Hi Dhruv! I have been waiting for your post since you told me your plans in EAG London. Iām glad itās finally public!
My thoughts:
There is some additional support for your claim that āgo veganā asks are more effective for individual behaviour change. From Mathur et al.: āResults were interesting regarding the type of recommendation made: studies of interventions making a āgo veganā recommendation appeared to have larger effects than studies of interventions making no recommendation (effect modification RR = 1.31; 95% CI: [1.06, 1.62]; p = 0.03), and point estimates in studies whose interventions recommended āgoing vegetarianā (1.03) or āreducing consumptionā (1.00) heuristically suggested some degree of dose-response such that studies with broader-scoped recommendations (e.g., āgo veganā versus āreduce meat consumptionā) typically had larger effects.ā
However, itās important to note that many of the studies used in this meta-analysis have significant limitations, so more evidence is needed.
I believe that you underestimate the extent to which your proposed interventions are supported by the EA movement. I agree that alternative protein and welfare work receive the majority of EA animal funding, but there are other examples as well. For example: -ACEās movement grants support many different kinds of work -ACEās former and present Standout Charities include Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, Material Innovation Initiative, xiaobuVEGAN, Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira, Vegetarianos Hoy, Non-human Rights, Nonhuman Rights Project, Proveg, Vegan Outreach -EA Animal Welfare Fund previously funded Veganuary -Mercy for Animals has its own Transfarmation project -Some high net worth individuals who identify as EAs funded several documentaries for animals.
Many EA-aligned organizations, including those that focus on animal welfare, do a lot of work on increasing plant-based food and education. However, it can be difficult for them to demonstrate the impact of this work to their supporters. If you look at the annual reports of different organizations, youāll see that the impact of their institutional animal product reduction work is often smaller than that of their animal welfare work.
Itās important to remember that EA is not the entirety of the animal advocacy movement. There are already many groups working on the interventions you propose in your last section. However, EAās focus on neglected interventions is consistent with promoting diversity in the movement. As EA becomes more dominant in animal advocacy, I agree that a greater proportion of EA funding should be spent on exploring and testing different approaches.
Unfortunately, I donāt think you provide enough evidence in your final section for the cost-effectiveness of your proposed interventions. Iām skeptical that scaling animal agriculture transitions would be a cost-effective intervention. I know of no industry that has ever disappeared because someone tried to attract its workers with more lucrative careers. Subsidizing farmersā transitions to plant-based farming seems similar to paying people to avoid animal products, and I think both approaches would be prohibitively expensive. I believe that this intervention has symbolic value, and it can be useful for pitching a story to the media. It also seems to help with finding some whistleblowers from the industry. But I donāt think itās scaleable.
For street outreach, I wish that people who tried this intervention would collect contact information from the people they reached out to. The case for this intervention would be stronger if they tracked the behavior of these people. I understand that it can be expensive to demonstrate causal impact based on experimental data, but for certain interventions like Veganuary, there are some measurable results (such as the number of pledges or search traffic) that warrant further higher-quality research. However, I donāt see similar evidence for the interventions you propose.
I agree with you that lack of evidence is not the proof of being ineffective. I expect that there are many interventions not tried by EAs that will be shown to be very effective. For this reason I agree that some EA budget should be spent on exploration. But there is also good reason to prioritise interventions that we currently have the strongest evidence for effectiveness.
I know this is a dated reply but re: following up on street outreach campaigns, We The Free has developed a portal that tracks behavior changes. Iām not sure on usage rates, but could be good to follow up with them if interested! https://āāwww.activism.wtf/āā
Hi Emre, thanks for remembering, waiting, and your details comments! :D
Yes I link to that study and basically agree, more evidence would be great.
I donāt think I do, but I could have acknowledged that a little better in the writing, say by pointing to movement building getting 5-14% of funds based this table. But also...
In terms of the 8 examples you give, only 3 are still considered standout: I pointed out here that ācharities like NHRP or ProVeg which were previously considered are now ignoredā, and SVB, Vegetarians Hoy, Vegan Outreach are not considered to be standout charities. I think your examples point more to funding for neglected/āLMICs (great!) but not to an openness to different approaches: for example, the reasoning for the one-time funding of Veganuary was specifically given for Latin-American staff costs.
I did not know about/ācome across Transfarmation, so thanks for that, and Iād be curious to hear about which documentaries and how much they cost.
Agree with direction, though not assessment of current status quo. I think thereās more to the current major strands in EAA than just āthese are neglectedā: in posts 3 & 4 I tried to give examples of how other are thought to be ineffective. Also, there might be āmany other groupsā working on the suggested interventions, but itās not clear any are doing it with an effectiveness mindset, which would be a valuable contribution.
āI know of no industry that has ever disappeared because someone tried to attract its workers with more lucrative careers.ā Itās not just money, but stress/āwellbeing and changing social & market pressures.
āSubsidizing farmersā transitions to plant-based farming seems similar to paying people to avoid animal products, and I think both approaches would be prohibitively expensive.ā I strongly disagree with this given what I said above, and the fact they could transition to profitable businesses. I donāt think the charities currently helping with this are getting a huge amount of money, but could be averting quite a lot of lives. All this being said, it shouldnāt be too difficult to settle this intuition joust with a cost-effectiveness analysis, which I think we both agree on.
āI wish that people who tried this intervention would collect contact information from the people they reached out to. ā I wish that people with an effectiveness mindset helped people running such interventions to do such things ;-)
Hi Dhruv! I have been waiting for your post since you told me your plans in EAG London. Iām glad itās finally public!
