a) “We have looked at this, and we’re confident we can bound the magnitude of this effect to pretty negligible values, so we neglect them in our write-ups etc.”
80,000 Hours and Toby Ord at least think that climate change could be an existential risk, and 80,000 Hours ranks it as a higher priority than global health and poverty, so I think it’s not obvious that the effects would be negligible (assuming total utilitarianism, say) if they tried to work through it, although they might still think so. Other responses they might give:
GiveWell-recommended charities mitigate x-risk more than they worsen them or do more good for the far future in other ways. Maybe there’s a longtermist case for growth. It doesn’t seem 80,000 Hours really believes this, though, or else health in poor countries would be higher up. Also, this seems like suspicious convergence, but they could still think the charities are justified primarily by short-term effects, if they think the long-term ones are plausibly close to 0 in expectation. Or,
GiveWell discounts the lives of future people (e.g. with person-affecting views, possibly asymmetric ones, although climate change could still be important on some person-affecting views), which falls under your point c). I think this is a plausible explanation for GiveWell’s views based on what I’ve seen.
I think another good response (although not the one I’d expect) is that they don’t need to be confident the charities do more good than harm in expectation, since it’s actually very cheap to mitigate any possible risks from climate change from them by also donating to effective climate change charities, even if you’re deeply uncertain about how important climate change is. I discuss this approach more here. The result would be that you’re pretty sure you’re doing some decent minimum of good in expectation (from the health effects), whereas just the global health and poverty charity would be plausibly bad (due to climate change), and just the climate change charity would be plausibly close to 0 in expectation (due to deep uncertainty about the importance of climate change).
But I at least used to see folks appeal to motivations which obviate (inverse/) logic of the larder issues, particularly re. diet change (“Sure, it’s actually really unclear becoming vegan reduces or increases animal suffering overall, but the reason to be vegan is to signal concern for animals and so influence broader societal attitudes, and this effect is much more important and what we’re aiming for”). Yet this overriding motivation typically only ‘came up’ in the context of this discussion
This is fair, and I expect that this still happens, but who was saying this? Is this how the animal charities (or their employees) themselves responded to these concerns? I think it’s plausible many did just think the short term benefits for farmed animals outweighed any effects on wild animals.
“Is maximizing short term farmed animal welfare the best way of furthering this crucial goal of attitude change?”
With respect to things other than diet, I don’t think EAs are assuming it is, and they are separately looking for the best approaches to attitude change, so this doesn’t seem important to ask. Corporate campaigns are primarily justified on the basis of their welfare effects for farmed animals, and still look good if you also include short term effects on wild animals. Other more promising approaches towards attitude change have been supported, like The Nonhuman Rights Project (previously an ACE Standout charity, and still a grantee), and plant-based substitutes and cultured meat (e.g. GFI).
“Is encouraging carnivores to adopt a vegan diet the best way to influence attitudes?”
I do think it’s among the best ways, depending on the approach, and I think people were already thinking this outside of the context of this discussion. I think eating animals causes speciesism and apathy, and is a significant psychological barrier to helping animals, farmed and wild. Becoming vegan (for many, not all) is a commitment to actively caring about animals, and can become part of someone’s identity. EAA has put a lot into the development of substitutes, especially through GFI, and these are basically our main hopes for influencing attitudes and also one of our best shots at eliminating factory farming.
I don’t think this is suspicious convergence. There are other promising approaches (like the Nonhuman Rights Project), but it’s hard enough to compare them directly that I don’t think any are clearly better, so I’d endorse supporting multiple approaches, including diet change.
“Shouldn’t we try and avoid an intervention like v*ganism which credibly harms those we are urging concern for, as this might look bad/be bad by the lights of many/most non-consequentialist views?”
I think the case for veganism is much stronger according to the most common non-consequentialist views (that still care about animals), because they often distinguish
intentional harms and exploitation/using others as mere means to ends, cruelty and supporting cruelty, from
incidental harms and harms from omissions, like more nonhuman animals being born because we are not farming some animals more.
Of course, advocacy is not an omission, and what you suggest is also plausible.
80,000 Hours and Toby Ord at least think that climate change could be an existential risk, and 80,000 Hours ranks it as a higher priority than global health and poverty, so I think it’s not obvious that the effects would be negligible (assuming total utilitarianism, say) if they tried to work through it, although they might still think so. Other responses they might give:
GiveWell-recommended charities mitigate x-risk more than they worsen them or do more good for the far future in other ways. Maybe there’s a longtermist case for growth. It doesn’t seem 80,000 Hours really believes this, though, or else health in poor countries would be higher up. Also, this seems like suspicious convergence, but they could still think the charities are justified primarily by short-term effects, if they think the long-term ones are plausibly close to 0 in expectation. Or,
GiveWell discounts the lives of future people (e.g. with person-affecting views, possibly asymmetric ones, although climate change could still be important on some person-affecting views), which falls under your point c). I think this is a plausible explanation for GiveWell’s views based on what I’ve seen.
I think another good response (although not the one I’d expect) is that they don’t need to be confident the charities do more good than harm in expectation, since it’s actually very cheap to mitigate any possible risks from climate change from them by also donating to effective climate change charities, even if you’re deeply uncertain about how important climate change is. I discuss this approach more here. The result would be that you’re pretty sure you’re doing some decent minimum of good in expectation (from the health effects), whereas just the global health and poverty charity would be plausibly bad (due to climate change), and just the climate change charity would be plausibly close to 0 in expectation (due to deep uncertainty about the importance of climate change).
This is fair, and I expect that this still happens, but who was saying this? Is this how the animal charities (or their employees) themselves responded to these concerns? I think it’s plausible many did just think the short term benefits for farmed animals outweighed any effects on wild animals.
With respect to things other than diet, I don’t think EAs are assuming it is, and they are separately looking for the best approaches to attitude change, so this doesn’t seem important to ask. Corporate campaigns are primarily justified on the basis of their welfare effects for farmed animals, and still look good if you also include short term effects on wild animals. Other more promising approaches towards attitude change have been supported, like The Nonhuman Rights Project (previously an ACE Standout charity, and still a grantee), and plant-based substitutes and cultured meat (e.g. GFI).
I do think it’s among the best ways, depending on the approach, and I think people were already thinking this outside of the context of this discussion. I think eating animals causes speciesism and apathy, and is a significant psychological barrier to helping animals, farmed and wild. Becoming vegan (for many, not all) is a commitment to actively caring about animals, and can become part of someone’s identity. EAA has put a lot into the development of substitutes, especially through GFI, and these are basically our main hopes for influencing attitudes and also one of our best shots at eliminating factory farming.
I don’t think this is suspicious convergence. There are other promising approaches (like the Nonhuman Rights Project), but it’s hard enough to compare them directly that I don’t think any are clearly better, so I’d endorse supporting multiple approaches, including diet change.
I think the case for veganism is much stronger according to the most common non-consequentialist views (that still care about animals), because they often distinguish
intentional harms and exploitation/using others as mere means to ends, cruelty and supporting cruelty, from
incidental harms and harms from omissions, like more nonhuman animals being born because we are not farming some animals more.
Of course, advocacy is not an omission, and what you suggest is also plausible.