How effective is the ban on single-use plastic straws and bags?

Recently, Australia has had a wave of bans on plastic straws and plastic bags from being available at many bars, restaurants and supermarkets. The main objective appears to be to reduce the amount of plastic that ends up in the ocean (the famous Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes to mind). This plastic often breaks down in to microplastic – small particles that don’t further break down and end up being eaten by small fish, thus entering the food chain. A laudable goal to be sure.

However, given what I know about the relative effectiveness of interventions, I wonder if this is the most effective (or even relatively effective) at reducing plastic relative to other things one can do. I will note that I already have pre-existing opinions on this, but will do my best to make an unbiased assessment.

There are two ways to look at this. One is to consider the actions of an individual. In other words, how effective is it for me to stop using plastic straws and bags relative to doing some other thing. The other way is to consider it from the perspective of a business or other actor such as a campaigner who is seeking to get businesses stop stocking such items. I will focus on the first one. Examining the impact of working to reduce plastic bag and straw use in general relative to reducing plastic use in other cases seems hard and not well suited for a brief examination.

First, I will estimate the volume of plastic used in these two cases by the average Australian.

Plastic use from single-use plastic bags

Woolworths [an Australian supermarket] currently gives out more than 3.2 billion single-use HDPE plastic bags every year, and according to a 2009 study, about 1 per cent of those, or 30 to 40 million, find their way into the environment. [From here]

Woolworths isn’t the only source of plastic bags in Australia, but it’s a good start. We can probably assume that the 1% figure of these bags getting to the environment is representative of the bags as a whole. A fact sheet by Keep Queensland Beautiful states that Australians use 4 billion plastic bags each year. This doesn’t seem to agree with the previous stat, as it’s unlikely that Woolworths accounts for 80% of the plastic bag distribution.

For arguments sake, let’s assume 4 billion bags per year with 1% of those reaching the environment. That’s 40 million bags per year, or about 1.5 per Australian. Assuming you’re consuming about the average (or were before the bans and public pressure), switching from single-use plastic bags to an alternative should mean 1.5 less plastic bags in the environment per year.

I found it surprisingly hard to find a value for the weight of a single-use plastic bag. In lieu of just weighing one myself, the best I could do was this document from a website called fighttheplasticbagban.com which gave a value of 9.3 grams. This actually seems kind of high to me. This results in a value of 13.95 grams in the environment per person per year. I’m very open to revising this if someone can find a more reputable estimate.

I will also note that alternatives to single-use plastic bags aren’t necessarily better for the environment, and could actually be worse. Just one example of this is that a ban on plastic bags results in an increase in bin liner plastic sales. This is the same kind of mindless optimism I see in other areas including fair trade, organic food, and some renewable energies. Just because something sounds good, doesn’t mean it is better in all aspects.

A review of the ACT ban in 2012 found that bin liner sales had indeed increased by 31 per cent a year after the ban came into place.

But a second review in 2014 found that sales had settled back down to pre-ban levels. [from here]

Plastic use from single-use plastic straws

Australians use around 10 million plastic straws each day, or 3.65 billion per year. For lack of a figure I’ll assume 1% of these end up in the environment as well, giving a figure of 36.5 million. This gives about 1.4 straws less in the environment per person per year.

It was also hard to find an estimate of weight for plastic straws, but this paper suggests around 0.45 grams, or 0.63 grams in the environment per person per year. This gives a total of 14.58 grams in the environment per person per year from the combined sources.

We’ve examined the effectiveness of a ban on single-use plastic bags and straws. Let’s now look at two alternatives.

Alternative #1 – Veganism

A vegan lifestyle is well-known to significantly reduce ones’ impact on the environment in general (as well as farmed animal suffering), but lets’ suppose we are specifically interested in plastic. When one thinks of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, images of plastic bottles and bags probably comes to mind. However, 46% of the total trash is estimated to be fishing nets (much of which is made of plastic), with the majority of the rest being miscellaneous fishing gear, not consumer plastics.

Accepting this, it still seems hard to estimate the relative impact of purchasing fish vs consumer plastics. With consumer plastics we can easily measure volume, however to estimate the impact of fishing we would need to calculate the volume of nets used per person per year, as well as the relative rate of loss to ocean of consumer plastics vs fishing gear. Simplistically, one could argue that since the volume of plastic in the ocean is mostly from fishing gear, eliminating fish from ones’ diet should have a greater impact than eliminating consumer plastics.

