All of Alex Schwalb's Comments + Replies

Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that we should look for interventions that improve welfare most per $, and that those, at least for now, are the ones focusing on animals and not humans. 100% of my donations at the moment actually goes to animal causes.

That's a very interesting table about welfare range per calorie consumption. It caused me to update away from my belief that in the ideal far future we should dedicate most resources to creating more happier humans (or the next generation of the most sentient beings), and towards the belief that the ... (read more)

Thanks for writing this interesting article! I had a few objections, but it looks like most of them have been covered.

One thing I would still like to mention is using wild animals as the bar to cross. This only makes sense if the replacement is 1:1, meaning that if we didn't farm x amount of animals, there would have existed an additional x amount of wild animals (not sure if x should be individuals, or some sort of "sentience units" that weigh vertebrates more for example). If this were the case then setting 0 equal to the expected welfare of a wild anima... (read more)

1
Christoph Hartmann 🔸
Good point, agree! I think my underlying assumption was that wild animals have on average >0 absolute utility but that of course can be wrong.

Very interesting article! Although I would disagree that it would be bad to decrease the number of factory farmed animals if they have positive lives. What we're doing when decreasing the number of factory farmed animals is just shifting the biomass to be in different forms. I think humans are capable of much more positive lives than farmed animals, so in the long term future it would be best to have as much biomass in the form of humans (and possibly pets) as possible. A world where humans eat predominantly plants and cultivated meat would be able to supp... (read more)

4
Vasco Grilo🔸
Thanks for the comment, Alex! I strongly upvoted it because I like that you tried to think about how to increase welfare assuming farmed animal end up with positive lives, instead of dismissing this as impossible, or arguing that factory-farming is intrinsically bad. I agree humans are capable of more positive experiences that animals, but not that much more. I also agree plant-based foods would enable supporting more humans. However, to maximise welfare, one should look for interventions which increase welfare the most per $. At least now, I think these are ones helping animals, not humans (i.e. not the species whose individuals are capable of experiecing the most welfare). I estimate: * Broiler welfare and cage-free campaigns (helping chickens) are 168 and 462 times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities. * Shrimp Welfare Project’s Humane Slaughter Initiative is 64.3 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities. I expect helping animals will continue to be more cost-effective than helping humans longerterm, at least given humans' current form, because animals have a higher ratio between welfare range and calorie consumption[1]. Species5th percentile welfare range per calorie consumption as a fraction of that of humansMedian welfare range per calorie consumption as a fraction of that of humans95th percentile welfare range per calorie consumption as a fraction of that of humansBees04.88 k31.7 kShrimp083.93.11 kCrayfish017.5226Salmon03.6133.1Chickens1.50 %2.496.52Humans1.001.001.00Pigs0.459 %47.3 %94.7 % 1. ^ The welfare range is the difference between the welfare per time of a practically maximally happy and unhappy life.
Answer by Alex Schwalb8
❤️1
🌟1

I'm donating to the Good Food Institute for 2 reasons:

1: Moving the world more towards alt protein has a positive impact in many different areas including animal welfare, food security, pandemic prevention and climate change

2: I live in Switzerland and effective-spenden makes it bureaucratically easy and tax deductible to donate to them

Are there any rules against using crude language or having a lot of violence in the story?

Thanks for the great post, it was a very enjoyable read.

I'm curious if there are any justification to using qualities such as intelligence, creativity and sociability to determine moral status? They seem pretty arbitrary to me. We might as well consider fluffyness, body weight and visual resolution.

I would think if there is at all something like hierarchical moral status, it would be determined by instrumental qualities such as resource consumption (negative) and altruism (positive)

4
Jason Schukraft
Hi Alex, Thanks for your comment. I've written a bit about the potential relevance of intelligence and emotional complexity to capacity for welfare here. But I share your skepticism about their relevance to moral status. I'm reminded of this comic: