I am a generalist with a focus on data and research.
I work as a researcher for Animal Advocacy Africa.
I participated in Charity Entrepreneurship's Research Training Program in 2023.
Thanks for your perspective, I'll definitely let you know about our further research :)
Thanks for your inputs, this is great. I also didn't expect you to have the perfect answer. It's a very tricky problem.
I'll incorporate these considerations in our research!
Thanks for your research on this Aashish! Very relevant for our work at Animal Advocacy Africa.I'm getting the sense that policy work / lobbying could be a good idea (since your uncertainty around this has reduced as a result of your evidence review), but it should be targeted at something else than subsidies, since their path to impact is quite long and unclear? For example lobbying for better animal welfare standards might be more promising as it more directly addresses the problem (has a shorter ToC)?Do you have an opinion on this? Or any other interventions you think might be more promising than addressing subsidies?
Have you seen this post on second-hand battery pages in Africa? Do you think an intervention focusing on this issue would be promising? If so, what kind of intervention? Should this be focused on the exporting or importing countries?
I would be curious to get your opinion on this, as we (Animal Advocacy Africa) are currently considering different strategies to recommend/pursue.
Also linking CE's own previous research here. Note that we did not really look at this previous report when we conducted our own research and came to the topic with fresh eyes.
I just wanted to add to Zuzana's response that our basis for the statement in question is also based on what we have learned out about cage-free corporate campaigns. From our understanding, the threat of a "bad cop" campaign is often enough for companies to sign commitments. So yes Jojo, your interpretation is correct I would say.
Thanks for adding that helpful perspective!
We did not make the comparison to QALYs since the program looked at global health/development and animal interventions separately. So we only compared animal interventions to other animal interventions. My personal perspective is that animal interventions indeed tend do be much more cost-effective, which is why I focus on that area.
It might also be interesting to note that CE's own previous research (which we did not really look at when we conducted our own research) estimates ~20-30 welfare points per dollar, which is somewhat higher than our best guess of 12 WP/$.
Thank you Zuzana!If you haven't yet, I can recommend this article that I linked in the post which gave me some food for thought on the interplay between farming for meat and leather.Please also note that the statement "demand for leather products is on a downward trajectory on a global level" is based on that article and I didn't dive deeper into this, since this was only a shallow review. Would have to do more detailed research to be very confident in this.
Thanks for the links to those other pieces that address similar issues. I wasn't aware of most of them and they are suuuper interesting/relevant! Seems like I have some more reading and researching to do.
I think I agree with what you referenced from 80K. I see virtues and good character as the foundation on which you can then build in a more maximizing way. Satisfying certain personal needs and wants also fits into this foundational category. Of course, how exactly one balances these aspects highly varies from person to person.
And these decisions are highly context-dependent, yes. What I wrote is only a very high-level frame. In practice, it is of course very important to consider which aspects of "common sense morality" we really want to follow, just as it is very important to reflect on which personal needs and wants we should really follow or prioritize. This is a tricky balancing act that I am constantly trying to master. And social norms are always in flux as well.
For instance, I certaintly don't think it is okay to farm animals in ways that make them suffer unnecessarily, even though it is common practice and might be commonly seen as morally acceptable. This also means that I act in ways that deviate from the norm (i.e. plant-based consumption). But society around me is also adapting and some data suggests that a majority of people actually find the way we treat farmed animal abhorrent (they just don't act on it or rationalize their behavior).
All of this to say: Yes, moral common sense is vague and constantly changing. Yes, we always need to reflect on it and not follow the majority blindly. But I think it is beneficial to find certain core value and virtues to adhere by (and those should be ones where we are confident that they are not overall harmful).
Important points and I agree that common sense morality is underdeveloped here. I suspect that there are some things that are relatively universal (like love and care for the family or generosity), but yes, the focus/weight of different aspects will vary.