I personally dealt with this (in part) by referencing Jack Malde’s excellent guided cause prio flowchart (this was a first draft to gauge forum receptivity). Sadly, when asked about updates, he replied that “Interest seemed to be somewhat limited.”
Thanks for sharing, Mo! I do not think humans need to have special status for one to prioritise interventions targeting humans. I estimate GiveWell’s top charities may well be more cost-effective than interventions targeting animals due to effects on soil nematodes, mites, and springtails.
Thanks Vasco, I really appreciate your work to incorporate the wellbeing of wild animals into cost-effectiveness analyses.
In your piece, you focus on evaluating existing interventions. But I wonder whether there might be more direct ways to reduce the living time of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails that could outperform any human life-saving intervention.
On priors it seems unlikely that optimizing for saving human lives would be the most effective strategy to reduce wild animal suffering.
Thanks, Jack! I agree it is unlikely that the most cost-effective ways of increasing human-years are the most cost-effective ways of increasing agricultural-land-years. Brian Tomasik may have listed some of these. However, buying beef decreases arthropod-years the most cost-effectively among the interventions for which Brian estimated the cost-effectiveness, and I estimated GiveWell’s top charities are 2.65 (= 1.69/0.638) times as cost-effective as buying beef.
I personally dealt with this (in part) by referencing Jack Malde’s excellent guided cause prio flowchart (this was a first draft to gauge forum receptivity). Sadly, when asked about updates, he replied that “Interest seemed to be somewhat limited.”
I’m glad you found this useful Mo!
Thanks for sharing, Mo! I do not think humans need to have special status for one to prioritise interventions targeting humans. I estimate GiveWell’s top charities may well be more cost-effective than interventions targeting animals due to effects on soil nematodes, mites, and springtails.
Thanks Vasco, I really appreciate your work to incorporate the wellbeing of wild animals into cost-effectiveness analyses.
In your piece, you focus on evaluating existing interventions. But I wonder whether there might be more direct ways to reduce the living time of soil nematodes, mites, and springtails that could outperform any human life-saving intervention.
On priors it seems unlikely that optimizing for saving human lives would be the most effective strategy to reduce wild animal suffering.
Thanks, Jack! I agree it is unlikely that the most cost-effective ways of increasing human-years are the most cost-effective ways of increasing agricultural-land-years. Brian Tomasik may have listed some of these. However, buying beef decreases arthropod-years the most cost-effectively among the interventions for which Brian estimated the cost-effectiveness, and I estimated GiveWell’s top charities are 2.65 (= 1.69/0.638) times as cost-effective as buying beef.