Do effective altruism charities abroad actually increase net suffering?

[Red]

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).

It usually does. Running water, food infrastructure, transportation, climate control, artificial light, computers, medicine, clothing, education, etc. are all results of technological and civilized progress. And, of course, development for more plant-based alternatives to meat, dairy, and eggs.

Read the book 'Enlightenment Now' by Steven Pinker. He talk about how as the world economy develops, democracy and quality of life has spread and improved.

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.

I think so? I'm not sure if I understand your wording here.

[brimstoneSalad]

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).

Determinism is essentially true (quantum events are random, but they don't follow the whim of magical souls or anything, Bell's inequality shows they can not have a local cause).

Most people are more concerned with eliminating evil, which would roughly be unjustified harm. So once a harm is justified (such as for survival) many people are no longer concerned with it.

Evil has a little more to do with intent, we can certainly talk about it in ways that are coherent and real in a deterministic universe. The trickier part is talking about justification because determinism, and yet it can still be done by drawing a line around those things that qualify as the self and treating that within as a black box (do not consider internal deterministic variables).


The point of eliminating disease not necessarily increasing the population, and not necessarily increasing meat consumption (at least in the longer term) has to do with unknowns. Keep in mind too that even if there is a slight increase in meat consumption, reduction in human suffering could offset that.