I agree the absence of a market for human welfare is evidence against the feasibility of one for animal welfare. Maybe it is not strong evidence considering human welfare is more seen as sacred, and therefore not subject to being traded in markets, whereas animal welfare may be seen more as a commodity (although not by random vegetarians, who I assume also see animal welfare more as sacred).
The value of learning can be (formally or informally) considered in the benefits of cost-effectiveness analyses. However, I am not sure what you would learn by offsetting your GHG emissions instead of donating to the charity you consider the most cost-effective (accounting for the value of learning).
Thanks, Austin.
I agree the absence of a market for human welfare is evidence against the feasibility of one for animal welfare. Maybe it is not strong evidence considering human welfare is more seen as sacred, and therefore not subject to being traded in markets, whereas animal welfare may be seen more as a commodity (although not by random vegetarians, who I assume also see animal welfare more as sacred).
The value of learning can be (formally or informally) considered in the benefits of cost-effectiveness analyses. However, I am not sure what you would learn by offsetting your GHG emissions instead of donating to the charity you consider the most cost-effective (accounting for the value of learning).