This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

“Despite all our confident and precise claims over the course of decades, the world has never been worse for non-human animals.”

Every time I think the crushing absurdity of (many) "effective altruists" can't get any worse (example) it gets worse. 

Yes, I know I should be constructive and understanding. They are just following their programming ... or cashing their paychecks to make sure industrial animal agriculture isn't threatened.

The above screenshot takes "let's lose the thread" to new heights, on so many levels (please see the rerun below). Adding the fetisization of "species" to the standard farcical fantasies about the impact of donations ... well, I'll give them that -- that's new. Ridiculous on the order of "save the earth."  

(And really, you can't think of anything at all better to do with $6.8 million dollars than allegedly "saving" one type of nematode or fungus? Really?)

Infiltrators or self-sabotage, indeed. I would in no way be shocked to discover that these EAs are actually sock puppets of big ag, big oil, etc.

I don't want anyone to suffer, but I can't help but wonder if the world wouldn't be far, far better off if the expected value crew actually knew what suffering really is. Maybe then they'd be more concerned with actually helping than with "keeping EA weird."

From last year: 

For your consideration: An exchange re: advocacy & animals

A message to One Step:

I am currently doing a research fellowship ....

We are currently evaluating the promise of a new organization running Veganuary campaigns. However, I suspect one explicitly focused on decreasing the consumption of poultry birds may be more cost-effective. Do you know the cost-effectiveness of One Step for Animals in terms of kg of chicken consumption reduced per $?

From our reply:

Tl;dr: One Step’s “About” page is the most important information we have to offer.

I’ve worked for and with quite a few animal advocacy organizations in the past 35 years. (I’ve also been on the evaluative side at VegFund.) I have seen (and written) answers to questions like yours (e.g., “Our surveys show 5 animals saved for every $1!”). Given these organizations' budgets, everyone should now be vegan and factory farming should have ended. (I’m not casting aspersions; as mentioned here, I did (and believed) these projections back in the 90s.) 

Yet as you know, the average person in the US, and globally, is eating as many factory-farmed animals as ever before. There are vastly more individuals suffering on factory farms today than 10, 20, 30 years ago.

Despite all our confident and precise claims over the course of decades, the world has never been worse for non-human animals.

Also over the past 35 years, I have read arguments why “Our advocacy is different. We have the math!” But the facts should leave us more than skeptical about any claims of any “reduction per $.” 

For details on why there is more suffering despite decades of advocacy, please see Meat Reduction Hurts Animals and Good-Faith Advocacy Can Cause More Suffering. ...

When starting One Step for Animals, our number one priority was to avoid advocacy that causes more suffering. 

Based on our experience and the lessons we have learned over the past 35 years, not causing net harm is the only honest claim demand-side advocacy can hope to make. (Work on the supply-side – i.e., plant-based and cultivated animal products – has also not come anywhere close to fulfilling the projections and promises they have made.) 

One Step won’t make any claims other than “try to do no harm.” Claims of efficacy simply do not match with reality. There is no reason to believe “this time is different.“

Even if not consciously or intentionally dishonest, these claims are misleading to the point of being actively harmful to animals.

The person I trust most regarding animal suffering is Lewis Bollard at Open Philanthropy Project. He and I don’t agree on everything, but he is not trying to sell a certain story, promote his group or philosophy, or solicit support. He takes suffering very seriously. In addition to being extremely scrupulous and rigorous, he constantly monitors himself for self-delusion.

Follow-up

How you can try to help animals without causing more harm

If you would like to support work driven by facts rather than games or trying to make donors feel good, please click here.