interventions with very different theories of change especially useful. I ended up reaching a similar conclusion from a different direction: even within technologies that genuinely improve individual welfare, changing the environment and changing the animal may not be equivalent. I explored that distinction further in my own piece, and your post was one of the references that helped shape it:https://sentientengineer.substack.com/p/what-are-we-optimizing-when-we-optimize
Hi Abraham. Great post. Have you considered crossposting it to the EA Forum?
"Shrimp stunning is entirely unnecessary for commercial shrimp production, and does not change the cost of shrimp at all."
I estimate electrically stunning farmed shrimps increases the cost of shrimps by 10^-4 $/shrimp, and that this is enough to cause land use changes that make it unclear whether effects on soil arthropods are larger or smaller than effects on farmed shrimps (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Ln8eSQ22x9n836P53/soil-arthropod-years-affected-per-electrically-stunned).
Thanks for the flag! I changed to "does not change the cost of shrimp meaningfully" and will look into the land use changes.
I felt like this was a bit too bloggy for the Forum, so wasn't going to post it (e.g. I don't really cite things and am not being the most rigorous with my arguments), but curious if you disagree!
Maybe tagging the crosspost with "Opinion" (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/opinion), and adding a disclaimer at the top would address your concerns? I think many readers would find it valuable. I can also do it myself if you prefer (and agree).
Great piece.
'I also don’t think we should refer to in-ovo sexing as welfare tech — it is on-farm technology, yes, but it doesn’t improve any animal’s welfare — it reduces the number of animals needed to produce a food output.'
Does in-novo sexing not improve the welfare of the male chick that otherwise would have been hatched and killed, in a way very specified to that very chick?
Yeah I guess it depends on some definitions and I’m being pretty pedantic. But by these same lights isn’t a reduction in meat consumption also a welfare intervention? It feels like welfare loses a bit of meaning if used this way. I guess the more important thing to me is that someone who opposes improving welfare on farms should still like in-ovo sexing, even if they dislike other welfare tech initiatives.
Yeah that’s a great insight! Should be a big tent thing.
I found your point that “welfare tech” bundles together interventions with very different theories of change especially useful. I ended up reaching a similar conclusion from a different direction: even within technologies that genuinely improve individual welfare, changing the environment and changing the animal may not be equivalent. I explored that distinction further in my own piece, and your post was one of the references that helped shape it:https://sentientengineer.substack.com/p/what-are-we-optimizing-when-we-optimize