I’m a conservation scientist and ecologist with an interest in making conservation more about the quality of animal (including all human, not just elites) life.
I broadly agree with your theory of change: ruminants (and actually animal-sourced foods broadly) provide an area of shared interests between the conservation and effective altruism communities. My organization (Conservation X Labs, or CXL) is trying to do work very much along the lines of what you’ve described. We are partnering with several conservation NGOs and the Good Food Institute (whose new CEO, Nigel Sizer, is a biodiversity guy) to elevate alternative proteins as a biodiversity tool. CXL’s specialty is open innovation, prizes and challenges for conservation. We’ve just been awarded a grant to develop criteria for The Perfect Protein Prize, which—if funded—could incentivize innovators across relevant sectors to develop protein ingredients that can help achieve taste and cost parity. It would also involve a major media campaign placing alternative proteins at the heart of conservation. And we’re starting a brand new (and currently unfunded) effort to get a major institution that moves lots of resources for sustainable development to see the alternative proteins industry as an actionable investment. If any of this interests you or others on this forum, I’m happy to chat! nitin@conservationxlabs.org.
That said, I do think moving a big chunk of the $121B going into conservation at present (as proposed in the post) involves complexities that aren’t immediately apparent. (Disclaimer: I haven’t dug deep into where that stat comes from: the following is based mostly on my experience, ~20 years in the conservation world). First, conservation institutions are already aware of alternative proteins. WWF has a report on plant-based meats, and the IUCN included cultivated meat/fermentation as a potential biodiversity-benefiting technology in their documents on synthetic biology. The lack of support so far is about politics and culture, not lack of awareness. There is also generally quite a bit of inertia in conservation, in part because it’s a pretty decentralized field built on diverse objectives. My understanding is that a lot of the $121B going to conservation is actually government budgets going to support national parks and related wildlife management work; these protected areas were established through decades of lobbying of various governments that don’t adhere to a central mandate, and PAs are now popular with middle class citizens and the tourism industry worldwide. I assume getting broad support for alternative proteins would similarly require more than a few EAs at a few conservation conferences—it will require a lot of folks in lots of capitol buildings over a long period. Finally, I (and CXL) believe conservationists are not really trained to think about technology and major transformations as a force for good. Conservationists are trained to value that which is “natural” (minimal/selective human interference), and we spend a lot of our time around local/indigenous peoples whose traditional, historically sustainable ways of life are under siege by modernity. It makes sense to be skeptical that food being produced in a sterile factory in some big city is going to make life better for the people and animals that have historically been left behind by centralized development models.
So—I think there should absolutely be an alliance between EAs and conservationists on animal-sourced foods and alternative proteins. But I think the conservation sector may not embrace APs as quickly as we would like, for what I think are both good and bad reasons.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply! I have just looked through your website and the website of Conversation X Labs. What you are doing seems extremely cool! Amazing that you guys seem to have a report, award, or grant available for practically every major driver of biodiversity loss and climate change. Textiles, alternative proteins, fire, artisanal mining. I’ll definitely be emailing you to learn more. I’m super happy that CXL exists.
About your responses:
1) I totally agree that conservationists are aware of the importance of alternative proteins in the abstract, but I don’t think they think about it very often in practice. I am currently getting a masters in biodiversity conservation at Oxford, and though I spend lots of time in both the Biology and the Geography / Environment departments talking and learning about conservation, I am the only one who will ever bring up alternative proteins. I would describe the range of opinions at Oxford as falling between 1) developing alt proteins is important but that’s not our job, to 2) new technology likely to be controlled by billionaires and thus not to be trusted. I am partially empathetic to both of these positions, but ultimately I think they limit many conservationists imaginations about how to best combat the biodiversity crisis.
2) It is true that much of the $121B described in the KMGBF is already earmarked for particular projects, many of them parks popular with the middle class, international ecotourists, etc. But not all of it. Much of that money could be spent in a variety of ways. It is true that there are political, cultural, and logistical barriers to that money being funneled towards alt proteins. But that is true of all policy, especially all international policy. If influencing policy money were essay, lobbyists wouldn’t exist. That’s why we need some lobbyists in our corner.
3) You say “I (and CXL) believe conservationists are not really trained to think about technology and major transformations as a force for good.” I simply could not agree with this more. I think there are multiple reasons for this, many of which go beyond the scope of this reply to a reply of an EA Forum post. However, one that I think doesn’t get mentioned enough, (and is very relevant for the EA Forum) is this: most conservationists chose to become conservationists because they love being in the field and working with animals. IF it is true that, per unit effort, the most impact you can have on the biodiversity crisis is developing solar energy to fight climate change, or developing alternative proteins to undermine demand for beef ranching in the Amazon, etc., then that has very uncomfortable implications for people who want to save animals by actually BEING AROUND them. If you love the Amazon rainforest and want to save it, feels bad to be told that perhaps the best thing you could do would be to move to London and fundraise for cultivated beef.
I’m not suggesting that all field biologists become cultivated meat fundraisers. I am a field biologist myself, and am happiest in the field. I believe it is important work. I’m just saying some EA-coded arguments in favor of developing alt proteins can threaten some conservationists’ visions of what it means to sacrifice to protect the rainforest.
Hello David, I think we’re on the same page! I especially agree about the reluctance to give up field work (which is gratifying day-to-day) for bureaucratic/policy/maybe-this-will-change-the-world-in-fifteen-years work. I suffered from that reluctance for some time. Really hard to give up working with elephants.
