I actually have a lot of sympathy with farmed animal advocates who feel the way you describe, despite disagreeing that WAW should be seen as intractable by their lights. I think in the scheme of things, if I had to choose, Iâd prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects. But Iâm not sure thatâs a well-calibrated view as opposed to frustration with how little people care about animals in general.
Iâd prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects.
I think the latter group will/âshould find your arguments much more convincing, though, yeah⌠I doubt the potential intractability of WAW is a crux for GDH peopleâotherwise, theyâd be working on farmed animals?[1] And same for many AI safetists, I think. If they work on AI safety for neartermist reasons, then what I say about the crux of GDH people applies to them too. If theyâre longtermists, they can just say they happen to think that AI safety is more pressing than current WAW work for magnitude reasons (as I suggest in our other comment thread), even if they also think long-term WAW is what matters most!
But yeah, I donât doubt that many GDH and AI safety folks gave you the tractability of WAW concern as a reason to favor their work over yours. And youâre right to argue this is a bad argument. I just donât think this is their real crux, or would be their real crux under more reflection. Itâd instead most likely be either the above magnitude longtermist argument or reasons not to morally care about non-human animals nearly as much as you do.
I get the frustration, though. Focusing on convincing farmed animal advocates, specifically, because of the above feels like infighting. (Your response made me slightly edit my phrasing in my first comment to make it less adversarial-looking towards farmed animal advocates who feel the way I describe, thanks). :)
just stepping back a bit, i donât think the biggest issues here are about infighting within animal welfare or whether GHD and AI people care enough about animals. I think zero sum games arenât a great framing.
for a start i think close to zero GHD people are not working on WAW because they âthink itâs intractableâ. Most of them are likely just really into their current work, have a better skillset/âexperience for GHD or just donât think WAW is their jam to work on in general. i would be surprised if there were even 10 people working in GHD thinking âoh, if WAW was a bit more tractable i would change careersâ. there might be one or 2 tho...?
i think if you keep making good arguments for WAW and then start to get a few practical real world wins attributible to your work, then more people will gradually fund you and work with you.
Thanks so much!
I actually have a lot of sympathy with farmed animal advocates who feel the way you describe, despite disagreeing that WAW should be seen as intractable by their lights. I think in the scheme of things, if I had to choose, Iâd prefer global health and AI folks updated to care more about animals, rather than farmed animal advocates updated more to care about indirect effects. But Iâm not sure thatâs a well-calibrated view as opposed to frustration with how little people care about animals in general.
I think the latter group will/âshould find your arguments much more convincing, though, yeah⌠I doubt the potential intractability of WAW is a crux for GDH peopleâotherwise, theyâd be working on farmed animals?[1] And same for many AI safetists, I think. If they work on AI safety for neartermist reasons, then what I say about the crux of GDH people applies to them too. If theyâre longtermists, they can just say they happen to think that AI safety is more pressing than current WAW work for magnitude reasons (as I suggest in our other comment thread), even if they also think long-term WAW is what matters most!
But yeah, I donât doubt that many GDH and AI safety folks gave you the tractability of WAW concern as a reason to favor their work over yours. And youâre right to argue this is a bad argument. I just donât think this is their real crux, or would be their real crux under more reflection. Itâd instead most likely be either the above magnitude longtermist argument or reasons not to morally care about non-human animals nearly as much as you do.
I get the frustration, though. Focusing on convincing farmed animal advocates, specifically, because of the above feels like infighting. (Your response made me slightly edit my phrasing in my first comment to make it less adversarial-looking towards farmed animal advocates who feel the way I describe, thanks). :)
EDIT November 22nd: Oh maybe a few people who donât want to be associated with veganism or something!
just stepping back a bit, i donât think the biggest issues here are about infighting within animal welfare or whether GHD and AI people care enough about animals. I think zero sum games arenât a great framing.
for a start i think close to zero GHD people are not working on WAW because they âthink itâs intractableâ. Most of them are likely just really into their current work, have a better skillset/âexperience for GHD or just donât think WAW is their jam to work on in general. i would be surprised if there were even 10 people working in GHD thinking âoh, if WAW was a bit more tractable i would change careersâ. there might be one or 2 tho...?
i think if you keep making good arguments for WAW and then start to get a few practical real world wins attributible to your work, then more people will gradually fund you and work with you.