I’m curious: How do you feel about hyperfocused neartermist interventions which alter as little of the rest of the world as possible?
An example of this would be humane slaughter, which shouldn’t have much affect on farmed animal, wild animal, or human populations, other than reducing a farmed animal’s suffering at the moment of death.
It’s plausible that certain hyperfocused neartermist interventions can be precisely targeted enough that the overall effect is more like −1 with 50% likelihood, or 3 with 50% likelihood. A portfolio of independent hyperfocused interventions could be shown to have quite strong robustness.
Thanks for asking! I have not thought much about it, but I feel like neartermist approaches which focus on increasing (animal/​human) welfare per individual are more robustly good. Interventions which change human population size will lead to a different number of wild animals, which might dominate the overall nearterm effect while having an unclear sign.
I’m curious: How do you feel about hyperfocused neartermist interventions which alter as little of the rest of the world as possible?
An example of this would be humane slaughter, which shouldn’t have much affect on farmed animal, wild animal, or human populations, other than reducing a farmed animal’s suffering at the moment of death.
It’s plausible that certain hyperfocused neartermist interventions can be precisely targeted enough that the overall effect is more like −1 with 50% likelihood, or 3 with 50% likelihood. A portfolio of independent hyperfocused interventions could be shown to have quite strong robustness.
Thanks for asking! I have not thought much about it, but I feel like neartermist approaches which focus on increasing (animal/​human) welfare per individual are more robustly good. Interventions which change human population size will lead to a different number of wild animals, which might dominate the overall nearterm effect while having an unclear sign.