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 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.