Strong upvoted. This (otherwise well-written) post made me update (mildly) in favor of these reforms, so for someone with my specific views, the original title felt a bit misleading, even if not technically wrong.
Thanks, Tejas. I now estimate broiler welfare and cage-free corporate campaigns benefit soil animals 444 and 28.2 times as much as they benefit chicken for my best guess that soil animals have negative lives. So accounting for wild animals made me update towards chicken welfare reforms being much more cost-effective. However, I have still updated against these reforms in the sense I now think there is a much greater fraction of philanthropic spending which is more cost-effective than them. I estimate broiler welfare and cage-free corporate campaigns are 68.9 % (= 744/(1.08*10^3)) and 12.4 % (= 134/(1.08*10^3)) as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities accounting for target beneficiaries and soil animals, whereas I had estimated them to be 168 and 462 times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities accounting only for target beneficiaries.
Strong upvoted. This (otherwise well-written) post made me update (mildly) in favor of these reforms, so for someone with my specific views, the original title felt a bit misleading, even if not technically wrong.
Thanks, Tejas. I now estimate broiler welfare and cage-free corporate campaigns benefit soil animals 444 and 28.2 times as much as they benefit chicken for my best guess that soil animals have negative lives. So accounting for wild animals made me update towards chicken welfare reforms being much more cost-effective. However, I have still updated against these reforms in the sense I now think there is a much greater fraction of philanthropic spending which is more cost-effective than them. I estimate broiler welfare and cage-free corporate campaigns are 68.9 % (= 744/(1.08*10^3)) and 12.4 % (= 134/(1.08*10^3)) as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities accounting for target beneficiaries and soil animals, whereas I had estimated them to be 168 and 462 times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities accounting only for target beneficiaries.