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 analyzes the health risks of eating processed meat, demonstrating how to put such risks in perspective and interpret mortality statistics accurately. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the importance of putting health risks in perspective, using the example of a recent study linking processed meat consumption to increased cancer risk. He calculates that eating processed meat daily might reduce life expectancy by about three weeks, or roughly a minute per serving. He then expands on how to interpret relative risk increases in mortality, explaining that a 20% increase in mortality doesn't mean reducing lifespan by 20%, but rather a much smaller effect. The post emphasizes the need to distinguish between absolute and relative risk, and to consider the trade-offs between health risks and quality of life when making dietary decisions. 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