Itâs not one or the other- in fact I think an offsetting campaign would be complementary to political action because it would further awareness of the hell of factory farming. Indeed, some of the effective charities in the farmed animal welfare portfolio might be very promising legislative advocacy campaigns.
I think offsetting could appeal to more people than you think. People donât like being complicit in torture and offsetting offers them the chance not to be. Of course, thereâs no way of knowing until we actually make it easier for people to do.
I just wish these âother moral perspectivesâ would stop impeding the betterment of welfare of conscious beings...
The animal welfare movement (if my understanding is correct) has barely been able to move the needle on veganism over the decades it has been revealing its horrors. If we can identify effective charities that can help us toward systemic change in the farmed animal welfare space, maybe we should gain mass buy
-in for creating a world with a default of consumption without torture. We need to make available an ask that could be just as, or more effective, but easier for a lot of people: fund effective farmed animal welfare charities and be part of the solution-we can help you do it in 10 minutes.
Hmm, thatâs interesting â I would be curious to see how many people offsetting appeals to in the broader public. This actually comes up in a SSC post, where he draws out the weird optics pretty well.
And I agree itâs not one or the other â in fact, I think the Askell piece brings that up as a point against offsetting. If weâre pursuing both, it might not be as useful to think of it as offsetting some inaction or moral wrong, but rather giving money plain and simple (in addition to other personal changes youâre making).
The animal welfare movement (if my understanding is correct) has barely been able to move the needle on veganism over the decades it has been revealing its horrors.
I might push back on this â in fact, I think the reason that it remains a major EA cause area is because thereâs clear evidence of tractability. I suppose the significance of change could be debated, but 30 years ago, people barely knew what vegans were, and today thereâs been a massive rise in awareness + acceptance + self-identification with the movement (though changes in consumption habits are a more complicated question) and just in the last 10 thereâs been a ton of momentum improving things for animals and making veganism an easier ask (banning of battery cages in the EU, corporate cage-free campaigns pushing US cage-free from 5% to 35% in less than a decade, cultivated meat coming into existence and having the potential to scale, etc.)
We need to make available an ask that could be just as, or more effective, but easier for a lot of people: fund effective farmed animal welfare charities and be part of the solution-we can help you do it in 10 minutes.
FWIW, this ask is already out there (EA Funds and Animal Charity Evaluators both have pools you can contribute to in 2 minutes, where experts will then direct the money in a more thorough way). They donât suggest a single dollar amount as an âoffset,â probably for some of the reasons mentioned above, but everything else is there for people who do want to contribute financially rather than with their own dietary choices.
Yeah. I would too⌠But I think people feel more compelled to not do bad things than to positively do good things.
Maybe Iâm wrong about veganism: my impression was that the rate of veganism has stayed relatively constant and farmed animal welfare charities have orders of magnitude less funding than global health and development. I think thereâs definitely been progress in farmed animal welfare, but not necessarily in getting broader public buy in.
It all comes down to whether or not the public would be motivated by the offset framing. I know the framing was compelling to me when I was donating to Givewell charities (now I donate all my money to my own nonprofit). I figured I should at least donate enough to compensate for my own contribution to animal torture, and maybe some multiple of that⌠I figured there would be an easy way to do this online, but there wasnât really an easy button.
Anyway, I think the search costs are well worth the possibility that offset-framing might be worth exploring⌠But they wonât be borne by me. Iâm off trying to save the world by enabling consumers discrimination in favor of effective charities (buy the same shit for the same cost, but Against Malaria Foundation gets the profit rather than traditional shareholders).
Yeah the question about progress in the vegan movement is complicated and as you point out, there is a big difference between animal welfare improvements and the public actually going vegan.
For the raw stats of whether or not people identified as veg*n are consuming less meat, the best review Iâve read isnât super optimistic, but I do think that awarness of veganism is increasing, the plant-based food industry is scaling super quickly, and better alternatives will hopefully make dietary shift more accessible to people. So especially when you compare where we are today to something like where we are 30+ years ago, I do think the progress is there, which is especially promising given that funding is lower as you mentioned.
