Tyner
Posts 6
Comments73
Hi Saulius, thank you for the interesting post. When you consider wild animal interventions do you include wild-caught fish?
e.g.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tykEYESbJkqT39v64/directly-purchasing-and-distributing-stunning-equipment-to
Hi Edward,
You might be interested in the work of the Non-Human Rights Project. They are attempting to establish the legal and political frameworks to ensure that animals (e.g. tigers) will be treated well by people.
https://www.nonhumanrights.org
Thanks for writing this.
- I don't think this is significant. The use of the word "consumption" is interchangeable with purchasing in economic contexts. The use of the word "marginal" is possibly superfluous. However, I think there's an interpretation that makes sense here, where an individual is increasing total suffering "at the margin" by virtue of their consumption. That is, they are not responsible for the whole of the suffering, but the marginal increase in suffering caused by their personal consumption. The language is unclear, but I would not agree that it is a significant error (unless you consider unclarity or vagueness to be significant mistakes).
2-4 I agree with you. I particularly appreciate the point about 'naive vs. non-naive'.
cheers
Maybe one way to address this would be separate posts? The first raises the problems, shares emotions. The second suggests particular actions that could help.
Is it this one?
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bXP7mtkK6WRS4QMFv/are-bad-people-really-unwelcome-in-ea
This was another discussion of EA/FIRE
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/j2ccaxmHcjiwGDs9T/ea-vs-fire-reconciling-these-two-movements
Hi Joel,
I would love to do this but do not have the bandwidth right now. I believe that Froolow is also a health economist and may be available.
Cheers