CB🔸

Karma: 893

I’m living in France. Learned about EA in 2018, found that great, digged a lot into the topic. The idea of “what in the world improves well-being or causes suffering the most, and what can we do” really influenced me a whole lot—especially when mixed with meditation that allowed me to be more active in my life.

One of the most reliable thing I have found so far is helping animal charities : farmed animals are much more numerous than humans (and have much worse living conditions), and there absolutely is evidence that animal charities are getting some improvements (especially from The Humane League). I tried to donate a lot there.

Long-termism could also be important, but I think that we’ll hit energy limits before getting to an extinction event—I wrote an EA forum post for that here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea

CB🔸 28 Nov 2024 12:14 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: cynthiaschuck’s comment on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
Interesting, thank you.

On the second point this reads like very optimistic (the way animals are treated in rich countries is just very bad). I agree that it’s maybe easier to appeal to ethical values and develop alternatives now but it’s hard to know if this will be enough to offset all the negative stuff associated by ‘more power and money = easier to buy animal products’. But I won’t have much time to engage and it’s not that important since we can’t change this part of the trajectory.

CB🔸 26 Nov 2024 19:54 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
The post is interesting and well argued, but I am not sure I agree—one example I have in mind is Microsoft using AI to double the productivity of a shrimp farm, likely by increasing density.

Regarding this : “The industry also operates under finite resource constraints, including feed, water, energy, and land” It is also possible that AI, by increasing economic growth and developing better energy sources, can indirectly increase animal consumption by giving more resources to people.

I agree that animal welfare activists should use AI to boost their outreach, however.

CB🔸 23 Nov 2024 15:59 UTC
5 points
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: AxellePB 🔹’s comment on: AxellePB ’s Quick takes
This would be great!

Even better would be something dedicated to the topic of the impact AI will have on animals. It’s very likely (unavoidable?) that most of the beings affected by AI will be animals (although artificial sentience could be somewhere).

An AI aligned with humans but not animals would have terrible effects for many beings in the world, so just pushing for AI safety for humans is not enough by itself to bring a positive world.

The intersection on AI x animals seems promising though.

CB🔸 21 Nov 2024 18:25 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: Why I Think All The Species Of Significantly Debated Consciousness Are Conscious And Suffer Intensely
Pain feels worse when it’s conscious than when it’s unconscious?

I mean, sometimes I have a stomachache that I barely notice and which is mostly unconscious until I look at it. And it doesn’t motivate me to change a lot. However, having someone whipping me really motivates me to move elsewhere—something I wouldn’t do if the feeling were mostly unconscious (I’d mostly just step back by reflex). Probably the same reason that wakes me up when I’m hit in my sleep.

So pain as a conscious valenced negative experience seems like a strong motivator to act on.
The fact that things can be perceived unconsciously is interesting, but if it were enough to survive in nature, I don’t see a lot of reasons why we, humans, would have developed conscious pain in the first place?

CB🔸 21 Nov 2024 12:34 UTC
1 point
1 ∶ 0
on: Why I Think All The Species Of Significantly Debated Consciousness Are Conscious And Suffer Intensely
Thanks for the post ! This is valuable.

I find the argument convincing: why would evolution not include something as similar as pain in autonomous animals, and why would they have such similar behavior in pain if they were not conscious?

CB🔸 21 Nov 2024 2:21 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Donation Election Discussion Thread
I think work on animals is comparatively neglected, due to the high numbers of individuals of bad conditions. More specifically, the smaller the animals, the more numerous and neglected they tend to be, which leads to underfunding.

CB🔸 20 Nov 2024 21:44 UTC
4 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Fund Causes Open Phil Underfunds (Instead of Your Most Preferred Causes)

For the typical EA, this would likely imply donating more to animal welfare, which is currently heavily underfunded under the typical EA’s value system.
Opportunities Open Phil is exiting from, including invertebrates, digital minds, and wild animals, may be especially impactful.
I strongly agree: the comparative underfunding of these areas always felt off to me, given their very large numbers of individuals and low-hanging fruits.
However, it feels like more and more people are recognizing the need for more funding for animal welfare, given the results of the recent debate.

CB🔸 18 Nov 2024 21:45 UTC
11 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Refusing to Quantify is Refusing to Think (about trade-offs)
Another comment : regarding the value of longtermist intervention, while I understand numbers can be very high, my main uncertainty is that I’m not even sure a lot of common interventions have a positive impact.

For instance, is working against X-risks good when avoiding an S-risks would allow factory farming to continue? The answer will depend on many questions (will factory farming continue in the future, what is the impact of humanity on wild animals, what will happen regarding artificial sentience, etc.), none of which have a clear answer.

Reducing S-risks seems good, though.

CB🔸 18 Nov 2024 21:41 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Refusing to Quantify is Refusing to Think (about trade-offs)
Very interesting and well formulated! It highlights several hidden assumptions that can significantly reduce your ability to have an impact.

Indeed, from what I’ve seen, the (natural) tendency of giving very low moral value to other animals (eg less than 1000 that of a human) often stems from gut feeling, with added justifications afterwards.

CB🔸 18 Nov 2024 19:43 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Share what GWWC and the 10% Pledge has meant to you
I was mentioned in a newspaper article this summer regarding this exact topic (with a typo in my name, oops!). Here is the translation:

CB is convinced of the potential of this. Just a few years ago, his job as an IT engineer earned him an annual salary of 32,000 euros. After two years, he realizes that he can give a lot of this money away, without sacrificing his happiness or quality of life. “Of course, you have to be able to secure a minimum threshold of material conditions,” anticipates the 29-year-old, who made the pledge in 2019. But generally, people increase their standard of living after their studies, or after a raise: bigger houses or cars, more spending on certain items… But we get used to these expenses very quickly, and research shows that they don’t bring significant additional happiness.”

