Mac- comments on Quantifying the Impact of Economic Growth on Meat Consumption - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (37)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 December 2015 06:54:41PM *  -1 points [-]

a) it looks bad to have a bunch of rich people blaming the 'poor' for a problem created by the wealth they already have and others don't;

We shouldn’t really care if it looks bad. We should only care about what course of action leads to the most good. If it looks SO bad that the efficiency gains from rationality are outweighed by people repelled from the EA movement, then we’ve got a problem. Personally, I don’t think this is likely.

b) the problem isn't about 'poor meat eaters', it's about 'no-longer-poor meat eaters' so in that sense it's a misnomer

Disagree. The problem will still be about “poor meat eaters” because the unfortunate likelihood is that they will remain poor for some time.

For example, AMF operates in Malawi and DRC.

Malawi’s nominal GDP per capita is only 6% of the median country's measured by the IMF. DRC’s is only 8%.

To increase each country’s nominal GDP per capita to the median country for just one year, Malawi would need a cash donation of $88B and DRC would need $428B. It’s safe to say these countries will remain extremely poor for the near future.

Sources: GiveWell, Wikipedia - IMF, Wikipedia - Malawi, Wikipedia - DRC

Comment author: Robert_Wiblin 22 December 2015 08:25:42PM 3 points [-]

"We shouldn’t really care if it looks bad."

I give up.

Comment author: Gleb_T  (EA Profile) 24 December 2015 01:13:54AM 1 point [-]

No need to give up. I think it's beneficial to calculate the costs of "looking bad" and have it as a factor that we make in our analysis of the situation. Only by weighing "Bad PR" as a cost can we make a thorough analysis of the situation.