Here are some quick observations about the dogfree movement vis a vis effective altruism:
Contrary to dogfree movement claims, dogs have an overall positive human hedonic impact. But dogs have been bred to provide supernormal stimuli, so it is not clear if this is truly long-run beneficial. For example, is it better for a human to be immediately satisfied with a superficial form of unconditional love from a dog, or to seek out the arduous task of learning to unconditionally love oneself? It may be the case that many people are stuck in a hedonic local maximum with dog ownership.
Pugs, which are booming in popularity, have been bred to be neotenous and "cute" at the expense of substantial suffering for the pugs themselves.
Dogs typically eat meat, and thus contribute to suffering on factory farms.
It turns out that one of the New Science 2022 Fellows has been working on this very topic: https://newscience.substack.com/p/a-call-for-context-in-cell-culture
I recently learned that there's a intense and growing "dogfree" movement, and I'm curious if there's an effective altruist take on this topic. This subreddit post seems to capture dogfree activists' objections to dog ownership: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dogfree/comments/7bk3wo/just_curious_what_is_the_reason_why_you/
Here are some quick observations about the dogfree movement vis a vis effective altruism:
I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this subject!