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.
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