While this is true, I also think it’s worth considering that this is often a criticism of any CEA, period. To the average person, the suggestion that a GiveWell top-recommended charity is more cost-effective than, say, a local food kitchen similarly requires estimates with error bars.
Yes, there are more assumptions when dealing with animals given welfare ranges, but I am reluctant to dismiss the analysis entirely because of that.
It is not immediately intuitive to me on what grounds one should value a human life more than that of a cow or pig. The moral weights project tries to put a number to something difficult to quantify. It’s not perfect, but it is better than nothing. (To be clear, I do value the human life more, but it seems unfair and speciest to do so.)
Interesting to here you say that, as most vegans I know in-person indeed do their best to adhere to a plant-based diet 100% of the time. Those that don’t will call themselves “mostly vegan” and still eat vegan 95%+ of the time.
Not here to claim you are not telling the truth, but rather to add a different set of anecdata to the conversation.