Itās possible that animal products may be replaced in the future. But I think itās risky to assume that it will automatically happen just by boosting our technology.
Growing a full animal is already inefficient in terms of calories produced, land use, climate emissions, etc. A lot of the reason we keep doing it is due to taste (not easy to simulate everything), cultural factors (some countries already banned cultivated meat), and habits.
Other reasons include intensive lobbying from the meat industry, which has managed to get a lot of subsidies, is lobbying against alternatives (e.g. passing laws preventing them from being called meat, calling them ultra-transformed), etc. Another element is simply that meat is associated with status in many countries.
Then again, itās possible that technology gets good enough to replace the vast majority of animal use. But itās much less likely without interventions that boost research in alternative proteins, secure government support, fight against the lobbying of the meat industry, inform people about the benefits of doing so, etc. And we certainly shouldnāt take it as something that will just happen with more technologyāif it was just about efficiency weād have already switched.
I believe it is entirely feasible to get the taste right. However, I donāt believe that is a major problem. Even in the worlds where it is very expensive to get the texture exactly right, we do what many cultures have done over time and between themselves: we modify it and get used to it. Foods and other less literal tastes being so varying between cultures and even age groups makes me optimistic that even failed replications of taste/ātexture could replace meat simply through a change in generation where children see it as merely another food option. Though, admittedly, we are evolved to eat meat. This likely makes us more particular, yet we also prepare other foods like vegetables in exotic manners.
I donāt see why you think if it was about efficiency we would already have switched. Iām somewhat confused: Current met production currently seems efficient based on peopleās eating habits, desire for meat, expectations about what is healthy (various people donāt trust vegetarian answers for good and bad reasons), and most importantly our tech level. Is your argument that the meat industry is getting enough subsidies that they arenāt truly more efficient than current alternatives? And/āor that the government isnāt requiring to price in the externalities of their effects on the land or climate? If they are actually less cost-effective (in terms of food produced) without the effective subsidies, that would be interesting information to learn, but Iād be somewhat surprised. It would actually make me more optimistic about the state of alternatives to meat, though I also understand that it would be a mark against my theory. (Just to be clear, I think transitioning will still take time. If we had gotten an instant win of better/ācheaper/āhealthier alternatives back in 2015 without a slow buildup, that would have helped massively and things would have scaled up. I would expect a massive amount more beyond burger and such in stores by now, but Iād still expect meat for a while yet! Unfortunately weāre in the world where it has become a somewhat politically polarized topic, and it isnāt an obvious win to many consumers, which slows things down even if we had a definite better alternative available.)
Iām skeptical the meat industry survives in the current form. It is possible they drag out their existence for a long while, but since I expect cheaper more plentiful food from the artificial sources, that leads to a great method to out-compete them.
Just to be clear, Iām not arguing against donating to animal welfare, but I do see donations in this area as mostly bringing the time the transition occurs closer in most possibilities. Still very much worthwhile! Cutting a decade into five years gives a lot of value, and even setting the stage for when great alternatives exist is valuable.
Throwing a number out as a weak model, Iād say that about 5-15% of worlds where the meat industry manipulates government to strongly rely on factory farming for a significantly long time. A decade? Two decades? Three? In the other possibilities, I expect factory farming to limp along but be shifted out at varying speeds. They would still try to stifle alternatives, but not be in a dominant position. I think food companies are already interested in alternative meat products, which means you donāt have a full cartel. Even in the 5-15%, I expect the meat companies to inevitably adopt the technology themselves even if theyāve choked out all the competitors. Not having the competitors is still very much a problem given how long they would delay the change. (Climate change, for example, is a harder problem because it requires more coordination and most people canāt just substitute electricity into their car. Food is a lot more of a substitutable good.)
Interesting . Your take that the meat industry would still be dominant in 2-3 decades only 5-15% of the time makes me curious. This requires that tastier and cheaper meat substitutes are around the corner, or at least available medium-term in the available quantities. This is interesting, but it is not the sentiment I got from people who made future projections of alternative proteins by 2050. (I donāt have the exact references in my head, sorry)
For efficiency argument, it was more about āmaking food that uses less land and is cheaperāābut not with the same taste, so not the same comparison, you donāt have to take it into account.
But regarding the third section I think we are in agreement: it is worthwhile to support alternative proteins in every case, since having them decades earlier would do a tremendous amount of good.
