I think this is a good topic, but including the word “far” kind of ruins the debate from the start as it seems like the person positing it may already have made up their mind and it introduces unnecessary bias.
Late to this conversation, but I like the debate idea. A simple way to get a cost-effectiveness slider might be just to have the statement be “On the current margin $100m should go to:” and the slider go from 100% animal welfare to 100% global health, with a mid-point being 50⁄50.
I think they are natural to compare because they both have interventions that cash out in short-term measurable outcomes, and can absorb a lot of funding to churn out these outcomes.
Comparing e.g. AI safety and Global Health brings in a lot more points of contention which I expect would make it harder to make progress in a narrowly scoped debate (in terms of pinning down what the cruxes are, actually changing people’s minds etc).
I think I’d rather talk about the important topic even if it’s harder? My concern is, for example, that the debate happens and let’s say people agree and start to pressure for moving $ from GHD to AW. But this ignores a third option, move $ from ‘longtermist’ work to fund both.
Feels like this is a ‘looking under the streetlight because it’s easier effect’ kind of phenomenon.
If Longtermist/AI Safety work can’t even to begin to cash out measurable incomes that should be a strong case against it. This is EA, we want the things we’re funding to be effective.
I arrived at a cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare of 15.0 DALY/$ (= 8.20*2.10*0.870), assuming:
Campaigns affect 8.20 chicken-years per $ (= 41*1/5), multiplying:
Saulius Šimčikas’ estimate of 41 chicken-years per $.
An adjustment factor of 1⁄5, since OP [Open Philanthropy] thinks “the marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/5th as cost-effective as the average from Saulius’ analysis [which is linked just above]”.
An improvement in chicken welfare per time of 2.10 times the intensity of the mean human experience, as I estimated for moving broilers from a conventional to a reformed scenario based on Rethink Priorities’ median welfare range for chickens of 0.332[6].
A ratio between humans’ healthy and total life expectancy at birth in 2016 of 87.0 % (= 63.1/72.5).
In light of the above, corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1.51 k (= 15.0/0.00994) times as cost-effective as TCF [GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund].
Does this basically just reflect how much people value human lives in relation to animal lives? If Alex values a chicken WALY at .00002 that of a human WALY, and Bob values a chicken WALY a 0.5 of a human WALY, then global health either is or isn’t more effective.
Animal welfare is far more effective per $ than Global Health.
Edit:
How about “The marginal $100 mn on animal welfare is 10x the impact of the marginal $100 mn on Global Health”
I think this is a good topic, but including the word “far” kind of ruins the debate from the start as it seems like the person positing it may already have made up their mind and it introduces unnecessary bias.
Ya, we could just use a more neutral framing: Is animal welfare or global health more cost-effective?
What do you think is the 50⁄50 point? Where half of people believe more, half less.
Not sure.
We could replace the agree/disagree slider with a cost-effectiveness ratio slider.
One issue could be that animal welfare has more quickly diminishing returns than GHD.
Maybe but let’s not overcomplicate things.
Late to this conversation, but I like the debate idea. A simple way to get a cost-effectiveness slider might be just to have the statement be “On the current margin $100m should go to:” and the slider go from 100% animal welfare to 100% global health, with a mid-point being 50⁄50.
Sure then quantify it, right?
Sure but 10x seems a weird place to start, surely start with “more cost effective” before applying arbitrary multipliers...
1x is an arbitrary multiplier too.
I would want to put the number at the 50th percentile belief on the forum.
Why just compare to Global Health here, surely it should be “Animal Welfare is far more effective per $ than other cause areas’?
I think they are natural to compare because they both have interventions that cash out in short-term measurable outcomes, and can absorb a lot of funding to churn out these outcomes.
Comparing e.g. AI safety and Global Health brings in a lot more points of contention which I expect would make it harder to make progress in a narrowly scoped debate (in terms of pinning down what the cruxes are, actually changing people’s minds etc).
I think I’d rather talk about the important topic even if it’s harder? My concern is, for example, that the debate happens and let’s say people agree and start to pressure for moving $ from GHD to AW. But this ignores a third option, move $ from ‘longtermist’ work to fund both.
Feels like this is a ‘looking under the streetlight because it’s easier effect’ kind of phenomenon.
If Longtermist/AI Safety work can’t even to begin to cash out measurable incomes that should be a strong case against it. This is EA, we want the things we’re funding to be effective.
Thanks for suggesting that, Nathan! For context:
Does this basically just reflect how much people value human lives in relation to animal lives? If Alex values a chicken WALY at .00002 that of a human WALY, and Bob values a chicken WALY a 0.5 of a human WALY, then global health either is or isn’t more effective.