effective altruism for animals: how can we help the most animals with our limited resources?

Adriano Mannino GBS Schweiz www.gbs-schweiz.org Effective Altruism for Animals

Effective Altruism for AnimalsHow can we help the most animals with our limited resources?

1

http://gbs-schweiz.org

Outline1) What is Effective Altruism (EA)?2) Why EA? Which arguments speak in its favour?3) Is there a reason vs. emotion conflict?4) Why EA extends to animals5) Which strategies can be expected to help the most

animals?6) Why EA necessitates “cause prioritisation” and why

the animal cause should probably be a political priority

2 GBS Schweiz Effective Altruism for Animals

What is EA?A philosophy and a social movementWorking out the most effective ways to improve the world, in an evidence-based way“Altruism”: helping others for their own sake“Effective”: as much as possible – optimize output / inputInvolves taking actions that may not be intuitively salientInformed by cognitive psychology: biased intuition

GBS Schweiz Effective Altruism for Animals

3

What is EA?Helping others → helping the worse off in our societyBut: Does this really help the greatest number of others to the greatest extent? Or could we achieve more with our resources?Globally, about one billion people live on less than $1.25/day, 20,000 children die every day1Money has diminishing marginal utilityShould we rather donate towards/be active for the reduction of global poverty? “Distance bias”?


1 http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAID-Extreme-Poverty-Discussion-Paper.pdf, http://www.unicef.org/childsurvival/

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAID-Extreme-Poverty-Discussion-Paper.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/childsurvival/

Empirical evidenceHow much does a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) cost in developing countries? How much to save a life?Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) needed – pioneered by development economists such as Esther Duflo2Scientific charity evaluators: givewell.org


2 http://www.povertyactionlab.org/methodology

http://givewell.org

http://www.povertyactionlab.org/methodology

Quality adjusted life years (QALY)

X GBS Schweiz Effective Altruism for Animals

0

25

50

75

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

No Intervention:~40 QALYs

Intervention: +20 QALYs

(Life Expectancy)

Intervention: +10 QALYs (Quality of Life)

Age

Quality of Life (%)

Empirical evidenceCost of one quality-adjusted life year: ~$100Health care economics: save a life = add 30-50 QALYs

Result: ~$4,000 = one life saved3

Best interventions4:- anti-malaria bed nets

- deworming (parasitic intestinal worms)

Intuition: What’s the most effective way to promote education, i.e. to buy additional school days?RCTs: Deworming!


3 http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-overseas 4 http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs

http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-overseas

http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs

Estimation is the best we haveDon’t take expected value estimates literally, but seriously still:

Many significant uncertainties involved But: Estimation is the best we haveAnd: It gives us an idea of the order of magnitude of the effect of an intervention (one result being: giving globally can be roughly two orders of magnitude = 100 times more impactful than giving locally)It thus allows us to better compare different decisional options, which we inevitably have to do: We cannot not-decide what to do with our time / money


Empirical evidence


Baird, Sarah, Joan Hamory Hicks, Michael Kremer, and Edward Miguel. 2011. “Worms at Work: Long-Run Impacts of Child Health Gains.” Working paper, Harvard University

*

*even more effective with respect to additional school years gained alone, but has no health effects

Empirical evidenceA randomised controlled trial in Kenya found that school-based deworming5:- reduces school absenteeism by 25%

- increases hours worked as adults by 12

- increases future wage earnings by 23%

Try to find the “best buy” for your money / time / energy = EA


5 http://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/deworming-best-buy-development

http://www.povertyactionlab.org/publication/deworming-best-buy-development

Global vs. localGlobally: 1 QALY = ~$100, ~$4,000 save a lifeALS Ice Bucket Challenge:1 QALY = $55,0006, $1,650,000 save a lifeDecision: Save 1 or 100+ with the same resources?Ethically problematic because all lives count equally, regardless of geographical / social / emotional distance?http://reg-charity.org/giving-locally-vs-globally-where-can-we-do-the-most-good/


6 http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta20/resources/ta20-motor-neurone-disease-riluzole-guidance-html

http://reg-charity.org/giving-locally-vs-globally-where-can-we-do-the-most-good/

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta20/resources/ta20-motor-neurone-disease-riluzole-guidance-html

Why EA?Two components:1) Why help others at all?

2) Why help the greatest number of others (to the greatest extent)?


Why help others at all?1) Peter Singer’s “Drowning Child Argument”7:

Would you sacrifice $3,000 in order to save a child drowning in front of you?

2) The rationale for duties not to harm

3) The Golden Rule / Impartial Perspective / Veil of Ignorance


7 Singer, Peter (2009). The Life You Can Save. New York: Random House.

The greatest number?1) Peter Singer’s “Drowning Child Argument”

modified:10 drowning children – either save 9 or 1: What to do?

2) Health care systems, traffic laws, triage

3) Probabilities for each individual to stay safe behind the Veil of Ignorance


Why EA?Two components:1) Why help others at all?

