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, you’d 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. It’s a deeply misanthropic thesis. So it’s probably worth getting clearer on why it isn’t ultimately credible, despite initial appearances.
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, you’d 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. It’s a deeply misanthropic thesis. So it’s probably worth getting clearer on why it isn’t ultimately credible, despite initial appearances.