The conclusions (âI recommend increasing the consumption of beefâ) do not not follow from the premises (âsoil animals have negative livesâ), 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: âThis 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 canât send the message.â
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:
âI 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 livesâ.
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 Brianâs early research, and its massive land use requirements relative to other foods.
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: âThis 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 canât send the message.â
P2: âWhy not just take away their phone?â
Youâve 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:
âI recommend funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Researchâs (CEARCHâs) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF) over that [âincreasing the consumption of beefâ]. 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 $]â.
âI 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 livesâ.
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 Brianâs early research, and its massive land use requirements relative to other foods.