While Iâm sympathetic to your conclusion, it feels like a major omission to not think about added wild animal deaths due to climate change, in addition to the added human deaths. Did you look at all at the state of research on how climate change will impact wild animal populations? (Note: you might get into some morally tricky questions there. Climate change is going to hurt lots of existing species, but other species may replace species that are hurt by habitat loss and temperature changes. How exactly to morally weight that is probably more complex than just tallying up deaths).
Not much is known about the impact of climate change on wild animals, so therefore I excluded it. It is very complicated. First, it could still be the case that at the expected level of warming, the decrease in cold deaths of wild animals could be larger than the increase in heat deaths. Less freezing days, but more heat waves and forest fires⊠Second, it might be the case that most wild animals have a net negative welfare and that climate change decreases population sizes, which means fewer animals with net negative welfare will be born, and that is good in the long run. Third, animals have a shorter lifespan and higher reproduction levels than humans, which means the identities of future born animals may be much more dependent on what we (CO2 emitting beings) do, compared to the influence of our actions on the identities of future born humans. Compare the world where we take climate measures with a business as usual world. Already after a few years you will see that those two worlds will contain different animals. That brings us to the difficult non-identity problem in population ethics. So⊠it becomes very complicated.
I agree itâs very complicated, but it seems possible the results from wild animal suffering/âdeath could be enough to negate the gains you think will come from farmed animals. Hence, I think the policy recommendations should with a big uncertainty cauvea
t. Itâs possible those recommendations could make things worse.
Not much is known about the impact of climate change on wild animals, so therefore I excluded it.
However, if the effects on wild animals are the driver for the nearterm effects (as suggested in the table here), being clueless about them (for reasons such as the ones you provided) implies being clueless about the nearterm effects of replacing beef by chicken (or any other substitution). âOverall effectâ = âcertain effectsâ + âuncertain effectsâ can be approximated as:
âCertain effectsâ if âcertain effectsâ>>âuncertain effectsâ.
âUncertain effectsâ if âcertain effectsâ<<âuncertain effectsâ.
Mathematically, you can conclude that E(âoverall effectâ) > 0 if E(âcertain effectsâ) > 0 and E(âuncertain effectsâ) = 0. However, the sign of E(âuncertain effectsâ) is quite uncertain, so that conclusion would not be resilient. Under these conditions, further research makes more sense to me than advocating for specific subsitutions.
It might be possible to replace chicken partially with beef and partially with plants so that the environmental (and wild animal) effects have roughly 0 expected value, but the effects on farmed animals are positive. Maybe not, though, depending on how deep your uncertainty and how many different effects you need to balance.
NPP is increasing, meaning There is more food available, and warmer climates means faster metabolisms and shorter lifespans for ectotherms, we should expect Climate change to increase the number of future animals.
While Iâm sympathetic to your conclusion, it feels like a major omission to not think about added wild animal deaths due to climate change, in addition to the added human deaths. Did you look at all at the state of research on how climate change will impact wild animal populations? (Note: you might get into some morally tricky questions there. Climate change is going to hurt lots of existing species, but other species may replace species that are hurt by habitat loss and temperature changes. How exactly to morally weight that is probably more complex than just tallying up deaths).
Not much is known about the impact of climate change on wild animals, so therefore I excluded it. It is very complicated. First, it could still be the case that at the expected level of warming, the decrease in cold deaths of wild animals could be larger than the increase in heat deaths. Less freezing days, but more heat waves and forest fires⊠Second, it might be the case that most wild animals have a net negative welfare and that climate change decreases population sizes, which means fewer animals with net negative welfare will be born, and that is good in the long run. Third, animals have a shorter lifespan and higher reproduction levels than humans, which means the identities of future born animals may be much more dependent on what we (CO2 emitting beings) do, compared to the influence of our actions on the identities of future born humans. Compare the world where we take climate measures with a business as usual world. Already after a few years you will see that those two worlds will contain different animals. That brings us to the difficult non-identity problem in population ethics. So⊠it becomes very complicated.
I agree itâs very complicated, but it seems possible the results from wild animal suffering/âdeath could be enough to negate the gains you think will come from farmed animals. Hence, I think the policy recommendations should with a big uncertainty cauvea t. Itâs possible those recommendations could make things worse.
Hi Stijn,
Interesting analysis!
You say that:
However, if the effects on wild animals are the driver for the nearterm effects (as suggested in the table here), being clueless about them (for reasons such as the ones you provided) implies being clueless about the nearterm effects of replacing beef by chicken (or any other substitution). âOverall effectâ = âcertain effectsâ + âuncertain effectsâ can be approximated as:
âCertain effectsâ if âcertain effectsâ>>âuncertain effectsâ.
âUncertain effectsâ if âcertain effectsâ<<âuncertain effectsâ.
Mathematically, you can conclude that E(âoverall effectâ) > 0 if E(âcertain effectsâ) > 0 and E(âuncertain effectsâ) = 0. However, the sign of E(âuncertain effectsâ) is quite uncertain, so that conclusion would not be resilient. Under these conditions, further research makes more sense to me than advocating for specific subsitutions.
It might be possible to replace chicken partially with beef and partially with plants so that the environmental (and wild animal) effects have roughly 0 expected value, but the effects on farmed animals are positive. Maybe not, though, depending on how deep your uncertainty and how many different effects you need to balance.
I discuss this kind of approach more generally here: https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââMig4y9Duu6pzuw3H4/ââhedging-against-deep-and-moral-uncertainty
yes, good point
NPP is increasing, meaning There is more food available, and warmer climates means faster metabolisms and shorter lifespans for ectotherms, we should expect Climate change to increase the number of future animals.