Hide table of contents

I've been a vegetarian for over 10 years. My EA insights have made me start questioning if I should start eating meat again, at least occasionally. I'd like to share my thought process and have it challenged!

Thought 1 - Vegetarian diet vs effective charities

There are definitely much more effective ways to impact animal wellfare than being a vegetarian. Giving to the right charity has magnitudes greater impact than me not eating meat. I think everyone in this forum agrees on that, right? 

Thought 2 - Just do both...

Can't I just do both? Give to the effective charities and keep a vegetarian diet? Yeah maybe, but then I learned about moral/self-licensing...

If I've got this straight, studies show that if  I've done a good deed, I'm less likely to do another one. A vegetarian diet is a good deed (not the most effective, but still a good deed) when it comes to factory farming.

I don't think I'm "above" the self licensing effect just because I know of it. So I'm probably less likely to do as much of the more effective deeds because of being a vegetarian.

Thought 3 - Focus only on what's most effective 

EAs pride ourselves on going "all in" on the most effective interventions. Not focusing energy/time on things that also do good, but less effectively.

So that would encourage me to go all in on the right charities and stop the less effective dietary restriction.

Thought 4 - A bit inconvenient

Keeping a vegetarian diet sacrifices some quality of life for me. Not much, but definitely some. Eating out or at friends/family adds a bit of inconvenience. Also, even if I'd likely keep to vegetarian meals most of the time, I miss some non-vegetarian dishes that I found extra tasty.

Thought 5 - The pro-vegetarian argument

The pro-vegetarian argument that resonates most with me is "if you think something is a moral atrocity, you shouldn’t participate in it, even if you offset the effects of your contribution." The deontological argument, well described in the post Some thoughts on vegetarianism and veganism

But I find it difficult to weigh that against the 4 other ones I listed above.

Keen to read some of your thoughts on this!

13

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I suspect that the majority of positive impact from vegan/vegetarian diets comes from the normalization of these practices in different communities, not from the economic effects. I don't have any data to back this up other than anecdotes of people telling me that I influenced them just by pointing out animal harm in their food choices... which I guess is different from me just being vegan, but I think me being vegan adds to the impact of my words.

My sister was a vegetarian for 15 years before I became one. She normalised it for me. I think I've normalised it for other people. This sort of ripple effect is impossible to measure but it gives us more reason to uphold admirable behaviour.

Yeah I agree that me being a vegetarian probably normalises it. But is it really impossible to estimate the impact of that? My EA intuition tells me that if it was measured somewhat accurately, it'd still be magnitudes lower impact than giving to effective charities. 

Ill respond to all thoughts

  1. Correct.
  2. One way of viewing altruism is that you have an energy bar of it and you should spend it wisely. The other way of viewing it is more like exercising muscles at the gym. I think in general, the 2nd view has slightly more merit and much more than we like to give it credit for since it's inconvenient. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DBcDZJhTDgig9QNHR/altruism-sharpens-altruism
  3. I don't think EA says that, at least in practice. I know of no EAs that donate all money above what they absolutely require, have no outside hobbies, etc.
  4. Most of EA is inconvenient. That's fair.
  5. I agree, I would also supplement with my comment I left here where similar things were discussed.

My reasons for being vegan have little to do with the direct negative effects of factory farming. They are in roughly descending order of importance.

  1. A constant reminder to myself that non-human animals matter. My current day-to-day activities give nearly no reason to think about the fact that non-human animals have moral worth. This is my 2-5 times per day reminder of this fact.
  2. Reduction of cognitive dissonance. It took about a year of being vegan to begin to appreciate, viscerally, that animals had moral worth. It's hard to quantify this but it is tough to think that animals have moral worth when you eat them a few times a day. This has flow-through effects on donations, cause prioritization, etc.
  3. The effect it has on others. I'm not a pushy vegan at all. I hardly tell people but every now and then people notice and ask questions about it.
  4. Solidarity with non-EAA animal welfare people. For better or worse, outside of EA, this seems to be a ticket to entry to be considered taking the issue seriously. I want to be able to convince them to donate to THL over a pet shelter and to SWP over dog rescue charities and the the EA AWF over Pets for Vets. They are more likely to listen to me when they see me as one of them who just happens to be doing the math.
  5. Reducing the daily suffering that I cause. It's still something even though it pales in comparison to my yearly donations but it is me living in accordance with my values and is causing less suffering than I would otherwise.

Thanks, a lot of things for me to reflect on and deep dive into. 

I think the moral/self licensing perspective is intresting. I want to view it as exercising at the gym rather than the energy bar. It feels more intuitive and something I'd like to be true. 

But the evidence I've read  in "Thinking fast and slow" and "Doing good better" makes me think the truth is more like the energy bar. 

