This post was precipitated by thinking about the potential influx of a significant amount of money for farm animals and wondering whether AI and a lot more money might change the nature of whatâs possible w/âr/ât animal liberation and diet advocacy.
Put another way, it seems to me that whatâs possible in one reality (until now) might be be quite different from whatâs possible in another reality (AI + a lot more philanthropic support).
I donât know, of course, but I think itâs probably worth thinking about that explicitly.
Nan: âAI is about to generate hundreds of billions in new philanthropic funding. We have a huge amount of work to do to make the most of it.â
Lewis: âNew AI money could bring a step-change for factory-farmed animals â if we spend it well.â
Itsi: âthe projects that step up to the plate will happen.â
And then also thinking about the fact that Coefficient Giving, the Navigation Fund, the EA Animal Welfare Fund, ACE, and most others in the EA animal welfare community are not doing much to promote diet change or the philosophy of animal liberation.
That makes sense in a world of restricted resources: The farm animal welfare work is paying dividends beyond anything I would have expected, and if we have limited funds, we should focus there. Fair enough.
But in a new world of AI and significantly more resources, would it make sense for us to think a bit more expansively? It seems to me that it probably would.
I really loved Dave Coman-Hidyâs reflection on the book The Fall of Roe and lessons we might take from it. The anti-abortion movement:
built a complex, interlocking ecosystem
was obsessively single-issue
used incrementalism as the path to total victory
prioritized community, which was essential to the movementâs success
A few things I have been thinking about since reading his review and then reading the book:
If we followed that playbook, could we actually win some victories for animal liberation and diet change? I donât know, but I do think that AI and a massive influx of money⌠that might warrant changing how we think about whatâs possible.
Although the anti-abortion movement worked incrementally, no one was unclear on the righteousness of the cause or the end goal, and they didnât hide it, I donât believe. They were on message, sure. And they were incremental. But you knew where they stood, fundamentally. I think this would fit into my second point/âquestion.
So: Might there be ideas for animal liberation and diet change that are new and innovative and powerful, building on the lessons weâve learned over the past decade of wild success for farm animal welfare, as well as the lessons from The Fall of Roe, etc.?
Not if we donât tryâŚ
***
Have I updated my thinking w/âr/ât diet change advocacy?
I suppose the most obvious thing to say is that I have changed so many of my views since June 2018; that was a long time ago; GFI was just turning two years old. :-)
For one thing, I stopped talking about âconvenienceâ many years ago (I thought even before June 2018, though apparently not).
That said, my point in that talk was that I no longer believed that diet change advocacy could change meatâs steady global upward trajectory. It was not that I thought/âthink diet change advocacy was worthless.
Diet change and animal liberation advocacy do some very good things:
First, many people will change their diets, and fewer people eating animals is a very good thing!
Second, Iâm here because of diet change and animal liberation advocacy. So are most of the leaders in alt proteins and farm animal welfare advocacy, as well many (perhaps most) of the people who started the plant-based and cultivated meat companies.
What diet change advocacy is unlikely to do: Change the massive upward trajectory of meat production and consumption.
But neither will farm animal welfare advocacy, of course.
But maybe AI and a transformational amount of funding could flip the script. I donât know.
But it wonât if weâre not tryingâŚ
***
One final point: A lot of my post represents new and not fully formed thinking â so much so that I say explicitly at the top that Iâm tossing these ideas out for consideration and look forward to hearing from others.
I tried to present these five observations/âquestions with appropriate circumspection; apologies if I failed at that!
Thanks for your note, Elliot.
What Prompted This Post â
This post was precipitated by thinking about the potential influx of a significant amount of money for farm animals and wondering whether AI and a lot more money might change the nature of whatâs possible w/âr/ât animal liberation and diet advocacy.
Put another way, it seems to me that whatâs possible in one reality (until now) might be be quite different from whatâs possible in another reality (AI + a lot more philanthropic support).
I donât know, of course, but I think itâs probably worth thinking about that explicitly.
Iâve spent a lot of time thinking about recent posts from Nan Ransohoff (The third wave of American philanthropy), Lewis Bollard (The AI Windfall), and Itsi Weinstock (The San Francisco Strategy for Animal Welfare). .
Nan: âAI is about to generate hundreds of billions in new philanthropic funding. We have a huge amount of work to do to make the most of it.â
Lewis: âNew AI money could bring a step-change for factory-farmed animals â if we spend it well.â
Itsi: âthe projects that step up to the plate will happen.â
And then also thinking about the fact that Coefficient Giving, the Navigation Fund, the EA Animal Welfare Fund, ACE, and most others in the EA animal welfare community are not doing much to promote diet change or the philosophy of animal liberation.
That makes sense in a world of restricted resources: The farm animal welfare work is paying dividends beyond anything I would have expected, and if we have limited funds, we should focus there. Fair enough.
But in a new world of AI and significantly more resources, would it make sense for us to think a bit more expansively? It seems to me that it probably would.
I really loved Dave Coman-Hidyâs reflection on the book The Fall of Roe and lessons we might take from it. The anti-abortion movement:
built a complex, interlocking ecosystem
was obsessively single-issue
used incrementalism as the path to total victory
prioritized community, which was essential to the movementâs success
A few things I have been thinking about since reading his review and then reading the book:
If we followed that playbook, could we actually win some victories for animal liberation and diet change? I donât know, but I do think that AI and a massive influx of money⌠that might warrant changing how we think about whatâs possible.
Although the anti-abortion movement worked incrementally, no one was unclear on the righteousness of the cause or the end goal, and they didnât hide it, I donât believe. They were on message, sure. And they were incremental. But you knew where they stood, fundamentally. I think this would fit into my second point/âquestion.
So: Might there be ideas for animal liberation and diet change that are new and innovative and powerful, building on the lessons weâve learned over the past decade of wild success for farm animal welfare, as well as the lessons from The Fall of Roe, etc.?
Not if we donât tryâŚ
***
Have I updated my thinking w/âr/ât diet change advocacy?
I suppose the most obvious thing to say is that I have changed so many of my views since June 2018; that was a long time ago; GFI was just turning two years old. :-)
For one thing, I stopped talking about âconvenienceâ many years ago (I thought even before June 2018, though apparently not).
That said, my point in that talk was that I no longer believed that diet change advocacy could change meatâs steady global upward trajectory. It was not that I thought/âthink diet change advocacy was worthless.
Diet change and animal liberation advocacy do some very good things:
First, many people will change their diets, and fewer people eating animals is a very good thing!
Second, Iâm here because of diet change and animal liberation advocacy. So are most of the leaders in alt proteins and farm animal welfare advocacy, as well many (perhaps most) of the people who started the plant-based and cultivated meat companies.
What diet change advocacy is unlikely to do: Change the massive upward trajectory of meat production and consumption.
But neither will farm animal welfare advocacy, of course.
But maybe AI and a transformational amount of funding could flip the script. I donât know.
But it wonât if weâre not tryingâŚ
***
One final point: A lot of my post represents new and not fully formed thinking â so much so that I say explicitly at the top that Iâm tossing these ideas out for consideration and look forward to hearing from others.
I tried to present these five observations/âquestions with appropriate circumspection; apologies if I failed at that!
Iâm excited to hear more from you and others.
Thanks for engaging!
Thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate the full engagement and answer