Mild downvote here. The conclusions (“I recommend increasing the consumption of beef”) do not follow from the premises (“soil animals have negative lives”), even if true. And the premises are highly uncertain and speculative.
There are perhaps other ways to improve or mitigate soil animal lives, and certainly many other ways to increase agricultural land that do not involve killing and eating cows.
Because of that, it feels like the post is intentionally contrarian for the sake of aggravating others, rather than an earnest attempt to improve the lives of soil animals. I appreciate the detail and raising issues many haven’t considered. I’d upvote it if it was framed as raising an issue noting the uncertainty and invitation for consideration, rather than a strong recommendation for something that doesn’t follow from the premises.
The conclusions (“I recommend increasing the consumption of beef”) do not not follow from the premises (“soil animals have negative lives”), even if true.
I estimate buying beef decreases the living time of soil animals 164 billion times as much as it increases the living time of cows. Do you prefer decreasing the consumption of beef (relative to increasing it) because you believe the experiences of cows are over 164 billion times as intense as those of soil animals? If not, could you elaborate on your reasons for disagreeing with my recommendation?
P1: “This 90 year old is about to send a spam message to 100 million people. That will cause ~2000 years of annoyance and suffering. They have only ~4 years of expected mediocre life left, so it would be better to kill them so they can’t send the message.”
I see. I think you are implying that I should not recommend increasing the consumption of beef to increase the welfare of soil animals even if these have negative lives because there are other interventions that increase their welfare more cost-effectively. I agree with this last part, but I still think there is value in sharing my belief that increasing the consumption of beef is better than decreasing it. I also discuss better options in the summary:
“I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land, the most cost-effective global health interventions, and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives”.
If you are arguing for increasing agricultural land, there are many other ways to accomplish that. You could promote the use of biofuels. Suggest more people get horses as companion animals. Or many other methods.
Hyper-focusing on eating cows is weird. At this point is seems like a way to self-rationalize that eating cows is not just ok but on net preferable.
Brian Tomasik has a post listing ways of decreasing the living time of invertebrates. Buying beef directly from Brazil is the intervention there for which Brian estimated the highest cost-effectiveness, although Brian only estimated the cost-effectiveness of some. I have followed a plant-based diet for 6 years, and do not miss eating beef. I looked into the cost-effectiveness of buying beef given Brian’s early research, and its massive land use requirements relative to other foods.
Mild downvote here. The conclusions (“I recommend increasing the consumption of beef”) do not follow from the premises (“soil animals have negative lives”), even if true. And the premises are highly uncertain and speculative.
There are perhaps other ways to improve or mitigate soil animal lives, and certainly many other ways to increase agricultural land that do not involve killing and eating cows.
Because of that, it feels like the post is intentionally contrarian for the sake of aggravating others, rather than an earnest attempt to improve the lives of soil animals. I appreciate the detail and raising issues many haven’t considered. I’d upvote it if it was framed as raising an issue noting the uncertainty and invitation for consideration, rather than a strong recommendation for something that doesn’t follow from the premises.
Thanks for the comment, Matthew.
I estimate buying beef decreases the living time of soil animals 164 billion times as much as it increases the living time of cows. Do you prefer decreasing the consumption of beef (relative to increasing it) because you believe the experiences of cows are over 164 billion times as intense as those of soil animals? If not, could you elaborate on your reasons for disagreeing with my recommendation?
P1: “This 90 year old is about to send a spam message to 100 million people. That will cause ~2000 years of annoyance and suffering. They have only ~4 years of expected mediocre life left, so it would be better to kill them so they can’t send the message.”
P2: “Why not just take away their phone?”
You’ve proposed a false dilemma.
I see. I think you are implying that I should not recommend increasing the consumption of beef to increase the welfare of soil animals even if these have negative lives because there are other interventions that increase their welfare more cost-effectively. I agree with this last part, but I still think there is value in sharing my belief that increasing the consumption of beef is better than decreasing it. I also discuss better options in the summary:
“I recommend funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research’s (CEARCH’s) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF) over that [“increasing the consumption of beef”]. I estimated buying beef is 3.72 % as cost-effective as funding HIPF, and that this decreases 5.07 billion soil-animal-years per $ [whereas I estimate buying beef only decreaess 189 M soil-animal-years per $]”.
“I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land, the most cost-effective global health interventions, and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives”.
If you are arguing for increasing agricultural land, there are many other ways to accomplish that. You could promote the use of biofuels. Suggest more people get horses as companion animals. Or many other methods. Hyper-focusing on eating cows is weird. At this point is seems like a way to self-rationalize that eating cows is not just ok but on net preferable.
Brian Tomasik has a post listing ways of decreasing the living time of invertebrates. Buying beef directly from Brazil is the intervention there for which Brian estimated the highest cost-effectiveness, although Brian only estimated the cost-effectiveness of some. I have followed a plant-based diet for 6 years, and do not miss eating beef. I looked into the cost-effectiveness of buying beef given Brian’s early research, and its massive land use requirements relative to other foods.