Do effective altruism charities abroad actually increase net suffering?

[DaRock]

I was hoping someone could help me with a moral dilemma I've recently come across. If I choose to donate to the against malaria foundation, which provides nets to save lives in developing countries, am I really reducing unnecessary suffering? As an example of my point, say I decide to donate a kidney to a known murderer who will most likely murder again if they receive my kidney. In this example I can without doubt say I reduced the unnecessary suffering of the murderer, but in the process I've likely also enabled the death of future murder victims whose suffering will likely outweigh the suffering the known murder would have experienced had I not given them my kidney. The murderer may also go on to have a family who he will likely teach to murder as well, meaning even more future murder victims are a possibilty. If you simply substitute kidney donation with a donation to the against malaria foundation and substitute the murderer with the lives of meat-eaters in the developing world you begin to see the dilemma I've come across. Is there a way around this dilemma? Should effective charities have conditions for aid recipients to avoid animal suffering induced by saving a human life? As an analog consider giving a kidney to a murderer if they promise to stop murdering or if they agree to read/watch anti-murdering literature/media. Any suggestions or critiques would be greatly appreciated!

[Red]

I'm sure @brimstoneSalad will give a more intricate answer but I'll give a quick start.

Pretty much, when it comes to consequentialism, you base your actions on what you DO know, not what you don't or can't know. That's not saying you can't speculate about things, but that usually isn't very useful. If we were always hesitant to act on something because there might be some unforeseeable consequences we'd have no idea of knowing about, then nothing would get done.

It's kind of like the Trolly Problem where some 300 IQ comes in and says that what if the person that was killed could have cured cancer, or the 4 people we did save would go on to murder 100 people; You can't KNOW any of that, especially in that situation where you have to pull the lever with limited time. If it did turn out in the end that the person you killed would have saved many lives (or the people you saved would have taken many) you don't deserve condemnation; No one could have known what would have happened.

Occam's Razor also plays a part here I think. Assuming the person you save would go on to do net harm isn't a proposition that can be proven. I think collectively people will have a net positive impact.

In your example, you're giving to a known murderer, so it's safe to assume they'll murder again (unless they've been properly rehabilitated) so giving your kidney to him would be a pretty bad idea. If you were to give your kidney at random to someone who needed it, there's a very good chance it'll have gone to someone who isn't a murderer.

Here, giving to the Against Malaria Foundation would 99% of the time yield desirable results by ensuring people don't die of an easily preventable disease. This will in turn help them live (including children) so they can contribute more to their economies and live their lives to their best fulfillment. Each person serves an important role in the economy, so saving a life will almost always yield a net positive result.

In Third World Countries they don't eat as much meat as rich countries because they can't afford to do so; they overall have plant-based diets (which is why a lot of food charities only give plant-based meals, since it's more cost-effective than feeding animals then slaughtering them), so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Not to mention Vegans usually give third-worlders a pass when they do eat meat since sometimes it's necessary when food is short.

[Jebus]

Is there a way around this dilemma?

Yes, choose to give to animal charities rather than human charities. Animal charities only receive a fraction of overall donations, while children's charities receive most.

Pretty much, when it comes to consequentialism, you base your actions on what you DO know, not what you don't or can't know. That's not saying you can't speculate about things, but that usually isn't very useful.

That depends on whom is doing the speculating. Educated guesses can go very far.

If you were to give your kidney at random to someone who needed it, there's a very good chance it'll have gone to someone who isn't a murderer.

It would likely go to someone who is a murderer (of cows).

Each person serves an important role in the economy, so saving a life will almost always yield a net positive result.

And what are the consequences of a strong economy?

they overall have plant-based diets

The particular diet varies greatly with region. Coastal third world countries usually eat lots of fish, and in other areas the diets often include egg and dairy.

Not to mention Vegans usually give third-worlders a pass when they do eat meat since sometimes it's necessary when food is short.

How is that relevant?

[Red]

That depends on whom is doing the speculating. Educated guesses can go very far.

