Co-founder of Shrimp Welfare Project, which aims to reduce the suffering of billions of farmed shrimps
Aaron Boddyđ¸
Karma: 1,366
FramÂing grants to wealthy donors
I love this!
I think for me a real barrier is the fact that I barrel ahead with the ideas too quickly⌠like I want to jump straight in at the deep-end with âwe should think of all lives as equally important and we should be trying to consider the ways our donation can go farthestââthat idea on its own maybe isnât controversial, but probably hasnât engaged my conversational partner in the same way as in your example.
One of the main motivations for me writing this post was to have a mental checklist when discussing EA so that I donât barrel ahead without bringing the other person along for the ride :)
So for me, I think itâs useful to have a framework in my head so I can ensure that these ideas build upon each other:
1. do they want to do some good in the world
2. do they agree that all lives are equally important
3. do they agree that there are some situations where your donation/âtime will make far more of a difference than others
4. do they agree that it is possible/âworthwhile to figure out which interventions are the most effective
5. this stuff is really engaging and there is already a whole movement that you can join so you donât have to do all this on your own!
Thatâs a simplified framework (I just tried to pick out the key beats in your conversation example) but it definitely helps for me to have a framework :)
Ahh thatâs really interesting to know!
But yeah, I definitely would feel a bit manipulative if I didnât feel like I knew the person properlyâI want to present to them ideas that I think theyâd really engage with and would interest them, rather than giving them the impression Iâm trying to force a viewpoint on them
We are actually going to discuss this article at my local university group next week, so it would be interesting to consider how we might apply the ideas to the groupâthanks for the suggestion! :)
I found this really interesting and the difference between realization and belief reminded me of the Toyota Production Systemâs concept of Genchi Genbutsu (âreal location, real thingâ or âgo and seeâ). It basically states that you cannot be sure you really understand any part of any business problem unless you go and see for yourself firsthandâIt is unacceptable to take anything for granted or to rely on the reports of others.
A frameÂwork for disÂcussing EA with peoÂple outÂside the community
How bad is it to exploit bees?
I agree that taking action to improve the welfare of farmed bees is positive.
But with other farmed animals such as chickens/âpigs/âcows, a significant goal to aim for is to ultimately bring fewer of those animals into existence in order to reduce overall suffering.
But is that also the case for bee farming? Or do we instead want to increase the number of bees we farm because we need to increase commercial pollination services for a greater good? And if so, even if we werenât to intervene in bee welfare in any way, would we still be aiming to increase the number of farmed bees from a consequentialist point of view?
Is it possible to calculate the net utility (positive or negative) from bringing one suffering bee into existence?
This is great thanks I hadnât considered this! I found the Zvi post youâre referring to if anyone else is interested.
Do you know if there has been any work to try and quantify this added value from Amazon? (Like in Meatonomics, David Robinson Simon discusses the hidden costs of meat, so a $4 Big Mac really costs society $11, so that extra $7 cost is absorbed by society). Is there any potential to calculate something similar with Amazon? e.g. every $1 someone spends on Amazon typically saves the consumer/âsociety $X.
Iâm not an economist and I know that its very difficult to calculate value added by technology etc. and this value would likely vary by product, but just wondering if thatâs something that could be possible while Iâm trying to explore this idea?
Aaron Boddyâs Quick takes
How bad is Amazon?
So there are a lot of reasons people donât like Amazon. It exploits its workers, it fights tax laws, it has a significant environmental impact etc.
But is Amazon net-negative from a consequentialist point of view, or is there a net-positive impact of Amazon? My rough thinking is:
Jeff Bezos has projects such as Blue Origin which might be positive for longtermism.
He recently donated $10billion to Climate Change with the Bezos Earth Fund (and this may continue?).
He has been interested in some other short term philanthropy in the past. His ex-wife (who now has a lot of his money) has also signed the giving pledge (though Bezos himself hasnât).
Like I think this argument is easier to make with someone like Elon Musk. There may be reasons people personally dislike him, but I think its relatively easy to argue that because of OpenAI, SpaceX and Tesla, that he is likely to have a significant net-positive impact on the world, particularly the long-term.
Iâm not sure really what I plan to do with the information. Iâm not sure an âEA supports buying from Amazonâ is particularly useful or accurate. Itâs just something thatâs played in the back of my mind a lot when I hear people badmouth Amazon.
I loved watching this talk, thanks for sharing!
It would be great to talk further about this idea (though based on your talk, it would seem you have already given way more thought to it than I have)