Matthew, what do you think of the argument that giving to human charities is a bad idea because most humans are not and won't be vegan so saving them might entail creating more animal suffering ?
An average non-vegan will be responsible throughout his life for a huge number of animals going through factory farms and violent deaths, so is it a good idea to save them ?
Yes. For one, most of the people saved are in poor countries where they don't eat meat and it's mostly not factory farmed. Second, I think most people have a positive impact on wild animal suffering. Third, they will have many descendants and given the future advent of lab meat, probably most descendants will be vegan.
The descendants point is very very weak. The overwhelming majority of positive value future humans will be in the far far future, where there are plenty of reasons why the net impact of one more human in 2024 on people alive is zero.
1. People in poor countries may eat less animal products but they are not vegan. Also even if they don't support factory farms, they still support violent premature deaths which is very likely a big evil. Also, any attempt to put them further from poverty will make them more likely to buy animal products, as it is a general trend that the richer you are, the more animal products you consume.
2. Quite speculative but A-ok.
3. Very speculative, too speculative to take such important moral decisions based on that consideration.
Ok. Fine. I’ll donate money to the Shrimp welfare people. But only because it’s your birthday. >;(
Matthew, what do you think of the argument that giving to human charities is a bad idea because most humans are not and won't be vegan so saving them might entail creating more animal suffering ?
An average non-vegan will be responsible throughout his life for a huge number of animals going through factory farms and violent deaths, so is it a good idea to save them ?
Yes. For one, most of the people saved are in poor countries where they don't eat meat and it's mostly not factory farmed. Second, I think most people have a positive impact on wild animal suffering. Third, they will have many descendants and given the future advent of lab meat, probably most descendants will be vegan.
The descendants point is very very weak. The overwhelming majority of positive value future humans will be in the far far future, where there are plenty of reasons why the net impact of one more human in 2024 on people alive is zero.
1. People in poor countries may eat less animal products but they are not vegan. Also even if they don't support factory farms, they still support violent premature deaths which is very likely a big evil. Also, any attempt to put them further from poverty will make them more likely to buy animal products, as it is a general trend that the richer you are, the more animal products you consume.
2. Quite speculative but A-ok.
3. Very speculative, too speculative to take such important moral decisions based on that consideration.
Why can’t African countries provide their own nets?
They tend to be poor.
Yes. They certainly do. Why?