Why security?

Why is SWE/ML low absorbency?

interesting, you offset each species independently using the appropriate charity. e.g. an omnivore causes 8.3 fish to be farmed per year and it costs $117 to offset those fish via fish charity. if you offset all animals via SWP or some chicken welfare project, the number might be around $10 to offset a year of meat eating which is similar to my prior of 5 cents daily. (since you dont use moral weights, i am only estimating the $10 figure)

This makes sense if you are a public figure or an advocate for animal rights. You talk about having suspicions of people who do moral trade and how they lose credibility. But what if someone is just earning to give and whose advocacy extends only to talking about EA with family and friends? Frankly, I don't value expending my effort to keep appearances and signal my deontological constraints to others. That isn't what a true utilitarian would do in this scenario.

Your reasoning is solid to me. great response.

love it

I know that you state this as a reason that has not been addressed so your argument is probably not your main argument. But if you are using this as a main reason for going vegan, I feel like it misses the point. Maybe going vegan yourself makes it 20% easier for the next person to go vegan. That is still nowhere near the cost-effectiveness/effort-effectiveness of donating to animal welfare since the one estimate I listed was $1000 to offset a lifetime of veganism.

My question for you is why do you promote AW donation AND veganism. Do you think you can increase your EU by only advocating for AW donations? Do you care that others abide by deontological side-contraints?

I would respond to this, the same way I did to this other comment

Are people here against killing one to save two in a vacuum? I thought EA was very utilitarian. I think intuitively, causing harm is repulsive but ultimately, our goal should be creating a better world. 

To your "animal" to "human" swap, it's hard to give "would you kill/eat humans if you could offset" as an double standard since most self-proclaimed utilitarians are still intuitively repulsed to immoral behavior like causing harm to humans, cannibalism, etc. On the other hand, we are biologically programmed to not care when eating animal flesh, even if we deem animal suffering immoral. What this means is that I would be way to horrified to offset killing or eating a human even if I deem it moral. On the other hand, I can offset eating an animal because I don't intuitively care about the harm I caused. I am too disconnected, biologically preprogrammed, and cognitively dissonant. Therefore, offsetting animal suffering is not repulsive nor immoral to me.