CarlShulman comments on Effective Altruism Through Advertising Vegetarianism? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: peter_hurford 12 June 2013 06:50PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (551)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: peter_hurford 13 June 2013 06:33:10AM *  3 points [-]

This is something I've considered a lot, though chicken also dominate the calculations along with fish. I'm not currently sure if I value welfare in proportion to neuron count, though I might. I'd have to sort that out first.

A question at this point I might ask is how good does the final estimate have to be? If AMF can add about 30 years of healthy human life for $2000 by averting malaria and a human is worth 40x that of a chicken, then we'd need to pay less than $1.67 to avert a year of suffering for a chicken (assuming averting a year of suffering is the same as adding a year of healthy life, which is a messy assumption).

Comment author: CarlShulman 13 June 2013 06:50:06AM *  7 points [-]

A question at this point I might ask is how good does the final estimate have to be?

First, there are multiple applications of accurate estimates.

The unreasonably low estimates would suggest things like "I'm net reducing factory-farming suffering if I eat meat and donate a few bucks, so I should eat meat if it makes me happier or healthier sufficiently to earn and donate an extra indulgence of $5 ."

There are some people going around making the claim, based on the extreme low-ball cost estimates, that these veg ads would save human lives more cheaply than AMF by reducing food prices. With saner estimates, not so, I think.

Second, there's the question of flow-through effects, which presumably dominate in a total utilitarian calculation anyway, if that's what you're into. The animal experiences probably don't have much effect there, but people being vegetarian might have some, as could effects on human health, pollution, food prices, social movements, etc.

To address the total utilitarian question would require a different sort of evidence, at least in the realistic ranges.

Comment author: Louie 16 June 2013 10:24:35AM 1 point [-]

The unreasonably low estimates would suggest things like "I'm net reducing factory-farming suffering if I eat meat and donate a few bucks, so I should eat meat if it makes me happier or healthier sufficiently to earn and donate an extra indulgence of $5 ." There are some people going around making the claim, based on the extreme low-ball cost estimates.

Correct. I make this claim. If vegetarianism is that cheap, it's reasonable to bin it with other wastefully low-value virtues like recycling paper, taking shorter showers, turning off lights, voting, "staying informed", volunteering at food banks, and commenting on less wrong.