This may negate any decrease in human welfare, but I havenāt seen a BOTEC of this that models the income increase on the meat eating problem.
As suggested by the graph below, the increased income of the helped families will tend to increase their consumption of animals, which is harmful if animals have negative lives.
However, since I think family planning interventions decrease human population, I believe they decrease the consumption of animals. Yet, I am not sure this is good because farmed animalsā lives may become net positive in the next few decades, and the children who would be born from unwanted pregancies would live longer than that.
In any case, I worry the meat-eater problem is mostly a distraction. If one values 1 unit of welfare in animals as much as 1 unit of welfare in humans, and does not think Rethink Prioritiesā welfare ranges are wildly off, the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best global health and development interventions. I estimate the cost-effectiveness of Shrimp Welfare Projectās (SWPās) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI) is 64.3 k times that of GiveWellās top charities.
Hmm, I hadnāt considered farmed animals lives becoming net positive as a case against the meat eating problem! Thanks for pointing that out.
> the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best global > health and development interventions.
Iām a bit confused by this point. It still seems like if we value this framework, we should still be considering flow-through effects in questions of cause prioritization and which GHD interventions to support. I think there are also reasonable edge cases where we may be able to influence GHD interventions to have better positive flow-through effects, if the donor is not onboard with AW.
we should still be considering flow-through effects in questions of cause prioritization and which GHD interventions to support. I think there are also reasonable edge cases where we may be able to influence GHD interventions to have better positive flow-through effects, if the donor is not onboard with AW.
Agreed. By āI worry the meat-eater problem is mostly a distractionā, I meant a distraction for cause prioritisation. My sense is that people (like me) who consider the meat-eater problem to be a relevant consideration for prioritising within global health and development value 1 unit welfare in humans sufficiently similarly to 1 unit of welfare in animals to conclude that the best animal welfare interventions are much more cost-effective than the best human welfare interventions.
Vasco, where do you stand on the worry that farmed animal welfare interventions might be bad because less farmed animals=more wild animals, and wild animals have net negative lives. (Iām thinking any interventions that raise costs for farms might reduce meat consumption, and therefore number of farmed animals, at least a bit.)
I think it is very unclear whether wild animals have positive/ānegative lives, so I guess it is fine to neglect the effects on wild animals of interventions aiming to improve the welfare of farmed animals or humans. Ihaveposted about these effects, and I believe their discussion can still be useful as a way of raising awareness for wild animal welfare.
In addition, as with the meat-eater problem, I suspect the effects on wild animals are mostly a distraction for cause prioritisation. If one is confident the effects on wild animals are positive/ānegative, and that their magnitude is significant, then I would expect interventions explicitly aiming to improve the welfare of wild animals to be more cost-effective than those targetting farmed animals or humans.
Thanks for the comment, Nithin.
As suggested by the graph below, the increased income of the helped families will tend to increase their consumption of animals, which is harmful if animals have negative lives.
However, since I think family planning interventions decrease human population, I believe they decrease the consumption of animals. Yet, I am not sure this is good because farmed animalsā lives may become net positive in the next few decades, and the children who would be born from unwanted pregancies would live longer than that.
In any case, I worry the meat-eater problem is mostly a distraction. If one values 1 unit of welfare in animals as much as 1 unit of welfare in humans, and does not think Rethink Prioritiesā welfare ranges are wildly off, the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best global health and development interventions. I estimate the cost-effectiveness of Shrimp Welfare Projectās (SWPās) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI) is 64.3 k times that of GiveWellās top charities.
Hmm, I hadnāt considered farmed animals lives becoming net positive as a case against the meat eating problem! Thanks for pointing that out.
> the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best global > health and development interventions.
Iām a bit confused by this point. It still seems like if we value this framework, we should still be considering flow-through effects in questions of cause prioritization and which GHD interventions to support. I think there are also reasonable edge cases where we may be able to influence GHD interventions to have better positive flow-through effects, if the donor is not onboard with AW.
You are welcome!
Agreed. By āI worry the meat-eater problem is mostly a distractionā, I meant a distraction for cause prioritisation. My sense is that people (like me) who consider the meat-eater problem to be a relevant consideration for prioritising within global health and development value 1 unit welfare in humans sufficiently similarly to 1 unit of welfare in animals to conclude that the best animal welfare interventions are much more cost-effective than the best human welfare interventions.
Vasco, where do you stand on the worry that farmed animal welfare interventions might be bad because less farmed animals=more wild animals, and wild animals have net negative lives. (Iām thinking any interventions that raise costs for farms might reduce meat consumption, and therefore number of farmed animals, at least a bit.)
Interesting question, David!
I think it is very unclear whether wild animals have positive/ānegative lives, so I guess it is fine to neglect the effects on wild animals of interventions aiming to improve the welfare of farmed animals or humans. I have posted about these effects, and I believe their discussion can still be useful as a way of raising awareness for wild animal welfare.
In addition, as with the meat-eater problem, I suspect the effects on wild animals are mostly a distraction for cause prioritisation. If one is confident the effects on wild animals are positive/ānegative, and that their magnitude is significant, then I would expect interventions explicitly aiming to improve the welfare of wild animals to be more cost-effective than those targetting farmed animals or humans.