I canât speak for OP but I thought the whole point of its âworldview diversification bucketsâ was to discourage this sort of comparison by acknowledging the size of the error bars around these kind of comparisons, and that fundamentally prioritisation decisions between them are influenced more by different worldviews rather than the possibility of acquiring better data or making more accurate predictions around outcomes. This could be interpreted as an argument against the theme of the week and not just this post :-)
The necessity of making funding decisions means interventions in animal welfare and global health and development are compared at least implicitly. I think it is better to make them explicit for reasoning transparency, and having discussions which could eventually lead to better decisions. Saying there is too much uncertainty, and there is nothing we can do will not move things forward.
the possibility a particular intervention has a positive or negative or neutral impact on the welfare of a fish is guesswork seems very reasonable and very unfavourable to many animal related causes
What do you think about humane slaughter interventions, such as the electrical stunning interventions promoted by the Centre for Aquaculture Progress? âMost sea bream and sea bass today are killed by being immersed in an ice slurry, a process which is not considered acceptable by the World Organisation for Animal Healthâ. âElectrical stunning reliably renders fish unconscious in less than one second, reducing their sufferingâ. Rough analogy, but a human dying in an electric chair suffers less than one dying in a freezer?
Relatedly, I estimated the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs Humane Slaughter Initiative is 43.5 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities. I would be curious about which changes to the parameters you would make to render the ratio lower than 1.
there are non-utilitarian moral arguments in favour of one group of philanthropic causes or another (prioritise helping fellow moral beings vs prioritise stopping fellow moral beings from actively causing harm) which feel a little less fuzzy but arenât any less contentious.
Why should one stop at the level of helping people in low income countries (via global health and development interventions)? Family and friends are closer to us, and helping strangers in far away countries is way more contentious than helping family and friends. Does this mean Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna (the funders of Open Philanthropy) should direct most of their resources to helping their families and friends? It is their money, so they decide, but I am glad they are using the money more cost-effectively.
I guess there are sound reasons why people could conclude that AW causes funded by OP were universally more effective than GHW ones or vice versa, but those appear to come more from strong philosophical positions (meat eater problems or disagreement with the moral relevance of animals) than evidence and measurement.
One does not need to worry about the meat eater problem to think the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective than the best in global health and development. Neglecting that problem, I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1.51 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities, and Shrimp Welfare Projectâs Humane Slaughter Initiative is 43.5 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities.
Thanks for the comment, David.
The necessity of making funding decisions means interventions in animal welfare and global health and development are compared at least implicitly. I think it is better to make them explicit for reasoning transparency, and having discussions which could eventually lead to better decisions. Saying there is too much uncertainty, and there is nothing we can do will not move things forward.
What do you think about humane slaughter interventions, such as the electrical stunning interventions promoted by the Centre for Aquaculture Progress? âMost sea bream and sea bass today are killed by being immersed in an ice slurry, a process which is not considered acceptable by the World Organisation for Animal Healthâ. âElectrical stunning reliably renders fish unconscious in less than one second, reducing their sufferingâ. Rough analogy, but a human dying in an electric chair suffers less than one dying in a freezer?
Relatedly, I estimated the Shrimp Welfare Projectâs Humane Slaughter Initiative is 43.5 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities. I would be curious about which changes to the parameters you would make to render the ratio lower than 1.
Why should one stop at the level of helping people in low income countries (via global health and development interventions)? Family and friends are closer to us, and helping strangers in far away countries is way more contentious than helping family and friends. Does this mean Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna (the funders of Open Philanthropy) should direct most of their resources to helping their families and friends? It is their money, so they decide, but I am glad they are using the money more cost-effectively.
One does not need to worry about the meat eater problem to think the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective than the best in global health and development. Neglecting that problem, I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 1.51 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities, and Shrimp Welfare Projectâs Humane Slaughter Initiative is 43.5 k times as cost-effective as GiveWellâs top charities.