@Vasco Grilo🔸 There are a couple of significant assumptions you make in the math here which if corrected may well change your output so that saving lives might be well in the net positive range.
My revised estimated “harm” would be something in the realms of… (see below for reasoning)
(Chickens 0.841 x 0.375 ) + (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
My major point is that most people that GiveWell and Ambitious Impact help don’t eat or produce factory farmed chicken or farmed shrimp. I think using the “average Nigerian” figure grossly overestimates the consumption of factory farmed animals by poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa. 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.
All 4 of GiveWell’s top charities and almost most Ambitious Impact charities operate in Sub-Saharan Africa—and many predominantly in Nigeria, so I think your Nigeria number is the most relevant to this question
I (fairly conservatively) estimate that 50% of Nigerians helped by these charities never eat factory farmed chickens, 25% eat half the average Nigerian amount and the remaining 25% eat the national average. I suspect the actual number is far less than this. People eating the national average would only be spillover lives saved outside the charity’s target. Rural farmers and even most people living in smaller town centers who these charities largely help in Sub-saharan Africa just don’t buy factory farmed chickens. They keep their own or buy them locally. Locally farmed chickens have lives far better than even a Free range chicken in rich countries and I believe they are net positive (although this is debatable)
I can somewhat selfishly say for sure that Barely anyone that our org OneDay Health helps produces, buys or eats factory farmed chickens. And the very few that did would be buying one piece of factory farmed chicken (1 tenth of a chicken) from a roadside stall when they went to town maybe 1 − 4 times a year—still only 20% the national average quoted
Factory farmed chickens are either sold frozen in supermarkets/shops, or sold live to vendors who cook them on roadside stalls or in restaurants. The poorest 30% (or whatever it is) who the charities target either don’t live in towns or can’t afford roadside chicken.
Nearly all factory farmed chickens are sold in largertown centers, and to labor this I would guess that in Nigeria the largest 10 cities which make up over 20% of the total population (about 45 million) would probably consume 60-80% of all the factory farmed chickens in the country. I have many wealthy (by local standards) friends in my big town in northern Uganda who I think would eat the equivalent of a chicken a month. More affluent people from these cities eating all the chicken would constitute a very small proportion of the lives saved by GiveWell and Ambitious Impact.
Really poor Nigerians who these charities target, don’t farm nor eat farmed shrimp (unless I’m missing something here) so I would almost wipe this harm figure out. Shrimp are probably far too expensive for poor people to buy. I’ll keep 10% of it for similar reason as the chickens above—spillover lives saved in non-targeted demographics. This percent might well be far far lower than this too
As a side note I’m also not sure how you calculate who is “responsible” for the farmed shrimp in Nigeria. Is it the producer or the consumer? Most shrimp is exported and not eaten in Nigeria anyway, so I would probably account that mostly to the eater overseas but this could go either way.
I’ve divided your fish number in half as well for similar reasons as above. My experience in Uganda is that farmed fish may be eaten a little by the poorest people—at least more than chickens and shrimp
My revised estimated “harm” would then be Chickens 0.841 x .375 ) + (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
Obviously even if I’m right, the huge uncertainty here this far from precludes net harm under your framework. I’ve also based this on poor quality data—my own experience on the other side of the continent, plus a bit of experience taking with Nigerians plus 30 minutes of internet research. So I’m very open to be corrected here by Vasco, other Nigerians or anyone else here!
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.
@Vasco Grilo🔸 There are a couple of significant assumptions you make in the math here which if corrected may well change your output so that saving lives might be well in the net positive range.
My revised estimated “harm” would be something in the realms of… (see below for reasoning)
(Chickens 0.841 x 0.375 ) + (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
My major point is that most people that GiveWell and Ambitious Impact help don’t eat or produce factory farmed chicken or farmed shrimp. I think using the “average Nigerian” figure grossly overestimates the consumption of factory farmed animals by poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa. 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.
All 4 of GiveWell’s top charities and almost most Ambitious Impact charities operate in Sub-Saharan Africa—and many predominantly in Nigeria, so I think your Nigeria number is the most relevant to this question
I (fairly conservatively) estimate that 50% of Nigerians helped by these charities never eat factory farmed chickens, 25% eat half the average Nigerian amount and the remaining 25% eat the national average. I suspect the actual number is far less than this. People eating the national average would only be spillover lives saved outside the charity’s target. Rural farmers and even most people living in smaller town centers who these charities largely help in Sub-saharan Africa just don’t buy factory farmed chickens. They keep their own or buy them locally. Locally farmed chickens have lives far better than even a Free range chicken in rich countries and I believe they are net positive (although this is debatable)
I can somewhat selfishly say for sure that Barely anyone that our org OneDay Health helps produces, buys or eats factory farmed chickens. And the very few that did would be buying one piece of factory farmed chicken (1 tenth of a chicken) from a roadside stall when they went to town maybe 1 − 4 times a year—still only 20% the national average quoted
Factory farmed chickens are either sold frozen in supermarkets/shops, or sold live to vendors who cook them on roadside stalls or in restaurants. The poorest 30% (or whatever it is) who the charities target either don’t live in towns or can’t afford roadside chicken.
Nearly all factory farmed chickens are sold in larger town centers, and to labor this I would guess that in Nigeria the largest 10 cities which make up over 20% of the total population (about 45 million) would probably consume 60-80% of all the factory farmed chickens in the country. I have many wealthy (by local standards) friends in my big town in northern Uganda who I think would eat the equivalent of a chicken a month. More affluent people from these cities eating all the chicken would constitute a very small proportion of the lives saved by GiveWell and Ambitious Impact.
Really poor Nigerians who these charities target, don’t farm nor eat farmed shrimp (unless I’m missing something here) so I would almost wipe this harm figure out. Shrimp are probably far too expensive for poor people to buy. I’ll keep 10% of it for similar reason as the chickens above—spillover lives saved in non-targeted demographics. This percent might well be far far lower than this too
As a side note I’m also not sure how you calculate who is “responsible” for the farmed shrimp in Nigeria. Is it the producer or the consumer? Most shrimp is exported and not eaten in Nigeria anyway, so I would probably account that mostly to the eater overseas but this could go either way.
I’ve divided your fish number in half as well for similar reasons as above. My experience in Uganda is that farmed fish may be eaten a little by the poorest people—at least more than chickens and shrimp
My revised estimated “harm” would then be
Chickens 0.841 x .375 ) + (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
Obviously even if I’m right, the huge uncertainty here this far from precludes net harm under your framework. I’ve also based this on poor quality data—my own experience on the other side of the continent, plus a bit of experience taking with Nigerians plus 30 minutes of internet research. So I’m very open to be corrected here by Vasco, other Nigerians or anyone else here!
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.