Thanks Karen! Interested if you have specific things in mind for implications of the economic angle? I can certainly see it playing into some of the “Predict how AI will change things, and try to make that go well for animals” predictions, or leading to more of an emphasis on “Shift towards all-inclusive AI safety”.
Great question! I’m thinking about how the economic disruptions from AI create opportunities to reshape the foundational rules before new systems crystalize.
For example, as AI automates more labour and potentially destabilises growth-oriented models, we might see experiments with post-growth economics, universal basic services or entirely new frameworks for measuring value. These transition moments are when assumptions about what “counts” economically become malleable, including whether animals are seen as production inputs or beings with inherent worth.
Right now, our economic systems have deeply embedded assumptions that treat animals as commodities, externalise ecological costs and prioritise efficiency over welfare. But during systemic transitions, these assumptions become visible and potentially changeable in ways they normally aren’t.
I think this fits most naturally into your “predict and prepare” category, but with a focus on economic system design rather than just technological applications. Instead of just preparing for cheaper cultivated meat, we might also prepare for the governance frameworks that will determine how new economic models treat animals.
The policy levers might be things like: ensuring animal welfare is embedded in any new economic measurement systems, preventing harmful defaults from getting locked into emerging governance structures or influencing how post-growth economic experiments value different forms of life.
Does that distinction between technological applications and systemic economic design make sense? I suspect the latter might be more neglected right now.
I’ve been exploring some of these ideas in more depth [here].
Thanks Karen! Interested if you have specific things in mind for implications of the economic angle? I can certainly see it playing into some of the “Predict how AI will change things, and try to make that go well for animals” predictions, or leading to more of an emphasis on “Shift towards all-inclusive AI safety”.
Great question! I’m thinking about how the economic disruptions from AI create opportunities to reshape the foundational rules before new systems crystalize.
For example, as AI automates more labour and potentially destabilises growth-oriented models, we might see experiments with post-growth economics, universal basic services or entirely new frameworks for measuring value. These transition moments are when assumptions about what “counts” economically become malleable, including whether animals are seen as production inputs or beings with inherent worth.
Right now, our economic systems have deeply embedded assumptions that treat animals as commodities, externalise ecological costs and prioritise efficiency over welfare. But during systemic transitions, these assumptions become visible and potentially changeable in ways they normally aren’t.
I think this fits most naturally into your “predict and prepare” category, but with a focus on economic system design rather than just technological applications. Instead of just preparing for cheaper cultivated meat, we might also prepare for the governance frameworks that will determine how new economic models treat animals.
The policy levers might be things like: ensuring animal welfare is embedded in any new economic measurement systems, preventing harmful defaults from getting locked into emerging governance structures or influencing how post-growth economic experiments value different forms of life.
Does that distinction between technological applications and systemic economic design make sense? I suspect the latter might be more neglected right now.
I’ve been exploring some of these ideas in more depth [here].