The good flowing directly from the evil (here the positive effect on one’s own health) just lowers the value of E. So long as it remains positive, top right is still the highest value. If the benefit is enough to make E negative (i.e. net good), then top left becomes the highest. But then the good action is not offsetting the evil. The “evil” action has already offset itself. The only thing to recommend the (other) good action is that it is good, independently of the evil.

The only sensible scenario I can come up with is if better sustenance enables one to work harder, earn more, and donate more. But that is not offsetting an unavoidable sin with a good deed, it is committing the sin to be able to do the good deed. Eating meat to give, one might call it.

I also think it’s just super reasonable to eat animal products and offset with donations

The concept of offsetting evil with good does not make sense. Even if the good outweighs the evil, it would be even better to not do the evil thing, and still do the good thing.

In situations where a single act has both good and evil consequences, such as the classic trolley problem, it may make sense to calculate the net amount of good. It does not make sense when the good and the evil come from separate actions that can be chosen independently of each other.

I imagine there could be an argument along the lines of something something timeless decision theory, to exclude the choice of doing good and not evil, but I do not see what it could be.

ETA: I see there have been a few disagreement votes. I can't say much to those without any comments to go on, but here's a diagram that expresses things as starkly as possible. You can choose any of the four boxes. Which one?

Today, for the first time ever, I used an LLM. That is, for something other than answering the question, "I wonder what an LLM will do with this?" It was for some questions on the theory of elasticity of orthotropic composite materials, which I'll skip, but its answers passed the sanity checks I was able to make.

I've just received an email from 23andMe, saying that in July, it, in effect, acquired itself^[1]. This is from their email:

In July 2025, 23andMe, Inc. was successfully acquired by 23andMe Research Institute, a newly established nonprofit founded by Anne Wojcicki, Co-Founder of 23andMe, Inc.

And this is their press release. It identifies the acquiring organisation as TTAM Research Institute, founded by Anne Wojcicki. Presumably TTAM is an abbreviation for Twenty Three And Me.

I have no idea how that works, just passing on their public statement.

Fiction is not evidence. You can invent examples consistent with anything. They prove nothing, not even that "it could be".

Aren't most examples hypothetical?

No? If someone makes a sweeping generalisation, and another challenges them, "Give three examples", it is pointless for them to respond with imaginary ones.

And on the subject of trying to deliberately hold a false belief...

Gina and Lucius do not exist. You have constructed these imaginary people in order to be examples of your desired conclusion, which you then use to support that conclusion. You could equally well imagine a miserable version of Gina and a happy version of Lucius, should you want to boom rationality over ignorance. However vivid your imagination, daydreaming is not evidence.