Question “How much would you be willing to donate to save a human’s life?” makes no sense to me. It all depends on how old the human is, how happy/miserable his future life is going to be and… how much meat he eats.
By saving non-vegan’s life, you kill all the animals he is going to eat (well, in reality it’s more complicated, with market elasticities, etc.). If we are going to be perfectly rational, we should first calculate whether we even want to save the life.
Question “How much would you be willing to donate to save a human’s life?” makes no sense to me. It all depends on how old the human is, how happy/miserable his future life is going to be and… how much meat he eats.
By saving non-vegan’s life, you kill all the animals he is going to eat (well, in reality it’s more complicated, with market elasticities, etc.). If we are going to be perfectly rational, we should first calculate whether we even want to save the life.
Thanks for your comments, see my other responses, particularly around the question of rigour vs. impact.