[The following comment is a tangent/ānit-pick, and doesnāt detract from your actual overall point.]
Yet another example: Iām fairly glad that we have content on the contributions of different animal products to animal suffering (e.g. this or this) even though I think that for most people changing their diet is not among the most effective things they can do to improve the world (or even help farmed animals now).
I agree that that sort of content seems useful, and also that āfor most people changing their diet is not among the most effective things they can do to improve the world (or even help farmed animals now)ā. But I think the āeven thoughā doesnāt quite make sense: I think part of the target audience for at least the Tomasik article was probably also people who might use their donations or careers to reduce animal suffering. And thatās more plausibly the best way for them to help farmed animals now, and such people would also benefit from analyses of the contributions of different animal products to animal suffering.
(But Iād guess that that would be less true for Galefās article, due to having a less targeted audience. That said, I havenāt actually read either of these specific articles.)
[The following comment is a tangent/ānit-pick, and doesnāt detract from your actual overall point.]
I agree that that sort of content seems useful, and also that āfor most people changing their diet is not among the most effective things they can do to improve the world (or even help farmed animals now)ā. But I think the āeven thoughā doesnāt quite make sense: I think part of the target audience for at least the Tomasik article was probably also people who might use their donations or careers to reduce animal suffering. And thatās more plausibly the best way for them to help farmed animals now, and such people would also benefit from analyses of the contributions of different animal products to animal suffering.
(But Iād guess that that would be less true for Galefās article, due to having a less targeted audience. That said, I havenāt actually read either of these specific articles.)
(Ah yeah, good point. I agree that the āeven thoughā is a bit off because of the things you say.)