Thanks for sharing, Sanjay. I would be curious to know your thoughts on how the meat-eating problem affects the cost-effectiveness of campaigning against aid cuts. For example, would it matter to you if the countries whose funding was decreased had more or less farmed animals with negative lives per capita?
Thanks for the question. Happy to set out how I think about this, but note that I havenāt researched this deeply, and for several parts of this argument, I could imagine myself changing my mind with a bit more research.
Firstly, weāre not considering the aid spend in isolation. Rather, the impact of our actions may be to redirect spend from one usage to another, so weāre 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 itās 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 āmoderate negativeā (as per āsecond orderā row) is because Iām inclined to believe itās not always bad for animals. If the aid targets the poorest of the poor (which doesnāt 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 Iāve seen, to have a nice time (source: hanging around in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa, not that Iām 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? Thereās lots to say on this, and I donāt 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 donāt think itās clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so Iām 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 donāt think itās clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so Iām 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 āeffect on animalsā + āeffect on humansā = āoverall effectā:
āSmall positive/ānegative numberā (effect on animals) + āmedium positive numberā (effect on humans) = āmedium positive numberā (overall effect). One can neglect the effects on animals.
āMedium/āLarge positive/ānegative numberā + āmedium positive numberā = āmedium/ālarge positive/ānegative numberā. One cannot neglect the effects on animals.
I think the 2nd bullet corresponds to the actual situation.
Thanks for sharing, Sanjay. I would be curious to know your thoughts on how the meat-eating problem affects the cost-effectiveness of campaigning against aid cuts. For example, would it matter to you if the countries whose funding was decreased had more or less farmed animals with negative lives per capita?
Thanks for the question. Happy to set out how I think about this, but note that I havenāt researched this deeply, and for several parts of this argument, I could imagine myself changing my mind with a bit more research.
Firstly, weāre not considering the aid spend in isolation. Rather, the impact of our actions may be to redirect spend from one usage to another, so weāre 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 itās useful to consider three levels of impact
Part of the reason why I consider the meat-eater problem to be only a āmoderate negativeā (as per āsecond orderā row) is because Iām inclined to believe itās not always bad for animals. If the aid targets the poorest of the poor (which doesnāt 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 Iāve seen, to have a nice time (source: hanging around in poor parts of sub-Saharan Africa, not that Iām 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? Thereās lots to say on this, and I donāt 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 donāt think itās clear which outcome leads to be better outcomes for animals, so Iām 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 āeffect on animalsā + āeffect on humansā = āoverall effectā:
āSmall positive/ānegative numberā (effect on animals) + āmedium positive numberā (effect on humans) = āmedium positive numberā (overall effect). One can neglect the effects on animals.
āMedium/āLarge positive/ānegative numberā + āmedium positive numberā = āmedium/ālarge positive/ānegative numberā. One cannot neglect the effects on animals.
I think the 2nd bullet corresponds to the actual situation.