I liked your conceptual analysis. On the other hand, I would say the empirical evidence points towards single-issue organisations being more cost-effective. I think the organisations supported by impact-focussed evaluators and funders like Animal Charity Evaluators, EA Funds, GiveWell, and Open Philanthropy are overwhelmingly single-issue.
I worry multi-issue advocacy by animal welfare organisations may easily backfire:
An environmentalist or health-centric stance canlead to the replacement of beef and pork with poultry meat, eggs, fish, and other seafood, which I think is bad both for farmed and wild animals.
Arguments based on animal-rights (instead of animal welfare) can encourage wilderness preservation, which I believe is harmful due to wild animals having negative lives.
Thanks for sharing, Emre!
I liked your conceptual analysis. On the other hand, I would say the empirical evidence points towards single-issue organisations being more cost-effective. I think the organisations supported by impact-focussed evaluators and funders like Animal Charity Evaluators, EA Funds, GiveWell, and Open Philanthropy are overwhelmingly single-issue.
I worry multi-issue advocacy by animal welfare organisations may easily backfire:
An environmentalist or health-centric stance can lead to the replacement of beef and pork with poultry meat, eggs, fish, and other seafood, which I think is bad both for farmed and wild animals.
Arguments based on animal-rights (instead of animal welfare) can encourage wilderness preservation, which I believe is harmful due to wild animals having negative lives.