On their page explaining their definition of positive impact in more depth, footnote 1 clarifies:
“We often say “helping people” here for simplicity and brevity, but we don’t mean just humans — we mean anyone with experience that matters morally — e.g. nonhuman animals that can suffer or feel happiness, even conscious machines if they ever exist.”
I think it would be better to make it clearer that animals are included. But its not the case that they exclude animals from moral consideration.
That’s helpful to know, thanks! I still think the word “people” is quite misleading in the sense that people rarely associate it with nonhuman animals. I also think there might be an additional reason for not mentioning animals, which is to avoid alienating people who don’t care about animals but who are interested in longtermist causes.
On their page explaining their definition of positive impact in more depth, footnote 1 clarifies:
“We often say “helping people” here for simplicity and brevity, but we don’t mean just humans — we mean anyone with experience that matters morally — e.g. nonhuman animals that can suffer or feel happiness, even conscious machines if they ever exist.”
I think it would be better to make it clearer that animals are included. But its not the case that they exclude animals from moral consideration.
https://80000hours.org/articles/what-is-social-impact-definition/
That’s helpful to know, thanks! I still think the word “people” is quite misleading in the sense that people rarely associate it with nonhuman animals. I also think there might be an additional reason for not mentioning animals, which is to avoid alienating people who don’t care about animals but who are interested in longtermist causes.