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