Just thought I’d say I’m actually interested by Vasco’s comment. I don’t see why it’s not related—the post is meant to be assessing overall cost-effectiveness (according to the title), so effects on animals are potentially relevant (edit: OK the title refers to HLI’s analysis and the comment is about GiveWell’s, but it applies to both, so I’d accept it). If the point were only written about elsewhere, then it could easily be missed by readers interested in this topic. That said, a fuller write up of how the meat eater problem may affect views on which charities are most cost-effective would also be helpful I think.
It’s a completely different conversation in my book. The post, per the title, is an assessment of HLI’s model of SM’s effectiveness. I dont really see Vasco’s comment as about GW’s assessment of HLI’s model, HLI’s model itself, or SM’s effectiveness with any particularity. It’s more about the broad idea that GH&D effects for almost any GH&D program may be swamped by animal-welfare and longtermist effects.
I do actually think there is a related point to be made that is appropriate to the post: (1) it is good that we have a new published analysis that SM is very likely an effective charity; because (2) even under GW’s version of the analysis, some donors may feel SM is an attractive choice in the global health & development space because they are concerned about the meat-eater problem [link to Vasco’s analysis here] and/or environmental concerns that potentially affect life-saving and economic-development modes of action.
The reasons I’d find that kind of comment helpful—but didn’t find the comment by @Vasco as written well-suited for this post include:
(1) the perspective above is an attempt at a practical application of GW’s findings that is much more hooked into the main subject of the post (which is about SM and HLI’s CEA thereof), and
(2) By noting the meat-eater problem but linking to a discussion in one’s own post, rather than attempting to explain/discuss it in a post trying to nail down the GH&D effects of SM, the risk of derailing the discussion on someone else’s post is significantly reduced.
Ya, the analyses explicitly include spillover effects on some individuals who aren’t directly affected by the interventions (i.e. household family members), but ignore potentially important predictable nearterm indirect effects (those on nonhuman animals) and all of the far future effects. And it doesn’t explain why.
However, ignoring effects on nonhuman animals and the far future is typical for analyses of global health and poverty interventions. And this is discussed in other places where cause prioritization is the main topic. I’d guess, based on comments elsewhere on the EA Forum and other EA-related spaces, nonhuman animal effects are ignored because the authors don’t agree with giving nonhuman animals so much moral weight relative to humans, or are doing worldview diversification and they aren’t confident in such high moral weights. I don’t think we’d want a comment like Vasco’s on many global health and poverty intervention posts, because we don’t want to have the same discussion scattered and repeated this way, especially when there are better places to have it. Instead, Vasco’s own posts, posts about moral weight and posts about cause prioritization would be better places.
When people bring up effects on wild fish, I often point out that they’re thinking about it the wrong way (getting the supply responses wrong) and ignoring population effects. But I’m pretty sure this is something they would care about if informed, and there aren’t that many posts about wild fish. I also suspect we should be more worried about animal product reduction backfiring in the near term because of wild animal effects, but I think this is more controversial and animal product reduction is covered much more on the EA Forum than fishing in particular, so passing comments on posts about diet change and substitutes doesn’t seem like a good way to have this discussion.
I guess there’s a question of whether a comment like Vasco’s would be welcome every now and then on global health and poverty posts, but it could be a slippery slope.
Just thought I’d say I’m actually interested by Vasco’s comment. I don’t see why it’s not related—the post is meant to be assessing overall cost-effectiveness (according to the title), so effects on animals are potentially relevant (edit: OK the title refers to HLI’s analysis and the comment is about GiveWell’s, but it applies to both, so I’d accept it). If the point were only written about elsewhere, then it could easily be missed by readers interested in this topic. That said, a fuller write up of how the meat eater problem may affect views on which charities are most cost-effective would also be helpful I think.
It’s a completely different conversation in my book. The post, per the title, is an assessment of HLI’s model of SM’s effectiveness. I dont really see Vasco’s comment as about GW’s assessment of HLI’s model, HLI’s model itself, or SM’s effectiveness with any particularity. It’s more about the broad idea that GH&D effects for almost any GH&D program may be swamped by animal-welfare and longtermist effects.
I do actually think there is a related point to be made that is appropriate to the post: (1) it is good that we have a new published analysis that SM is very likely an effective charity; because (2) even under GW’s version of the analysis, some donors may feel SM is an attractive choice in the global health & development space because they are concerned about the meat-eater problem [link to Vasco’s analysis here] and/or environmental concerns that potentially affect life-saving and economic-development modes of action.
The reasons I’d find that kind of comment helpful—but didn’t find the comment by @Vasco as written well-suited for this post include:
(1) the perspective above is an attempt at a practical application of GW’s findings that is much more hooked into the main subject of the post (which is about SM and HLI’s CEA thereof), and
(2) By noting the meat-eater problem but linking to a discussion in one’s own post, rather than attempting to explain/discuss it in a post trying to nail down the GH&D effects of SM, the risk of derailing the discussion on someone else’s post is significantly reduced.
Ya, the analyses explicitly include spillover effects on some individuals who aren’t directly affected by the interventions (i.e. household family members), but ignore potentially important predictable nearterm indirect effects (those on nonhuman animals) and all of the far future effects. And it doesn’t explain why.
However, ignoring effects on nonhuman animals and the far future is typical for analyses of global health and poverty interventions. And this is discussed in other places where cause prioritization is the main topic. I’d guess, based on comments elsewhere on the EA Forum and other EA-related spaces, nonhuman animal effects are ignored because the authors don’t agree with giving nonhuman animals so much moral weight relative to humans, or are doing worldview diversification and they aren’t confident in such high moral weights. I don’t think we’d want a comment like Vasco’s on many global health and poverty intervention posts, because we don’t want to have the same discussion scattered and repeated this way, especially when there are better places to have it. Instead, Vasco’s own posts, posts about moral weight and posts about cause prioritization would be better places.
When people bring up effects on wild fish, I often point out that they’re thinking about it the wrong way (getting the supply responses wrong) and ignoring population effects. But I’m pretty sure this is something they would care about if informed, and there aren’t that many posts about wild fish. I also suspect we should be more worried about animal product reduction backfiring in the near term because of wild animal effects, but I think this is more controversial and animal product reduction is covered much more on the EA Forum than fishing in particular, so passing comments on posts about diet change and substitutes doesn’t seem like a good way to have this discussion.
I guess there’s a question of whether a comment like Vasco’s would be welcome every now and then on global health and poverty posts, but it could be a slippery slope.