For animal suffering:
we can’t say that farm animals live lives that are not worth living;
advocating higher welfare standards legitimizes factory farming;
corporations are unlikely to adhere to their higher welfare pledges;
commercial fishing is okay since fish usually die painfully anyways;
bad to transition from animal farming since jobs would be lost;
the world will eventually transition to cultivated meat anyways;
should end human suffering before addressing animal suffering;
advocates ignore how food system affects communities of color;*
I can’t donate to farm animal advocacy if I haven’t gone vegan; and
wild animal advocates support radically altering the ecosystem.
*There is some truth to this statement, especially regarding the past, and the answer should candidly acknowledge this. (There may also be some truth to some of the other statements, but I thought this one was especially worth highlighting.)
I do have a question for you. On GWWC’s “Best Charities to Donate to in 2020” page, under the “Give together, as a community” section, GWWC omits ACE Movement Grants. Is this intentional, and if so, can you publicly state GWWC’s reasoning?
That section of the website discusses why a fund can be a good option and then lists the funds that are available on EA Funds (the four EA Funds plus the Regranting organisations listed on EA Funds, minus CEA’s Community Building Grants as we felt that was less targeted towards a general public audience that would typically visit that page).
Hope that helps to clarify.
Thanks Luke. Do you know why EA Funds excludes ACE Movement Grants? There is substantial overlap between the recipients of ACE Movement Grants and the recipients of EA Animal Welfare Fund grants, which is why I wanted clarification that exclusion is not meant to imply anything negative about ACE Movement Grants.