But if a fundraising strategy like this could prove effective, I would be on board pretty easily. My only end goal is the world getting better, whether itâs because of choices individuals make or the choices the charities they help fund make. Iâm still a bit pessimistic about the prospects, but fingers crossed that there is something here if someone does look into it.
Itâs not one or the other- in fact I think an offsetting campaign would be complementary to political action because it would further awareness of the hell of factory farming. Indeed, some of the effective charities in the farmed animal welfare portfolio might be very promising legislative advocacy campaigns.
I think offsetting could appeal to more people than you think. People donât like being complicit in torture and offsetting offers them the chance not to be. Of course, thereâs no way of knowing until we actually make it easier for people to do.
I just wish these âother moral perspectivesâ would stop impeding the betterment of welfare of conscious beings...
The animal welfare movement (if my understanding is correct) has barely been able to move the needle on veganism over the decades it has been revealing its horrors. If we can identify effective charities that can help us toward systemic change in the farmed animal welfare space, maybe we should gain mass buy -in for creating a world with a default of consumption without torture. We need to make available an ask that could be just as, or more effective, but easier for a lot of people: fund effective farmed animal welfare charities and be part of the solution-we can help you do it in 10 minutes.
Hmm, thatâs interesting â I would be curious to see how many people offsetting appeals to in the broader public. This actually comes up in a SSC post, where he draws out the weird optics pretty well.
And I agree itâs not one or the other â in fact, I think the Askell piece brings that up as a point against offsetting. If weâre pursuing both, it might not be as useful to think of it as offsetting some inaction or moral wrong, but rather giving money plain and simple (in addition to other personal changes youâre making).
I might push back on this â in fact, I think the reason that it remains a major EA cause area is because thereâs clear evidence of tractability. I suppose the significance of change could be debated, but 30 years ago, people barely knew what vegans were, and today thereâs been a massive rise in awareness + acceptance + self-identification with the movement (though changes in consumption habits are a more complicated question) and just in the last 10 thereâs been a ton of momentum improving things for animals and making veganism an easier ask (banning of battery cages in the EU, corporate cage-free campaigns pushing US cage-free from 5% to 35% in less than a decade, cultivated meat coming into existence and having the potential to scale, etc.)
FWIW, this ask is already out there (EA Funds and Animal Charity Evaluators both have pools you can contribute to in 2 minutes, where experts will then direct the money in a more thorough way). They donât suggest a single dollar amount as an âoffset,â probably for some of the reasons mentioned above, but everything else is there for people who do want to contribute financially rather than with their own dietary choices.
Yeah. I would too⌠But I think people feel more compelled to not do bad things than to positively do good things.
Maybe Iâm wrong about veganism: my impression was that the rate of veganism has stayed relatively constant and farmed animal welfare charities have orders of magnitude less funding than global health and development. I think thereâs definitely been progress in farmed animal welfare, but not necessarily in getting broader public buy in.
It all comes down to whether or not the public would be motivated by the offset framing. I know the framing was compelling to me when I was donating to Givewell charities (now I donate all my money to my own nonprofit). I figured I should at least donate enough to compensate for my own contribution to animal torture, and maybe some multiple of that⌠I figured there would be an easy way to do this online, but there wasnât really an easy button.
Anyway, I think the search costs are well worth the possibility that offset-framing might be worth exploring⌠But they wonât be borne by me. Iâm off trying to save the world by enabling consumers discrimination in favor of effective charities (buy the same shit for the same cost, but Against Malaria Foundation gets the profit rather than traditional shareholders).
Yeah the question about progress in the vegan movement is complicated and as you point out, there is a big difference between animal welfare improvements and the public actually going vegan.
For the raw stats of whether or not people identified as veg*n are consuming less meat, the best review Iâve read isnât super optimistic, but I do think that awarness of veganism is increasing, the plant-based food industry is scaling super quickly, and better alternatives will hopefully make dietary shift more accessible to people. So especially when you compare where we are today to something like where we are 30+ years ago, I do think the progress is there, which is especially promising given that funding is lower as you mentioned.
But if a fundraising strategy like this could prove effective, I would be on board pretty easily. My only end goal is the world getting better, whether itâs because of choices individuals make or the choices the charities they help fund make. Iâm still a bit pessimistic about the prospects, but fingers crossed that there is something here if someone does look into it.