It is also highly controversial to state that charity doesn’t begin at home
Completely different scale. Not that we can determine what is true/correct by polling; but 29% of people chose to give internationally, while I would wager less than 1% would endorse the view that we should let humans suffer and die because otherwise they might eat animals.
Thanks for the discussion, JBentham, Ian and Nick.
I would wager less than 1% would endorse the view that we should let humans suffer and die because otherwise they might eat animals
This wording is very unfavourable to the animal welfare side, and does not exactly get into the action I would like people to change, which is how they donate, not how they relate to other humans. Given the answers “Yes”, “Maybe” and “No” to the question “Donations to global health and development organisations may increase factory-farming nearterm via increasing human population. Factory-farmed animals live in very bad conditions, so such donations may increase animal suffering nearterm. Is this a good reason for donating to animal welfare instead of global health and development?”, I guess more than 1 % would answer “Yes” or “Maybe”.
In any case, I think the focus should be on increasing impartial welfare even if this does not correspond to what most people would do.
I think your position compels you to say that not only is it better to donate to AW over GHD, it is actually better to set money on fire rather than donate it to GHD. Or spend it on a yacht, or a castle, or a pile of video games. With that framing, I think you’re back down to 1% territory.
I do not have a strong view either way. It depends on the details of the global health intervention. Note “I am not confident that saving human lives in China, India or Nigeria is harmful to animals. Even if it is so for farmed animals nearterm [my results refer to 2022], it can still be beneficial overall”.
Completely different scale. Not that we can determine what is true/correct by polling; but 29% of people chose to give internationally, while I would wager less than 1% would endorse the view that we should let humans suffer and die because otherwise they might eat animals.
Agreed and I would guess less than 1% is very conservative, I would guess under 0.1%
Thanks for the discussion, JBentham, Ian and Nick.
This wording is very unfavourable to the animal welfare side, and does not exactly get into the action I would like people to change, which is how they donate, not how they relate to other humans. Given the answers “Yes”, “Maybe” and “No” to the question “Donations to global health and development organisations may increase factory-farming nearterm via increasing human population. Factory-farmed animals live in very bad conditions, so such donations may increase animal suffering nearterm. Is this a good reason for donating to animal welfare instead of global health and development?”, I guess more than 1 % would answer “Yes” or “Maybe”.
In any case, I think the focus should be on increasing impartial welfare even if this does not correspond to what most people would do.
I think your position compels you to say that not only is it better to donate to AW over GHD, it is actually better to set money on fire rather than donate it to GHD. Or spend it on a yacht, or a castle, or a pile of video games. With that framing, I think you’re back down to 1% territory.
I do not have a strong view either way. It depends on the details of the global health intervention. Note “I am not confident that saving human lives in China, India or Nigeria is harmful to animals. Even if it is so for farmed animals nearterm [my results refer to 2022], it can still be beneficial overall”.