Hi Vasco, and sorry for the slow reply, I'm still getting used to the EA Forum. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. :)
I think part of where we land differently comes down to the exchange rate between animal welfare and other outcomes like GHG, which depends on moral weights as well as evidence. You give animal welfare more weight, and that's a reasonable position. Other donors and researchers will weigh things differently, which is why I'd like those assumptions to be explicit rather than buried inside single-lane metrics.
What I'm arguing is that if we can measure one intervention across several areas, we can compare impact across causes, and compare multi-benefit interventions fairly against single-lane ones. You're already doing a version of this in your chicken vs beef/pork analysis, so I think we agree on the method. My hope is that it gets applied more widely, including to things like School Plates, whose co-benefits your estimate doesn't count.
Hi Vasco, and sorry for the slow reply, I'm still getting used to the EA Forum. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. :)
I think part of where we land differently comes down to the exchange rate between animal welfare and other outcomes like GHG, which depends on moral weights as well as evidence. You give animal welfare more weight, and that's a reasonable position. Other donors and researchers will weigh things differently, which is why I'd like those assumptions to be explicit rather than buried inside single-lane metrics.
What I'm arguing is that if we can measure one intervention across several areas, we can compare impact across causes, and compare multi-benefit interventions fairly against single-lane ones. You're already doing a version of this in your chicken vs beef/pork analysis, so I think we agree on the method. My hope is that it gets applied more widely, including to things like School Plates, whose co-benefits your estimate doesn't count.