I did not vote on the post, but I considered downvoting it on the grounds that Vasco has made versions of this argument many times across the Forum, and I think repetition is bad for discourse.
In my last analysis, I suggested accounting for farmed animals would decrease the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities by 8.72 %. The post I have published now discusses other countries with higher consumption per capita of animals, models the effects on farmed aquatic animais by country, relies on data about consumption instead of production, and reports decreases in cost-effectiveness over 100 % which make saving human lives harmful nearterm.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve read “I Fermi-estimate that corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1000x GiveWell”, I could offset the harms caused by several meat eaters /j
This was funny (in a good way). I wonder whether you are also against repeating that the best interventions in global health and development help humans way more cost-effectively than random organisations.
My statement was a bit churlish by glossing over the differences in arguments you make at different points. However, I think it’s fair because they all have the same crux (moral weights).
I wonder whether you are also against repeating that the best interventions in global health and development help humans way more cost-effectively than random organisations.
Definitely. I think that could arguably be a valuable message for outreach to ordinary people, but a post on the forum that looked like that would not be a useful or substantive contribution.
I think that could arguably be a valuable message for outreach to ordinary people, but a post on the forum that looked like that would not be a useful or substantive contribution.
If someone pointed out on the forum that cash transfers in high income countries are among the most cost-effective interventions without making any reference to GiveDirectly’s cash transfer in low income countries, I think it would be good for someone to comment that money goes further in lower income countries. The person may not be aware of this. I do not think it would make sense for such comment to be downvoted just because most readers are already aware of it.
Hi Karthik.
In my last analysis, I suggested accounting for farmed animals would decrease the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities by 8.72 %. The post I have published now discusses other countries with higher consumption per capita of animals, models the effects on farmed aquatic animais by country, relies on data about consumption instead of production, and reports decreases in cost-effectiveness over 100 % which make saving human lives harmful nearterm.
This was funny (in a good way). I wonder whether you are also against repeating that the best interventions in global health and development help humans way more cost-effectively than random organisations.
My statement was a bit churlish by glossing over the differences in arguments you make at different points. However, I think it’s fair because they all have the same crux (moral weights).
Definitely. I think that could arguably be a valuable message for outreach to ordinary people, but a post on the forum that looked like that would not be a useful or substantive contribution.
If someone pointed out on the forum that cash transfers in high income countries are among the most cost-effective interventions without making any reference to GiveDirectly’s cash transfer in low income countries, I think it would be good for someone to comment that money goes further in lower income countries. The person may not be aware of this. I do not think it would make sense for such comment to be downvoted just because most readers are already aware of it.