Plenty of mental health charities are likely to directly improve human suffering for people whose lives they don’t save. It’s less clear how many lives they directly save (some screen out suicidal participants completely), but we know that the number of suicides is relatively low in most countries (India records around 200k suicides per year out of a 1.4b population).
EA mental health charities (in LMICs) include StrongMinds, Vida Plena, and Kaya Guides.
Depression and other mental-health conditions often have a significant impact on productivity and income, though. This suggests that programs that alleviate them may have a significant effect on income (and thus meat consumption).
While I generally do not weigh the meat-eater problem much in evaluating global health charities, I think the indirect income-promoting effect would be of concern to some people.
With that criteria, you would be extremely hard pressed to find any global health charities that avoid the meat-eater problem (or, for that matter, any GCR charities, since those would save the lives of rich people).
However, I would suggest a focus on culturally vegetarian countries such as India could still meet that criteria. Kaya Guides operate there currently.
Yes, at some moral weights, it would be very hard to recommend ~any global-health charities, and perhaps any GCR ones. We don’t know how much incidental effect on meat consumption the OP is willing to accept. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the answer to her question is ~none.
Plenty of mental health charities are likely to directly improve human suffering for people whose lives they don’t save. It’s less clear how many lives they directly save (some screen out suicidal participants completely), but we know that the number of suicides is relatively low in most countries (India records around 200k suicides per year out of a 1.4b population).
EA mental health charities (in LMICs) include StrongMinds, Vida Plena, and Kaya Guides.
Depression and other mental-health conditions often have a significant impact on productivity and income, though. This suggests that programs that alleviate them may have a significant effect on income (and thus meat consumption).
While I generally do not weigh the meat-eater problem much in evaluating global health charities, I think the indirect income-promoting effect would be of concern to some people.
With that criteria, you would be extremely hard pressed to find any global health charities that avoid the meat-eater problem (or, for that matter, any GCR charities, since those would save the lives of rich people).
However, I would suggest a focus on culturally vegetarian countries such as India could still meet that criteria. Kaya Guides operate there currently.
Yes, at some moral weights, it would be very hard to recommend ~any global-health charities, and perhaps any GCR ones. We don’t know how much incidental effect on meat consumption the OP is willing to accept. So I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the answer to her question is ~none.