An important point. Failing to take this into account comes across as morally narrow.
tomstocker
Karma: 183
Nice post, thanks. This is fun.
Class of people: modern slaves Intervention: advocacy to bring about a decent evidence base, good law and effective policing in the countries most ameanable to change with the largest such populations. Class of people: chickens Intervention: experiments to find out what you can do to a factory farming environment to promote relaxation and prosocial behaviour (sounds, lights, temperature etc) among barn chickens
I think the only thing that changes is that you might disaggregate the economic flowthrough from the other stuff, which may or may not change the upper bound, and may or may not have higher returns depending on the theory and particular trade off between giving opportunities. I think this matters more with things that seek to fundamentally shift society. Imagine anti imperial outfits getting more traction earlier on, or slavery, or feminism. It could plausibly have lasting effects out of proportion for longer than donating to a poor house?
But its clear still seems that this social welfare function implicitly values the lives of low meat consuming beneficiaries of effective aid less than the original model.
You say its strong but doesn’t development also reduce fertility? I hate to bring another argument that is positioned in a hypocritical farm owner mentality to wonderful and often downtrodden people,, but within your frame, how do you know that this doesn’t just bring forward a bit of raised meat consumption while reducing the eventual human numbers after 20 years on a permanent basis, reducing total animal suffering?
Yep, I think the best way is to see it as a different social welfare function people are optimising for. Even if they focus only on the bits that don’t cross over on a Venn diagram..
Theoretically, it is possible that Life can be better or worse forba given level of economic prosperity. Doesn’t this challenge the model (not that I think 3% a year multipliers are likely over the long term)
This is fantastic!! Are you in a position to share how you were involved in lobbying for this?
Hi Diego. You don’t need to lose hope just because the EA movement is drifting. You can still try to do your best in your own way. Thanks for sharing your experience :)
Thanks MIchelle, great to hear about your continuing fantastic work!
“In research, our comparative advantage continues to be identifying crucial considerations”
feels a little tautological/vague to me. Is there a particular interpretation of crucial considerations you were going for? Am I reading it right in thinking that you’re key contribution here is challenging givewell’s methods and joining the dots a bit more?
Have you raised this with Open Phil?
Let me know where you get to with it, very interesting proposal!
Soz, read the links. There are some great efforts underway that look fundable.
“Several approaches have been proposed to reduce mortality from pesticide self-poisoning including restricting access to means through regulation; conversion to less toxic pesticides; development of single-use packaging; safe storage of pesticides; agricultural strategies and work with pesticide vendors; improving medical management; and communication and training initiatives. A number of projects are now underway to assess the effectiveness of a range of interventions aimed at reducing pesticide self-poisoning in China, India and Sri Lanka.”
Making suicide more inconvenient is certainly an effective goal. Gas ovens and over the counter pain killer restrictions was time-series consistent with an over 50% reduction in the suicide rate (its a compelling graph but not publicly available—UK government back-waters).
The issue is though, how do you make it really annoying to kill yourself from pesticides without getting rid of the benefits of pesticides?
Ever thought about reviewing high earning or direct work careers for non graduates? If someone did the work would it fit with the rest of the content to put it up? Do you have any considerations in the way of ‘we’re prettyt sure no one would take nottice’ etc?
One win that might be quite quick because society is already aligned to it to a large extent—ban some forms of advertising for junk food. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/how_the_world_could_better_fight_obesity
what is the pesticide initiative and what’s the link between it and suicide please? Thanks!
Had a look at the form. Need to discuss with the family but this is looking like it asks all the right questions. Simply from a convenience perspective I’m not aware of anywhere you can get an effective legal will so easily—very nice work!!
Great to know—can you point me to an entomologist that thinks, or a paper that argues (that isn’t philosophy), that insects have suffering that is in any way equivalent to what we would understand it as please?
I think they’re consistent with a Kantian perspective. Also, a risk averse consequentialist. Also, someone that likes to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions in a like for like manner for ethical-aesthetic reasons.