Thanks a lot from sharing all this knowledge. It is pretty insightfull, even for people who donât follow EA news for years.
There are several claims that surprised me a little bit. I would be pleased to have more infos about these particular claims:
1-Low probability: People generally have a deep ethical obligation to change their diet to help animals: If it is pretty clear that it is not the most efficient way to help animals, it is not that clear that we do not have a moral duty to at least not eat animal products.To my mind, I think that we have to differenciate moral duties to efficacities issues. Moreover, it is also close to impossible to convince people that animal welfare is a problem while eating animal products
2-Low probability: We can make meaningful progress on abolishing factory farming or improving farmed animal welfare by 2050: I would be pleased to know more about the facts that leed you into thinking that.
3-Low probability: I have a strong moral obligation to prevent future negative lives from occurring: Same than two.
4- High probability: It was good for animal welfare that the EAs âwonâ the abolitionist/âwelfarist debates: I would be interested about details of the historical fact (how EA âwonâ that debateâ) and also why it is a good news.
I know itâs a lot of questions. Feel free to answer from all to none :) .
Like others I also feel like you had more impact that you aknowledge to yourself :).
I agree that for many individuals, going vegan could be a good way to help animals! Itâs not obvious to me that it is easier to do for most of those people than say, donating to a charity at a rate that roughly offsets the harm from it. I donât really think the specific harm of âeating animalsâ is worse than the variety of other ways that we eat animals, so feel pretty neutral about veganism â it seems like one of many effective things one can do personally to help animals.
I basically donât know if I believe weâll find anything amazingly effective to do for farmed animals beyond cage free campaigns on this timeline, and those impact a pretty small portion of farmed animals.
I feel confused by this personallyâI donât think it makes sense that Iâd have an obligation to bring positive lives into existence, and feel like there should be some symmetry here, but it doesnât feel exactly the same. I also donât think 35% is a small probability! It seems not unlikely to me that I have this kind of obligation.
I think EAs won it because they spent a lot of money on things that actually worked (e.g. cage-free campaigns) instead of wasting money on diet change advocacy that wasnât very effective, etc. And I think it was good because it actually did something to help animals! I generally just think the EA side of the animal welfare space is more interested in evidence, and less in ideological purity. These both seem very good to me!
Hello !
Thanks a lot from sharing all this knowledge. It is pretty insightfull, even for people who donât follow EA news for years.
There are several claims that surprised me a little bit. I would be pleased to have more infos about these particular claims:
1-Low probability: People generally have a deep ethical obligation to change their diet to help animals: If it is pretty clear that it is not the most efficient way to help animals, it is not that clear that we do not have a moral duty to at least not eat animal products.To my mind, I think that we have to differenciate moral duties to efficacities issues.
Moreover, it is also close to impossible to convince people that animal welfare is a problem while eating animal products
2-Low probability: We can make meaningful progress on abolishing factory farming or improving farmed animal welfare by 2050: I would be pleased to know more about the facts that leed you into thinking that.
3-Low probability: I have a strong moral obligation to prevent future negative lives from occurring: Same than two.
4- High probability: It was good for animal welfare that the EAs âwonâ the abolitionist/âwelfarist debates: I would be interested about details of the historical fact (how EA âwonâ that debateâ) and also why it is a good news.
I know itâs a lot of questions. Feel free to answer from all to none :) .
Like others I also feel like you had more impact that you aknowledge to yourself :).
Thanks again for the quality of the reasoning.
Sorry to just see this!
I agree that for many individuals, going vegan could be a good way to help animals! Itâs not obvious to me that it is easier to do for most of those people than say, donating to a charity at a rate that roughly offsets the harm from it. I donât really think the specific harm of âeating animalsâ is worse than the variety of other ways that we eat animals, so feel pretty neutral about veganism â it seems like one of many effective things one can do personally to help animals.
I basically donât know if I believe weâll find anything amazingly effective to do for farmed animals beyond cage free campaigns on this timeline, and those impact a pretty small portion of farmed animals.
I feel confused by this personallyâI donât think it makes sense that Iâd have an obligation to bring positive lives into existence, and feel like there should be some symmetry here, but it doesnât feel exactly the same. I also donât think 35% is a small probability! It seems not unlikely to me that I have this kind of obligation.
I think EAs won it because they spent a lot of money on things that actually worked (e.g. cage-free campaigns) instead of wasting money on diet change advocacy that wasnât very effective, etc. And I think it was good because it actually did something to help animals! I generally just think the EA side of the animal welfare space is more interested in evidence, and less in ideological purity. These both seem very good to me!