The average suffering of a farmed land animal, estimated by people, is equal in size to the positive welfare of an average human (in Belgium)
This is roughly line with my estimate that the mean suffering per time of a broiler in a reformed scenario is 64.2 % of the mean happiness of a human[1] (globally). In the same analysis, I calculated the annual suffering of all farmed chickens is 1.74 times the annual happiness of all humans. Including all farmed animals, I got a ratio of 4.64. These values highlight the meat-eater problem, and suggest saving a random human life may well increase suffering nearterm, which is one reason to prioritise helping animals over humans, especially in high income countries where there is a higher consumption per capita of animals with bad lives.
There is not so much to worry about in low income countries. Without accounting for higher future consumption, I calculated the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities only decreases by 8.72 % accounting for negative effects on farmed animals. On the other hand, I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, like the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), are 1.44 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities. So I still think the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective than the most cost-effective ways to save human lives at the current margin (relatedly).
Nice post, Stijn!
This is roughly line with my estimate that the mean suffering per time of a broiler in a reformed scenario is 64.2 % of the mean happiness of a human[1] (globally). In the same analysis, I calculated the annual suffering of all farmed chickens is 1.74 times the annual happiness of all humans. Including all farmed animals, I got a ratio of 4.64. These values highlight the meat-eater problem, and suggest saving a random human life may well increase suffering nearterm, which is one reason to prioritise helping animals over humans, especially in high income countries where there is a higher consumption per capita of animals with bad lives.
There is not so much to worry about in low income countries. Without accounting for higher future consumption, I calculated the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities only decreases by 8.72 % accounting for negative effects on farmed animals. On the other hand, I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, like the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), are 1.44 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities. So I still think the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective than the most cost-effective ways to save human lives at the current margin (relatedly).
Chickens are the most farmed land animal.