Sorted by New


Animal Equality showed that advocating for diet change works. But is it cost-effective?

In this case, the text states that "Against Malaria Foundation can avert a year of human suffering from malaria for $39[4]", which is just false. Going by the footnote, the $39 is the cost of extending a human life by one year. I'd recommend writing that in the main text, instead, if you want people to be able to disagree with your judgement calls.

Ethical offsetting is antithetical to EA

While I agree that offsetting isn't the best thing to spend resources on, I don't like the framing of it being 'antithetical to EA'. Whether offsetting is a good idea or not is a good, object-level discussion to have. Whether it is aligned with or antithetical to EA brings in a lot more connotations, with little to gain:

  • People who liked offsetting since earlier might think that EA isn't for them.
  • People who like the EA-community and do offset might worry whether this means that they aren't 'EA enough' (without even reading the arguments).
  • People who are in favor of utilitarian reasoning but don't like the EA community might ignore the arguments.
  • The comment section might be used to discuss the definition of EA, instead of whether offsetting is a good idea or not.