One estimate suggests 640,000 tonnes of fishing gear is left in the ocean per year. That’s an average of 84 grams per person per year (globally). However Australians consume around 28 kg of fish per year as of 2013, while average consumption globally was 16.4 kg in 2005. Assuming the fish Australians consume is about as plastic-polluting as the global average, we should multiply our 84 grams per person by 1.7, giving 143 grams.

Eliminating your use of plastic straws and bags might seem easier than adopting a plant-based diet for many people (though I’d argue it’s easier than you probably think), but you’d be kidding yourself if you thought you were having a big impact by doing only the former.

A cautionary note

Whenever I talk about the environmental benefits of a vegan lifestyle, I feel compelled to tell my cautionary tale. I believe it is possible that advocating for the environmental benefits of veganism could actually increase farmed animal suffering. In short, this is because the primary cause of environmental damage from eating animals is from red meat. If this causes people to eat less red meat and more poultry or fish, they would be causing more sentient minds to suffer, since it takes many chickens or fish to get the same volume of food as a cow.

This case is a little different, since I’m talking about the damage of fishing, but I would still encourage anyone convinced by my argument to try veganism rather than just eat no fish*.

Alternative #2 – Reducing other plastic use

It seems likely to me that the plastic from straws and bags is only a small part of what a consumer consumes, even if we ignore fishing nets. One has to wonder whether reducing their plastic use in other areas could have a vastly greater impact.

As of 2016, Australia produces around 3 million tonnes of plastic per year. Around 130,000 tonnes of this plastic is estimated to end up in the ocean each year. Interestingly, this is 4 times the proportion of plastic from bags that ends up in the environment. This gives 5.4 kg of plastic in the ocean total per person per year. I don’t know the spread of the different sources or how easy it is to do anything about them, but we can clearly see that the amount of plastic in the environment as the result of plastic bags and straws is very small indeed (0.01458 kg.pa vs 5.4 kg.pa).

It seems reasonable to say that reducing your plastic use in general would have a greater impact than just eliminating your plastic bag and straw use.

The ableism objection to banning plastic straws

Some have claimed that the ban on plastic straws is actually ableist, because some people rely on plastic straws to be able to drink. This makes sense, and I think the ban should perhaps be a little more nuanced to allow for this case (e.g. bars/restaurants can still give someone a straw if they need it for health/safety reasons). They could also use biodegradable or reusable straws, but not all of these are safe for the consumer (can pose a choking hazard, aren’t positionable, etc.).

However, one has to wonder – if someone is relying on a straw for safety reasons, why don’t they bring their own? Not all venues stocked plastic straws to begin with, so what did people who needed them do in those cases?

Conclusion

I think the ban on plastic straws and bags is ineffective. Not only that, I think it is a serious waste of time and money. One might retort with something like ‘it’s surely better than doing nothing’, but it gives people a false sense of achieving something and solving the problem. Of course, you could (and should) do all three of the above.

One surprising take away of this for me was that the plastic released to the environment from fishing was still a very small part of the plastic released to the ocean in general.

Some of my peers have started putting estimates on the time it takes to write posts like these, so I’ll start doing the same. This took me around 2 hours total to research and write.

* I’d like to share my disdain for pescatarianism here. It is potentially worse than doing nothing at all, but people think they are either reducing animal suffering or environmental damage.

Edit – It has been noted to me that the issue with straws is not just the volume of plastic, but the shape. It can pose a choking hazard more easily than some other plastics. Fair enough, but fishing nets also trap marine life pretty easily.

A degree in mansplaining? How about a degree in wilful deceit?

If you’re from Adelaide, South Australia, and probably even if you’re not, you will have seen the below image with a caption along the lines of ‘The University of Adelaide now offers a masters degree in mansplaining?’ This whole thing has rustled my jimmies in more ways than one. I’d like to revisit my favourite theme of ‘things are more complicated than you want them to be’. I want to talk a bit about the concept of ‘mansplaining’ in general, but also some other things that trouble me here.

An ad showing a young man surrounded by young women.
An advertisement for Renewal SA, adjacent to an unrelated logo of The University of Adelaide. Photo originally taken by @eightpercentjazz and shared by @shitadelaide.

