The meat-eater problem is often overlooked in discussions of effective neartermist charities. If one takes the concern seriously and cares about animal welfare, saving human lives or increasing income in developing countries (e.g. bed nets) could be net-negative and create net (animal) suffering.
What are the most effective charities that (1) alleviate human suffering* and (2) don’t have the meat-eater problem?
*I realize animal welfare charities would fit this description, but I want a “more normal” neartermist charity that I can easily recommend to non-EA-pilled people. That is, one that I can recommend to the average person without having to convince them of any non-standard moral arguments (e.g. longermism)?
[Question] Effective charities that reduce suffering but don’t save human lives? [Meat-eater problem]
The meat-eater problem is often overlooked in discussions of effective neartermist charities. If one takes the concern seriously and cares about animal welfare, saving human lives or increasing income in developing countries (e.g. bed nets) could be net-negative and create net (animal) suffering.
What are the most effective charities that (1) alleviate human suffering* and (2) don’t have the meat-eater problem?
*I realize animal welfare charities would fit this description, but I want a “more normal” neartermist charity that I can easily recommend to non-EA-pilled people. That is, one that I can recommend to the average person without having to convince them of any non-standard moral arguments (e.g. longermism)?
Written very quickly, please interpret charitably.