First off, thanks for the article. It’s an interesting perspective and it’s well calculated and formatted.
However...
These figures are remarkably high: ACE estimates the Humane League as averting 3.4 lives for every dollar spent. It rates Mercy for Animals and Animal Equality International even higher, at 8.8 animals/$ and 10.1 animals/$.
Perhaps weakest component in the calculation is the cost effectiveness of the animal charities. One may think the estimates are too good to be true.
I definitely agree that the ACE numbers should not be taken literally, as there are fundamental problems in the underlying studies from which those numbers are derived. The truth is we really don’t know even if they’re off by like four orders of magnitude. So maybe it takes $5 to create a vegetarian, but it might also take like >$5000.
While I’m at it, it probably is best not to take my numbers too literally either, as they were put together pretty hastily, I think I missed some considerations, and some sources disagree.
-
Disclaimer: I am a board member of ACE. This opinion is my own, not necessarily the position of ACE or other ACE staff / board members.
I definitely agree that the ACE numbers should not be taken literally, as there are fundamental problems in the underlying studies from which those numbers are derived.
If the point estimate or expected value given the uncertainty and reasonable priors would be a lot lower, then the reporting should reflect that, e.g. “this methodology says $X per animal prevented from existing, but different members of our team have expected values of $X, $2X, $100X, and $5000X when taking into account priors, other evidence, regression to the reference class, winner’s curse, etc.”
GiveWell publishes a cost-effectiveness spreadsheet at giving season where various GiveWell staff members input their own estimates in charity comparison.
I personally think that the cost-effectiveness figures for veg*n outreach are implausibly positive. I don’t think it’s plausible that converting someone to vegetarianism through favoured methods like leafleting is many orders of magnitudes more cost-effective than these figures (in which case it’d cost mere cents). But, given our current evidence, I do think it’s plausible that leafleting is many orders of magnitudes less cost-effective than claimed. Peter says “maybe it takes $5 to create a vegetarian, but it might also take like >$5000”—at which points perhaps simply paying people in poorer countries to go veggie would be more cost-effective, as PETA controversially did in Detroit.
(Unfortunately I don’t have time to go into more depth on this issue. I’m far from an expert on it anyway!)
First off, thanks for the article. It’s an interesting perspective and it’s well calculated and formatted.
However...
I definitely agree that the ACE numbers should not be taken literally, as there are fundamental problems in the underlying studies from which those numbers are derived. The truth is we really don’t know even if they’re off by like four orders of magnitude. So maybe it takes $5 to create a vegetarian, but it might also take like >$5000.
While I’m at it, it probably is best not to take my numbers too literally either, as they were put together pretty hastily, I think I missed some considerations, and some sources disagree.
-
Disclaimer: I am a board member of ACE. This opinion is my own, not necessarily the position of ACE or other ACE staff / board members.
If the point estimate or expected value given the uncertainty and reasonable priors would be a lot lower, then the reporting should reflect that, e.g. “this methodology says $X per animal prevented from existing, but different members of our team have expected values of $X, $2X, $100X, and $5000X when taking into account priors, other evidence, regression to the reference class, winner’s curse, etc.”
GiveWell publishes a cost-effectiveness spreadsheet at giving season where various GiveWell staff members input their own estimates in charity comparison.
I agree this would be cool for ACE to do. I don’t know what the values of N*X are for other staff and board members, though.
I personally think that the cost-effectiveness figures for veg*n outreach are implausibly positive. I don’t think it’s plausible that converting someone to vegetarianism through favoured methods like leafleting is many orders of magnitudes more cost-effective than these figures (in which case it’d cost mere cents). But, given our current evidence, I do think it’s plausible that leafleting is many orders of magnitudes less cost-effective than claimed. Peter says “maybe it takes $5 to create a vegetarian, but it might also take like >$5000”—at which points perhaps simply paying people in poorer countries to go veggie would be more cost-effective, as PETA controversially did in Detroit.
(Unfortunately I don’t have time to go into more depth on this issue. I’m far from an expert on it anyway!)
See also the discussion of this post on the EA Facebook group.