According to Wikipedia, mansplaining is ‘to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner‘. So the joke here is based on the fact that this ad for the UofA depicts a male human explaining things to female humans. Apparently this is intrinsically bad. I think that the strict definition of mansplaining, as quoted above, exists and is bad. But, a male explaining something to a female is not automatically mansplaining, by its own definition.

I was recently accused of mansplaining in a discussion on Facebook around a sensitive issue relating to farmed animal advocacy. I can’t share the context or quotes and so I can’t prove this to you, but as far as I could tell, I was just correcting a human who happened to be female on something that she had said which was factually incorrect. Somehow, the definition of mansplaining has, in some cases and by some people, expanded to include any male saying something to any female which someone doesn’t like.

It gets even better. The ad is not even for the University of Adelaide. You can see on the bottom right of the image that it’s for Renewal SA, an organisation part of the South Australian Government. The image was deliberately cropped to include the UofA branding from the adjacent ad for the joke*.

The ABC article on this spectacle said “The University of Adelaide has distanced itself from an advertisement that has made headlines around the world and attracted criticism and ridicule on social media,“. Distanced themselves? I feel like you shouldn’t need to distance yourself from an ad you had no involvement in. Poor choice of words by ABC at best. The article only explains that the ad wasn’t actually by or for UofA about halfway in. Great journalistic integrity there, ABC.

What’s the harm in indulging in a bit of a joke, you might ask. This is a prime example of how easily information can be manipulated. Maybe this one was relatively harmless, but you could argue that the UofA’s reputation was damaged without justification. No one I’m aware of, even myself, even thought to question the original implication that this ad was authorised by and is for the University of Adelaide.

As a rule, we should avoid spreading untrue or misleading things for sake of a joke. This example of deceit was relatively low effort, imagine what one can do to the reputation of an individual or organisation if they actually try to make something up?

Until now, this all should have been fairly uncontroversial. I’m just talking strictly about definitions and facts. However, I can’t resist touching the trickier topic: I believe the existence of this ad is not, in and of itself, problematic, regardless of who payed for it. It might be, but it is far from a certainty.

Consider a portfolio of photos for advertisements over time from a particular advertising agency (or organisation, if you think they actually chose the photo themselves). Some will have men explaining things to men and women, some will have women explaining things to women and men, and inevitably one will have a male explaining something to several women.

Without looking at the broader statistics, this anecdotal evidence is absolutely meaningless, unless you mean to imply that a male can never address a group of women in an advertisement. There could be a *systematic* problem if we noticed that many of the ads by the SA Government, or the advertising agency, or advertisements in general, were of men talking to women relative to ads of women talking to men. Maybe there is a systematic issue, but that’s a separate argument to be made.

I believe that if there were also males in the group being addressed by the male as well as females, there would have been no perceived issue.

*Image originally taken by Instagram user @eightpercentjazz, and shared by Instagram account @shitadelaide.

Afterword – Unless you think the idea that ‘we shouldn’t cause suffering in non-human animals for pleasure’ is contentious, this is probably one of the more controversial posts I’ve ever written. One of my closest friends suggested caution, saying that ‘Clementine Ford will eat you alive‘. Ok then, bring it on. One can’t have strong strong opinions weakly held unless they are vocal about what the believe to be correct.

I’m a sentientist and a utilitarian, in the sense that I want to reduce the suffering of sentient minds as much as I can. That is my mission. I am also human and am wrong sometimes. If you think I’m misguided about any of this argument, please don’t hesitate to tell me so I can quickly change my mind.

Edit – Since writing this, I have already updated my view slightly to allow for the fact that this image might still offend some people regardless of broader context. I think that emotion is real, and it matters. But I still believe that we have to take the bigger picture in to account.

With reference to my point of “unless you mean to imply that a male can never address a group of women in an advertisement”, some people have already said that they do believe this. This I must protest. A balanced world of advertising (which of course I accept we are far from today) would contain all kinds of combinations of demographics. Are we really to outright ban some mixes of demographics? This seems to be counter-intuitive to the equality we seek to achieve.

Thoughts on the activism around a crashed chicken truck in Washington, USA

CLARK COUNTY, Wash. – A semi truck loaded with more than 5,000 chickens crashed in the Dollars Corner area of Clark County, north of Vancouver, killing many of the birds and sending others running onto the road Monday afternoon.

Hours later, an animal rights activist was in handcuffs after refusing to give up one of the chickens. The woman, Amber Canavan, was cited for obstruction of justice and theft, and released later Monday night.

