You say "don't yet"...are you aware of anyone working on a project to incorporate deontology or other non-utilitarian factors in cause prioritization?

because we don't yet have a way to give enough weight to subjective wellbeing, the value of self-determination, or justice

Do you have thoughts on giving now vs. later?  

Investing to give e.g. (https://www.founderspledge.com/research/investing-to-give)?

If you got google stock options or grants from 2013 (I don't know if you did) then those would have increased in value about 800%, so could your giving go much further if delayed to take advantage of gain?  Or do you think of it some other way?

Thanks.

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

How does Focus Philanthropy compare and contrast with Farmed Animal Funders?

Good luck!

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.

1. 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.

Underappreciated consequentialist reasons to avoid consuming animal products

Magnus Vinding

Could you explain further why funding diversity would exacerbate unilateralist's curse?