I think it’s quite plausible that over the last 10,000 years the benefits have not outweighed the costs.
It’s also plausible that the next 10,000 years will be dramatically better—for humans, farmed animals, and wild animals. Further human economic development will be necessary to build the knowledge and resources to fully enable this.
But this doesn’t address whether supporting economic development of developing countries right now is a net benefit.
How would you get the “Further human economic development” “necessary to build the knowledge and resources” to build a better world without supporting the development of developing countries?
Are you talking a top-heavy approach where we keep poor countries poor until fake/cultured meat is cheap enough to supplant farmed animals?
I think it’s quite plausible that over the last 10,000 years the benefits have not outweighed the costs.
It’s also plausible that the next 10,000 years will be dramatically better—for humans, farmed animals, and wild animals. Further human economic development will be necessary to build the knowledge and resources to fully enable this.
But this doesn’t address whether supporting economic development of developing countries right now is a net benefit.
How would you get the “Further human economic development” “necessary to build the knowledge and resources” to build a better world without supporting the development of developing countries?
Are you talking a top-heavy approach where we keep poor countries poor until fake/cultured meat is cheap enough to supplant farmed animals?
That’s a pretty good idea