Hello David et al.,
I’m a conservation scientist and ecologist with an interest in making conservation more about the quality of animal (including all human, not just elites) life.
I broadly agree with your theory of change: ruminants (and actually animal-sourced foods broadly) provide an area of shared interests between the conservation and effective altruism communities. My organization (Conservation X Labs, or CXL) is trying to do work very much along the lines of what you’ve described. We are partnering with several conservation NGOs and the Good Food Institute (whose new CEO, Nigel Sizer, is a biodiversity guy) to elevate alternative proteins as a biodiversity tool. CXL’s specialty is open innovation, prizes and challenges for conservation. We’ve just been awarded a grant to develop criteria for The Perfect Protein Prize, which—if funded—could incentivize innovators across relevant sectors to develop protein ingredients that can help achieve taste and cost parity. It would also involve a major media campaign placing alternative proteins at the heart of conservation. And we’re starting a brand new (and currently unfunded) effort to get a major institution that moves lots of resources for sustainable development to see the alternative proteins industry as an actionable investment. If any of this interests you or others on this forum, I’m happy to chat! nitin@conservationxlabs.org.
That said, I do think moving a big chunk of the $121B going into conservation at present (as proposed in the post) involves complexities that aren’t immediately apparent. (Disclaimer: I haven’t dug deep into where that stat comes from: the following is based mostly on my experience, ~20 years in the conservation world). First, conservation institutions are already aware of alternative proteins. WWF has a report on plant-based meats, and the IUCN included cultivated meat/fermentation as a potential biodiversity-benefiting technology in their documents on synthetic biology. The lack of support so far is about politics and culture, not lack of awareness. There is also generally quite a bit of inertia in conservation, in part because it’s a pretty decentralized field built on diverse objectives. My understanding is that a lot of the $121B going to conservation is actually government budgets going to support national parks and related wildlife management work; these protected areas were established through decades of lobbying of various governments that don’t adhere to a central mandate, and PAs are now popular with middle class citizens and the tourism industry worldwide. I assume getting broad support for alternative proteins would similarly require more than a few EAs at a few conservation conferences—it will require a lot of folks in lots of capitol buildings over a long period. Finally, I (and CXL) believe conservationists are not really trained to think about technology and major transformations as a force for good. Conservationists are trained to value that which is “natural” (minimal/selective human interference), and we spend a lot of our time around local/indigenous peoples whose traditional, historically sustainable ways of life are under siege by modernity. It makes sense to be skeptical that food being produced in a sterile factory in some big city is going to make life better for the people and animals that have historically been left behind by centralized development models.
So—I think there should absolutely be an alliance between EAs and conservationists on animal-sourced foods and alternative proteins. But I think the conservation sector may not embrace APs as quickly as we would like, for what I think are both good and bad reasons.
Hello Nitin,
Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply! I have just looked through your website and the website of Conversation X Labs. What you are doing seems extremely cool! Amazing that you guys seem to have a report, award, or grant available for practically every major driver of biodiversity loss and climate change. Textiles, alternative proteins, fire, artisanal mining. I’ll definitely be emailing you to learn more. I’m super happy that CXL exists.
About your responses:
1) I totally agree that conservationists are aware of the importance of alternative proteins in the abstract, but I don’t think they think about it very often in practice. I am currently getting a masters in biodiversity conservation at Oxford, and though I spend lots of time in both the Biology and the Geography / Environment departments talking and learning about conservation, I am the only one who will ever bring up alternative proteins. I would describe the range of opinions at Oxford as falling between 1) developing alt proteins is important but that’s not our job, to 2) new technology likely to be controlled by billionaires and thus not to be trusted. I am partially empathetic to both of these positions, but ultimately I think they limit many conservationists imaginations about how to best combat the biodiversity crisis.
2) It is true that much of the $121B described in the KMGBF is already earmarked for particular projects, many of them parks popular with the middle class, international ecotourists, etc. But not all of it. Much of that money could be spent in a variety of ways. It is true that there are political, cultural, and logistical barriers to that money being funneled towards alt proteins. But that is true of all policy, especially all international policy. If influencing policy money were essay, lobbyists wouldn’t exist. That’s why we need some lobbyists in our corner.
3) You say “I (and CXL) believe conservationists are not really trained to think about technology and major transformations as a force for good.” I simply could not agree with this more. I think there are multiple reasons for this, many of which go beyond the scope of this reply to a reply of an EA Forum post. However, one that I think doesn’t get mentioned enough, (and is very relevant for the EA Forum) is this: most conservationists chose to become conservationists because they love being in the field and working with animals. IF it is true that, per unit effort, the most impact you can have on the biodiversity crisis is developing solar energy to fight climate change, or developing alternative proteins to undermine demand for beef ranching in the Amazon, etc., then that has very uncomfortable implications for people who want to save animals by actually BEING AROUND them. If you love the Amazon rainforest and want to save it, feels bad to be told that perhaps the best thing you could do would be to move to London and fundraise for cultivated beef.
I’m not suggesting that all field biologists become cultivated meat fundraisers. I am a field biologist myself, and am happiest in the field. I believe it is important work. I’m just saying some EA-coded arguments in favor of developing alt proteins can threaten some conservationists’ visions of what it means to sacrifice to protect the rainforest.
Hello David, I think we’re on the same page! I especially agree about the reluctance to give up field work (which is gratifying day-to-day) for bureaucratic/policy/maybe-this-will-change-the-world-in-fifteen-years work. I suffered from that reluctance for some time. Really hard to give up working with elephants.