Excellent link, I need to carefully consider it. -- My main thought is that alt-proteins need to be “normal” before we will know if people are willing to adopt them. My assumption is that once they are “just another foodstuff” it will depend on PTC. But right now they are new (aka scary and weird) - which would dominate the survey results. (This somewhat contradicts the increase in taste preference from informed tasting...) I like the example in the dining hall the best because it is in an environment where the alt-protein option was “out in the open” and eating it was a community activity. I think this would normalize the meal faster than most other situations. I’m not sure how long would be long enough for me to agree that adoption had stabilized at its total reach. I’d probably say 3-10 years, but two generations to really know...Food (including taste) is very cultural. I also think that once the PTC factors are equivalent and alt protein is normal, that “not harming animals” will be a huge factor in people’s choices. And it would spill over into pushing other people to adopt alt proteins. This is just my feeling, not verified or researched in any way. I am new to the domain of alt-proteins, and need to ground myself more! So taking a step back. Yes, I very much agree it is not at all certain that alt proteins will be widely adopted and I do not think it is wise to assume that once alt proteins reach PTC, “they will come.” I felt comfortable reaching the conclusion that it is a top biodiversity intervention based on 20% of total meat consumption. This feels within reason, and would still make a very large difference for global biodiversity extinction risk. The dining hall example had 26% adoption in 10 weeks, woo!
To be honest, I’m not familiar with other meat reduction strategies. Please catch me up to speed? With encouraging vegetarianism: My impression is that changing beliefs (done gradually with intermediate steps) is making headway, but more slowly than “purchase options.”
Thanks for mentioning the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, I hadn’t heard of it! On first glance I am skeptical of the perpetual endowments. Its not that perpetual endowments aren’t great setups. Most broadly, I’m concerned that legal structures without willful populations of people behind them will eventually fall to the active desires of the time. That’s important because, even if that were a temporary reversal, it might negate the benefits to biodiversity (habitat, extinction etc). I don’t have a particular scenario in mind for how this would play out, and I need to game it out more completely to have confidence in my position.
More specifically, a lot of the areas most desirable to protect exist with poor government coordination and high levels of corruption. Perpetual endowments I don’t think can withstand those conditions. So I consider perpetual endowments to be “a useful tool when implemented in places with durable government structure, given that they are initiated with care.”
edit: Oops I forgot your last paragraph. Thanks for giving us some grace that it’s unwieldy to write out an ethical framework lol. I’m painfully aware that its a huge gap, and it’s been weighing on me ever since it was pointed out here. I fully intend to write down a more thorough “philosophy of biodiversity.” It needs some clarity and delimitation, and all the flaws to be opened up to discussion.
I agree that alternative proteins can probably make a dent in meat consumption even if they aren’t a silver bullet. On other meat reduction strategies, I would recommend this database from Rethink Priorities, as well as Björn’s blog More Than Meats The Eye and Seth’s blog Regression To The Meat. (Puns goes hard in the meat reduction space).
Hi Ben, thank you very much for the comment!
Excellent link, I need to carefully consider it.
-- My main thought is that alt-proteins need to be “normal” before we will know if people are willing to adopt them. My assumption is that once they are “just another foodstuff” it will depend on PTC. But right now they are new (aka scary and weird) - which would dominate the survey results. (This somewhat contradicts the increase in taste preference from informed tasting...) I like the example in the dining hall the best because it is in an environment where the alt-protein option was “out in the open” and eating it was a community activity. I think this would normalize the meal faster than most other situations. I’m not sure how long would be long enough for me to agree that adoption had stabilized at its total reach. I’d probably say 3-10 years, but two generations to really know...Food (including taste) is very cultural.
I also think that once the PTC factors are equivalent and alt protein is normal, that “not harming animals” will be a huge factor in people’s choices. And it would spill over into pushing other people to adopt alt proteins. This is just my feeling, not verified or researched in any way. I am new to the domain of alt-proteins, and need to ground myself more!
So taking a step back. Yes, I very much agree it is not at all certain that alt proteins will be widely adopted and I do not think it is wise to assume that once alt proteins reach PTC, “they will come.” I felt comfortable reaching the conclusion that it is a top biodiversity intervention based on 20% of total meat consumption. This feels within reason, and would still make a very large difference for global biodiversity extinction risk. The dining hall example had 26% adoption in 10 weeks, woo!
To be honest, I’m not familiar with other meat reduction strategies. Please catch me up to speed?
With encouraging vegetarianism: My impression is that changing beliefs (done gradually with intermediate steps) is making headway, but more slowly than “purchase options.”
Thanks for mentioning the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, I hadn’t heard of it!
On first glance I am skeptical of the perpetual endowments. Its not that perpetual endowments aren’t great setups. Most broadly, I’m concerned that legal structures without willful populations of people behind them will eventually fall to the active desires of the time. That’s important because, even if that were a temporary reversal, it might negate the benefits to biodiversity (habitat, extinction etc). I don’t have a particular scenario in mind for how this would play out, and I need to game it out more completely to have confidence in my position.
More specifically, a lot of the areas most desirable to protect exist with poor government coordination and high levels of corruption. Perpetual endowments I don’t think can withstand those conditions. So I consider perpetual endowments to be “a useful tool when implemented in places with durable government structure, given that they are initiated with care.”
edit: Oops I forgot your last paragraph.
Thanks for giving us some grace that it’s unwieldy to write out an ethical framework lol. I’m painfully aware that its a huge gap, and it’s been weighing on me ever since it was pointed out here. I fully intend to write down a more thorough “philosophy of biodiversity.” It needs some clarity and delimitation, and all the flaws to be opened up to discussion.
Thanks!
I agree that alternative proteins can probably make a dent in meat consumption even if they aren’t a silver bullet. On other meat reduction strategies, I would recommend this database from Rethink Priorities, as well as Björn’s blog More Than Meats The Eye and Seth’s blog Regression To The Meat. (Puns goes hard in the meat reduction space).