When thinking about sustainability, an extra life means (at least) two things:
one more person who has their own sustainability footprint, or, in this case, animal welfare footprint—i.e. a “definite” 1750 animals
one more person who has a small chance of coming up with an awesome innovation (e.g. bringing forward humanity’s ability to produce clean meat by x years) which might save 100 billion animals
There’s a few steps in the argument which I’ve glossed over (incl reasons why the probability of a positive innovation is higher than a negative innovation) but I think there’s a good chance that the second item could outweigh the first.
I also think we need a pretty heavy discount rate when calculating the number of animals saved, since there’s a non-trivial chance that veganism could be widespread in 60 years’ time.
When thinking about sustainability, an extra life means (at least) two things:
one more person who has their own sustainability footprint, or, in this case, animal welfare footprint—i.e. a “definite” 1750 animals
one more person who has a small chance of coming up with an awesome innovation (e.g. bringing forward humanity’s ability to produce clean meat by x years) which might save 100 billion animals
There’s a few steps in the argument which I’ve glossed over (incl reasons why the probability of a positive innovation is higher than a negative innovation) but I think there’s a good chance that the second item could outweigh the first.
I also think we need a pretty heavy discount rate when calculating the number of animals saved, since there’s a non-trivial chance that veganism could be widespread in 60 years’ time.