Congrats on gathering a broad coalition of support for LIC for the case!
Nithin Ravi
Karma: 68
I thought the same way about this, but something that changed my mind a bit was a friend asking me:
”If a baby tried to steal your blood to survive would you kill them for it?”
Now, this is a contrived example and you may have a extremely low moral weight for mosquitoes (I have pretty low moral weights for them too), but I wonder how your thoughts about the statement changes if it is instead:
I have no qualms about killing someone that stole my blood to survive.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts!
Tomasik’s article on vegetarianism and wild animals was very humbling for me! For a long time I believed that veganism was the ‘right way’ and his article helped me see that I could be wrong even if I assign relatively high moral weights to other species.
Hmm, this response feels a bit weird particularly “if you really felt bad”. I do actually feel bad about killing small insects whether or not it is net positive utility or morally consistent.
I totally agree that it is very unlikely that I am averting the most suffering from harms caused directly by me!
That being said, I do think there is some subjective value in how much moral patienthood I am mentally able to assign to other beings by not hurting them directly.
What do you believe is the moral value of environmental systems?
I think it’s definitely possible that mosquitoes are moral patients and I try to avoid committing harms when I can! I feel some guilt about killing mosquitoes, ants, etc… as I generally believe that we tend to undervalue super small beings and their potential sentience, but as of right now I have little evidence to back up that this view.
Based off the evidence that does exist, if I assume that mosquitoes fall somewhere between black soldier flies and silkworms in their welfare range then killing 100-1000 mosquitoes a year (assuming this causes suffering) could be the moral equivalent to killing a human. This is a pretty bold conclusion, but I’m not sure that it’s any less true just because it’s bold! -- lot of big assumptions here I know
From a purely consequentialist lens, I think killing a mosquito probably doesn’t matter if I can marginally improve my happiness and donate more, but I feel that this question is more about my values than truly being utility maximizing (similar to being vegan, but spending more money on food instead of donating the extra to animals).
Some related question this brings up: Are mosquitoes net negative? How much do we weight the suffering they cause to other animals? If we can justify killing them for being net negative does this justify misanthropy (I don’t think so, but I don’t have a good reason why)?
What does everyone else think?
I initially rejected this idea, but I think I’ve come around to this viewpoint a lot more. EA needs to have broad appeal to become a mainstream movement and we don’t always need to publicly state our distasteful utilitarian conclusions!
Wow, that’s not something I had completely considered. Do you have any thoughts on how to address this flow-through effect/estimate it’s impact?
Awesome! Would love for more of the Arabic world to be exposed to these ideas. Do you have data on website views segmented by language?
I’ve been pondering this question for a while and have managed to find a neartermist intervention which actually has positive flow-through effects on animal welfare!
Family Planning:Increases women’s health, wellness, and educational outcomes
Popular in left-leaning US political discourse (women’s rights, reproductive rights, etc..)
Comparable to top neartermist interventions at reducing human suffering
[Likely] Reduces the number of human life years on earth
Family Empowerment Media has gained popularity as a family planning intervention but I have yet to look deeper on other organizations!
I know this is a dated reply but re: following up on street outreach campaigns, We The Free has developed a portal that tracks behavior changes. I’m not sure on usage rates, but could be good to follow up with them if interested! https://www.activism.wtf/
Thanks for sharing more detailed writeups on some of your grants!
Thanks for elaborating! That’s very helpful to understand and certainly strengthens the case for giving now (in the sense of power/capital transfer to other altruists).
Ah, good point! One confounding factor for me is that my primary cause area is animal welfare. In this realm, I am curious if the idea of a power transfer to those less fortunate is relevant. Perhaps if nonhuman animals are given a stake in policy in the long run, this could be true.
Great point that the counterfactual to my question is not always investment! (i.e. I can reduce consumption to increase my donations, rather than decreasing my investments) For context, I am already very bought in to GWWC (signed the pledge!), the life you can save, etc… I am just trying to be truth seeking in what I should be using funds for. Perhaps there is some truth to needing fundamental systems change rather than just neartermist effective giving to revamp long-term power structures.
Side note: I’m simply using power transfer as a proxy for ‘voice in the world’. Unfortunately, given current systems wealth is our means of power. If philanthropy leaves more room for capital gains with non-altruistic actors, then this suggests I should completely revamp my theory of change! (perhaps towards something like international tax code reform?)
Tell me more! Why do you think this is true? Do you have anything to read further on the topic?
Ah I see, I guess this is a difference in thinking or perhaps a misunderstanding on my part! My mental model for charitable contributions is kind of:
Giving money to philanthropy is a non-compounding effect. Kind of a one and done contribution.
But, what I’m hearing you say is that charitable contributions continue to compound value (perhaps through flow-through effects?). Do you have any data/research to back up the compounding effect of charity? I’m curious to learn more.
Also, charitable organizations need continuous influx of capital to keep operating. If I give, how is this not a ‘one and done’ contribution given that the organization would need more capital to continue operating. I guess I’m still having difficulty understanding, where is the compounding nature of charity?
[Question] Does Philanthropy at a High-Level Create Counterfactual Impact Given Fungibility
For those who experience broken link on arbital (after selecting the path on arbital), I found the 3blue1brown video on bayes theorem to also be very helpful!
I’m excited to see where animal inclusive longtermism can go and what interventions begin to develop in this space.
Thanks for making it easily accessible and centralized to batch my donations and report my income. Having a good platform made it super easy for me to report!