What an awful tragedy. Some time after the incident, animal activists and authorities arrived on the scene. Canavan picked up one of the surviving chickens, and requested that they were allowed to keep it so they could take it to an animal sanctuary.

Foster Farms, the company responsible for the incident, would not allow it, citing that “the company was liable for the chicken and any health risks that came with it“.

I think most people who read my blog would already agree that this entire situation is a travesty, so I want to focus on the last part. Several people in my network have been rightfully upset about the chicken not being taken to a sanctuary, and the activist being detained. I so wish we lived in a world where rescuing an abused, injured non-human animal was not a crime. But it is, and so I think that, perhaps unlike some others, I can sympathise with the authorities here.

I don’t believe that the law is a basis for ethics in all cases, and I don’t believe that one wanting to live an ethical life should always follow the law. There are too many examples from history (and even today) regarding human rights violations that are ‘legal’ that I don’t even need to name them. And yet, I can sympathise with the authorities, whose job it is to uphold the law, when they opt to uphold the law. I think that, if you disagree with the law, the police are not the ones to debate it with.

Regarding Foster Farms being unwilling to allow the chicken to be taken to a sanctuary, their answer actually sounds quite reasonable for two reasons. The first is in the interest of the animals themselves. Taking the chicken to a sanctuary may compromise the health of the other animals already there, given the unknown conditions it was previously in.

The second is in the interest of the company, but still seems somewhat reasonable in that context. If the chicken causes harm to other animals at the sanctuary, Foster Farms would indeed be liable for damages. Imagine you are legal advisor at the company, whose job it is to protect them from legal damages. There is no way you would advocate for the company to be put at such risk for the sake of the chicken.

Many animal advocates have given an out pour of disdain over the last day, asking questions like (paraphrased):

Why can’t Foster Farms just let the injured chicken go to a sanctuary? It won’t make them any money as they are just going to kill it.

Once you look at it from the company’s perspective, you can see there is a good reason for this.

I wish Foster Farms didn’t exploit chickens for money. I wish the truck hadn’t overturned. I wish the injured chickens were allowed to go to a sanctuary. But the world is complex, and I wanted to cover those uncovered bases.

The mince that divided the nation

Major Australian supermarket Woolworths has started stocking a new plant-based mince meat. Given the rising popularity of plant-based alternative food products, this should seem quite unsurprising. That is, until I tell you that it is being stocked in the meat section.

Having a plant-based mince meat not just alongside but among the animal flesh products is, in my opinion, a huge step forward. While some long time ethical vegans may be bothered by the fact that they have to walk in to this section to get one (a concept I’m not rather fond of, either), they are not the target audience. Rather, the target audience is the growing number of Australians that don’t identify as vegan, but want to include plant-based foods in to their diet.

The product quickly sold out from multiple locations, which appears to have attracted some negative attention as well. [below quotes are from this ABC article]

“National Party senator Barry O’Sullivan has demanded Woolworths remove the product (plant-based mince) and re-label it, so the Federal Government does not have to step in.

“Woolworths need to pull it from the shelves today,” Senator Sullivan told the ABC.”

Whether you eat plant-based meat or not, the senator’s request is surely ridiculous and anti-competition at the least.

Federal Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr. David Littleproud, says ““The labelling and positioning of all food products should accurately reflect what’s in the packet,””

Well, Mr. Littleproud, the labelling is quite accurate. The front label of the product clearly states ‘Minced – 100% plant-based’. ‘Mince’ refers to a process/end product, hence why we haven’t banned ‘mince’ fruit pies. The label doesn’t say meat to my knowledge, but as it is stocked in the meat aisle, I’ll say this: ‘Meat’ does not exclusively refer to animal flesh.

Deputy Prime Minister Mr McCormack “urged anyone confused to contact the ACCC.

“Mince is mince, mince is meat,” he said.

“That’s my interpretation of what mince is.””

Your personal interpretation of a word with a predefined meaning shouldn’t matter. ‘Mince’ does not mean animals. The product is clearly labelled as plant-based. You insult the Australian consumer by insinuating they don’t know that means ‘not animal flesh’.

The Australian Meat Industry Council’s Patrick Hutchinson said “”That [faux-mince] product is a heap of different plants”. How do so many powerful men not know what the word ‘mince’ means? The product isn’t faux-mince, it’s mince, by every definition of the word ‘mince’ that I am aware of. Again, we don’t call them faux-mince fruit pies.

