Director @ Center for Effective Aid Policy
5291 karmaJoined


Does anyone know if there been any research into creating engaging television for factory farmed animals? Google scholar didn't get much outside of using TV to induce feeding in chickens. I know there have been evaluations of branched chains as a way to improve the conditions for pigs, but I haven't seen any evaluation of television.

There's 24/7 television made for house cats, why couldn't something similar exist for chickens?

I'm not going to find time to look into this myself, so if somebody finds the idea intriguing, don't hesitate with starting!

at we cover transaction costs of donating. Similar to donation matching, it's likely the money we spend on transactions would be donated anyways.

I think it's fine to do this, but i'm unsure where the line should be drawn. We find that many people who donate worry far too much about transaction and overhead costs. By alleviating one of those we make it much more attractive to donate (though I don't think we've A/B tested this actually).

But following this logic should we say that "5 dollars could save a life" if we thought this would increase total donations? Despite this sentence being literally true, it feels highly misleading and I would have mixed feelings about such a message. (In practice I don't think stating this would increase donations - if anything the opposite)

My own belief is that this type of messaging often brings its benefits in the short term, but incurs its costs in the long term, if a donor feels deceived and becomes less inclined to donate going forward.

This ultimately is the heuristic I go by. If someone were to read up on a claim after donating, would they feel deceived? If yes, then don't make the claim.

I don't personally think I would feel deceived about donor matching, so my intutition is that its fine, but maybe others feel different.

Thanks for carrying out this analysis! Do you have a spreadsheet with the calculations? Personally, I find it's much easier for me to understand the calculations and assumptions in that format. Being able to make a copy and play around with the input values to see which inputs drive the end line result is also super helpful.

Gene drives remove the need to continuously rear and drop screwworms. Counting insect welfare I would wager advocacy for using gene drives looks better not worse.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to that post!

I'll be honest, to me the numbers sound too good to be true, so I'm curious to understand the assumptions that go into those numbers and whether I agree with them.

If the numbers really are that good that's quite exciting!

According to research by the Welfare Footprint Project, both of these asks substantially decrease hours in pain experienced by farmed chickens,[2][3] decreasing chicken suffering by an estimated 30%–60%.[4][5]

According to estimates by Šimčikas,[6] corporate campaigns between 2015 and the end of 2018 will improve the welfare of 9 to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spent.

Is there a cost-effectiveness analysis available where I can read how you arrived at these numbers?

  • Cost per client served: $4.7
  • Cost per unintended pregnancies averted: $3.60
  • Cost per maternal death averted: $685
  • Cost per DALY: $1.63
  • Cost per CYP: $2.31

I don't find find this argument all too compelling. Who pays for the government's ability to protect the wealthy? In absence of a government, why wouldn't the wealthy pay someone else to protect their wealth?

That said I completely agree with the last sentence and I think taxation is very reasonable. Deciding that taxation is theft and therefore always wrong, is after all the worst argument in the world.

I don't mean to argue for libertarianism, but I do want advocates of socialism to be mindful of how they plan to enforce it.

Good question, worth exploring!

One point not brought up, which I think is somewhat important to me is how socialist policies are to be enforced.

I personally dislike the implicit threat of violence enforcement of those policies requires. I'll be the first to admit it's difficult to create a functional society without the use or threat of force, but I still would like to see it treated it as a necessary evil not to be used lightly.

There are many laws which would be less popular if one added to the end: "or we'll beat you up", but in some sense every law has this implicitly written. We're just not very mindful of it!

I think it's reasonable for vegans to ask someone whether they would still eat meat if they had to kill the animal themselves. In a similar manner, would you be fine with forcing someone into a car and locking them into a cell if they refused to hand over everything they had earned that month?

This is far from a knockdown argument and somewhat of a strawman, but it matters to me. I place value on people being free to live their lives how they see fit. Anyone should be welcome to form a socialist commune, but it should be out of ones own volition.

Load more