Thanks for the post, Austin! I would be curious to know your thoughts on the possibility that increasing animal farming is beneficial due to decreasing the suffering of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails more than it increases that of farmed animals.
Why isn’t there already “human welfare market”? Should we aim to set up the human welfare market first?
In one sense, Givewell is already a place to go to spend money to buy human welfare units (often QALYs). By analogy, Animal Charity Evaluators is already an “animal welfare market” — but this seems unsatisfying.
Why would markets solve these concerns? I believe there is less evidence about animal welfare interventions than human welfare ones mostly because there is much less spending on the former, and this is determined by people caring much more about humans than animals, which markets would not change.
For an early adopter/MVP market, imagine: 10k EAs * 1k meals/y * $2/meal offset ⇒ $20M initial market.
I do not think vegetarians would eat 2.74 (= 10^3/365.25) more meals with animal-based foods per person-day, or spend 2 k$/person-year (= 10^3*2) offseting the suffering caused to farmed animals.
Very few people I know actually offset their carbon usage. I haven’t done this myself; I vaguely feel like I should but haven’t yet
The organisation you consider the most cost-effective is more cost-effective than the one you would donate to to offset your greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? If so, why not donating to the former?
On a personal level, it sure would be nice to just pay some $ every month and then be able to eat whatever I like, rather than thinking a lot about. (FarmKind offers a service approximating this).
The point I made just above applies similarly. Why not donating to the organisation you consider the most cost-effective instead of offsetting the suffering of farmed animals?
I’m not familiar on the tradeoffs between farmed animals/mammals vs wild/invertebrates; I think arguments like yours are plausible but also brittle
My question is, “given that humans care so much about human welfare, why isn’t there already a human welfare market? The lack of such a market may be evidence that animal welfare markets will be unpopular”
I think you’re taking the ballparks a bit too literally—though I also invite you to put down your own best guess about how much eg US consumers would be willing to pay for welfare, I probably believe in higher numbers than you
I’ve come around to believing that narrowly focusing on cost effectiveness is the wrong approach for me, for moral parliament and learning reasons
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 for the post, Austin! I would be curious to know your thoughts on the possibility that increasing animal farming is beneficial due to decreasing the suffering of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails more than it increases that of farmed animals.
Why would markets solve these concerns? I believe there is less evidence about animal welfare interventions than human welfare ones mostly because there is much less spending on the former, and this is determined by people caring much more about humans than animals, which markets would not change.
I do not think vegetarians would eat 2.74 (= 10^3/365.25) more meals with animal-based foods per person-day, or spend 2 k$/person-year (= 10^3*2) offseting the suffering caused to farmed animals.
The organisation you consider the most cost-effective is more cost-effective than the one you would donate to to offset your greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? If so, why not donating to the former?
The point I made just above applies similarly. Why not donating to the organisation you consider the most cost-effective instead of offsetting the suffering of farmed animals?
Quick responses:
I’m not familiar on the tradeoffs between farmed animals/mammals vs wild/invertebrates; I think arguments like yours are plausible but also brittle
My question is, “given that humans care so much about human welfare, why isn’t there already a human welfare market? The lack of such a market may be evidence that animal welfare markets will be unpopular”
I think you’re taking the ballparks a bit too literally—though I also invite you to put down your own best guess about how much eg US consumers would be willing to pay for welfare, I probably believe in higher numbers than you
I’ve come around to believing that narrowly focusing on cost effectiveness is the wrong approach for me, for moral parliament and learning reasons
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).