Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Vasco Grilo🔸
20th Mar 20253 min read 0

16

Animal welfareCorporate animal welfare campaignsEconomic growthEconomicsFarmed animal welfareThe Humane LeagueEnvironmental scienceResearch
Frontpage

Summary

  • Among the 53 countries I analysed, there is a U-shaped relationship between the fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens, and the logarithm of the real gross domestic product (real GDP) per capita. The fraction:
    • Decreases among lower middle income countries (p-value of 1.35 %).
    • Decreases among upper middle income countries (61.7 %).
    • Increases among high income countries (0.0547 %).
  • The above follows the pattern of an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), where the effects on humans from environmental degradation get worse before improving while real GDP per capita increases along the way. It does not follow that (causing additional) economic growth is initially harmful, and then beneficial. It depends on how concrete interventions impact the number and conditions of animals over time.

Methods

I used data collected by The Humane League (THL) about the fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens by country by year to[1]:

  • Make a scatter plot of that fraction, and real GDP per capita.
  • Run linear regressions of that fraction on the logarithm of the real GDP per capita.

I relied on data for the last year for which there was data on the fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens (2014 to 2023, depending on the country). The income groups below refer to the real gross national income (real GNI) per capita in that year.

Giovanni Fabris, THL’s global research and insights lead, noted only the fractions regarding the countries in the European Union (EU), United Kingdom, and United States are reliable.

Results

Here are my calculations.

CountriesNumber of countriesLinear regression of the fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens on the logarithm of the real GDP per capita
SlopeInterceptCoefficient of determinationP-value for the null hypothesis that there is no correlation
All530.198-1.6918.9 %0.114 %
Lower middle income6-0.3873.6881.6 %1.35 %
Upper middle income13-0.1291.492.35 %61.7 %
High income340.593-5.9631.5 %0.0547 %

Discussion

Among the 53 countries I analysed, there is a U-shaped relationship between the fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens, and the logarithm of the real GDP per capita. The fraction:

  • Decreases among lower middle income countries (p-value of 1.35 %).
  • Decreases among upper middle income countries (61.7 %).
  • Increases among high income countries (0.0547 %).

The above follows the pattern of an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC), where the effects on humans from environmental degradation get worse before improving while real GDP per capita increases along the way. It does not follow that (causing additional) economic growth is initially harmful, and then beneficial. It depends on how concrete interventions impact the number and conditions of animals over time.

I guess including more countries would make the U-shaped curve flatter.

The minimum fraction of commercial egg production coming from cage-free hens for a U-shaped would happen for a real GDP per capita of around 20 k 2021-$, which is similar to the global real GDP per capita in 2022 of 20.1 k 2021-$. Colombia and Thailand had abnormally high fractions in 2022 and 2014 of 94.0 % and 57.0 % given their real GDP per capita in those years of 18.4 k and 18.3 k 2021-$.

The U-shaped curve can be explained by 2 opposing effects. A higher real GDP per capita results in:

  • A greater meat supply per capita, which leads to factory-farming. This effect initially dominates, and makes conditions worsen.
  • A greater willingness to pay for animal welfare. This effect eventually dominates, because people can only consume so many animal-based foods, so conditions end up improving.
  1. ^

     Here is the data for the countries in the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States.

16

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
More from Vasco Grilo🔸
92
Yes, Shrimp Matter
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 8m read
10
10
34
Cost-effectiveness of Veganuary and School Plates
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 11m read
8
8
98
GiveWell may have made 1 billion dollars of harmful grants, and Ambitious Impact incubated 8 harmful organisations via increasing factory-farming?
Vasco Grilo🔸
· · 11m read
108
108
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Animal welfare
23
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
3
Apply to become a Futurekind AI Facilitator or Mentor (deadline: April 10)
Jay Luong
· · 2m read
0
0
13
The Humane League UK is hiring a Digital Fundraising Lead
Gavin Chappell-Bates
· · 1m read
0
0
View more