The meat-eating problem (sometimes called the meat-eater problem or poor meat-eater problem) is the concern that some interventions aimed at helping humans might increase animal product consumption and as a result increase farmed animal suffering, e.g. by increasing real income or human population.
History
The meat-eating problem appears to have been first explicitly described in a Felicifia post from 2009.[1]
Further details
Saving human lives, and making humans more prosperous, seem to be obviously good in terms of direct effects. However, humans consume animal products, and these animal products may cause considerable animal suffering. Therefore, improving human lives may lead to negative effects that outweigh the direct positive effects. This “meat-eater problem” suggests that working on global poverty may be less effective than is commonly assumed.
Although it is very difficult to quantify these effects, one estimate suggests that each additional $1,000 per year for a relatively poor individual may cause between 1 and 190 days of animal suffering, though the estimate should not be taken literally.[2] Some have argued that the problem is less significant by claiming that animals have net positive lives, or by arguing that the effect on consumption is relatively small.[3]
Further reading
Plant, Michael (2022) The Meat Eater Problem, Journal of Controversial Ideas
Holness-Tofts, Alex (2020) Poor meat eater problem, Effective Altruism Forum, July 10.
Shulman, Carl (2015) Comment on “What is the expected effect of poverty alleviation efforts on existential risk?”, Effective Altruism Forum, October 2.
Related entries
cause prioritization | cultivated meat | dietary change | economic growth | farmed animal welfare
- ^
Östman, Jesper (2009) The poor meat eater problem, Felicifia, October 26.
- ^
Bogosian, Kyle (2015) Quantifying the impact of economic growth on meat consumption, Effective Altruism Forum, December 22.
- ^
Weathers, Scott (2016) The meat eater problem: developing an EA response, Effective Altruism Forum, February 29.
Should we also include other externalities due to animal product consumption? E.g. climate change.
Re-reading this exchange, I’d like to add that it may be worth discussing those externalities in other Wiki articles, such as dietary change.
The general concern is that interventions optimized for humans may be suboptimal when non-human welfare is taken into account. Climate change is bad for human and (at least naively) non-human animals alike, so it doesn’t seem like an effect this article should discuss.