There are many more arguments both for and against that I'm not going to enumerate here, but are definitely available elsewhere in the forum. I'll also plug that I agree with Henry's comment - there are grassroots effects that are hard to measure, but my intuition is they have sneakily high EV.

But the main argument for me, and many other vegans (and vegetarians, but I'll just say vegans for brevity) I know, is that at some point, they stop wanting to eat meat. If one truly views it as a chore, it will always be seen as a sacrifice. However, if the notion of eating animal products truly grosses you out, then it's basically easier to be vegan than to eat meat.

I am not trying to deny that animal products can smell or taste great! But at this point, if I were to have a bite of chicken, the first thought for me would be "I am eating this factory farmed chicken that lived a horrible life of abject suffering" and not "hey, this tastes good." It just grosses me out. Perhaps this would be a corollary to your point 5, but at some point, the dedication to the diet becomes more internalized. At that point, points 2 and 3 somewhat fall off, because it's just a baseline lifestyle rather than part of my EA-aligned activities. 

(To be clear, I acknowledge that this isn't a universal vegan experience. I don't mean to invalidate longtime committed vegetarians/vegans who don't view meat the same way I do. I just mean to point out that there is potentially some light at the end of the tunnel that makes committing to this diet/lifestyle significantly easier. For me, that was about one year after transitioning from vegetarianism to veganism. Watching Dominion helped lock in any remaining doubts I may have had at the 1.5-2 year mark.) 

Yeah good point. I'm not as grossed out by eating meat as many other vegetarians. But I get that it's a good argument for many! 

I think the question is how much you view being vegetarian as a burden/a good deed that you are doing vs just a feature of your everyday life. For me, I don't even think about it, so I don't believe that I have the "good deed offset" issue you mentioned. But others may be different!

A second question is how much weight you give to a deontological moral system being correct - e.g. you probably wouldn't eat factory farmed humans regardless of how that might affect your other actions because that seems immoral.

A third question is what would the replacement activity for being vegetarian be? Would you realistically replace that with something as comparably high impact (e.g. - eating a serving of chicken requires ~4 hours of ~torturing the chicken to get you the food - do you think whatever you would replace that with would be worth torturing a chicken for four hours? If you aren't spending the extra time donating more to effective animal charities that seems like a high bar to clear.)

Lastly, you can avoid much of the negative impact of meat eating if you eat from places here you are highly confident in the good treatment of animals (difficult to do but possible) or just eat beef and bivalves (much easier). So if you do change I'd recommend being thoughtful about it like you would with all other decisions!

Thanks, a lot of great things to reflect on for me. 

"how much you view being vegetarian as a burden/a good deed that you are doing vs just a feature of your everyday life"

I think that if someone asked me what I think of factory farming, I'd reply I think it's terrible. Then if they asked if I do anything about it I'd instantly say "yeah I don't eat meat". So I definitely see it as a good deed. Even though it's  not something I think about everyday. 

"you probably wouldn't eat factory farmed humans regardless of how that might affect your other actions because that seems immoral"

Good point. I'll have to think about this one a bit!

"eat from places here you are highly confident in the good treatment of animals"

Hmm yeah maybe. But I think my main point is that doing that, or cutting out meat completely, has such a small effect on animal wellfare that it's not worth spending time/energy on. Eating that type of meat probably costs more, so just buying the cheap meat and giving the savings to effective charities would do much more good. Just like buying regular coffee instead of fair trade coffee does. 

I'm struggling to understand your framing of the moral licensing argument. "Moral licensing" is widely considered to be self-deceiving weakness where people [unconsciously] convince themselves that as they've done something moral they can happily make other choices with complete indifference to their moral consequences rather than a pragmatic approach to optimising altruism. In that sense, the idea that that participating in some small way in a campaign against meat alleviates any concern about about possible moral implications of eating it is a pretty pure example of moral licensing, whereas it seems non-obvious that the additional impactful pro-animal activity you would only feel able to participate in if you ate meat first actually exists. Sure, you might donate to something you identify as impactful but there's no guarantee you're not deceiving yourself far more about the counterfactual that you'd have been unable to commit to if you hadn't started eating meat. The last thing I'd consider from the starting point of worrying about my future capacity for self-deception is doing stuff I believe is bad in the hope it hacks my mindset into doing more good.

Some people hold sincere beliefs in animal welfare matters whilst eating meat they believe to be "cruelty free" is fine and if you're one of them, or feel it's impossible to avoid eating it or simply don't think it's an issue that's different,[1] but "I might need to start doing things I think are bad again because I'm concerned that otherwise I might be less capable of doing things which are good" doesn't feel like the right lesson to be learning from EA

  1. ^

    I am not qualified to tell people to never eat meat...

Curated and popular this week
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies