Thanks for the question. Happy to set out how I think about this, but note that I haven’t researched this deeply, and for several parts of this argument, I could imagine myself changing my mind with a bit more research.
Firstly, we’re not considering the aid spend in isolation. Rather, the impact of our actions may be to redirect spend from one usage to another, so we’re comparing to some counterfactual spend, which is typically likely to be some sort of spend which leads to (probably) some sort of economic activity in a developed economy.
Secondly, I think it’s useful to consider three levels of impact
Aid spend: effect on animals
Counterfactual spend: effect on animals
First order
Direct effect on people: presumably some sort of economic benefit
None (directly)
None (directly)
Second order
Indirect effect: the economic benefit means people eat more meat
Moderate negative
Smaller negative
Third order
Very indirect effect: moral circle expansion
Potentially large positive
Minimal positive
Part of the reason why I consider the meat-eater problem to be only a “moderate negative” (as per “second order” row) is because I’m inclined to believe it’s not always bad for animals. If the aid targets the poorest of the poor (which doesn’t always happen) these are likely to be rural poor, who live in areas where land is cheap, and animals have lots of space to peck around, graze, and seem, from what I’ve seen, to have a nice time (source: hanging around in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa, not that I’m an expert at judging animal welfare just from looking at an animal, so my judgement may be off). These animal lives appear (to me) to be net positive. On the other hand, I do expect the effect of aid will be to accelerate the rate at which people become middle class. This is more likely to lead to consumption of factory farmed animals, which is a negative.
The third order effects are much more speculative. To what extent does greater economic development spur moral circle expansion? There’s lots to say on this, and I don’t want to lengthen this comment further.
To my mind, the second order effects are very speculative, and the third order effects even more so. But they are potentially more important in the long term.
Putting together all the second order and third order considerations, I don’t think it’s clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so I’m inclined to treat the effects on animals as a neutral factor.
If I spent more time looking into this, I may still change my mind.
Putting together all the second order and third order considerations, I don’t think it’s clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so I’m inclined to treat the effects on animals as a neutral factor.
I agree it is unclear whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful to animals. However, treating the effects on animals as neutral requires the effects on animals to be much smaller in magnitude than the effects on humans. I can easily see the effects on animals being negative and larger in magnitude. So I do not know whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful.
To clarify, I distinguish between these 2 possibilities for “effect on animals” + “effect on humans” = “overall effect”:
“Small positive/negative number” (effect on animals) + “medium positive number” (effect on humans) = “medium positive number” (overall effect). One can neglect the effects on animals.
“Medium/Large positive/negative number” + “medium positive number” = “medium/large positive/negative number”. One cannot neglect the effects on animals.
I think the 2nd bullet corresponds to the actual situation.
Thanks for the question. Happy to set out how I think about this, but note that I haven’t researched this deeply, and for several parts of this argument, I could imagine myself changing my mind with a bit more research.
Firstly, we’re not considering the aid spend in isolation. Rather, the impact of our actions may be to redirect spend from one usage to another, so we’re comparing to some counterfactual spend, which is typically likely to be some sort of spend which leads to (probably) some sort of economic activity in a developed economy.
Secondly, I think it’s useful to consider three levels of impact
Part of the reason why I consider the meat-eater problem to be only a “moderate negative” (as per “second order” row) is because I’m inclined to believe it’s not always bad for animals. If the aid targets the poorest of the poor (which doesn’t always happen) these are likely to be rural poor, who live in areas where land is cheap, and animals have lots of space to peck around, graze, and seem, from what I’ve seen, to have a nice time (source: hanging around in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa, not that I’m an expert at judging animal welfare just from looking at an animal, so my judgement may be off). These animal lives appear (to me) to be net positive. On the other hand, I do expect the effect of aid will be to accelerate the rate at which people become middle class. This is more likely to lead to consumption of factory farmed animals, which is a negative.
The third order effects are much more speculative. To what extent does greater economic development spur moral circle expansion? There’s lots to say on this, and I don’t want to lengthen this comment further.
To my mind, the second order effects are very speculative, and the third order effects even more so. But they are potentially more important in the long term.
Putting together all the second order and third order considerations, I don’t think it’s clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so I’m inclined to treat the effects on animals as a neutral factor.
If I spent more time looking into this, I may still change my mind.
Thanks, Sanjay! Great points.
I agree it is unclear whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful to animals. However, treating the effects on animals as neutral requires the effects on animals to be much smaller in magnitude than the effects on humans. I can easily see the effects on animals being negative and larger in magnitude. So I do not know whether campaigning against aid cuts is beneficial or harmful.
To clarify, I distinguish between these 2 possibilities for “effect on animals” + “effect on humans” = “overall effect”:
“Small positive/negative number” (effect on animals) + “medium positive number” (effect on humans) = “medium positive number” (overall effect). One can neglect the effects on animals.
“Medium/Large positive/negative number” + “medium positive number” = “medium/large positive/negative number”. One cannot neglect the effects on animals.
I think the 2nd bullet corresponds to the actual situation.