If you have reason or evidence for something, then yes. I'm referring to the times where you don't have either.

It would likely go to someone who is a murderer (of cows).

I've explained in another thread why I can see the argument that an individual may have a net negative impact in his or her life even if they eat meat (even that can be debatable) because everyone serves an impetus in the economy to develop economies and improve technology. If everyone who eats meat were to drop dead at this moment, I wouldn't consider that a good thing.

And what are the consequences of a strong economy?

More money and more and better jobs for people, along with easier access to infrastructure and resources, as well as consumerism helping bring along more sustainable technology.

I do agree that increased meat-eating can be a concern, yes, but as the population increases, we'll basically be forced to give up meat and switch our grids to nuclear power.

It's a complicated argument, but it does lead to long-term benefits.

The particular diet varies greatly with region. Coastal third world countries usually eat lots of fish, and in other areas the diets often include egg and dairy.

Generally though, it's lower than average. Also I'd arguing saving the life of an third-worlder who has lower meat consumption is better than saving a first-worlder with typical meat consumption since third world economies need as many people contributing as possible. whereas in the first world things are going quite swimmingly.

This does bring up an interesting point about how we should make it a priority to keep these people on plant-based diets, perhaps maybe have another Norman Borlaug come along and help feed another 821 million people with genetically modified crops.

How is that relevant?

Because they have some justification for eating meat compared to first worlders.

[brimstoneSalad]

Giving to animal charities has the most impact because they're underfunded, and malaria organizations tend to get a lot of funding already -- the low hanging fruit is gone and it now costs a huge sum to prevent one death from malaria -- so the issue is pretty much just academic since optimal giving would be to an animal charity anyway (or plant based advocacy like GFI).

Anyway, death from disease doesn't necessarily reduce the number of people, birth rate tends to reversely correlate and compensates or over-compensates resulting in likely the same number of highly sentient animals being killed. Even if improvements in economy didn't have substantially positive effects on quality of life and education (which may ultimately lead to societies going vegan) there's not much reason to think reducing disease would do harm to animals. Too many unknown variables to really say. We do know it slightly reduces harm to people (only slightly because it's not a very effective charity compared to animal charities which also help people by mitigating global warming).

[brimstoneSalad]

How is that relevant?

Because they have some justification for eating meat compared to first worlders.

That would come down to the question of whether you want to reduce harm, or reduce the doing of evil (regardless of overall harm).

[Red]

How is that relevant?

Because they have some justification for eating meat compared to first worlders.

That would come down to the question of whether you want to reduce harm, or reduce the doing of evil (regardless of overall harm).

Well what would you say is best?

[DaRock]

Because they have some justification for eating meat compared to first worlders.

That would come down to the question of whether you want to reduce harm, or reduce the doing of evil (regardless of overall harm).

Well what would you say is best?

I would prefer to reduce net harm/suffering which is pretty much the same as reducing the doing of "evil" although I'm not a big fan of calling anything evil in a deterministic universe unless it results in suffering.

Anyway, death from disease doesn't necessarily reduce the number of people, birth rate tends to reversely correlate and compensates or over-compensates resulting in likely the same number of highly sentient animals being killed. Even if improvements in economy didn't have substantially positive effects on quality of life and education (which may ultimately lead to societies going vegan)

Do you have a source for the first claim? I can see how more educated and economically developed countries (nordic european countries come to mind) might be more willing to transition to a vegan world but what about the developing world where increased in quality in life and gdp will likely result in an enormous expansion in the animal agriculture industry? Is it really best for more people to be born into such countries given the known attraction of meat as people climb the economic ladder? Or are you perhaps suggesting that (more people = more development = a faster switch to a vegan society) is a worthwhile trade-off in the short-term even though it is projected to increase the amount of factory farmed animals in the short-term as well. I'm not sure that's a trade-off I would like to support. I think it might be more valuable and reasonable to suggest the kinds of development we want (cheaper, more convenient, and delicious plant based alternatives) are more likely to be developed in already developed societies (like the northern european countries) rather than in those still undergoing drastic changes in quality of life.

