This is a very interesting post, thank you for writing it! It fits very well into the idea of megaprojects for animals, or ways of using additional funding, which may become increasingly relevant as more funding comes into EA.
I’ve been working on a report on improving wild caught fish welfare at Animal Ask and the report should be relatively soon. I certainly share your thoughts that smaller fish should be the priority.
I have some (not necessarily decisive) worries about how this fits into the long-term strategy of animal advocacy. As you say, it is not exactly moral advocacy (though we should acknowledge that sometimes changing attitudes follows as a result of welfare improvements). I think moral advocacy is important not just for the current animal welfare ask, but for enabling future asks, so this seems less desirable from the perspective.
Thank you for the comment and your work on fish welfare.
I agree, moral advocacy is also important and may have long term impacts. My point is that “not all” moral advocacy interventions or funding opportunities may be as cost-effective as directly purchasing a wild fish stunner. The main question is: does every animal advocacy group create as much (long term) impact as relieving the suffering of 30.000 fish per 1$?
Also, given that effective animal advocacy groups are limited in number and their ability to use funds to create impact are also limited due to their capacity and social conditions, this intervention may also be a very reasonable addition to the avenues of helping animals.
I think same logic applies (even strongly) to other cause areas. One can say that advocacy for effective international aid and effective development reforms might have even more impact in the short and long term. But given that the possibilities are limited and tractability is low, Give Well’s funding opportunities are very impressive even if they do not have as much long term impact as a broad political or social change.
Hi Enginar,
This is a very interesting post, thank you for writing it! It fits very well into the idea of megaprojects for animals, or ways of using additional funding, which may become increasingly relevant as more funding comes into EA.
I’ve been working on a report on improving wild caught fish welfare at Animal Ask and the report should be relatively soon. I certainly share your thoughts that smaller fish should be the priority.
I have some (not necessarily decisive) worries about how this fits into the long-term strategy of animal advocacy. As you say, it is not exactly moral advocacy (though we should acknowledge that sometimes changing attitudes follows as a result of welfare improvements). I think moral advocacy is important not just for the current animal welfare ask, but for enabling future asks, so this seems less desirable from the perspective.
Hi there!
Thank you for the comment and your work on fish welfare.
I agree, moral advocacy is also important and may have long term impacts. My point is that “not all” moral advocacy interventions or funding opportunities may be as cost-effective as directly purchasing a wild fish stunner. The main question is: does every animal advocacy group create as much (long term) impact as relieving the suffering of 30.000 fish per 1$?
Also, given that effective animal advocacy groups are limited in number and their ability to use funds to create impact are also limited due to their capacity and social conditions, this intervention may also be a very reasonable addition to the avenues of helping animals.
I think same logic applies (even strongly) to other cause areas. One can say that advocacy for effective international aid and effective development reforms might have even more impact in the short and long term. But given that the possibilities are limited and tractability is low, Give Well’s funding opportunities are very impressive even if they do not have as much long term impact as a broad political or social change.