(Context: I’m not an expert in animal welfare. My aim is to sketch a potentially neglected perspective on prioritization, not to give highly reliable object-level advice.)

We seem to be clueless about our long-term impact. We might therefore consider it more robust to focus on neartermist causes, in particular animal welfare.[1] But if we also take seriously our deep uncertainty about our impact on animals, what implications does this have for animal welfare prioritization?

This post will explain:

• why I think we could be clueless about even the near-term impact of many animal welfare interventions (more);
• what criteria I think an intervention must satisfy to be robust to near-term cluelessness (more); and
• how these criteria compare to existing approaches to robustness (more).

Practical takeaways for cost-effectiveness analyses:

• Include estimates of key backfire effects (more), such as:
  • large increases in populations of wild animals with net-negative [...]

---

Outline:

(00:22) Summary

(02:28) Introduction

(06:59) Principles for a cluelessness-robust intervention

(07:11) 1. Accounts for robust backfire effects

(07:30) Example

(09:07) More detail

(12:53) 2. Doesn't depend on arbitrary estimates

(12:58) Example

(14:50) More detail

(18:00) 3. Accounts for unknown unknowns

(18:05) Example

(19:13) More detail

(24:08) Comparison to other approaches to robustness in cause prioritization

(27:21) Conclusion and future directions

(30:16) Acknowledgments

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.