This is an interesting post, as it raises some relevant questions. I upvoted it.
While it sounds instinctively better to save the humans, bringing about a more longterm frame puts this into perspective.
I’m still a bit uncertain about the potential of acting on endangered species given the lack of quantitative data—which I agree are difficult to produce! Also, there is the important question of wild animal suffering—do the animals that are saved have good lives?
Personally, I’d be surprised if spending this money on either endangered species or human lives would be our best option to reduce suffering. In this case, I think charities fighting against factory farming have a much higher likelihood of reducing suffering.
Moreover, charities acting for alternative proteins, such as The Good Food Institute, have an excellent track record of helping animals and reducing environmental impact—whether it is CO2 emissions or deforestation. In that context, I think this is one of our best options to act on both fronts. For instance, see this post by Vasco Grilo.
(Oh, by the way, some of the titles appear as plain text—so the format can probably be a bit changed here)
This is an interesting post, as it raises some relevant questions. I upvoted it.
While it sounds instinctively better to save the humans, bringing about a more longterm frame puts this into perspective.
I’m still a bit uncertain about the potential of acting on endangered species given the lack of quantitative data—which I agree are difficult to produce!
Also, there is the important question of wild animal suffering—do the animals that are saved have good lives?
Personally, I’d be surprised if spending this money on either endangered species or human lives would be our best option to reduce suffering. In this case, I think charities fighting against factory farming have a much higher likelihood of reducing suffering.
Moreover, charities acting for alternative proteins, such as The Good Food Institute, have an excellent track record of helping animals and reducing environmental impact—whether it is CO2 emissions or deforestation. In that context, I think this is one of our best options to act on both fronts. For instance, see this post by Vasco Grilo.
(Oh, by the way, some of the titles appear as plain text—so the format can probably be a bit changed here)