As several posts here have already highlighted, the total suffering endured by animals is far greater than that experienced by humans—unless we consider animal moral weights to be hundreds or thousands of times less important than our own.
Moreover, as shown by the Rethink Priorities researches, the cost-effectiveness of the best animal welfare organizations could be a lot more effective than the best short-term alternatives for humans.
Yet, funding for animal causes represents only a small fraction of Open Philanthropy's budget, which seems inconsistent.
If we follow the data we currently have, it seems to me that these 100 million dollars should be allocated to (at least partially) catch up on the underfunding of animal welfare.
Yes, increasing funding too quickly could potentially reduce the cost-effectiveness of some organizations, but as has been said, this money can be invested over several years if needed.
As several posts here have already highlighted, the total suffering endured by animals is far greater than that experienced by humans—unless we consider animal moral weights to be hundreds or thousands of times less important than our own.
Moreover, as shown by the Rethink Priorities researches, the cost-effectiveness of the best animal welfare organizations could be a lot more effective than the best short-term alternatives for humans.
Yet, funding for animal causes represents only a small fraction of Open Philanthropy's budget, which seems inconsistent.
If we follow the data we currently have, it seems to me that these 100 million dollars should be allocated to (at least partially) catch up on the underfunding of animal welfare.
Yes, increasing funding too quickly could potentially reduce the cost-effectiveness of some organizations, but as has been said, this money can be invested over several years if needed.