KEYNOTE: Global Extinction and Animal Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12647 |
| Author | Yew‐Kwang Ng |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
KEYNOTE: Global Extinction and Animal
Welfare: Two Priorities for Effective Altruism
Yew-Kwang Ng
Division of Economics, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and
School of Economics, Fudan University, Shanghai
Abstract
Effective altruism should ultimately be for the promotion of aggregate welfare. Broad altruism does not confine welfare to
humans only. Thus, two priorities for broad and effective altruism may include reducing the probabilities of global extinction
and the promotion of animal welfare. The former is important because if we become extinct, we lose the enormous amount
of welfare into the far future. Also, we are faced with extinction probabilities that could be reduced, including through better
environmental protection. Moreover, if we can avoid extinction, we will likely be able to increase our welfare enormously
through such scientific and technological breakthroughs like brain stimulation and genetic engineering. Whether artificial intel-
ligence may threaten our survival soon is also briefly discussed. An effective way to promote animal welfare is to reduce ani-
mal suffering at small or even negative costs for humans.
Foreword
I am honoured to be invited to present this Atkinson
Memorial Lecture. Professor Sir Tony Atkinson was a great
economist. I have known him since 1973. It is also appro-
priate that, the Global Priorities Institute, which is associ-
ated with the movement of effective altruism, together
with the Department of Economics, co-sponsors this lec-
ture. Atkinson’s life-long contributions towards inequality/
poverty were motivated by altruism after undertaking
volunteer work. He has justly been described as ‘one of
the greatest and kindest economists’; who ‘virtually
single-handedly established the modern British field of
inequality and poverty studies’and is known as ‘the god-
father of historical studies of income and wealth’. In 2016,
Atkinson received the Dan David Prize for ‘combatting
poverty’.
I accept of course the importance of fighting poverty and
reducing inequality. However, except for making three
points quickly, I will not focus on issues of inequality and
poverty; there are other authoritative tributes to Atkinson
focusing on these (e.g. Aaberge et al., 2017; Harcourt, 2018;
Jenkins, 2017; Sandmo, 2017). Rather, I will focus on other
less widely discussed global priorities related to effective
altruism. This ‘shift’in focus is partly due to the judgement
that global poverty and inequality, though still of immense
importance, have been significantly reduced in importance
due to the general increase in real incomes and to the
growth of formerly poor countries like China and India.
However, inequality within each country has increased sig-
nificantly over the last four decades.
Three quick points on inequality
First, while increasing equality is desirable, we should do so
efficiently (Stiglitz, 2015). More than three decades ago, I
argued for the adoption of efficiency supremacy in specific
issues and the pursuit of equality overall (Ng, 1984a). For
any degree of equality achieved, this policy involves less
efficiency costs; stated alternatively, for any given amount of
efficiency costs incurred, more equality may be achieved.
Efficiency supremacy involves treating a dollar as a dollar
irrespective of whether it goes to the rich or the poor. How
could such an extreme right-wing principle be advocated by
a left-wing economist? The fact was this. Ross Parish (1976)
argued against the policy of treating a dollar to the poor as
two dollars and a dollar to the rich as half a dollar. I tried to
prove that, instead of this ratio of four to one, perhaps it
should be as much as 16 to 1. I ended up proving that
$1 =$1 (in specific issues). This shows that my heart is left-
inclined, but my head is ‘right-wing’.
Second, in contrast to the traditional focus on the equal-
ity-efficiency/growth tradeoff (e.g. Mirrlees, 1971; Okun,
1975), recent research emphasizes the beneficial effects of
equality on efficiency and growth (e.g. Biswas et al., 2017;
Milanovic, 2011;Mokyr, 2014; Solar, 1995; Stiglitz, 2012).
Partly, equality contributes to social harmony, reduces crime,
softens the opposition to the introduction of new technolo-
gies, etc. and hence, promotes productivity and growth. Sec-
ond, when physical capital was important in former times,
inequality allowed the rich to save more, leading to higher
capital accumulation and growth. Now, human capital has
become relatively more important, making equality
©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2019) 10:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12647
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 2 . May 2019
258
Keynote
To continue reading
Request your trial