Thanks to Michael St. Jules for his comments.
Key Takeaways
- The evidence that animal welfare dominates in neartermism is strong.
- Open Philanthropy (OP) should scale up its animal welfare allocation over several years to approach a majority of OP's neartermist grantmaking.
- If OP disagrees, they should practice reasoning transparency by clarifying their views:
- How much weight does OP's theory of welfare place on pleasure and pain, as opposed to nonhedonic goods?
- Precisely how much more does OP value one unit of a human's welfare than one unit of another animal's welfare, just because the former is a human? How does OP derive this tradeoff?
- How would OP's views have to change for OP to prioritize animal welfare in neartermism?
Summary.
- Rethink Priorities (RP)'s moral weight research endorses the claim that the best animal welfare interventions are orders of magnitude (1000x) more cost-effective than the best neartermist alternatives.
- Avoiding this conclusion seems very difficult:
- Rejecting hedonism (the view that only pleasure and pain have moral [...]
---
Outline:
(00:09) Key Takeaways
(02:46) The Evidence Endorses Prioritizing Animal Welfare in Neartermism
(06:32) Objections
(06:35) Animal Welfare Does Not Dominate in Neartermism
(07:07) RPs Project Assumptions are Incorrect
(09:21) Endorsing Overwhelming Non-Hedonism
(14:13) Endorsing Overwhelming Hierarchicalism
(16:09) Its Strongly Intuitive that Helping Humans Helping Chickens
(16:46) Skepticism of Formal Philosophy
(17:58) Even if Animal Welfare Dominates, it Still Shouldnt Receive a Majority of Neartermist Funding
(18:12) Worldview Diversification Opposes Majority Allocations to Controversial Cause Areas
(19:43) OP is Already a Massive Animal Welfare Funder
(20:16) Animal Welfare has Faster Diminishing Marginal Returns than Global Health
(21:36) Increasing Animal Welfare Funding would Reduce OP's Influence on Philanthropists
(23:42) Request for Reasoning Transparency from OP
(26:13) Conclusion
---