I’ve been thinking about the meat eater problem a lot lately, and while I think it’s worth discussing, I’ve realized that poverty reduction isn’t to blame for farmed animal suffering.
(Content note: dense math incoming)
Assume that humans’ utility as a function of income is U(c)=lnc (i.e. isoelastic utility with η=1), and the demand for meat is Q(c)=Acε where ε is the income elasticity of demand. Per Engel’s law, ε is typically between 0 and 1. As long as ε<η, U′(c)>Q′(c) at low incomes and U′(c)<Q′(c) at high incomes.
For simplicity, I am assuming that the animal welfare impact of meat production is negative and proportional to −Q(c). (As saulius points out, it’s unclear whether meat production is net positive or net negative for animals as a whole. Also, animal welfare regulations and alternative protein technologies are more common in high-income regions like the EU and US, so this assumption may not apply at the high end.) If this is true, then increasing a person or country’s income is most valuable when that person/​country is in extreme poverty, and least valuable at the high end of the income spectrum.
The upshot: the framing of the meat eater problem as being about poverty obscures the fact that the worst offenders of factory farming are rich countries like the United States, not poor ones, and that increasing the income of a rich person is worse for animal welfare than increasing that of a poor one (as long as both of them are non-vegan). I feel like it’s hypocritical for animal advocates and EAs from rich countries to blame poor countries for the suffering caused by factory farming.
I feel like it’s hypocritical for animal advocates and EAs from rich countries to blame poor countries for the suffering caused by factory farming.
I don’t think this is what the meat-eater problem does. You could imagine a world in which the West is responsible for inventing the entire machinery of factory farming, or even running all the factory farms, and still believe that lifting additional people out of poverty would help the Western factory farmers sell more produce. It’s not about blame, just about consequences.
I realise this isn’t your main point, and I haven’t processed your main argument yet. It would make a lot of sense to me if transferring money from a first-world meat eater to a third-world meat eater resulted in less meat being eaten, but I’d imagine that the people most concerned with this issue are thinking about their own money, and already don’t consume meat themselves?
I’ve been thinking about the meat eater problem a lot lately, and while I think it’s worth discussing, I’ve realized that poverty reduction isn’t to blame for farmed animal suffering.
(Content note: dense math incoming)
Assume that humans’ utility as a function of income is U(c)=lnc (i.e. isoelastic utility with η=1), and the demand for meat is Q(c)=Acε where ε is the income elasticity of demand. Per Engel’s law, ε is typically between 0 and 1. As long as ε<η, U′(c)>Q′(c) at low incomes and U′(c)<Q′(c) at high incomes.
For simplicity, I am assuming that the animal welfare impact of meat production is negative and proportional to −Q(c). (As saulius points out, it’s unclear whether meat production is net positive or net negative for animals as a whole. Also, animal welfare regulations and alternative protein technologies are more common in high-income regions like the EU and US, so this assumption may not apply at the high end.) If this is true, then increasing a person or country’s income is most valuable when that person/​country is in extreme poverty, and least valuable at the high end of the income spectrum.
The upshot: the framing of the meat eater problem as being about poverty obscures the fact that the worst offenders of factory farming are rich countries like the United States, not poor ones, and that increasing the income of a rich person is worse for animal welfare than increasing that of a poor one (as long as both of them are non-vegan). I feel like it’s hypocritical for animal advocates and EAs from rich countries to blame poor countries for the suffering caused by factory farming.
I don’t think this is what the meat-eater problem does. You could imagine a world in which the West is responsible for inventing the entire machinery of factory farming, or even running all the factory farms, and still believe that lifting additional people out of poverty would help the Western factory farmers sell more produce. It’s not about blame, just about consequences.
I realise this isn’t your main point, and I haven’t processed your main argument yet. It would make a lot of sense to me if transferring money from a first-world meat eater to a third-world meat eater resulted in less meat being eaten, but I’d imagine that the people most concerned with this issue are thinking about their own money, and already don’t consume meat themselves?