I would like to see those who hold the view of land use as a central moral target (such as @Vasco Grilo🔸) to explore what the best pathway is.
I recommend research on the welfare of soil animals in different biomes over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively look the most cost-effective.
I agree that it is absurd to converge on factory farming as the best answer
I have not argued for factory-farming being the most cost-effective way of increasing agricultural land. From my last post looking into the impact of animal farming on soil animals, “I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land [I no longer do], the most cost-effective global health interventions [I no longer do], and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives [I still do]”.
especially when even “all of the work involved in land development in factory farming but nothing else” would be cheaper
The cost-effectiveness of advocating for an intervention is the product between the cost-effectiveness of funding it (raw cost-effectiveness) times the money moved to it as a fraction of the money spent advocating for it (fundraising multiplier). I agree there are ways of increasing agricultural land with a much higher raw cost-effectiveness than buying beef. However, their fundraising multiplier may often be low enough for it not to be worth advocating for them.
I recommend research on the welfare of soil animals in different biomes over pursuing whatever land use change interventions naively look the most cost-effective.
I have not argued for factory-farming being the most cost-effective way of increasing agricultural land. From my last post looking into the impact of animal farming on soil animals, “I am arguing for, by increasing cost-effectiveness, changes in food consumption which increase agricultural land [I no longer do], the most cost-effective global health interventions [I no longer do], and targeted research on whether soil animals have positive or negative lives [I still do]”.
The cost-effectiveness of advocating for an intervention is the product between the cost-effectiveness of funding it (raw cost-effectiveness) times the money moved to it as a fraction of the money spent advocating for it (fundraising multiplier). I agree there are ways of increasing agricultural land with a much higher raw cost-effectiveness than buying beef. However, their fundraising multiplier may often be low enough for it not to be worth advocating for them.