Let’s make one thing clear, more Australians are realising they can source a healthy diet in ways that reduce animal exploitation and suffering as well as environmental impact. This mince product’s success reflects that. Assuming I can get there before the government steps in and does something bordering on insanity, I cant wait to try it.

Two impactful things you can do this World Environment Day

Happy World Environment Day! Last year I wrote a post about what you can do for the environment. This year I’m doing something similar, but going for a lighter format. Enjoy!

https://www.pexels.com/photo/conifer-daylight-environment-evergreen-454880/

Days like these are great opportunities to reflect and make sure we are doing all we practically can to protect the environment. Today, I’d like to focus on two small things that we as individuals can do which are highly effective but not very often talked about.

Cool Earth

Within a particular cause area, some charities can be as much as 1000’s of times more effective than others. So if you’re going to donate to an environmental charity, it’s crucial to make sure your $$ are having the most impact they can. One stand out environmental charity is Cool Earth.

Cool Earth works to stop deforestation, and are so effective that $1.34 US donated to them reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 1 tonne of CO2-equivalent. As of 2016, this was one of the best charities for reducing GHG emissions.

The average American uses about 20 tonnes of CO2 per year as of 2006, so you could offset a years worth of emissions for just $26.8.

Livestock industry

Over the past few decades, the impact of the livestock industry on the environment has become increasingly clear. Below I’ve outlined a few key statistics to show just big the impact is (stats are relative to the average US meat eating diet).

Image from https://91news.com.au/2015/10/02/india-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-intensity-by-35-by-2030/. Stat from http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/.
Image from http://www.ball-law.com/lawyer-land-use-purdue/. Stat from https://www.amazon.com/Diet-New-America-John-Robbins/dp/0915811812.
Image from https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-prices-head-lower-as-global-tensions-continue-unabated-2017-08-11. Stat from http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/.

Adopting a plant-based diet is more effective for reducing your CO2 emissions than forgoing showers, having solar panels, and using bikes instead of cars.

So what can you do about this? Well for starters, you should definitely consider not having any animal products today (I might be too late for that), but also you should consider having less or no animal products in the future. It’s becoming easier every day with increasing access to cheap, delicious plant-based food.

I initially stopped eating meat because I became convinced that it was one of the most effective things I could do to help the environment, and it was way easier than I expected. I’d like to encourage everyone to try it. Just start with one vegan day a week and work from there.

Great tasting food doesn’t have to contain animal products. If you live in Sydney check out Soul Burger for some plant based deliciousness, like this ‘chicken’ and ‘bacon’ burger (my weekly guilty pleasure)!

If you need some help or inspiration, check out this guide.

For a more detailed look at the research behind the environmental impacts of the livestock industry, start with these: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Collection of weird social media comments – part 1

I have this weird problem where I keep getting involved in debates on social media about various issues. Usually, it’s me trying to steelman one side of some argument where I think both sides are hugely oversimplifying, as I like to do. Unfortunately, this results in people engaging in all sorts of ad hominem attacks and saying some weird, irrational things.

Fortunately, it can result in some comedy gold. Enjoy the first of hopefully not many to come.

Why rational animal lovers should donate to animal charities even if they aren’t vegan

This is something I’ve thought a lot about but have not really expressed much in writing. When it comes down to it, almost everyone cares about non-human animals in some way. No one really wants to see a pig, or a cow, or a dog or a whale suffer, just as no one really wants to see a human suffer. Even with this in mind, many people say that they just can’t go vegan because it would be too hard, too expensive, they enjoy the taste of animal products too much, or they are worried about their health.

All of these concerns can and have been addressed, but let’s suppose we grant that some people just don’t want to be vegan themselves, even if they care about non-human animals. Assuming this individual (possibly you, dear reader) is rational, they should be happy if there are more vegans in the world, even if they never become one themselves. After all, a lot of people care about the environment, but go to varying lengths of effort when it comes to recycling etc. However, they are still happy for the sake of the environment when someone else goes to more effort than them.

Unless you can find a flaw here, you must surely agree that people who care about non-human animals must at the very least be happy about there being more people in the world trying to reduce animal suffering. Having accepted this, know that there are many ways you can reduce animal suffering without being vegan yourself.

