All 4 of GiveWell’s top charities and almost most Ambitious Impact charities operate in Sub-Saharan Africa
Great point. GiveWell has made 956 M$ of grants impacting people in Nigeria, 87.7 % (= 956*10^6/(1.09*10^9)) of the amount granted impacting people in China, India and Nigeria (the 3 countries I analysed). Ambitious Impact has incubated 5 organisations in Nigeria significantly decreasing human mortality, 62.5 % (= 5⁄8) of the ones in China (0), India (3) and Nigeria (5).
My revised estimated “harm” would be something in the realms of… (see below for reasoning)
(Chickens 0.841 x 0.375) [0.375 = 0.25*0 + 0.5*0.5 + 0.25*1] + (Shrimp 1.08 x 0.1 ) + (Fish 0.178 x 0.5) = .512 DALYs harm caused
Which is less the the DALYs averted from a life saved of around 0.9
For harms to animals 56.9 % (= 0.512/0.9) as large as the benefits to humans nearterm, there is still room for saving lives to be harmful overall due to future growth of the consumption per capita of animal-based foods throughout the lifetime of the people who are saved. I think the nearterm harms to animals per person are larger for people living in urban areas, and urban population as a fraction of the total has been increasing in the coutries I analysed (note the vertical axis below starts at 15 %, not 0).
I relied on aquaculture production, but supply (production plus net imports) is what matters for the harms to animals, and it looks like Nigeria imports lots of fish. From Ogunji and Wuertz (2023), “Nigeria is far from self-sufficiency in its fish supply, with a deficit of about 2.5 million tons being imported, but national initiatives envision an expansion in the future to increase the supply of the population with high-quality protein and the prevention of malnutrition”. If the 2.5 Mt refers to net imports of farmed fish, which I think tends to be cheaper, my harms to farmed aquatic animals excluding shrimp in Nigeria in 2022 would become 9.62 (= 1 + 2.5*10^6/(290*10^3)) times as large. This would increase the harms to farmed animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans in Nigeria in 2022 to 1.41 (= (0.841*0.375 + 0.178*0.5*9.62 + 1.08*0.1)/0.908), which is already higher than 1, thus suggesting decreasing mortality is harmful nearterm. The situation may well be worse due to future growth, as hinted by what I quoted from Ogunji and Wuertz (2023). Below is Nigeria’s aquaculture production. It may well not matter much, if the vast majority of aquaculture supply is imported, but it illustrates there may be large jumps over the next few decades. From 2000 to 2021, aquaculture supply per capita increased from 0.204 (= 25.7*10^6/(126*10^6)) to 1.26 kg (= 276*10^6/(219*10^6)), becoming 6.18 (= 1.26/0.204) times as large. If aquaculture supply (production plus net imports) per capita grows as much as that over the next few decades, the harms to animals can easily become way larger than the direct benefits to humans (as opposed to just 1.41 times as large), even without accounting for growth in the supply of poultry birds and farmed shrimp.
Obviously even if I’m right, given the uncertainty here this far from precludes net harm under your framework.
Agreed. Even neglecting longer term effects, I illustrated above just accounting for net imports of farmed fish could make the harms to farmed animals larger than the direct benefits to humans nearterm. As another example, using RP’s 95th percentile welfare range of shrimp of 1.15, instead of the median of 0.031, and neglecting net imports of farmed fish as I did in the post, the harms to farmed animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans nearterm would increase to 4.86 (= (0.841*0.375 + 0.178*0.5 + 1.08*0.1*1.15/0.031)/0.908), which is higher than 1.
In principle, I strongly endorse maximising expected impartial welfare regardless of the probability of harm (in practice, I believe decreasing the probability of harm is often a good heuristic to increase expected impartial welfare). However, I would say the case for supporting animal welfare over global health and development is especially strong for people who care intrinsically about minimising the probability of causing lots of harm.
You mentioned this effect might be balanced out by reduced quality of life increases for poorer Nigerians compared to richer ones, but I don’t think it would come close.
@NickLaing[1], you adjusted down my estimate of the harms to animals, but not my estimate of the direct benefits to humans. The real GDP per capita in Nigeria in 2022 was 5.55 k 2021-$/year, or 13.8 2017-$/d (= 5.55*10^3*0.905/365.25), which is 6.42 (= 13.8/2.15) times the consumption of someone living at the extreme poverty line of 2.15 2017-$/d. So, assuming welfare is proportional to the logarithm of the daily consumption in 2017-$/d, the welfare of someone at the extreme poverty line would be 29.2 % (= ln(2.15)/ln(13.8)) of that of a random person in Nigeria in 2022. As a result, the harms to animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans would increase from your estimate of 56.9 % to 1.95 (= 0.569/0.292), which is again higher than 1.
