Project summary

We are conducting a wide-ranging overview of human and animal suffering due to various causes. A large-scale survey of human suffering has been created to gather data on intensity and duration, as well as qualitative descriptions and treatments found to be effective, which we will combine with data on numbers of individuals affected, from databases and our own estimates. We are also surveying experts on animal suffering. Data will be submitted for publication, used to create visualisations and made publicly available.

Note that the survey, at the link above, is already live, so any submissions will be included in the results.

What are this project's goals? How will you achieve them?

Extreme suffering is arguably the worst thing that can happen to a sentient being. Whichever ethical theory one is most aligned with, preventing and alleviating extreme suffering has a high priority, and is also recognised as such within the EA community. OPIS is dedicated to preventing the intense suffering of all sentient beings, with highest priority to those suffering the most.

The overall goal of this project is to provide a fairly comprehensive, quantitative overview of the amount of suffering in the world, broken down by cause, and displayed effectively. To our knowledge, this kind of exercise has not yet been undertaken in this way. This project has several goals we consider valuable:

• Identify neglected causes of extreme suffering

• Ensure that preventing and treating specific causes of extreme suffering are prioritised

• Identify and communicate less-known treatments found to be effective by patients and patient communities/organisations

• Raise awareness among the public and policy- and decision-makers of the extent of current suffering

• Provide a more direct comparison of human and non-human suffering, which can help to make non-human suffering more tangible

• Promote the establishment and use of suffering metrics by policymakers

• Sensitise policy- and decision-makers to the significance of s-risks

We are currently drafting a guide to compassionate governance, based on research in different areas, which we will communicate widely. The data we gather through this suffering survey/overview project will also support the policy recommendations we make in this guide.

How will this funding be used?

• Project management (including carrying out survey, analysis and communication)

• Pay for boosting human survey posts on social media to recruit enough respondents per condition to sufficiently reduce confidence intervals - ideally 50-100 respondents per condition

• Create the visualisations

• Submit research article(s)

• Communicate the findings widely

We have already launched the survey and intend to publicise whatever data is obtained. The minimum funding of €500 will help to support running the project and some limited online boosting of the survey. With the full funding we will be much more likely to reach the targeted number of respondents for most conditions. It will also ensure we can devote more resources to analysing and submitting the data for publication, creating visualisations of the data and carrying out outreach to communicate the results.

Who is on your team? What's your track record on similar projects?

• Jonathan Leighton, founder and Executive Director of OPIS, holds a PhD in molecular biology and has written two books on ethics

• Jack Koch, researcher, holds a degree in applied mathematics specializing in machine learning and AI and did a fellowship with the Center on Long-Term Risk

• Others have also been contributing to the design of this project, including Vanessa Sarre, a software engineer and organiser of EAGxAustralia, and Clare Harris, a medical doctor with a background in mathematics & statistics who works with High-Impact Medicine

OPIS has achieved credibility as a successful advocate in specific cause areas related to the relief of severe pain in humans, including advocacy at the UN Human Rights Council, the co-organisation of a national conference in Burkina Faso that launched a national palliative care program - work that was cited as a model by the head of the Lancet Commission on Pain Relief - as well as advocacy for cluster headache patients to be able to legally access certain psychedelics, which recently led to the first such patient in Canada receiving authorisation. We also advocate for animals and against factory farming in talks and much of our communications. I have proposed new suffering metrics to complement existing wellbeing metrics in my book The Tango of Ethics (relevant excerpt here).

What are the most likely causes and outcomes if this project fails?

Complete failure is unlikely, as we are generating useful data regardless. However:

• If we don’t receive enough funding it may be difficult to obtain enough respondents to get statistically significant data for many conditions.

• Some life conditions that cause intense suffering may be difficult to gather data for online. We may either need to target such people through other means, including working with organisations that can carry out the survey in person, or accept limited data for these conditions. However, this does not reduce the usefulness of the rest of the data.

• Getting a submitted paper accepted for publication could be an extended process.

• Some experts could criticise the survey as biased towards those suffering more intensely, or towards those in Western countries, and therefore not representative of the larger global population with any specific condition. We recognise these potential biases but are confident in the value of the data we obtain. The questions were designed to partly identify such biases though analysis.

• Using the findings to influence policy can be a slow process, so we don’t expect immediate results. The project would be considered less successful if the findings failed to be taken onboard at all or have any long-term influence anywhere. We consider this very unlikely, and a risk worth taking considering the low cost and potential impact. If this happens, it could be due in part to insufficient outreach to policymakers and other forms of engagement to communicate the results.

What other funding are you or your project getting?

We receive some modest monthly and one-off donations. We received funding last year through Lightspeed for a separate project to research and write a guide to compassionate governance. We have not received specific funding for this project.