2) Why help the greatest number of others (to the greatest extent)?

In practice: Donate >10% of what you earn to the most effective interventions; build up a societal movement with this mindset.


Reason vs. emotion?Mathematics with lives, putting a dollar value on a life – “cold and calculating”?Dollar value = more transparent, honest, also emotionally informed choices“Human Life Currency”:

This car cost x human lives.This fancy vacation cost y human lives.

Calculation: Implication of the numbers counting – all lives counting equally and deserving equal emotional concernMoral uncertainty: Err on the safe side and let the numbers count


Reason vs. emotion?Is the EA-approach anti-emotion?1) Anti immediate emotion / intuition / gut feeling

2) Pro deep emotion


Reason vs. emotion?1)Anti immediate emotion / intuition / gut feeling:

Cognitive psychology has uncovered lots of framing effects and inconsistencies in our moral judgements, too

E.g. “distance bias”: Would you donate at the site of a disaster (70% yes) vs. at home on the couch (35% yes), with identical information?8

Historical experience: Immediate emotional support for (racist) slavery, homophobia, unnecessarily cruel punishment, or indeed the view that humans count for (infinitely) more than non-human animals


8 Greene, J.D. (2014) Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics, 124(4), 695-726.

Reason vs. emotion?2)Pro deep emotion:

Underlying empathy and universal compassion – for all lives equally – that motivates action

Coupled with rational choice, compassion is most effective / helpful to these lives


Why EA extends to animalsHelping othersAre animals ethically relevant “others”?Golden Rule: What’s ethically relevant about me? How am I relevantly different from a rock?1) I’m human, belong to the human species

2) I’m particularly intelligent

3) I’m a moral agent, can be held responsible

4) I’m a sentient being, capable of experiencing suffering and happiness

5) I’m a living being (metabolism, growth, reproduction)


Why EA extends to animalsAre animals sentient? Evidence9:- behavioural

- neurobiological

- evolutionary

Uncertainty → err on the safe side by granting animals (some) moral importance


9 http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

Effective strategies for animalsTraditional focus on “lab animals”: More (stringent) laws protecting “lab animals” than “farm animals”3R in the lab, but not on the farmIneffective focus:- Lab: 2 million to 0.5 million/y in the last 30y

- Farm: 40 to 60 million/y in the last 10y

- Lab more controversial: Existential hunting?

- Farm: Just a bit of gastronomic pleasure

- Going veg = helping 1,000 animals*


10 http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/foundational-research/effects-of-diet-choices-on-animals/

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/foundational-research/effects-of-diet-choices-on-animals/

Effective strategies for animalsFarm animals:


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/want-to-kill-fewer-animals-give-up-eggs-not-meat/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/want-to-kill-fewer-animals-give-up-eggs-not-meat/

Effective strategies for animalsACE: animalcharityevaluators.org


http://animalcharityevaluators.org

The importance of effective donationDonation to a shelter for a rescued cow:~$5,000/y → ~$50,000 for 10y – “identifiable victim”Opportunity costs:- ~500,000 leaflets or online ads

- 1-2 people working on the cause full-time for 1 year

Just one person convinced = ~1,000 animals savedLikelier: many moreACE: 3 animals per dollar10 (!)


10 http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/foundational-research/impact-donations/

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/research/foundational-research/impact-donations/

EA vs. “consumer ethics”Ethical vegetarians would be willing to pay an additional $1,000 in order to avoid meat= paying $1,000 in order to save 15 animalsMost vegetarians could afford to donate $1,000 (more) and don’t intuitively feel it’s problematic not to, although= not saving hundreds of animalsStopping active harm vs. helping?But: Paying $1,000 to help 10 drowning piglets?


EA vs. “consumer ethics”The decision whether to consume at all (or to donate money instead) has higher stakes than the decision what we consume, if we consume We can donate the money to organisations that are pushing for societal / political changeActive harm vs. non-help: Buying laptops in order to end the slavery that enters laptops?Political work: Many people interested in doing it, too little money → coordination problem, some should Earn to Give:Instead of doing direct work oneself, one can try and fund several direct jobs that would not have existed otherwise


The animal cause: A political priority?Reducing absolute poverty vs. reducing animal suffering?

Effectiveness not just within causes, but among causes: Cause Prioritisation

GiveWell: ~$4,000 can save a humanACE: $4,000 can save ~12,000 animals

If what is happening to animals were happening to humans, the priorities would be uncontroversialHow to compare human suffering and animal suffering?Say you’re certain animals only count 10% as much as humans (or only 10% confident that they count equally) – given their numbers, they should probably still be a candidate for priority!


EA’s political contributionBetter Prioritisation through greater awareness of

relevant normative argumentsrelevant empirical data about cost-effectiveness

One probable conclusion:non-human animals have much greater political priority than traditionally assumedno major political force currently agrees, and the forces that do mostly don’t make a careful normative and empirical case


effective altruism for animals: how can we help the most animals with our limited resources?

Government & Nonprofit