Executive summary: This exploratory analysis argues that individuals in high-income countries could plausibly do up to a million times more good than the average donor by giving 50% of their income to the most cost-effective animal charities—particularly those reducing farmed animal suffering through alternative protein development—based on a hybrid moral theory (“mild welfarism”) and cost-effectiveness comparisons across charitable interventions.
Key points:
Mild welfarism—a hybrid ethical theory combining utilitarian and deontological principles—suggests we should maximize total welfare while respecting individuals’ rights not to be used as a means.
Survey-based welfare comparisons indicate that the suffering of farmed animals like broiler chickens can outweigh typical human welfare gains, making animal welfare interventions morally urgent.
Donating to cultivated meat R&D may spare at least 10 animals per euro, making it up to 100 times more cost-effective than general animal advocacy and 100×100 times more impactful than average charitable giving focused on human welfare.
GiveWell top charities are already ~100× more cost-effective than typical Western charitable efforts, especially in health, yet animal-focused charities could exceed this impact further.
Combining unusually high donation levels (e.g. 50% of income) with these extreme effectiveness differentials leads to the conclusion that one person could do a million times more good than average.
Recommended donation channels include Animal Charity Evaluators, the GWWC Animal Welfare Fund, and localized platforms like Effectief Geven and Doneer Effectief.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: This exploratory analysis argues that individuals in high-income countries could plausibly do up to a million times more good than the average donor by giving 50% of their income to the most cost-effective animal charities—particularly those reducing farmed animal suffering through alternative protein development—based on a hybrid moral theory (“mild welfarism”) and cost-effectiveness comparisons across charitable interventions.
Key points:
Mild welfarism—a hybrid ethical theory combining utilitarian and deontological principles—suggests we should maximize total welfare while respecting individuals’ rights not to be used as a means.
Survey-based welfare comparisons indicate that the suffering of farmed animals like broiler chickens can outweigh typical human welfare gains, making animal welfare interventions morally urgent.
Donating to cultivated meat R&D may spare at least 10 animals per euro, making it up to 100 times more cost-effective than general animal advocacy and 100×100 times more impactful than average charitable giving focused on human welfare.
GiveWell top charities are already ~100× more cost-effective than typical Western charitable efforts, especially in health, yet animal-focused charities could exceed this impact further.
Combining unusually high donation levels (e.g. 50% of income) with these extreme effectiveness differentials leads to the conclusion that one person could do a million times more good than average.
Recommended donation channels include Animal Charity Evaluators, the GWWC Animal Welfare Fund, and localized platforms like Effectief Geven and Doneer Effectief.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.