Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on How do you deal with the “meat eater” problem

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Hi Sammy,

I think describing donations to global health and development interventions as net negative because animal welfare interventions are more cost-effective is misleading:

• The default counterfactual for this sort of comparisons is simply not donating anything, i.e. keeping more money for personal consumption.

• I believe cost-effective global health and development interventions, such as those of GiveWell’s top charities, are more cost-effective than the marginal personal consumption of donors.

Just to be clear, I also see value in Ben’s point. As I had answered below:

Nice question, Sammy! 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 Priorities’ welfare ranges are wildly off, the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best interventions to save human lives. I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), are 1.51 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities.

[sammyboiz]

Sorry I meant compared to doing nothing. I’m mainly concerned about specifically the consequence of increased meat consumption and also factory farming from GH&D.

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

Ah, sorry for misinterpreting too. I thought your “net negative” was connected to Ben’s point.