Welcome! And well done to donate 50% â I only know a few people with ordinary jobs whoâve done this, and theyâre all among my favorite individuals. Youâre doing incredible good.
I feel that the Effective Altruism movement overvalues animal well-being vs human well-being.
The EA movement doesnât really have its own values, aside from a few baseline principles â itâs a collection of individuals who agree on the principles but differ on many other things. If you were to ask something like âhow valuable is saving a chicken from a year of constant suffering?â, people in the movement would give you a vast range of answers.
If you think that a particular estimate youâve seen from some EA-aligned organization is wrong, the EA Forum is a great place to make that argument!
I also feel it ignores that improving human welfare is an avenue to improving animal welfare (people who are struggling donât have room to think about whether their chickens are free range).
It seems unlikely on its face that spending money on human welfare will do much for animals, relative to the incredible efficiency of e.g. cage-free campaigns. I donât think animal advocates ignore these side effects (I think almost everyone would agree that thereâs a link between economic prosperity and moral circle expansion). But I do think that theyâd judge the side effects as very minor in the grand scheme of things.
If you think the side effects arenât minor⌠sounds like another potential Forum post!
Note that thereâs been some conversation about the direct opposite idea â that wealthier people eat more animal products, which means that improving human welfare might lead to additional animal suffering (meat consumption has skyrocketed around the world in recent decades).
I havenât seen people actually use this as a reason not to support human-focused charities â again, this âside effectâ is very small â but I think it illustrates how difficult and complicated these questions can be.
Welcome! And well done to donate 50% â I only know a few people with ordinary jobs whoâve done this, and theyâre all among my favorite individuals. Youâre doing incredible good.
The EA movement doesnât really have its own values, aside from a few baseline principles â itâs a collection of individuals who agree on the principles but differ on many other things. If you were to ask something like âhow valuable is saving a chicken from a year of constant suffering?â, people in the movement would give you a vast range of answers.
If you think that a particular estimate youâve seen from some EA-aligned organization is wrong, the EA Forum is a great place to make that argument!
It seems unlikely on its face that spending money on human welfare will do much for animals, relative to the incredible efficiency of e.g. cage-free campaigns. I donât think animal advocates ignore these side effects (I think almost everyone would agree that thereâs a link between economic prosperity and moral circle expansion). But I do think that theyâd judge the side effects as very minor in the grand scheme of things.
If you think the side effects arenât minor⌠sounds like another potential Forum post!
Note that thereâs been some conversation about the direct opposite idea â that wealthier people eat more animal products, which means that improving human welfare might lead to additional animal suffering (meat consumption has skyrocketed around the world in recent decades).
I havenât seen people actually use this as a reason not to support human-focused charities â again, this âside effectâ is very small â but I think it illustrates how difficult and complicated these questions can be.