One of the most effective ways to do this is to donate money to a highly effective animal charity. I am a big fan of the work that Animal Charity Evaluators do, particularly their recommendations on effective animal charities. For as little as a $10 donation to one of these charities, it’s possible to spare dozens of animals from a life of suffering. Even for a non-vegan, this is a very small sacrifice to make to have a huge impact. Check out their top recommended charities here, or consider donating directly to ACE to maximise your impact.

I truly believe that, if you care about non-human animals but don’t support non-human animal charities, unless you are financially unable, or you think that there are more effective ways to reduce suffering with your money, there is surely some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

Should we have children? Weighing in on the anti-natalism debate

Recently a lot of people, particularly in the vegan community, have been having an often heated discussion about whether one should have a child or not. Some even go as far as to say that having a children is ‘not vegan’, due to the impact it causes. As with a lot of such issues I weigh in on, I think both sides are missing some key points*.

Let me begin by acknowledging that this can be a very difficult topic to speak rationally about. If one is non-vegan, they can realise they were wrong and become vegan somewhat easily (relatively speaking). If one has kids, changing their mind and even just admitting to oneself that it was unethical to have a child would be world shattering. As soon as this internal conflict becomes a possibility, being completely open often goes out the window.

I also want to add that I am not talking about the personal pleasure of having a child. Many do seem to get a lot of intrinsic happiness from having a child, and I’m just not touching that. I’m talking about purely external impact on wellbeing. My goal here is not to attack either people who have had children or have decided not to, I just want to add some extra considerations.

Let’s first examine why one would make the case that ‘it is more ethical to not have a child’. I think it mostly comes down to the impact that having one additional human on the planet causes. Even if your child is vegan (which is not a guarantee even for two vegan parents), they will still have an impact on others. Just through their food consumption, they will contribute to 0.3 vertebrate animal deaths per year, they will contribute to climate change, and basically any issue relating to population growth. Granted, they will have a lower impact in all of these areas than an omnivore, but an impact they will have nonetheless.

This is the case that anti-natalists make, however I rarely see them acknowledge the pros to having a child. Either they don’t think there are any relative to not having a child, or they don’t think they are strong enough to consider. I hope I am not making too strong of a strawman here.

The external benefits of having a child

Let’s ignore opportunity cost (what else you could be doing with your time and money if you didn’t have a child) and just consider whether having a child is net good compared to doing no other ‘advocacy’ with your life (e.g. activism, donations etc). There is a lot to weigh up here.

There is a chance your child will be share your values (e.g. be vegan = lower impact on suffering over their life, but higher than if they hadn’t been born ; chance of converting additional vegans), and a chance they won’t be (e.g. not be vegan = higher impact on suffering). However, if you believe that you can do a lot of good over your life via other means, e.g. donating a percent of your income to effective charities, via your career and outreach, your child might have similar goals in life (via upbringing and shared genetics).

Let’s do a toy expected value estimate (not to be taken seriously, only illustratively). Suppose you estimate your impact in life to be the equivalent of creating 10 vegans (honestly a very low estimate if you take effectiveness seriously), but your impact of just existing to be equivalent to 0.5 non-vegans (that is to say, 2 vegans have the same impact on suffering, environmental damage etc. as 2 non-vegans – surely an exaggeration). Your life net effect is then to create 9.5 vegans.

Let us now suppose that your child could share your values (create 9.5 vegans), be the opposite (-1 vegans), or somewhere in between. Even if we assume that the child of a vegan is only 50% likely to stay so (which seems low to me, but happy to be proven wrong), the average effect of having a child is equivalent to creating 4.5 vegans in this massively oversimplified example.

Having kids as a personal choice

Sometimes, people say something like “Have kids if you want to have kids, and don’t if you don’t. You can’t tell people not to have kids, it’s a personal choice.” What is interesting to me is that a lot of vegans make this argument, but it sounds so similar to the argument many use to justify eating animals, e.g. “Eat meat if you want to, and don’t if you don’t. Respect my personal choice.”

Anti-natalists typically attack this view, and I agree that it is flawed, but I want to add a nuance here. Anti-natalists see having a child as bad (comparable to eating meat) while natalists see it as good (not comparable to eating meat). I think that people are generally talking past each other and not disagreeing where they think they are.

