The Nonlinear Library EA - The suffering of a farmed animal is equal in size to the happiness of a human, according to a survey by Stijn
May 21, 2024
26:24
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The suffering of a farmed animal is equal in size to the happiness of a human, according to a survey, published by Stijn on May 21, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Author: Stijn Bruers, researcher economics KU Leuven
Short summary
According to a survey among a representative sample of the Belgian population, most people believe that farmed animals like chickens have the same capacity for suffering as humans, and that most farmed land animals (broiler chickens) have negative welfare levels (i.e. experience more suffering than happiness).
The average suffering of a farmed land animal, estimated by people, is equal in size to the positive welfare of an average human (in Belgium) whereas the welfare level of a wild bird is zero on average.
Given the fact that there are more farmed animals than humans in the world, and that the populations of small farmed animals (chickens, fish, shrimp and insects) are increasing, most people would have to come to the conclusion that net global welfare (of humans, farmed animals and wild animals combined) is negative and declining. People who care about global welfare should therefore strongly prioritize decreasing animal farming and improving farmed animal welfare conditions.
Introduction
How much do farmed animals such as broiler chickens suffer? How can we compare the welfare of animals and humans? These are crucially important questions, because knowing the welfare capacities and welfare levels of humans and non-human animals is necessary to prioritize strategies to improve welfare on Earth. They can also be used to estimate the global welfare state of the world, as was first done by Fish (2023).
His results were very pessimistic: net global welfare may be negative and declining, due to the increased farming of small animals (chicken, fish, shrimp and possibly insects). The top-priority to improve global welfare and decrease suffering on Earth becomes very clear: decrease animal farming (or decrease the suffering of farmed animals).
Fish arrived at these pessimistic results using welfare range and welfare level estimates by animal welfare experts at Rethink Priorities (the Moral Weight Project) and Charity Entrepreneurship (the Weighted Animal Welfare Index).
However, the calculations by Fish may be criticized on the point that his choice of welfare ranges and welfare levels was too arbitrary, because it first involved the arbitrary choice of source or group of experts, and those experts themselves also made arbitrary choices to arrive at their welfare range and level estimates.
Perhaps people believe that the welfare capacities and levels of animal suffering used by Fish were overestimated? Perhaps people won't believe his results because they don't believe that animals have such high capacities for suffering?
In order to convince the general public, we can instead consider the estimates of welfare ranges and welfare levels of animals given by the wider public. To do so, a survey among a representative sample of the Flemish population in Belgium was conducted to study how much sentience people ascribe to non-human animals. The estimates of animal welfare ranges by the general public were more animal-positive than those of Rethink Priorities.
Most respondents gave higher values of animal welfare ranges than those given by the animal welfare experts at Rethink Priorities. According to the general public, Rethink Priorities may have underestimated the animal welfare ranges. Furthermore, most people estimate that the welfare level of most farmed land animals (chickens) is negative, and in absolute value as large as the positive welfare level of humans (in line with the Animal Welfare Index estimates by Charity Entrepreneurship).
Hence, according to the general public, the results of Fish were too optimistic. The global welfare sta...
Author: Stijn Bruers, researcher economics KU Leuven
Short summary
According to a survey among a representative sample of the Belgian population, most people believe that farmed animals like chickens have the same capacity for suffering as humans, and that most farmed land animals (broiler chickens) have negative welfare levels (i.e. experience more suffering than happiness).
The average suffering of a farmed land animal, estimated by people, is equal in size to the positive welfare of an average human (in Belgium) whereas the welfare level of a wild bird is zero on average.
Given the fact that there are more farmed animals than humans in the world, and that the populations of small farmed animals (chickens, fish, shrimp and insects) are increasing, most people would have to come to the conclusion that net global welfare (of humans, farmed animals and wild animals combined) is negative and declining. People who care about global welfare should therefore strongly prioritize decreasing animal farming and improving farmed animal welfare conditions.
Introduction
How much do farmed animals such as broiler chickens suffer? How can we compare the welfare of animals and humans? These are crucially important questions, because knowing the welfare capacities and welfare levels of humans and non-human animals is necessary to prioritize strategies to improve welfare on Earth. They can also be used to estimate the global welfare state of the world, as was first done by Fish (2023).
His results were very pessimistic: net global welfare may be negative and declining, due to the increased farming of small animals (chicken, fish, shrimp and possibly insects). The top-priority to improve global welfare and decrease suffering on Earth becomes very clear: decrease animal farming (or decrease the suffering of farmed animals).
Fish arrived at these pessimistic results using welfare range and welfare level estimates by animal welfare experts at Rethink Priorities (the Moral Weight Project) and Charity Entrepreneurship (the Weighted Animal Welfare Index).
However, the calculations by Fish may be criticized on the point that his choice of welfare ranges and welfare levels was too arbitrary, because it first involved the arbitrary choice of source or group of experts, and those experts themselves also made arbitrary choices to arrive at their welfare range and level estimates.
Perhaps people believe that the welfare capacities and levels of animal suffering used by Fish were overestimated? Perhaps people won't believe his results because they don't believe that animals have such high capacities for suffering?
In order to convince the general public, we can instead consider the estimates of welfare ranges and welfare levels of animals given by the wider public. To do so, a survey among a representative sample of the Flemish population in Belgium was conducted to study how much sentience people ascribe to non-human animals. The estimates of animal welfare ranges by the general public were more animal-positive than those of Rethink Priorities.
Most respondents gave higher values of animal welfare ranges than those given by the animal welfare experts at Rethink Priorities. According to the general public, Rethink Priorities may have underestimated the animal welfare ranges. Furthermore, most people estimate that the welfare level of most farmed land animals (chickens) is negative, and in absolute value as large as the positive welfare level of humans (in line with the Animal Welfare Index estimates by Charity Entrepreneurship).
Hence, according to the general public, the results of Fish were too optimistic. The global welfare sta...