I appreciate Cam putting the potential benefits of this work so effectively and succinctly.
I do want to add one thing here though: the plant-based policy at CXL, as well as the interest in this work, is not just a function of me—it’s a function of CXL. My colleagues are excited by the idea of finding win-wins for biodiversity and animal well-being, presenting what to me is a unique opportunity to help bring animal welfare concerns into mainstream conservation.
Thanks for calling that out, Nitin! I was worried my succinctness wasn’t giving them enough credit.
I’ve met several of your colleagues, and it’s clear they’re not pawns in your game. They are mission-driven people who are unusually clear-eyed about what they value, unusually ambitious about doing good, and unusually creative about how to do it. That seems to be a big part of why they’re taking steps most conservation orgs haven’t: they understand that responding to existential threats with appropriate urgency doesn’t rule out doing good in other ways (and that a tunnel-vision approach could actually make them less effective at achieving their top priority).
At the same time, I want to make sure we’re giving due credit to the huge number of other conservationists who care about animal welfare, yet don’t see those values reflected in the policies and priorities of their organizations (as you mention in your Science paper linked above; full text here). And to your CXL colleagues before you joined! It’s not that some people care about welfare and others don’t; it’s that institutional change requires more than good intentions. You also need someone to start conversations, make people feel psychologically safe enough to consider changing their minds, contribute domain expertise, and find where the levers of change are (at both the individual and organizational level). Oh, and the person doing that needs to be good at it—plenty have tried and failed, and not for lack of passion.
I appreciate Cam putting the potential benefits of this work so effectively and succinctly.
I do want to add one thing here though: the plant-based policy at CXL, as well as the interest in this work, is not just a function of me—it’s a function of CXL. My colleagues are excited by the idea of finding win-wins for biodiversity and animal well-being, presenting what to me is a unique opportunity to help bring animal welfare concerns into mainstream conservation.
Thanks for calling that out, Nitin! I was worried my succinctness wasn’t giving them enough credit.
I’ve met several of your colleagues, and it’s clear they’re not pawns in your game. They are mission-driven people who are unusually clear-eyed about what they value, unusually ambitious about doing good, and unusually creative about how to do it. That seems to be a big part of why they’re taking steps most conservation orgs haven’t: they understand that responding to existential threats with appropriate urgency doesn’t rule out doing good in other ways (and that a tunnel-vision approach could actually make them less effective at achieving their top priority).
At the same time, I want to make sure we’re giving due credit to the huge number of other conservationists who care about animal welfare, yet don’t see those values reflected in the policies and priorities of their organizations (as you mention in your Science paper linked above; full text here). And to your CXL colleagues before you joined! It’s not that some people care about welfare and others don’t; it’s that institutional change requires more than good intentions. You also need someone to start conversations, make people feel psychologically safe enough to consider changing their minds, contribute domain expertise, and find where the levers of change are (at both the individual and organizational level). Oh, and the person doing that needs to be good at it—plenty have tried and failed, and not for lack of passion.