If we are focusing on second order effects wouldnāt it make sense to bring up something like moral circle expansion and its relation to ethical and sustainable living over time as well?
From a long-term perspective, I see one of the major effects of global health being better decision making through moral circle expansion.
I think focussing on impartial welfare by accounting for effects on farmed animals is better for moral circle expansion than completely ignoring effects on animals, which is currently the stardard in assessing interventions helping humans.
My question to you is then what time period youāre optimising for? Does this matter for the argument?
In principle, I care about effects across all space and time. In practice, I think the effects after 100 years are negligible. I guess the ratio between harms to farmed animals and benefits to humans globally, and in China, India and Nigeria will initially increase as the consumption per capita of animal-based food increases, but then decrease as the consumption per capita of animal-based food stagnates or decreases, and the conditions of animals improve.
Thanks for the comment, Jonas.
I think focussing on impartial welfare by accounting for effects on farmed animals is better for moral circle expansion than completely ignoring effects on animals, which is currently the stardard in assessing interventions helping humans.
In principle, I care about effects across all space and time. In practice, I think the effects after 100 years are negligible. I guess the ratio between harms to farmed animals and benefits to humans globally, and in China, India and Nigeria will initially increase as the consumption per capita of animal-based food increases, but then decrease as the consumption per capita of animal-based food stagnates or decreases, and the conditions of animals improve.