Thanks, Nick!
Great point. GiveWell has made 956 M$ of grants impacting people in Nigeria, 87.7 % (= 956*10^6/(1.09*10^9)) of the amount granted impacting people in China, India and Nigeria (the 3 countries I analysed). Ambitious Impact has incubated 5 organisations in Nigeria significantly decreasing human mortality, 62.5 % (= 5⁄8) of the ones in China (0), India (3) and Nigeria (5).
For harms to animals 56.9 % (= 0.512/0.9) as large as the benefits to humans nearterm, there is still room for saving lives to be harmful overall due to future growth of the consumption per capita of animal-based foods throughout the lifetime of the people who are saved. I think the nearterm harms to animals per person are larger for people living in urban areas, and urban population as a fraction of the total has been increasing in the coutries I analysed (note the vertical axis below starts at 15 %, not 0).
I relied on aquaculture production, but supply (production plus net imports) is what matters for the harms to animals, and it looks like Nigeria imports lots of fish. From Ogunji and Wuertz (2023), “Nigeria is far from self-sufficiency in its fish supply, with a deficit of about 2.5 million tons being imported, but national initiatives envision an expansion in the future to increase the supply of the population with high-quality protein and the prevention of malnutrition”. If the 2.5 Mt refers to net imports of farmed fish, which I think tends to be cheaper, my harms to farmed aquatic animals excluding shrimp in Nigeria in 2022 would become 9.62 (= 1 + 2.5*10^6/(290*10^3)) times as large. This would increase the harms to farmed animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans in Nigeria in 2022 to 1.41 (= (0.841*0.375 + 0.178*0.5*9.62 + 1.08*0.1)/0.908), which is already higher than 1, thus suggesting decreasing mortality is harmful nearterm. The situation may well be worse due to future growth, as hinted by what I quoted from Ogunji and Wuertz (2023). Below is Nigeria’s aquaculture production. It may well not matter much, if the vast majority of aquaculture supply is imported, but it illustrates there may be large jumps over the next few decades. From 2000 to 2021, aquaculture supply per capita increased from 0.204 (= 25.7*10^6/(126*10^6)) to 1.26 kg (= 276*10^6/(219*10^6)), becoming 6.18 (= 1.26/0.204) times as large. If aquaculture supply (production plus net imports) per capita grows as much as that over the next few decades, the harms to animals can easily become way larger than the direct benefits to humans (as opposed to just 1.41 times as large), even without accounting for growth in the supply of poultry birds and farmed shrimp.
Agreed. Even neglecting longer term effects, I illustrated above just accounting for net imports of farmed fish could make the harms to farmed animals larger than the direct benefits to humans nearterm. As another example, using RP’s 95th percentile welfare range of shrimp of 1.15, instead of the median of 0.031, and neglecting net imports of farmed fish as I did in the post, the harms to farmed animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans nearterm would increase to 4.86 (= (0.841*0.375 + 0.178*0.5 + 1.08*0.1*1.15/0.031)/0.908), which is higher than 1.
In principle, I strongly endorse maximising expected impartial welfare regardless of the probability of harm (in practice, I believe decreasing the probability of harm is often a good heuristic to increase expected impartial welfare). However, I would say the case for supporting animal welfare over global health and development is especially strong for people who care intrinsically about minimising the probability of causing lots of harm.
@NickLaing[1], you adjusted down my estimate of the harms to animals, but not my estimate of the direct benefits to humans. The real GDP per capita in Nigeria in 2022 was 5.55 k 2021-$/year, or 13.8 2017-$/d (= 5.55*10^3*0.905/365.25), which is 6.42 (= 13.8/2.15) times the consumption of someone living at the extreme poverty line of 2.15 2017-$/d. So, assuming welfare is proportional to the logarithm of the daily consumption in 2017-$/d, the welfare of someone at the extreme poverty line would be 29.2 % (= ln(2.15)/ln(13.8)) of that of a random person in Nigeria in 2022. As a result, the harms to animals as a fraction of the direct benefits to humans would increase from your estimate of 56.9 % to 1.95 (= 0.569/0.292), which is again higher than 1.
I am tagging you because I forgot to discuss this in my initial comment.