Sorry I meant compared to doing nothing. I'm mainly concerned about specifically the consequence of increased meat consumption and also factory farming from GH&D.

Im worried that the chunk of EA that is concerned with effective human nearterm charities are all at risk of being net negative

great reply

You would still have to deal with the increase in factory farming and per capita meat consumption that comes with societal development.

Hi Vasco, I first learned about the meat eater problem from your post. Thank you for your insight.

Im getting at that most people would would not go out of their way to save baby Hitler. I value Hitler's life, but I also wouldn't save his life.

I would probably believe the poorest most rural parts of Africa would not be able to contribute to lab-grown meat development before it is brought efficiently to market. Furthermore, these parts of the world would likely be the last to adopt lab-gorwn meat.

its an extremely important topic that has extreme ramifications such as concluding that a large portion of global health and development could possibly be negative utility! It also entails a degree of misanthropy which affects how we think about X-risk and the utility of society today. If EA were to ignore this problem with my previous statements being true, most of the movement would be misguided. It is therefore an extremely important problem IMO. 

Thanks for your response, im in the same boat as you it seems.

This is something I have not considered, thank you.

I assume that ML skills are less in-supply however?