But you shouldn’t include those because you’re comparing ‘apples to apples’. If other people save more of the environment by being vegetarian then that’s just as good as you helping to save the environment.
I think kbog’s point is that Greg appears to be comparing ‘person x going vegan’ with ‘person x donating $y that causes z other people to go vegan’. If going vegan has other benefits, e.g. environmental benefits, those will happen either way and don’t effect the comparison unless we have reason to think person x going vegan is particularly valuable compared to a random individual.
But you shouldn’t include those because you’re comparing ‘apples to apples’. If other people save more of the environment by being vegetarian then that’s just as good as you helping to save the environment.
I’m not sure I fully understand your comment. By being vegan you achieve all 3 at once, so the cost benefit analysis isn’t as simple.
I think kbog’s point is that Greg appears to be comparing ‘person x going vegan’ with ‘person x donating $y that causes z other people to go vegan’. If going vegan has other benefits, e.g. environmental benefits, those will happen either way and don’t effect the comparison unless we have reason to think person x going vegan is particularly valuable compared to a random individual.
Ah of course, I understand now. A big oversight on my behalf, thanks for clearing that up!
And converting other people to be vegan also achieves all 3 at once, except it does so to a much greater degree.