All of Duarte M's Comments + Replies

This is the first decent post I’ve read on the subject on this forum. Thank you, it gives me hope that EA has not completely lost the plot when it comes to the intersection between animal advocacy and diet.

I would add that for those of us that eat a Mediterranean diet, Veganism presents a significant trade-off in terms of diet quality.

For those of us in Southern Europe, it also has a trade-off on environmental impact due to the nature of agro-silvo-pastoralism here (although that is outside of the scope of a mere forum comment).

Excellent to see the U.K. take a leading role in this, and seeing the political narrative finally shift from just climate change and occasionally sprinkles of pandemics and nuclear war, to all kinds of X risk.

This is really fantastic news overall! 👏

Not sure on the dehorning and beak trimming though, that sounds like virtue signalling more so than an evidence based policy.

Not sure dehorning would be a good thing considering the deaths and mutilations caused by animals using their horns.

Great post!

I must say, this anxiety is what happens when people adopt Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy instead of the actual goal of EA - to donate a certain % of first world incomes in an effective way. The jump to “maximise utility always” is one that can only lead to paralysis, anxiety, and nihilism, as many more capable than me have pointed out.

Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.

I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)

The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.

Agreed. The “KPI” here should be welfare, not deaths.

Salmon is a carnivorous fish which means that choosing salmon instead of live carp could cause more animals to die.

This is more or less irrelevant if those deaths cause no suffering.

Still, very interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing OP.

I completely agree with this. As a (Americans read: neo) Liberal that thinks the Green movement does far more harm than good, some of the political campaigning I’ve seen EAs do really puts me off and makes me question the entire movement. SBF’s lobbying of politicians in the US is another example of egregious misuse of funds.

Until those checks and balances are in place, we should be focusing on directing funds to the most impactful causes. That should be the beginning and end of EA in my opinion. Politics is almost never the best ROI approach to anything, ... (read more)

9
Holly_Elmore
1y
YES
4
Geoffrey Miller
1y
Duarte -- I agree with your additional points here. FWIW, I was always uneasy with SBF's massive donations to (mostly) Democratic politicians, and with his determination to defeat Trump at any cost, by any means necessary. It just didn't make sense in terms of EA reasoning, values, and priorities. It should have been a big red flag.  But I think the lack of political diversity in EA, and many EAs' tacit agreement with SBF's partisan political views, led too many EAs to think it was no big deal that SBF was mixing EA and politics in unprincipled and somewhat bizarre ways. In the future, I think we should have stronger skepticism about anybody who tries to link EA to partisan political activism.

I very much doubt the reason it’s won’t be made privately available is due to Pfizer thinking it wouldn’t be worth it. More likely it’s down to sufficient stock being available in the NHS for the cohort that will be receiving it, and the government not wanting to add more demand, which would increase the cost per dose for the NHS.

It’s perverse, but a likely consequence of the Beveridge style universal healthcare system used in the U.K.

The suggestion is to treat the COVID vaccine like the flu vaccine, and make it free for those who need it most, and available to buy for those who don't. Making it available for sale doesn't increase costs to the NHS.

Muito interessante! Obrigado pela partilha. Têm orçamento da Open Philanthropy para contratar mais tradutores ou é tudo com base em voluntariado?

3
Jose Oliveira
1y
Olá Duarte! Desculpa a resposta tardia.  Sim, todo o trabalho realizado ao longo dos 7 anos foi fruto do trabalho voluntário de todos os envolvidos.  A determinada altura tivemos conversações com a Open Philanthropy (por iniciativa da própria), mas como havia a intensão de todos os envolvidos continuarem a desenvolver o seu trabalho de forma voluntária, consideramos unanimemente que não haveria necessidade de uma dotação de fundos. 

I’m all for diversity of thought, but I really hope EA doesn’t become a vehicle for the ideas stemming from critical social science.

0
wen
1y
What do you mean? I’ve not heard of critical social science before and just googled it. Are you saying that EA should ignore ‘social conditions that contribute to relations of domination and oppression’?
4
Jeremy
2y
I agree, but I think it has to be a consideration when trying to market something widely these days. That said, my general impression is that it's less of an issue with food than in other areas. 

These diatribes against agriculture in the EA movement really sadden me.

One thing this piece has not considered is the physical possibility of agriculture without animals. Specifically with regards to the nitrogen cycle.

It also doesn’t consider agro-silvo-pastoralism, or the downsides of eliminating all forms of animal agriculture on ecosystems, especially those suffering from increased desertification due to climate change.

