Brian Tomasik and I have written a Wiki Felicifia page on animal charities, and I wonder if anyone would like to improve it. I really appreciate any help. Feel free to suggest improvements in the comments below or edit it directly (but be prepared that we may edit your contributions).

And just so you know, the page isn't an intro; it's meant to be the most in-depth publicly available overview of the cost-effectiveness of animal charities, so there's no need for comments of the type "this may turn off the average reader."

I think the basic structure is good and doesn't need improvement: What are the most important areas to work on, what do charities do in those areas, does it work, and what's the cost-effectiveness. I also don't think that the sections on the evidence of effectiveness of food industry politics & law and influencing companies and the like to buy more ethical food need more bullets (unless there's better evidence than what's already on the page). And finally, I picture that improvements to the page can be made as new sub-headings and new bullets.

The following questions are the ones I'm asking for help with (also available in the Remaining questions section of the page), but if you think of any other important improvements, feel free to suggest or edit.

• Are there any promising interventions that charities do on humane wildlife and pest control, does it work, and what's the cost-effectiveness? I would guess that cost-effective areas include pest control in agriculture, e.g. that crop farmers switch to a humane method to keep rodents away. But there could be other areas and I don't know if any charity is working on this). I would also guess that improving the methods to control the population of e.g. wolf in Scandinavia is not cost-effective, given the small number of wolves.


• Are there any promising direct actions that charities do in the food industry and to reduce wild animal suffering (and as usual, if so, do they work, what's the cost-effectiveness)? To clarify: examples of direct action in the food industry could be to rescue chickens or to physically obstruct whale hunters (but you need not include these two of course). I ask because direct actions are usually easier to evaluate than e.g. trying to pass legislation or changing consumer behavior, but I am not aware of many direct actions in the food industri and to reduce wild animal suffering, and I am not aware of any that seem cost-effective.


• Are there other areas that we have missed with likely cost-effectiveness competitive with those on the page (food industry, natural suffering in the wild, and wildlife and pest control)? I have in mind tangible areas like those on the page, or more tangible.

Please also note that I wrote "we" when I think Brian would agree, but he may not have checked each case, so "we" can mean "I, Simon."

Thanks!

Simon

Simon Knutsson wrote:Brian Tomasik and I have written

For the historical record, Simon wrote more than half of it, and he's responsible for most of the excellent citations that you see.

Simon Knutsson wrote:or edit it directly (but be prepared that we may edit your contributions).

Yes, please do! That's what wikis are for.

Simon Knutsson wrote:I ask because direct actions are usually easier to evaluate than e.g. trying to pass legislation or changing consumer behavior, but I am not aware of many direct actions in the food industri and to reduce wild animal suffering, and I am not aware of any that seem cost-effective.

Yeah, IMHO direct action is almost always less cost-effective, and in these cases, the numbers of animals one could help would be pretty small. But as you say, direct action is also easier to evaluate, and it can at least provide a lower bound on cost-effectiveness for people who are skeptical of more complicated causal chains.

Anyway, thanks so much for this, Simon! A few of my animal friends in the forest told me that they really appreciate your work.

Thankyou Simon and Brian!

Have you contacted Eitan Fischer? He's working on a similar porject? Also the Humane Research Council does similar type work too

Thanks Brian and Ryan for the support

Hi Ruairi, thanks for the suggestions. I've been emailing with Eitan and he's aware of the page. I haven't contacted the Humane Research Council because I skimmed through all the related research in their databases last year and I didn't find anything useful. I got the impression (although I may be wrong) that they don't focus on the kind of evidence that I'm looking for.

Overall, I think it's great. I don't think including Norwoods #s on farm animal welfare is helpful. At least some of it looks like spin from the industry itself. He's basically saying that beef cows have about as good a life as any living being could possibly have.

Thank you LJM1979, and thanks for the suggestion.

I think Norwood's #s are important, and I have no reason to think that they are biased because of any conflict of interest. In addition, Norwood writes things that the standard beef industry probably wouldn't like. For example, he writes that if you want the best animal welfare, don't buy the standard products: "Those who are interested in purchasing food with the highest guarantee of animal care should seek products sold under the Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) label," Compassion by the Pound, p. 159. He also writes on p. 159-160 that only products from independent family farms can be AWA certified.