Opportunity cost

I think the strongest argument (but one I rarely see) for not having a child is actually just that having a child seems like a highly inefficient way of improving the world. Even given the argument that ‘your child will likely (not definitely) share your genes and behaviour and do good in the world’, the amount of time and money that it costs to have a kid could be spent elsewhere. We need to think about it in terms of opportunity cost.

Using Australia as an example, it costs an average of $406,000 (in 2012) to have and raise a child to adulthood, not including time. This money alone could convert dozens of additional vegans on the low end of the estimate, if that is the primary thing you are concerned about. Even if I thought having a child would be an enjoyable experience on the whole, this reason alone is enough to convince me to not to. Along the same vein, instead of having a child, you could mentor or influence multiple people.

Population ethics

Finally, I also rarely see any nod to population ethics in these discussions. I am going to attempt to summarise a complicated and much debated field in a few sentences. If this field intrigues you, please go actually read about it rather than let my text form your view.

People are concerned about overpopulation often because they believe that additional human lives would make the lives of humans already existing less positive. This is probably broadly correct. However, if extra child has a positive life (better off being alive than not being born, as I believe my life is), that has to be weighed against the negative impact of them being born on others. One can conceive of a scenario where having more children is better on balance for global wellbeing even if it makes life for others worse.

Of course, taking farmed *and* wild animal suffering into consideration, this gets far more complicated, but I just wanted to at least acknowledge this field which gets no mention in this debate.

In summary, I lean heavily to the side of the anti-natalism argument, but I admit that the steelman of both sides has good points.

* I should make it clear that by ‘both sides’ I’m referring to the two versions of the argument I’m presenting here. I don’t doubt that many also provide a more nuanced view.

Morality is Hard podcast episode 6 – Elie Hassenfeld of GiveWell

After a short hiatus, the Morality is Hard podcast is back with a new interview featuring Elie Hassenfeld, one of the co-founders of GiveWell. Find the interview on iTunes, below or here!

https://soundcloud.com/michael-dello-iacovo/episode-6-eli-hassenfeld-givewell-and-how-to-get-the-most-out-of-a-donation

Elie Hassenfeld and I spoke about the charity he co-founded with Holden Karnofsky, GiveWell, and how it analyses charities to determine how effective they are at alleviating suffering.

We also spoke about Open Philanthropy Project, a sister organisation of GiveWell, which started with the question of “How can we accomplish as much good as possible with our giving?”

Unfortunately due to venue and time constraints, we had the record the interview in the back room of a restaurant, and you can heard some of the chatter in the background. I hope that doesn’t take away from the content too much!

If you’re interested in finding out how to make sure your charitable donations are having as much impact as possible, this is the interview for you.

Don’t forget to follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the podcast and to join the discussion.

Melbourne steakhouse protest – acceptable in what circumstance?

Several days ago, a group of activists peacefully (by all accounts) entered a Melbourne, Australia, steakhouse restaurant with signs, and began repeating phrases relating to the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. The aim: to show the diners what had happened to the food on their plate while it was still sentient.

I wanted to weigh in on this, but not for the same reason many other animal advocates are. There has certainly been a general divide among the animal advocacy community regarding whether this was an effective way of achieving our ultimate goal – reducing suffering and/or exploitation of all sentient beings.

I actually don’t know whether this was effective. It has been a good platform for raising awareness and may show that a lot of people take this seriously (pros), but it may backfire, as it seems to have already done, and make people think those who care about all non-human animals are ‘crazy’ (con). Both sides are true. Which one outweighs the other? I don’t know.

The point I want to get to here is this: I think that a lot of non-vegans who are opposed to this protest aren’t actually opposed to the means as they say, but to the message behind the protest. Let me give you a thought experiment.

Suppose a new restaurant opened up in your neighborhood, and you find out they serve human. Humans who did not want to killed for the enjoyment of others. You might feel compelled to go and protest at this restaurant. You might feel a duty to educate the diners there on what the humans went through during their final days; the pain, the fear. I’m willing to go out on a limb and suggest that you would feel comfortable with the exact same peaceful protest that took place in Melbourne. If not you personally, you would surely be in support of the protest.

This is why I believe that many people opposed to this protest are opposed to it for different reasons than they claim. Not all, of course, and maybe not even most. After all, there are many vegans who opposed the protest. But I would ask you, dear reader, to make sure you ask yourself exactly why you are against the protest. Is it because you think the protest was harmful, or disrespectful? Or is it because you don’t really agree with the message behind it?