It does seem like, as @Ben Millwood🔸has commented, any harm caused to animals by donating to global health charities is much smaller than the harm of not giving to animal charities. So maybe a better and more palatable framing for the meat eating problem is not, “Is giving to global health charities net negative/positive?” but “Is giving to global health charities more/less cost-effective than giving to animal charities?”
Here is Ben’s comment (the link above is broken). I also like the prioritisation framing, and commented in the same post that the meat eating problem is mostly a distraction in that sense. However, it still seems worth analysing it to arrive to more accurate beliefs about the world, and because, in some hard to specify way, many value decreasing the probability of causing harm more than prioritising the most cost-effective interventions.
Thanks, Erich.
Here is Ben’s comment (the link above is broken). I also like the prioritisation framing, and commented in the same post that the meat eating problem is mostly a distraction in that sense. However, it still seems worth analysing it to arrive to more accurate beliefs about the world, and because, in some hard to specify way, many value decreasing the probability of causing harm more than prioritising the most cost-effective interventions.
Thanks, I fixed the link. And the rest of your comment seems right to me.