My thoughts:
There is some additional support for your claim that āgo veganā asks are more effective for individual behaviour change. From Mathur et al.:
āResults were interesting regarding the type of recommendation made: studies of interventions making a āgo veganā recommendation appeared to have larger effects than studies of interventions making no recommendation (effect modification RR = 1.31; 95% CI: [1.06, 1.62]; p = 0.03), and point estimates in studies whose interventions recommended āgoing vegetarianā (1.03) or āreducing consumptionā (1.00) heuristically suggested some degree of dose-response such that studies with broader-scoped recommendations (e.g., āgo veganā versus āreduce meat consumptionā) typically had larger effects.ā
However, itās important to note that many of the studies used in this meta-analysis have significant limitations, so more evidence is needed.
I believe that you underestimate the extent to which your proposed interventions are supported by the EA movement. I agree that alternative protein and welfare work receive the majority of EA animal funding, but there are other examples as well. For example:
-ACEās movement grants support many different kinds of work
-ACEās former and present Standout Charities include Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, Material Innovation Initiative, xiaobuVEGAN, Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira, Vegetarianos Hoy, Non-human Rights, Nonhuman Rights Project, Proveg, Vegan Outreach
-EA Animal Welfare Fund previously funded Veganuary
-Mercy for Animals has its own Transfarmation project
-Some high net worth individuals who identify as EAs funded several documentaries for animals.
Many EA-aligned organizations, including those that focus on animal welfare, do a lot of work on increasing plant-based food and education. However, it can be difficult for them to demonstrate the impact of this work to their supporters. If you look at the annual reports of different organizations, youāll see that the impact of their institutional animal product reduction work is often smaller than that of their animal welfare work.
Itās important to remember that EA is not the entirety of the animal advocacy movement. There are already many groups working on the interventions you propose in your last section. However, EAās focus on neglected interventions is consistent with promoting diversity in the movement. As EA becomes more dominant in animal advocacy, I agree that a greater proportion of EA funding should be spent on exploring and testing different approaches.
Unfortunately, I donāt think you provide enough evidence in your final section for the cost-effectiveness of your proposed interventions. Iām skeptical that scaling animal agriculture transitions would be a cost-effective intervention. I know of no industry that has ever disappeared because someone tried to attract its workers with more lucrative careers. Subsidizing farmersā transitions to plant-based farming seems similar to paying people to avoid animal products, and I think both approaches would be prohibitively expensive. I believe that this intervention has symbolic value, and it can be useful for pitching a story to the media. It also seems to help with finding some whistleblowers from the industry. But I donāt think itās scaleable.
For street outreach, I wish that people who tried this intervention would collect contact information from the people they reached out to. The case for this intervention would be stronger if they tracked the behavior of these people. I understand that it can be expensive to demonstrate causal impact based on experimental data, but for certain interventions like Veganuary, there are some measurable results (such as the number of pledges or search traffic) that warrant further higher-quality research. However, I donāt see similar evidence for the interventions you propose.
I agree with you that lack of evidence is not the proof of being ineffective. I expect that there are many interventions not tried by EAs that will be shown to be very effective. For this reason I agree that some EA budget should be spent on exploration. But there is also good reason to prioritise interventions that we currently have the strongest evidence for effectiveness.
I know this is a dated reply but re: following up on street outreach campaigns, We The Free has developed a portal that tracks behavior changes. Iām not sure on usage rates, but could be good to follow up with them if interested! https://āāwww.activism.wtf/āā
Hi Emre, thanks for remembering, waiting, and your details comments! :D
Yes I link to that study and basically agree, more evidence would be great.
I donāt think I do, but I could have acknowledged that a little better in the writing, say by pointing to movement building getting 5-14% of funds based this table. But also...
In terms of the 8 examples you give, only 3 are still considered standout: I pointed out here that ācharities like NHRP or ProVeg which were previously considered are now ignoredā, and SVB, Vegetarians Hoy, Vegan Outreach are not considered to be standout charities. I think your examples point more to funding for neglected/āLMICs (great!) but not to an openness to different approaches: for example, the reasoning for the one-time funding of Veganuary was specifically given for Latin-American staff costs.
I did not know about/ācome across Transfarmation, so thanks for that, and Iād be curious to hear about which documentaries and how much they cost.
Agree with direction, though not assessment of current status quo. I think thereās more to the current major strands in EAA than just āthese are neglectedā: in posts 3 & 4 I tried to give examples of how other are thought to be ineffective. Also, there might be āmany other groupsā working on the suggested interventions, but itās not clear any are doing it with an effectiveness mindset, which would be a valuable contribution.
āI know of no industry that has ever disappeared because someone tried to attract its workers with more lucrative careers.ā
Itās not just money, but stress/āwellbeing and changing social & market pressures.
āSubsidizing farmersā transitions to plant-based farming seems similar to paying people to avoid animal products, and I think both approaches would be prohibitively expensive.ā
I strongly disagree with this given what I said above, and the fact they could transition to profitable businesses. I donāt think the charities currently helping with this are getting a huge amount of money, but could be averting quite a lot of lives. All this being said, it shouldnāt be too difficult to settle this intuition joust with a cost-effectiveness analysis, which I think we both agree on.
āI wish that people who tried this intervention would collect contact information from the people they reached out to. ā
I wish that people with an effectiveness mindset helped people running such interventions to do such things ;-)
Hi again! Thank you very much for your response. You can check out this website for documentaries.