The psychology of happiness is quite clear on this point: the accumulation of material possessions does not make us much happier. Once the peak of satisfaction has passed, our level of happiness returns to its initial, pre-purchase level—a phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation (or “hedonic treadmill”, to mean that our level of happiness tends to return to the same reference point). CB quickly gave up this headlong rush. The Lyonnais doesn’t own a car, and is satisfied with the basic, such as the Interrail Pass and youth hostels for his vacations. From the very first year of his involvement, he set himself the goal of donating anything above the minimum wage. Today, he donates 30 to 40% of his income to organizations carefully selected for their effectiveness—although he admits he would probably go back to a lower percentage if he had children.

For these donors, the satisfaction that comes with acting altruistically far outweighs any sense of sacrifice. CB has long defined himself as a passive person, skeptical about making a difference in the world. “I don’t have the network or the resources to influence laws and change public policy, even though it’s essential to act in favor of the climate, for example.” His discovery of effective altruism changed all that. “I discovered the existence of organizations specializing in the rigorous evaluation of associations, which define which interventions work well and which don’t. And that made a huge difference to me. That reassured me enormously. If there are experts, I can support them with a donation. It’s within my reach, and it can have a gigantic impact. It’s kind of a division of labor.”

Full article: https://www.ladn.eu/nouveaux-usages/donner-10-de-ses-revenus-pour-ameliorer-le-monde-cest-de-la-division-du-travail/

CB🔸 17 Nov 2024 12:00 UTC
9 points
1 ∶ 0
on: The Case For Giving To The Shrimp Welfare Project
Very convincing post ! The case for helping shrimp is strong.

Indeed, if people focused on having an impact won’t support this project, who else will ?

I also donated to them this year.

CB🔸 13 Nov 2024 13:00 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Basics of Handling Disagreements with People
Thank you for this article! I found it helpful and very clear.

CB🔸 8 Nov 2024 16:10 UTC
3 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Why you should allocate more of your donation budget to effective giving organisations
This is a convincing post.
I didn’t think often about doing that, but the multiplier effect seems considerable—dedicating fundraising to professional seems like a good bet.

CB🔸 8 Nov 2024 14:27 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Signaling with Small Orange Diamonds
Personally, I’ve added the diamond in my LinkedIn, Forum and local EA slack profile.

People on LinkedIn can check my description if they are curious about it.

Haven’t noticed any downside yet (although it would be hard to know).

It’s just that I feel like the culture of not showing our donations is not a good thing. It leads us to think nobody else donates, so we donate much less than we would have done otherwise. So it’s worth signaling that yes, people are donating.

CB🔸 7 Nov 2024 22:55 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Rick Holland’s comment on: AMA: Rick Holland, Fundraising expert and Director of Confident Philanthropy
Ok, it feels like the DAF and the donor didn’t have to deal with that in the past (and have limited time availability for technical elements).

I’m also asking French charities and getting some feedback since a few apparently dealt with that.

CB🔸 7 Nov 2024 0:04 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Rick Holland, Fundraising expert and Director of Confident Philanthropy
Hello !
I have a bit of a specific question: Do you know any organisation that could act as a bridge between a US donor and a French non-profit? I’m part of a French organization in such a situation. No problem if you don’t have an answer.
The US donor is donating through a DAF and wants to give to a tax-deductible US 501(c)(3) nonprofit—that would send the money to the French org.
The answers I got so far from asking around:
- One option is asking the US nonprofits I know of to receive and transfer the money.
  - However, this requires on their side to make an Equivalency Determination that certifies the US and French organisations are close enough for the money transfer, which seems a costly and heavy process (this ED is $1500, not sure about this one).
  - An org with Expenditure responsibility could apparently do this as well, but I don’t know any.
    I know a French charity which received money from large funders (ex. EA Funds), and they just had to sign a grant agreement without complicated paperwork—so maybe this is it.
- Another option is getting a fiscal sponsorship. I’ve heard that Ambitious Impact redirects towards PPF (which takes a 6% cut on the donation), there’s also NPT (3-7% cut in our case).
Which of these options seems like the best? I’d be curious to hear about your opinion.

CB🔸 29 Oct 2024 10:53 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Farmed animals may have positive lives now or in a few decades?
Thanks for the answer ! I wish more people thought about these questions.

CB🔸 28 Oct 2024 21:02 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: Farmed animals may have positive lives now or in a few decades?
Thanks for the answer !

This is really interesting. Do you think that the fact cows are separated from their child, and arguably really don’t like that, would change significantly the results?

CB🔸 26 Oct 2024 9:55 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Farmed animals may have positive lives now or in a few decades?
Very interesting, thanks a lot !

Do you have any data on pigs or cows ? I know they represent a smaller number of animals, and there is less data from the welfare footprint project, but I’d be curious to know your opinion.

The calculations would also be complicated by the necessary inclusion of veal for cows, and gestation crates for pigs, since these are a necessary part of current systems and certainly bad most of the time.

But since grass-fed cows are likely to be better treated than other animals, it would be good to know if their lives are positive and can maybe provide a template for other forms of animal agriculture (although economic incentives don’t push in this direction).

CB🔸 23 Oct 2024 17:25 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Richard_Leyba_Tejada’s comment on: Successif: helping mid-career and senior professionals have impactful careers
Hi ! In the end I didn’t read about transactional analysis.

But I did try to ‘give permission’ to some people who were thinking of launching a project.