Episode Details
Back to Episodes“Animal advocates should be cautious of cost-effectiveness” by Dilan Fernando
Description
Disclaimer: This post isn't a critique of any grant-making or research organisation I know of - I imagine most of them think about cost-effectiveness in a nuanced way, rather than falling into the traps I describe below. However, I do think some individuals fall into these traps, and I thought it could be valuable to the community to capture these ideas in writing.
The potential problem with cost-effectiveness (in animal advocacy)
We can all agree that we want to get the most impact for our buck when we direct resources. A central EA practice, therefore, is to seek out cost-effective projects - those which maximise impact per dollar spent.
In principle, this is great. In practice, if you're an animal advocate, it leads to tricky territory.
It's one thing to assess projects' cost-effectiveness when you are clear on what "impact" actually means. If we are optimising for "lives saved" - as is common in the global health space - then it's sensible to compare different projects and choose the ones which save the most lives per dollar. Likewise, if we're optimising for the reduction of near-term animal suffering, then we can compare welfare improvement projects using a [...]
---
Outline:
(00:32) The potential problem with cost-effectiveness (in animal advocacy)
(03:32) When cost-effectiveness clearly makes sense
(04:50) So what about when things arent so clear-cut?
---
First published:
February 26th, 2026
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.