This analysis looks at one potential flow-through effect of EA global poverty interventions, and does not consider any others that could potentially benefit animals:
Good things can lead to more good things, e.g. Open Phil has recommended $80 million in effective grants towards farmed animal welfare, but they would not exist if GiveWell had not established their credibility in global poverty. (Open Phil started out as a GiveWell project called GiveWell Labs.)
Solving human problems may free up resources for solving animal welfare problems.
Increases in human population and/​or consumption may lead to decreases in wild animal populations, which may reduce wild animal suffering.
I think it’s worth pointing out that some of these effects are much more estimable and likely to be significant than others, and probably many people primarily donating to GiveWell-recommended charities give little weight to speculative considerations; that’s often why they’re giving to these charities in the first place.
I think the effects on farmed animals (at least numbers) can be estimated fairly rigorously a few decades out based on current consumption rates, trends in consumption, population trends and income elasticities.
I think your first two considerations are pretty speculative, and the kind that should be given little weight unless you think these effects are actually as important or more important than what’s actually included in GiveWell’s analyses, and if they are, then it would be an amazing coincidence that GiveWell-recommended charities are still the best opportunities among those EA has considered.
The effects on wild animals could potentially be estimated with a wide confidence interval, and considerable deep uncertainty about welfare in the wild. We might even think increasing animal product consumption itself is (sometimes) good because it takes more land and so reduces wild animal populations.
I think it’s worth pointing out that some of these effects are much more estimable and likely to be significant than others, and probably many people primarily donating to GiveWell-recommended charities give little weight to speculative considerations; that’s often why they’re giving to these charities in the first place.
I think the effects on farmed animals (at least numbers) can be estimated fairly rigorously a few decades out based on current consumption rates, trends in consumption, population trends and income elasticities.
I think your first two considerations are pretty speculative, and the kind that should be given little weight unless you think these effects are actually as important or more important than what’s actually included in GiveWell’s analyses, and if they are, then it would be an amazing coincidence that GiveWell-recommended charities are still the best opportunities among those EA has considered.
The effects on wild animals could potentially be estimated with a wide confidence interval, and considerable deep uncertainty about welfare in the wild. We might even think increasing animal product consumption itself is (sometimes) good because it takes more land and so reduces wild animal populations.