All those proxies tell us they have the wires to feel the pain. But what abour the self? You need the side of penalty and the side of self to have real pain. Pain shall inflicted to a conscious mind.

With their ridiculously small brains, how likely is a self on the receiving side of penalty?

[I post here the same than in the original Asterisk Magazine article [https://asteriskmag.substack.com/p/yes-shrimp-matter/comment/96031154]

I completely disagree: their brains are very simple neural networks, and their degree of consciousness is in the same range as electronic devices.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3nLDxEhJwqBEtgwJc/arthropod-non-sentience

All arguments based on behavioral similarity only proof we all come from evolution: "we are neural networks trained by natural selection. We avoid destruction and pursue reproduction, and we are both effective and desperate in both goals. The (Darwinian) reinforcement learning process that has led to our behavior imply strong rewards and penalties and being products of the same process (animal kingdom evolution), external similarity is inevitable. But to turn the penalty in the utility function of a neural network into pain you need the neural network to produce a conscious self. Pain is penalty to a conscious self. Philosophers know that philosophical zombies are conceivable, and external similarity is far from enough to guarantee noumenal equivalence."

Now, regarding how much information is integrated, supperativity implies that the ammount of resources devoted to the shrimp shall be propotional to their number, but (at most!) to their brain mass:

"As a rule, measures of information integration are supper additive (that is, complexity of two neural networks that connect among themselves is far bigger than the sum of the original networks), so neuron count ratios (Shrimp=0.01% of human) are likely to underestimate differences in consciousness. The ethical consequence of supper additivity is that ceteris paribus a given pool of resources shall be allocated in proportion not to the number of subjects but (at most!) to the number of neurons. "

Remember that other countries can step in the gap:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CCHwPXCTRNKdnyYbk/the-anti-aids-program-pepfar-the-european-union-must-replace

No private effort can replace USAID, but Europe needs more weapons and more aid, because wars are won first in the temple, then in the battlefield.

Yes!

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/aCEuvHrqzmBroNQPT/the-evolution-towards-the-blank-slate

Consequently, we suggest that the concept of utilitarian impartiality must be replaced by that of “inclusive reciprocity”. Considering the well-being of everyone equally, making no difference between those who belong to a reciprocity scheme and those who do not is non-sustainable. On the other hand, the universalism of utilitarian ethics can be maintained by keeping reciprocity schemes open to all. A human group with a pledge for mutual support and open to those who are willing to assume those obligations regardless of their origin could be sustainable and even could be close to be the social version of a Darwinian optimal replicator.

I will happily do as you propose!

My God! Misspelling a surname is probably the worst you can do when are asking for something. Thanks for correction.

Thank you for the redaction suggestions. I have decided to use "must" and I have corrected the misspelling in the president surname.

Regarding individual donations, I do not have suggestions, because this is too big for individuals. In my view this is a political opportunity for Europe: we know that the program works well, so it is low risk. 

I would say that being replaced by the europeans is not exactly the optics that the current US government want in this issue, so probably the offer would increase the probability of continuation.

In which sense? Any suggestion for a more clear one? In fact I changed once already, because it did not fit well in the Forum (was too long).

I have written a post to address the President of the European Comission to prepare to totally or partially cover the gap if the US defunds the program. The program is expensive, but there shall be a replacement prepared if finally the worst happens.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/CCHwPXCTRNKdnyYbk/the-anti-aids-program-pepfar-the-european-union-shall