Scott Alexander argues that eating beef is more ethical than chicken due to reduced animal suffering, despite higher environmental impact, and explores the complexities of this ethical calculus. Longer summary

Scott Alexander argues that eating beef is more ethical than eating chicken from an animal welfare perspective, despite beef's higher environmental impact. He calculates that switching from chicken to beef saves about 60 chickens per year at the cost of 2.2 tons extra CO2. Offsetting this carbon costs about $22 annually, which he argues is worthwhile given the reduction in animal suffering. He then explores the complexities of comparing direct action to offsetting, discussing potential market failures in offset pricing. Despite these complications, he concludes that eating beef over chicken is likely still the better ethical choice, especially if one is not actually performing the offsets. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander offers a guide for lazy people to donate to effective charities, ranging from easy options like EA Funds to more specific recommendations in various cause areas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander provides a guide for people who want to donate to effective charities but are very lazy. He suggests donating to EA Funds as the easiest option, which allows experts to allocate funds to the best charities. For those with slightly more energy, he recommends checking charity-evaluating organizations like GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators, and others. He also mentions specific charities in areas like AI safety, climate change, and election science. For the truly skeptical, he suggests GiveDirectly, which gives money directly to poor people in Africa. Shorter summary

Scott explores moral offsetting, introducing a framework distinguishing axiology, morality, and law to argue that we can offset axiological but not moral violations. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of moral offsetting, comparing it to carbon offsetting and questioning its limitations. Scott introduces a framework distinguishing between axiology (study of what's good), morality (study of right actions), and law (legal rules). He argues that these concepts make different compromises between goodness, implementation, and coordination. Using this framework, Scott proposes that we can offset axiology but not morality. For example, carbon emissions or meat consumption can be offset as they don't violate moral laws, while murder cannot be offset as it does. The post concludes that this framework provides a clearer answer to the moral offsetting problem than previous attempts, though acknowledging it's somewhat speculative. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander attends the Effective Altruism Global 2017 conference, describing both the practical charity work and bizarre philosophical speculations of the movement, ultimately admiring their genuine commitment to doing good. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes his experience at the Effective Altruism Global 2017 conference in San Francisco. He details the impressive scale of charitable work being done by various EA organizations, but also highlights the more unusual and philosophical aspects of the movement. These range from concerns about wild animal suffering to speculations about consciousness and fundamental physics. Scott reflects on how the EA movement combines practical, data-driven charity work with deeply weird philosophical explorations. He concludes by expressing admiration for the genuine goodness and dedication of the EA community, seeing them as a bright spot in a troubled world. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes two strategies for meat-eaters to reduce animal suffering: eating beef instead of chicken and donating to animal charities as 'ethics offsets'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses two strategies for reducing one's contribution to animal suffering while still eating meat. First, he suggests replacing chicken with beef, as this dramatically reduces the number of animals killed for food. Second, he proposes using 'ethics offsets' by donating to animal charities, which can potentially save more animal lives than personal vegetarianism. The post explores the ethical implications and potential criticisms of these approaches, including concerns about hypocrisy and the effectiveness of animal charities. Shorter summary