"If everyone who eats meat were to drop dead at this moment, I wouldn't consider that a good thing."

I would disagree although I would specify religious fundamentalists who eat meat (and would assume a thanos-like situation where their deaths are painless, they vanish into thin air and everyone still in existence forgets those who disappeared ever existed). Although that is a very unlikely scenario. In the short period following their disappearance factory farming could be eliminated and the only suffering left to remain would be wild animal suffering, although given the non-violent caring stance of those who remain I think it's fair to say they would attempt to eliminate that as well over time with significantly less pushback. I'm not sure the sheer numbers of humanity are the best solution to the suffering of all beings.

"I do agree that increased meat-eating can be a concern, yes, but as the population increases, we'll basically be forced to give up meat"

I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we will be forced to "give up meat" I think many Americans would rather go to war and make a dent in the human population while trashing the environment and building border walls to keep out climate refugees rather than give up their precious bacon.

[Red]

I would prefer to reduce net harm/suffering which is pretty much the same as reducing the doing of "evil" although I'm not a big fan of calling anything evil in a deterministic universe unless it results in suffering.

I'm not sure if @brimstoneSalad believes in determinism so I look forward to the discussion you two may have (I'm not very well versed in this stuff).

I would disagree although I would specify religious fundamentalists who eat meat (and would assume a thanos-like situation where their deaths are painless, they vanish into thin air and everyone still in existence forgets those who disappeared ever existed). Although that is a very unlikely scenario. In the short period following their disappearance factory farming could be eliminated and the only suffering left to remain would be wild animal suffering, although given the non-violent caring stance of those who remain I think it's fair to say they would attempt to eliminate that as well over time with significantly less pushback. I'm not sure the sheer numbers of humanity are the best solution to the suffering of all beings.

I don't think so. That would be almost all of the developed world (and much of the developing world too) meaning their economies and the world economy would more or less grind to a halt, and more or less ending technological innovation. Civilization would be very difficult to rebuild at that point.

If people don't understand WHY it's wrong to eat meat, I wouldn't be surprised if they get back to factory farming eventually; They'd probably start off with milk and eggs and work their way up.

I'm not sure I buy into the argument that we will be forced to "give up meat" I think many Americans would rather go to war and make a dent in the human population while trashing the environment and building border walls to keep out climate refugees rather than give up their precious bacon.

Climate change won't affect first worlders as much, but it will eventually, especially long term. There might be some more government programs for that. As time goes on, the less likely a war will be.

When the population of the world gets too much to handle on meat-based diets, most people won't have a choice.

[DaRock]

I would disagree although I would specify religious fundamentalists who eat meat (and would assume a thanos-like situation where their deaths are painless, they vanish into thin air and everyone still in existence forgets those who disappeared ever existed). Although that is a very unlikely scenario. In the short period following their disappearance factory farming could be eliminated and the only suffering left to remain would be wild animal suffering, although given the non-violent caring stance of those who remain I think it's fair to say they would attempt to eliminate that as well over time with significantly less pushback. I'm not sure the sheer numbers of humanity are the best solution to the suffering of all beings.

I don't think so. That would be almost all of the developed world (and much of the developing world too) meaning their economies and the world economy would more or less grind to a halt, and more or less ending technological innovation. Civilization would be very difficult to rebuild at that point.

If people don't understand WHY it's wrong to eat meat, I wouldn't be surprised if they get back to factory farming eventually; They'd probably start off with milk and eggs and work their way up.

I guess I agree. If civilization stops and there is a possibilty of a resurgence of animal agriculture, both wild and factory farmed animals would suffer in the meantime as civilization recovers. I would add though that I don't see any inherent value in technological/civilization progress unless it eventually leads to a decrease in suffering (like eventually combatting the massive problem of wild animal suffering). Perhaps the short-term suffering of factory farmed animals that will accompany increased wealth in developing countries is just an inevitable step in ultimately ending factory farmed animal suffering and the even larger goal of wild animal suffering.