The âmeat eater problemâ raises an intriguing ethical question, but Iâm inclined to think (with low confidence) that even if the concern is valid, the proliferation of this idea could have a negative expected value. By focusing on such a divisive concept, we risk alienating potential supporters of the animal welfare movement, which could ultimately hinder efforts to reduce animal suffering. That said, this is distinct from whether the impact of the average human on factory farming would alter personal donation decisions.
That said, this is distinct from whether the impact of the average human on factory farming would alter personal donation decisions.
The bonus question that this sentence raises for me is whether the impact of the average human on factory farming should factor into other decisions, like our votes in a democracy.
If we choose not to save infants from malaria because they may turn out to consume factory-farmed animals, should we then use the same logic to choose not to prevent deaths to adults in our own country by not voting for (e.g) stronger auto-safety legislation or stricter tobacco regulation? Yeah, the proliferation of this idea could definitely have negative expected value!
Right, youâd also have to oppose healthcare expansion, vaccines (against lethal illnesses), pandemic mitigation efforts, etc. I guess if you really believed it, you would take the results (more early death) to have positive expected value. Itâs a deeply misanthropic thesis. So itâs probably worth getting clearer on why it isnât ultimately credible, despite initial appearances.
its an extremely important topic that has extreme ramifications such as concluding that a large portion of global health and development could possibly be negative utility! It also entails a degree of misanthropy which affects how we think about X-risk and the utility of society today. If EA were to ignore this problem with my previous statements being true, most of the movement would be misguided. It is therefore an extremely important problem IMO.
I donât believe the âmeat eater problemâ should be ignored, but rather approached with great care. Itâs easy to imagine the negative press and public backlash that could arise from expressing views suggesting it might be better for people to die or discouraging support for charities that save lives in the developing world.
The Effective Altruism community is very small, with estimates around 10,000 peopleâa tiny fraction of the nearly 8 billion people on the planet. If we want to create a world without factory farming, we need to focus on bringing more people into the fold who care about animals. Spotlighting an analysis that essentially suggests itâs good when young children die and that we should discourage saving them doesnât seem like the path to growing the movement that can end the horrors of factory farming.
By treating this problem with care, we can ensure that our efforts to improve the world are effective without alienating those who might otherwise join us in the fight against animal suffering.
I agree with this. I think these conversations are important, and we should be having them in âquietâ public places where mostly EAs go like the forum and 80âČ000 hours podcast. I didnât think itâs the just helpful topic for a public debate.
Open and public conversations can be had about difficult topics. While we still avoid posting them onTwitter....
I initially rejected this idea, but I think Iâve come around to this viewpoint a lot more. EA needs to have broad appeal to become a mainstream movement and we donât always need to publicly state our distasteful utilitarian conclusions!
Why are private conclusions about moral dilemmas anyone elseâs business? Not saying itâs good to be private about that (necessarily) or that there arenât contexts where it would be relevant to disclose but I really donât understand why it would be sleezy or manipulative.
The âmeat eater problemâ raises an intriguing ethical question, but Iâm inclined to think (with low confidence) that even if the concern is valid, the proliferation of this idea could have a negative expected value. By focusing on such a divisive concept, we risk alienating potential supporters of the animal welfare movement, which could ultimately hinder efforts to reduce animal suffering. That said, this is distinct from whether the impact of the average human on factory farming would alter personal donation decisions.
The bonus question that this sentence raises for me is whether the impact of the average human on factory farming should factor into other decisions, like our votes in a democracy.
If we choose not to save infants from malaria because they may turn out to consume factory-farmed animals, should we then use the same logic to choose not to prevent deaths to adults in our own country by not voting for (e.g) stronger auto-safety legislation or stricter tobacco regulation? Yeah, the proliferation of this idea could definitely have negative expected value!
Right, youâd also have to oppose healthcare expansion, vaccines (against lethal illnesses), pandemic mitigation efforts, etc. I guess if you really believed it, you would take the results (more early death) to have positive expected value. Itâs a deeply misanthropic thesis. So itâs probably worth getting clearer on why it isnât ultimately credible, despite initial appearances.
its an extremely important topic that has extreme ramifications such as concluding that a large portion of global health and development could possibly be negative utility! It also entails a degree of misanthropy which affects how we think about X-risk and the utility of society today. If EA were to ignore this problem with my previous statements being true, most of the movement would be misguided. It is therefore an extremely important problem IMO.
I donât believe the âmeat eater problemâ should be ignored, but rather approached with great care. Itâs easy to imagine the negative press and public backlash that could arise from expressing views suggesting it might be better for people to die or discouraging support for charities that save lives in the developing world.
The Effective Altruism community is very small, with estimates around 10,000 peopleâa tiny fraction of the nearly 8 billion people on the planet. If we want to create a world without factory farming, we need to focus on bringing more people into the fold who care about animals. Spotlighting an analysis that essentially suggests itâs good when young children die and that we should discourage saving them doesnât seem like the path to growing the movement that can end the horrors of factory farming.
By treating this problem with care, we can ensure that our efforts to improve the world are effective without alienating those who might otherwise join us in the fight against animal suffering.
I agree with this. I think these conversations are important, and we should be having them in âquietâ public places where mostly EAs go like the forum and 80âČ000 hours podcast. I didnât think itâs the just helpful topic for a public debate.
Open and public conversations can be had about difficult topics. While we still avoid posting them onTwitter....
I initially rejected this idea, but I think Iâve come around to this viewpoint a lot more. EA needs to have broad appeal to become a mainstream movement and we donât always need to publicly state our distasteful utilitarian conclusions!
Hiding your conclusions feels a bit sleazy and manipulative to me.
Why are private conclusions about moral dilemmas anyone elseâs business? Not saying itâs good to be private about that (necessarily) or that there arenât contexts where it would be relevant to disclose but I really donât understand why it would be sleezy or manipulative.