I also think that wild animal welfare just remains a problem for ~everyone, given that wild animal welfare impacts are downstream from most other interventions, so solving it should be a big priority. Insofar as people think that wild animal suffering is intractable because of uncertain impacts of your intervention on other wild animals, surely that would basically just apply to anything you do in the world that impacts wild animals (which is probably basically everything). If you buy the case for wild animals mattering morally, but think that downstream effects make it impossible to act on it, most charity seems to get stuck.
Agreed. Here are some calculations illustrating the effects of GiveWell’s top charities on wild animals can easily be much larger than those on humans. I would say accounting for effects on farmed animals alone is enough to make it unclear whether extending human lives increases or decreases welfare.
Great points, Abraham!
Agreed. Here are some calculations illustrating the effects of GiveWell’s top charities on wild animals can easily be much larger than those on humans. I would say accounting for effects on farmed animals alone is enough to make it unclear whether extending human lives increases or decreases welfare.