Epistemic Status: researched setup for a joke
So, there’s this idea that going vegan is good and all. You save on average 105 animals/year for going/being vegan.
But given the sheer size of the issue, many argue this isn’t enough – it’s great that you don’t personally, directly contribute to the continuation and perpetuation of industrialized animal suffering, but if you’re from the Global North1 you’re already in the top 10-20%2 on the global income distribution and are morally obligated to do smth about this terrible system.
Donating to effective animal welfare charities can [whatever they do exactly] for just around $1-2/animal3.
And since you’re probably not trying to save specific individuals from their industrially determined fate, but are just trying to make the number go down, you can also just pay extra and offset4 your own, personal non-veganism.
But there’s another problem: girl supply is limited and beyond the clear fact that girls are great and that we should have more of great things, as a lesbian this also is quite the personal issue! Also cis-women, as great as they are, do have a quasi monopoly: at something like 97-99%5 they basically control the entire girl supply! And such market-power concentration is unacceptable!
And also here, I’m doing my part (transitioning). But again the question is: is that enough? Am I not morally obligated to use some of my excess resources, find the most effective charities for girl-supply increase and donate to them?
So, if you’re a guy and don’t want to personally transition. This is fine. You can just pay some extra money and offset :)
Repugnant conclusions:
- following the maths, trans-guys would have to double-offset :/
- also, this analogy btwn veganism and girlism here sort of implies that the other side (gay men wanting more trans men6) and acting on that is equivalent to the meat industry sponsoring ads like these [insert image from meat industry ad in Parisian metro to eat more meat]; this is connection is not intended
these conclusions are symmetric for boy supply, where t-girls have to double offset and would be the meat industry in the mirrored analogy. Or both t-girls and t-boys for enby supply; but then most won’t have to double offset at least :)
to avoid all of this, we could ofc just not count transitioning towards increase of girl/enby/boy supply.
→ Girl Supply II – Effective Giving
Footnotes
-
obviously this term is kinda dumb, it just means western countries, even though e.g. Australia and New Zealand are on the Southern half of the Globe; but then again, Europe and the US are Western countries compared to… some point that’s arbitrarily chosen to be just to the East of those? And again, Australia and New Zealand are… Well, you can travel West from that point and reach them eventually but then everything is Western of that point ↩
-
global income percentile for Global North median earners is around [NUMBER] ↩
-
could be as low as 0.85€/chicken, or 1,500 shrimp per $1 (i.e. ~0.057 eurocents/shrimp). More expensive for other animals. Also, these money-units don’t spare lives, they just improve conditions from terrible to less terrible ↩
-
137€/year doesn’t spare lives, it reduces the suffering in the industry which, whilst also very meaningful, isn’t the same thing. The Welfare Footprint Framework uses – to summarize heavily – cumulated positive and negative affective states over the live of an animal to compare different interventions, production systems, and species ↩
-
% of people that are trans varies by generation and region. (the magnitude of this not unclear, the highest estimate in teenagers in the US I’ve seen was just below 5%, this source found 2.7-3.3% for youth, 0.4-1.4% for adults, and 0.3% for elderly, whilst this and this source found 0.7% for youth, 0.6% for adults, and 0.5% for elders. In the US alone it ranges from 3% in NY to 0.6% in Wyoming for youth (source) and 3.2% (southern US) to 3.4% (midwestern US) in youth (source)). ↩
-
I assume they’d want more? ↩