If you are aware of any other estimates of animal welfare, I think we should include them too.

I agree with LJM1979 that Norwood's numbers are weird. In fact, I wrote the following to Simon last week:

For example, the part that I personally disagree with most is Norwood's table (even though it's good to present all sides of the story). I wrote in this comment below it:

Brian believes these numbers are far too positive. He would rather not exist than live as any factory-farmed animal. In any event, Brian feels that even if beef cows have positive lives -- implausible given how brutal their slaughter can be -- their happiness can't be fully equal in magnitude to the suffering of battery hens and veal calves.

That said, I agree with Simon that Norwood probably doesn't have sinister motives. Most likely his imagination about quality of life is just very different from yours and mine...

Brian Tomasik wrote:I agree with LJM1979 that Norwood's numbers are weird. In fact, I wrote the following to Simon last week:

For example, the part that I personally disagree with most is Norwood's table (even though it's good to present all sides of the story). I wrote in this comment below it:

Brian believes these numbers are far too positive. He would rather not exist than live as any factory-farmed animal. In any event, Brian feels that even if beef cows have positive lives -- implausible given how brutal their slaughter can be -- their happiness can't be fully equal in magnitude to the suffering of battery hens and veal calves.

That said, I agree with Simon that Norwood probably doesn't have sinister motives. Most likely his imagination about quality of life is just very different from yours and mine...

I haven't read his work but I'd say the following:
A) many of his numbers seem implausible
B) I do not see how including them helps to advance any worthwhile utilitarian cause

Regarding point A, you can take the most privileged members (those in industrialized nations) of the most privileged species (humans), and they will not rate their well-being on average to be an 8 on a -10 to + 10 scale. Usually on a 0 to 10 scale, it comes closer to a 7 (which might convert to around a 4 on a -10 to + 10 scale). To say that beef cows have much better lives than such humans seems absurd.

To be clear, you're free to include the numbers. It's not going to upset me if you do. But you asked for feedback. So I'm giving my views (perhaps overly stubbornly!).

LJM1979 wrote:To be clear, you're free to include the numbers. It's not going to upset me if you do. But you asked for feedback. So I'm giving my views (perhaps overly stubbornly!).

Haha, thanks for doing so.

I'm also undecided on whether the numbers should stay. On the one hand, I do believe they're misguided and may lead people to wrong conclusions. On the other hand, I think it's important to avoid one-sided presentation of what experts think. I would probably choose to make the table less prominent -- include a link to it, but don't make it so apparent that it may be the only thing that casual readers see. Simon, any thoughts?

Excellent article. I just made a few minor edits. A couple of comments:

Wildlife and pest control (e.g., rodents in crop fields) may be one of the areas where humans cause the most animal suffering. We are not aware of any information on the number of animals killed, but it could be more than animals in factory farms.

It would be useful to back up this claim with an estimate of some sort, however speculative. My impression is that most people will react skeptically to the paragraph as it currently stands. ("More rodents killed in wildlife and pest control than in all factory farms combined? Really?!")

Animals can suffer in similar ways as humans, but people have fewer natural inclinations to help animals than to help other humans. Animals cannot vote, trade, or fight for their own interests. In addition, there are orders of magnitude more animals than humans on earth. These factors imply that charity to reduce animal suffering should have far more low-hanging fruit than charity to help humans.

Why is this paragraph under the heading 'Brian's view on animal charities vs human charities'? What is the basis for Simon's disagreement?

Somewhat off-topic: It would be interesting to consider, either in the article itself or elsewhere, the relation between the "direct" cost-effectiveness of animal charities in reducing the suffering of animals currently alive and their "indirect" cost-effectiveness in reducing the suffering of future animals and other "posthuman" sentient beings. If one is, like Brian, primarily interested in reducing the second type of suffering, how important is to assess direct cost-effectiveness? Are directly cost-effective charities also more effective in changing people's minds, and hence in shaping the future of sentient life in the universe?

LJM1979, Thanks for the feedback (no problem of course, I asked for it).

