I'm living in France. Learned about EA in 2018, found that great, digged a lot into the topic. The idea of "what in the world improves well-being or causes suffering the most, and what can we do" really influenced me a whole lot - especially when mixed with meditation that allowed me to be more active in my life.
One of the most reliable thing I have found so far is helping animal charities : farmed animals are much more numerous than humans (and have much worse living conditions), and there absolutely is evidence that animal charities are getting some improvements (especially from The Humane League). I tried to donate a lot there.
Long-termism could also be important, but I think that we'll hit energy limits before getting to an extinction event - I wrote an EA forum post for that here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea
I just have an interest in whatever topic sounds really important, so I have a LOT of data on a lot of topics. These include energy, the environment, resource depletion, simple ways to understand the economy, limits to growth, why we fail to solve the sustainability issue, and how we got to that very weird specific point in history.
I also have a lot of stuff on Buddhism and meditation and on "what makes us happy" (check the Waking Up app!)
Thanks for writing this.
This is an important consideration that almost nobody has talked about (hence my comment that flagged the topic).
Despite the uncertainty, this might well change completely the expected value of bednets, if they are not accompanied with some actions such as donations to offset the negative effects.
Thanks a lot for this analysis of a very neglected topic. It sounds like a promising way to reduce suffering without changing population dynamics that much.
I looked at the research by WAI a few years back, and I was curious to know more because it seemed really interesting, so it's good to know they're still working on it.
By the way, at some point, I wondered if the insecticide-soaked bednets used by the Against Malaria Foundation were causing a lot of animal suffering.
I checked, and if I understand correctly, they are using pyrethroid[1], which is among the fastest-to-kill insecticides. So it seems comparatively ok.
They're using "PBO LLINs that are a newer type of net incorporating piperonyl butoxide (PBO) alongside the pyrethroid insecticide used in other LLINs".
Wow, impressive insights there!
Thanks for the feedback - indeed, in our quest to harness more and more energy, it'd going to be easier and easier to accidentally destroy ourselves.
The evolutionary perspective you mention is useful. Indeed, it appears that our culture is aimed at getting more and more energy overall (necessary to grow the economy) and evolves faster and faster so that we do more and more things each year (which is economic growth in its essence).
This framework you're talking about does seems useful. And don't control these dynamics that much indeed.
This posts sounds interesting on an important topic, and the conclusion makes me curious. What I skimmed seems relevant. However, I'm easily scared by long posts where I can't grasp quickly the main points (this is more on me than you but I thought you'd want to know).
Is it possible to add a summary at the beginning and titles to make the main points stand out more?
I find that this post provides useful guidelines : https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dHHuEYdbMqBf2deyj/using-the-executive-summary-style-writing-that-respects-your
Oh, that's a good catch.
Insect based foods tend to apply to alternative protein grants - although the share of the insect market dedicated to meat substitutes is very small. From what I've seen, The Good Food Institute doesn't include insects in their definition of alternative proteins (since, well, they are animal proteins).
It also wouldn't be very strategic to include insects in the list since they perform worse than plant based alternatives from an environmental and, most importantly, acceptability standpoint. I'm on mobile so I don't have a source right now but it was from a Smetana 2023 paper on meat substitutes iirc.
Makes sense ! I understand the position.
Regarding AI x animals donation opportunities, all of this is pretty new but I know a few. Hive launched a Ai for Animals website, with an upcoming conference: https://www.aiforanimals.org/
I also know about Electric Sheep, which has made a fellowship on the topic : https://electricsheep.teachable.com/
Really? I haven't seen that.
I've seen rapid joke comments about the killing of mosquitoes, but it's pretty rare that people talk about the suffering caused by insecticides - especially in an attempt to quantify and compare seriously.
If anybody else has done a serious analysis, I'd be interested. But I don't expect much more depth than arguments similar to "these AI safety people believe in terminator sci-fi scenarios, how silly".