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 reviews plant-based meat dishes from eight Bay Area restaurants, evaluating how well they mimic animal products in taste and texture. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews eight Bay Area restaurants offering plant-based meat dishes. He evaluates each establishment based on how well their vegetarian options resemble animal products, focusing on taste and texture rather than subtle flavors. The review covers a range of cuisines including American, Chinese, barbecue, and Thai, highlighting standout dishes and disappointing experiences. Scott concludes with recommendations for those new to plant-based meat options. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest and reviews all entries, praising their strengths and noting their impact on readers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the winners of the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest. The winning entry is about calorie restriction and aging by Adrian Liberman and Calvin Reese, with a close second on the ethics of eating meat by David G and Froolow. Scott praises both entries for their different strengths: the calorie restriction piece for its focused approach on a factual question, and the meat ethics piece for its comprehensive review of arguments. He notes that the meat ethics collaboration had a significant impact on readers' eating habits. Scott then briefly reviews the other entries, discussing their strengths and weaknesses. He concludes by explaining the prize distribution and his decision not to run the contest next year, citing various challenges. Shorter summary

A vegetarian and meat-eater collaborate to analyze the impacts of eating meat, concluding that reduced consumption is beneficial but not as clear-cut as some might think. Longer summary

This post is an entry to the 2019 Adversarial Collaboration Contest, where a vegetarian and a meat-eater investigate the ethical, health, and environmental impacts of eating meat. They explore animal consciousness, factory farming conditions, human happiness set points, health outcomes, environmental effects, and costs of switching diets. They conclude that reducing meat consumption, especially chicken, is beneficial overall, but the case is not as strong as some vegetarians might assume. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the ethics of supporting formerly 'evil' companies that transition to more ethical practices, ultimately leaning towards supporting their new ventures. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the ethical dilemma of supporting formerly 'evil' companies that pivot to more ethical practices. He uses examples like Philip Morris moving to smoke-free cigarettes and KFC offering meatless options. The post discusses whether companies that profited from harmful practices should be allowed to profit again from ethical alternatives. Scott compares this to offering dictators comfortable retirements to encourage them to relinquish power. He ultimately leans towards supporting these companies' new ethical ventures, citing reasons such as the difficulty of predicting moral progress, the inconsistency of only boycotting visible offenders, and the practical challenges of effective boycotts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander partially retracts his previous post on animal value and neural number after a commenter's larger survey yielded different results. Longer summary

Scott Alexander partially retracts his previous post about animal value and neural number. A commenter, Tibbar, replicated Scott's survey using Mechanical Turk and obtained different results with a larger sample size. Scott acknowledges that while Mechanical Turk users might not be the ideal sample and some responses seem rushed, it's difficult to claim his original results represent a universal intuitive understanding. He explains that his original sample was more informed about animal rights issues. Scott adds this to his Mistakes page and considers including a similar survey in the future, hoping readers will have forgotten about this retraction. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander finds a correlation between animals' cortical neuron count and people's intuitive perception of their moral value, based on a small survey. Longer summary

This post explores the correlation between the number of cortical neurons in animals and humans' intuitive perceptions of their moral value. Scott Alexander conducted a survey asking people to estimate how many of each animal would equal one human in moral value. He then compared these results to the relative number of cortical neurons each animal has compared to humans. The results showed a surprisingly close match, with some exceptions like lobsters. Scott suggests this adds credibility to intuitive ways of thinking about animal moral value, though he acknowledges the need for further research with a larger, more representative sample. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares setting moral standards to economic price-setting, arguing that more achievable standards might lead to better outcomes than unattainably high ones. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the question of how to set moral standards in society, comparing it to a price-setting problem in economics. He argues that setting the bar for being a 'good person' too high can be counterproductive, as it might discourage people from trying at all. The post suggests that a more effective approach might be to set standards that are ambitious but achievable, similar to how companies set goals for employees. Scott shares personal anecdotes about charitable giving and vegetarianism to illustrate how lower, more attainable standards can sometimes lead to better outcomes. He also discusses the idea of aiming to be above average morally, and how this could lead to gradual societal improvement. The post concludes by proposing that individuals might benefit from practicing 'price discrimination' on themselves, setting personal moral standards at the highest level they can sustainably maintain. 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 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

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'ethics offsets', exploring its applications and ethical implications from simple cases to extreme scenarios. Longer summary

This post explores the concept of 'ethics offsets', where people compensate for ethically questionable actions by performing good deeds. Scott starts with simple examples like carbon offsets, then moves to more complex scenarios involving vegetarianism and murder. He discusses the ethical implications and potential issues with this approach, such as the problem of universalizability and the crossing of moral boundaries. The post raises questions about the limits of ethical offsetting and whether it can justify any action if the positive impact is deemed greater than the negative. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores a thought experiment based on the Asch conformity experiment to examine the strength and flexibility of personal beliefs and societal norms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a thought experiment inspired by the Asch conformity experiment, where one imagines being told that their beliefs are completely wrong according to everyone else in the 'real world'. He explores how this experiment might affect various beliefs, from personal convictions to societal norms, using examples like slavery in the antebellum South and vegetarianism. The post suggests that this thought experiment can be a powerful tool for examining one's beliefs, understanding moral progress, and even as a motivational technique. Scott also reflects on how this experiment might reveal which beliefs we hold most strongly and which we might be more willing to doubt or change. Shorter summary