I think the kind of numbers Norwood provides are useful for several reasons, e.g.

• Which farm animals suffer the most (to know which are most important to focus on).
• Whether the animals have lives worth living (useful for assessing the importance of reduced animal consumption leading to fewer farm animals).
• Assessing the impact of charities' interventions. For example, The Humane League says that it has made 60 institutions (colleges etc.) switch to cage-free eggs. If there's a big difference between cage and cage-free animal welfare, the achievement is important, but if cage are at -9 and cage-free are at -8, not much was accomplished.

I think we all agree on this, so turning to Norwood's numbers in particular. They are useful e.g. because:

• He's an expert and in my impression an authority in animal welfare economics, he and seems to have done sincere estimates. When assessing the impact of charities' work e.g. to make McDonald's change what animal products it buys, I'd want to know what the recognized experts in the area have to say about the welfare of the animals in the different production systems. If you know of more expert opinions, I'd like to include them.
• I use the numbers e.g. to show the seriousness of factory farming. Someone critical may not think animal charities and some people in an utilitarian forum are credible. But here's a professor, with a not all-negative view, and even he says some factory farm animals really suffer. I'm even more concerned about cage laying hens, sows in gestation crates, and veal, after reading his figures.
• I haven't seen any other numbers of the kind Norwood provides. E.g. I wrote to an academic in Sweden who was writing a book on animal welfare and asked him to make similar estimates, but he didn't want to.

Re Brian's comment that readers may be mislead by Norwood's figures. I vote for keeping the table prominent since such figures are so important for assessing the interventions discussed on the rest of the page. I'm all open to adding critical discussion before and after it, and adding tables with alternative figures.

Pablo, thanks for the comments. I agree it would be useful to back up the claims on wildlife and pest control. They are just my speculations, and I think some analysis seems warranted. I added "[These are hypotheses, need analysis]." Re the number of animals killed in wildlife and pest control, I was especially thinking of things like large scale regular poisoning to keep rodents away from crops (but I know little about it). Maybe the numbers killed are not more than in factory farming, but it seems possible it could be in the same ballpark, and it would be useful to know.

Re. you question:

Animals can suffer in similar ways as humans, but people have fewer natural inclinations to help animals than to help other humans. Animals cannot vote, trade, or fight for their own interests. In addition, there are orders of magnitude more animals than humans on earth. These factors imply that charity to reduce animal suffering should have far more low-hanging fruit than charity to help humans.

Why is this paragraph under the heading 'Brian's view on animal charities vs human charities'? What is the basis for Simon's disagreement?

Brian's paragraph may be interpreted as a conclusion that the best animal charities would do more good with additional money than the best human-focused charities, but I can't determine that yet. Moreover, I wouldn't say that the factors listed imply that charity to reduce animal suffering should have far more low-hanging fruit. I would say something weaker, that animal charity is promising enough to spend more time analysing, maybe or maybe not to donate to.

I'll pass on your "off-topic" thought for now, gotta go

Simon Knutsson wrote:Re Brian's comment that readers may be mislead by Norwood's figures. I vote for keeping the table prominent since such figures are so important for assessing the interventions discussed on the rest of the page. I'm all open to adding critical discussion before and after it, and adding tables with alternative figures.

How about providing an alternative table with Brian's preferred estimates?

Simon Knutsson wrote:Brian's paragraph may be interpreted as a conclusion that the best animal charities would do more good with additional money than the best human-focused charities, but I can't determine that yet. Moreover, I wouldn't say that the factors listed imply that charity to reduce animal suffering should have far more low-hanging fruit. I would say something weaker, that animal charity is promising enough to spend more time analysing, maybe or maybe not to donate to.

I agree that the stated considerations do not strictly imply the conclusion. (I'd guess Brian would also agree with this.) But I do think they provide strong indirect evidence for that conclusion. Indeed, because our knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of animal charities is rather limited and needs to be supplemented by speculation, such indirect evidence might actually trump any conclusions in the opposite direction that may we reach by considering the direct evidence currently available.

