Correcting a model on the balance of suffering in nature

November 25, 2019

In one of the earliest papers on welfare biology, Dr. Yew-Kwang Ng concluded that there was probably more pain than pleasure in the wild.

Recently, Stanford economics PhD student Zach Freitas-Groff noticed an error in Ng’s original calculations. He teamed up with Ng to revise the original paper. As Freitas-Groff explained at Effective Altruism Global San Francisco, their new interpretation of Ng’s original model shows that the balance of suffering and enjoyment in nature could go either way.

Wild Animal Initiative Executive Director Mal Graham (then known as Michelle) joins Freitas-Groff after his talk to further explore the implications for wild animal welfare. They discuss the challenges in applying economic models to biological systems, the rationale behind the model’s assumptions, and how estimates of the balance of pleasure and pain should inform wild animal advocacy.