Finally, this text doesn’t seriously consider agricultural systems which are clearly a net positive from a consequentialist point of v... (read more)

1
Ren Ryba
2y
Thank you for the positive feedback :)

Even setting aside the organic argument, an insistence on extensive agricultural alone is also negative for the environment due to the lower output per hectare. Lots of literature has been written on this.

1
Sharmake
2y
Yeah, the comment seems to overstate the problems of the law (except maybe the food prices one.) And that's despite disagreeing with environmentalism or it's goals.

TL;DR: This initiative would have led to bad consequences and the EA movement needs to be more evidence-based when it comes to animal agriculture. I leave a few suggestions to improve animal welfare more effectively below.
 

​​In my opinion, this topic is the one where the Effective Altruism movement is the most in its ivory tower still. Everything I've read on this topic by the EA community, like Peter Singer's Animal Liberation or the chapter dedicated to it in What We Owe The Future showcases a total separation from reality. I think we're all on boar... (read more)

3
Guy Raveh
2y
I think your comment is full of mistakes and misinterpretations, and at least one of them is: As far as I understand, the initiative would've adopted the welfare standards of organic agriculture, without any of the other characteristics of organic food that cause the things you mentioned.
9
MichaelStJules
2y
As an animal advocate myself, I agree that animal advocates often exaggerate the environmental impact of animal agriculture, intentionally or not. I haven't checked the specifics for this campaign, and I don't know much about the situation in Switzerland, so won't comment on that unless I look further into it.

claims like 99% of meat being factory farmed are just intuitively false to anyone that has spent any significant amount of time in the countryside and farms outside of the USA

I don't think this is the claim typically being made. Rather, X% of farmed animals, as individuals, not by weight, are factory farmed. The vast majority of farmed land vertebrates are chickens, and the vast majority of them are factory farmed. The vast majority of farmed vertebrates (land or aquatic) are farmed fish, and the vast majority of them are factory farmed. Factory farms prod... (read more)

9
Charles He
2y
I'm skeptical/confused by this comment.  So, I'm not that familiar with this legislation, but I think the (key) purpose behind the banning of factory farms, would be a major political, legislative win that has a strategic value.   But the comment's main arguments are: 1. Factory farming is minimal in Switzerland, so this legislation doesn't do much 2. There are big negative consequences to this legislation banning of farms (price increases, food security).  Don't these two points conflict with each other? Also, neither undermines the main purpose of the legislation mentioned above.   Other comments: * I'm confused what "ivory tower" and "consequentialism" add here—I'm sure EA has a big consequentialist streak, but I'm not sure how relevant that is to reducing torture on factory farms, or reduce huge mortality from diseases like malaria.  * Similarly, whether I agree or don't agree with unfairness or not, I'm unsure what "moral axes in human psychology according to Haidt’s moral foundations theory" adds. * RE: Regressiveness, I think it's possible to model price increases due to policy changes, and I would expect to see numbers if this was significant. * Dealing with regressiveness, pigovian taxes, and progressive taxes have been a thing for a long time, and seem to be tools we can use. * "claims like 99% of meat being factory farmed", but I can't find this claim on this post or on the website. Where did you get this and what was the context it was used in?

(Edited)

"Most of this is just not true.[1][2] It stems from a conflation between biogenic greenhouse gas emissions and anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions. The former is part of the natural carbon cycle, with animals playing a crucial role in maintaining healthy ecosystems which acts as a carbon sink."

I do think this issue is subtle, and people on both sides often get it wrong or go too far. FAO even put out a piece aiming to correct bad simplifications (https://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0). Being part of a natural carbon cycle (even with no c... (read more)

This is so cool. A few ideas which I’m not fit to write:

  • Next generation Geothermal https://elidourado.com/blog/geothermal/

  • Policy and technological advancements to increase residential construction in the U.K.

  • Research on the best health system models

  • Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

  • Oscillating water column technology (wave energy)

  • Digitisation and simplification of government services/law (a la Estonia and Próspera)

  • Drug regulation reciprocity

Just a shame it’s during working hours! All the best with the event.

1
Ben Yeoh
2y
We might try a weekend for another UnConference, but feel free to come for a half day if that suits. 

Apologies for the basic question but, if there’s more money allocated than there are effective projects, should those of us earning to give start funding less effective charities? Is there a ranking with effectiveness and funding % we can sort by?