Congrats, Sjir!

Thanks for looking at this Vasco, it's always great to see others doing this kind of cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Your results indicate a substantially higher direct cost-effectiveness for SWP relative to the analysis I did last year. From looking at your methodology, I believe our primary difference comes from a difference in weighting the relative badness of different levels of pain. I used the same numbers as a 2023 RP report which weighted excruciating pain as 33 times worse than hurtful pain, while your weights put excruciating pain at 100000x worse than hurtful pain. 

I've updated towards thinking 33x is probably at least an order of magnitude too low (and more recent RP reports have used weights in the vicinity of 600x), but I would personally be skeptical of 100000x. 

Of course much of SWP's impact is through creating systemic change, so I don't want to over-emphasize the importance of these direct impact CEAs, as valuable as they are.

Great list (and thanks for the shoutout)! 

I would add @Laura Duffy's How Can Risk Aversion Affect Your Cause Prioritization? post

I believe the values come from the 10th anniversary edition of the TLYCS book. They should be in the FAQ on the website and I'm surprised they're not. 

I think mainstream longtermist EA is already on a path to try and help create the hedonium shockwave if and only if it's the right thing to do. The "only if" part seems really important - turning 99.999% of the accessible universe into hedonium seems like a quite bad idea unless you're extraordinarily confident in your ethical views. But it does seem like one theoretically possible outcome of the type of long reflection MacAskill advocates in WWOTF:

As an ideal, we could aim for what we can call the long reflection: a stable state of the world in which we are safe from calamity and we can reflect on and debate the nature of the good life, working out what the most flourishing society would be. I call this the “long” reflection not because of how long this period would last but because of how long it would be worth spending on it. It’s worth spending five minutes to decide where to spend two hours at dinner; it’s worth spending months to choose a profession for the rest of one’s life. But civilisation might last millions, billions, or even trillions of years. It would therefore be worth spending many centuries to ensure that we’ve really figured things out before we take irreversible actions like locking in values or spreading across the stars.

It's really not clear to me that there's a better path to the hedonium shockwave than what longtermsists are already doing - trying to ensure humanity survives and prospers and makes it to a place where we have more hope of reaching a consensus about whether or not it's the right course of action. Of course, if the shockwave really is the right thing to do, waiting to start it would lead to a great deal of astronomical waste. But this is a small price to pay relative to the risks of destroying ourselves or causing great harm if our moral views are wrong. 

Yeah this is a really good point, I have no idea how to square the numbers with big grants from OP to THL

Thanks Vasco! 

I checked the pages for each charity to get the scores.

I agree that AWF doesn't directly evaluate cost-effectiveness, but I still think there's a good chance they're likely to be the EV maximizing option over THL. THL estimates that it costs them $2.63 to move a hen from a conventional to a cage-free system, or about 0.57 yr/$ given a 1.5-year lifespan. Last year, Emily Oehlsen from Open Phil said "We think that the marginal [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/5th as cost-effective as the average from Saulius’ analysis." Saulius's 2019 analysis estimated that corporate campaigns pre-2019 impacted 41 chicken-years per dollar, so at a 5x reduction that's 8.2 yr/$. I don't want to take Emily's numbers too literally, but that implies a >10x gap between the cost effectiveness values of OP's marginal funding opportunity and THL. Since I'd expect AWF's opportunities to look somewhat similar to OP's, that leads me to guess that they're likely to be on net more cost-effective than THL. This directionally agrees with some of the comments by insiders such as @James Özden on the GWWC evaluations thread as well. But I'd be very curious to hear more from folks who are more plugged in, this is just an outsider's guess. 

For what it's worth, I do actually give to both AWF and THL, but give much more to AWF.

Good information!

A couple things to add to this very good comment:

In general, the landscape of charity evaluation for animal charities is less mature and quite a bit more uncertain than the landscape for global health and development charities. Any cost-effectiveness estimates are going to be coarse and debatable. 

ACE has a partially qualitative cost-effectiveness scoring system. Their ratings (higher = better) for their recommended charities are:

• Faunalytics: 5.7
• New Roots Institute: 4.9
• The Humane League: 4.7
• Wild Animal Initiative: 4.5
• Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği: 4.3
• Shrimp Welfare Project: 4.3
• Fish Welfare Initiative: 4.3
• Sinergia Animal: 4.1
• Good Food Institute: 3.8
• Dansk Vegetarisk Forening: 3.7
• Legal Impact for Chickens: 3.7

@Laura Duffy wrote a report at Rethink Priorities in which she estimated that corporate hen welfare campaigns avert 1.13 DALYs/$ and shrimp stunning interventions avert 0.038 DAYLYs/$. Both of these estimates were quite uncertain and depended on a lot of debatable assumptions (including possibly underrating the potential for shrimp stunning interventions to catalyze industry-wide changes), but I think this is one of the best estimates currently out there. 

My personal advice would be that I think the EA Funds Animal Welfare Fund is probably the expected value maximizing option, while The Humane League is probably the best option if you're somewhat risk-averse.