Yes! I think we agree here, but we’re framing things differently. We would say that mass investment, even in speculative gains, is not necessarily a bad thing (though we’re also not saying it’s necessarily a good thing).
However, we would say that such a mass investment should be done with our eyes open. We define a bubble specifically as “a situation where expected impact in a given timeframe substantially exceeds realistic impact”. It is the mismatch of expectations (in both the upswing and the downswing) that we mean to point to as causing harm to the movement.
Yeah that seems correct and I think that my post tomorrow is probably guilty of this. I’d even say I’m doing it intentionally to try to pull the best new founders into this area. I think the actual outlook for helping animals is just terribly bleak across the board and that’s probably not going to inspire people to join welfare tech incubators.
Yeah, I think there is a thin line sometimes between not overwhelming newcomers and not misleading them.
Honestly, if you’d told me how hard Fish Welfare Initiative would be, I’m not sure that past Tom would have chosen to found it (though I am extremely glad I did!). Now I struggle with how to communicate with the new founders.
Though I would say it is definitely a mistake for bought-in advocates like yourself not to be clear on the realistic timelines/likelihoods of success. And I would also say that it is possible for people to get excited about longer-term pushes where milestones are smaller but realistic.
And also, there is a place for optimism and pushing for great things that others don’t think are possible. So there’s a balance to all of this.
I think the picture is (mostly) bleak if you look at the denominator (total animal suffering), and how little we can do to end suffering of all farmed animals. If you look at the numerator, there are millions and sometimes even billions of individuals whose lives you can help, even in expectation.
Hey Aidan :)
Yes! I think we agree here, but we’re framing things differently.
We would say that mass investment, even in speculative gains, is not necessarily a bad thing (though we’re also not saying it’s necessarily a good thing).
However, we would say that such a mass investment should be done with our eyes open. We define a bubble specifically as “a situation where expected impact in a given timeframe substantially exceeds realistic impact”. It is the mismatch of expectations (in both the upswing and the downswing) that we mean to point to as causing harm to the movement.
Yeah that seems correct and I think that my post tomorrow is probably guilty of this. I’d even say I’m doing it intentionally to try to pull the best new founders into this area. I think the actual outlook for helping animals is just terribly bleak across the board and that’s probably not going to inspire people to join welfare tech incubators.
Yeah, I think there is a thin line sometimes between not overwhelming newcomers and not misleading them.
Honestly, if you’d told me how hard Fish Welfare Initiative would be, I’m not sure that past Tom would have chosen to found it (though I am extremely glad I did!). Now I struggle with how to communicate with the new founders.
Though I would say it is definitely a mistake for bought-in advocates like yourself not to be clear on the realistic timelines/likelihoods of success. And I would also say that it is possible for people to get excited about longer-term pushes where milestones are smaller but realistic.
And also, there is a place for optimism and pushing for great things that others don’t think are possible. So there’s a balance to all of this.
I think the picture is (mostly) bleak if you look at the denominator (total animal suffering), and how little we can do to end suffering of all farmed animals. If you look at the numerator, there are millions and sometimes even billions of individuals whose lives you can help, even in expectation.
If you end up reading it I’d particularly value your feedback on how I’m striking this balance.