Notice, too, that the wording of your opening paragraph on wild animal suffering seems to rely on a heuristic similar to that which you express reservations about:

Most animal suffering is not caused by humans but instead occurs "naturally" in the wild (animals killing each other, diseases, etc.).[9] The number of animals in the wild is much larger than those killed or kept by humans,[10] and it's widely agreed that all vertebrates can suffer, including most likely, fish. The suffering they endure (e.g. being eaten alive) seems on a par with the worst things humans do to animals.

If the fact that most animal suffering occurs in the wild is a good reason for focusing on this type of suffering relative to that caused by humans, why isn't the fact that most suffering occurs in animals a good reason for focusing on this type of suffering relative to that which is experienced by humans?

Hi Pablo,

You ask,

If the fact that most animal suffering occurs in the wild is a good reason for focusing on this type of suffering relative to that caused by humans, why isn't the fact that most suffering occurs in animals a good reason for focusing on this type of suffering relative to that which is experienced by humans?

I don't say that animal suffering that occurs naturally in the wild should be a priority over animal suffering caused by humans. Neither do I say that it's a sufficient reason to investigate natural wild animal suffering. I only say that the amount of natural wild animal suffering is one of the many reasons that together make it seem more promising to investigate natural wild animal suffering interventions and charities, over e.g. those focusing on pets and labs. The amount of suffering among animals (compared to humans) is one reason that together with others make animal charities an important area to look into.

Another thing, because of the feedback in this thread (thanks), I changed the language that describes Norwood's animal welfare numbers to show that people disagree.

Hi all,

We've discussed Bailey Norwood's US farm animal welfare scores but I didn't really understand how he made the scores so I recently wrote him and he clarified. Our exchange can be downloaded here.

To summarize: They are his subjective judgments but when making them, he tried to include

• slaughter and transportation to slaughter
• animals that die before slaughter
• male chicks being killed soon after hatching

He tried to make an "average" that also included unusually bad cases (I think of failed stunning and torture for fun); he didn't try to make scores for the "median" animal.

I find the scores interesting although I know Brian thinks they are way too positive, and I guess Wayne Hsiung would say they are irrelevant (we should stop this slavery regardless).

Simon and Brian,

Thanks for that useful research.

I am writing a paper with Nick Beckstead which (among other things) discusses the magnitude of domestic animal suffering and welfare, and the data you have collected seems useful.

If anyone can point me to more estimates, considerations, and further critiques, I would very much appreciate it.

Brian feels that even if beef cows have positive lives -- implausible given how brutal their slaughter can be -- their happiness can't be fully equal in magnitude to the suffering of battery hens and veal calves.

Is this based on the tradeoff of one second of exposure to fire to 11.5 days of happy life, or a less extreme ratio? How long does the average slaughter take?

Hi Carl,

Thanks for reaching out.

There are descriptions of farm conditions and welfare measurements in Compassion, by the Pound, chapter Raising the Animal. The chapter also has some numbers of animals in each category, e.g. "In 2007, a total of 57 million hens were used for producing offspring for broiler production" and "the number of broilers produced in 2007 was 8867 million" (both p. 129).

Note that Bailey said there are typos in the book so you may want to double check important numbers with him.

I'd also be cautious using Bailey's welfare scores as an input in a multiplication to determine aggregate suffering or welfare. His scores are subjective and, as far as I know, maybe he would change them if he thought about some aspects more vividly when making them. I might write him and challenge the scores (argue that they seem too high). For example, Bailey estimates that broiler non-breeder chickens have score 3, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was open to changing it to minus 2 if he thought more about the negatives.

The Way We Eat by Singer and Mason describes farm conditions. Brian has related quantifications here http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-per-kg.html. Another site, http://www.countinganimals.com/ has a lot of numbers, not sure it has what you want but a source worth checking out.

I don't know about any estimates for sheep and I don't know enough to make any myself. I also can't answer your ratio question.

I'd be interested to read your paper when it's done (and drafts). Feel free to ask more questions.

Take care!

Thanks SImon!

Combined with some other sources, that should be pretty good for the populations in different conditions. I am going to rely on a survey constructed by Pablo Stafforini and sent to experts to supplement individual published estimates like Norwood's, and do a sensitivity analysis to help address the possibility of optimism in the scores.