For a consequentialist like me who makes no act/omission distinction, that’s how your argument sounds. The reason that it’s a bad argument is that your resources are finite. The way to be an EA is to figure out which cause is the best use of your resources on the margin and spend your resources on that cause.
So am I, I just don’t see the big cost in ressources while I do think the cost in ressources livestock has is proven.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here.
I admit, the analogy wasn’t as clear as I hoped it would be. My point was that we have the capacity to solve multiple problems in our lives. Peter Dinklage is an awesome actor while being vegan… so yeah.. Not my strongest argument maybe :D
I’d guess that bringing forward the development of quality in vitro meat by a single day would do much more for animal suffering than converting the entire EA movement as it currently stands to veganism.
A good way to bring development forward in an open market is to generate demand and from my personal experience (excuse the irrationality, or not) vegans tend to generate a higher demand for such products. So why the false dichotomy?
The demand point is an interesting one. I’d guess that funding in vitro meat development directly with earnings from a high-paying job is still much more promising than buying vegan food products in the hope that your actions will be reflected in statistics in the hope that investors will act on those statistics in order to invest in in vitro meat. Other issues:
Self-interested investors may not fund the basic research necessary for in vitro meat development if it’s too far out.
Research funded by self-interested investors will likely be kept secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage.
BTW, these are the only ACE links I can find that seem to discuss in vitro meat in significant depth. I’d be interested to see further EA coverage of the topic.
So am I, I just don’t see the big cost in ressources while I do think the cost in ressources livestock has is proven.
I admit, the analogy wasn’t as clear as I hoped it would be. My point was that we have the capacity to solve multiple problems in our lives. Peter Dinklage is an awesome actor while being vegan… so yeah.. Not my strongest argument maybe :D
A good way to bring development forward in an open market is to generate demand and from my personal experience (excuse the irrationality, or not) vegans tend to generate a higher demand for such products. So why the false dichotomy?
The demand point is an interesting one. I’d guess that funding in vitro meat development directly with earnings from a high-paying job is still much more promising than buying vegan food products in the hope that your actions will be reflected in statistics in the hope that investors will act on those statistics in order to invest in in vitro meat. Other issues:
Self-interested investors may not fund the basic research necessary for in vitro meat development if it’s too far out.
Research funded by self-interested investors will likely be kept secret in order to maintain a competitive advantage.
BTW, these are the only ACE links I can find that seem to discuss in vitro meat in significant depth. I’d be interested to see further EA coverage of the topic.
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/organizations/new-harvest/
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/beyond-meat-vs-new-harvest/
Your time, energy, and attention are limited. Time/energy/attention spent on veganism takes away from your stock to spend on other stuff.