Executive summary: Saving human lives in high income countries may be better than in low income countries from the perspective of boosting economic growth, while helping animals may be better than saving human lives in low income countries from the perspective of improving near-term welfare.
Key points:
The author’s views on saving human lives have evolved over time, from rational egoism to now considering effects on animals and economic growth.
The cost-effectiveness of saving human lives depends on the benefits to the person saved (proportional to life satisfaction and life expectancy) and indirect long-term effects on economic growth (uncomfortable conclusion that lives in high income countries may be instrumentally more valuable).
It’s unclear if saving human lives has a positive or negative impact on near-term animal welfare due to the “meat-eater problem” and potential effects on wild animals. The effect may be negative.
However, saving human lives, especially in high income countries, may decrease long-term animal suffering if it boosts economic growth and speeds up the end of factory farming.
If improving near-term welfare is the best proxy for increasing future welfare, then helping animals seems better than saving human lives in low income countries. But if boosting economic growth is the best proxy, then saving lives in high income countries seems better.
More research is needed on whether indirect long-term effects dominate and what the best proxies are for maximizing welfare. The author believes the effective altruism community may have prematurely converged on minimizing human disease burden.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: Saving human lives in high income countries may be better than in low income countries from the perspective of boosting economic growth, while helping animals may be better than saving human lives in low income countries from the perspective of improving near-term welfare.
Key points:
The author’s views on saving human lives have evolved over time, from rational egoism to now considering effects on animals and economic growth.
The cost-effectiveness of saving human lives depends on the benefits to the person saved (proportional to life satisfaction and life expectancy) and indirect long-term effects on economic growth (uncomfortable conclusion that lives in high income countries may be instrumentally more valuable).
It’s unclear if saving human lives has a positive or negative impact on near-term animal welfare due to the “meat-eater problem” and potential effects on wild animals. The effect may be negative.
However, saving human lives, especially in high income countries, may decrease long-term animal suffering if it boosts economic growth and speeds up the end of factory farming.
If improving near-term welfare is the best proxy for increasing future welfare, then helping animals seems better than saving human lives in low income countries. But if boosting economic growth is the best proxy, then saving lives in high income countries seems better.
More research is needed on whether indirect long-term effects dominate and what the best proxies are for maximizing welfare. The author believes the effective altruism community may have prematurely converged on minimizing human disease burden.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.