Just to be clear, my intended belief there was a 5-15% of meat industry taking dominance for 2-3 decades after the introduction of an alternative that is very close or beats meat entirely. Though I do think it is plausible the alternatives come soon, AI technology is advancing rapidly; and I donāt believe many peopleās models are properly factoring in AI technology of our current level being applied to more areas, much less what weāll have in the future after significant advancements. Of course, EA tends to be a lot better at that than other charities.
As an example: Theorem proving is bottlenecked by the annoying but solvable triplet of: data, money to train larger models, and companies focusing on it. Scaling the current methods would hit noticeable limits due to planning/āsearch being hard, but would allow a lot of automation towards proving software correct. AlphaProof itself is then a step above the methods that came before it. This could provide a good amount of value in terms of ensuring important software is correct but is generally ignored or assumed to need massive breakthroughs.
I find it plausible that more systems in the vein of AlphaFold (protein prediction, most centrally relevant to meat) can be extended to other areas of chemistry with a significant amount of time & effort to collect data and design. Thereās big data collection problems here, we have a lot of data about food but it is more locked away inside companies and not as carefully researched to a low level as proteins. I know the theorem proving better than I do the AlphaFold area, but that gets across my general view of āmany mental models assume too much like we are in 2018 but with single isolated notable advancements like AlphaFold/āAlphaProof/āChatGPT rather than a field with much to explore via permutations of those core ideasā.
Interesting. It feel like this still requires a lot of effort to make it usable in the context of alternative proteins (plus marketing, developing incentives, fighting the opposition, etc.), but if it works, that could indeed be a good news.
Itās possible that animal products may be replaced in the future. But I think itās risky to assume that it will automatically happen just by boosting our technology.
Growing a full animal is already inefficient in terms of calories produced, land use, climate emissions, etc. A lot of the reason we keep doing it is due to taste (not easy to simulate everything), cultural factors (some countries already banned cultivated meat), and habits.
Other reasons include intensive lobbying from the meat industry, which has managed to get a lot of subsidies, is lobbying against alternatives (e.g. passing laws preventing them from being called meat, calling them ultra-transformed), etc. Another element is simply that meat is associated with status in many countries.
Then again, itās possible that technology gets good enough to replace the vast majority of animal use. But itās much less likely without interventions that boost research in alternative proteins, secure government support, fight against the lobbying of the meat industry, inform people about the benefits of doing so, etc. And we certainly shouldnāt take it as something that will just happen with more technologyāif it was just about efficiency weād have already switched.
I believe it is entirely feasible to get the taste right. However, I donāt believe that is a major problem. Even in the worlds where it is very expensive to get the texture exactly right, we do what many cultures have done over time and between themselves: we modify it and get used to it. Foods and other less literal tastes being so varying between cultures and even age groups makes me optimistic that even failed replications of taste/ātexture could replace meat simply through a change in generation where children see it as merely another food option.
Though, admittedly, we are evolved to eat meat. This likely makes us more particular, yet we also prepare other foods like vegetables in exotic manners.
I donāt see why you think if it was about efficiency we would already have switched.
Iām somewhat confused: Current met production currently seems efficient based on peopleās eating habits, desire for meat, expectations about what is healthy (various people donāt trust vegetarian answers for good and bad reasons), and most importantly our tech level.
Is your argument that the meat industry is getting enough subsidies that they arenāt truly more efficient than current alternatives? And/āor that the government isnāt requiring to price in the externalities of their effects on the land or climate? If they are actually less cost-effective (in terms of food produced) without the effective subsidies, that would be interesting information to learn, but Iād be somewhat surprised. It would actually make me more optimistic about the state of alternatives to meat, though I also understand that it would be a mark against my theory.
(Just to be clear, I think transitioning will still take time. If we had gotten an instant win of better/ācheaper/āhealthier alternatives back in 2015 without a slow buildup, that would have helped massively and things would have scaled up. I would expect a massive amount more beyond burger and such in stores by now, but Iād still expect meat for a while yet! Unfortunately weāre in the world where it has become a somewhat politically polarized topic, and it isnāt an obvious win to many consumers, which slows things down even if we had a definite better alternative available.)
Iām skeptical the meat industry survives in the current form. It is possible they drag out their existence for a long while, but since I expect cheaper more plentiful food from the artificial sources, that leads to a great method to out-compete them.
Just to be clear, Iām not arguing against donating to animal welfare, but I do see donations in this area as mostly bringing the time the transition occurs closer in most possibilities. Still very much worthwhile! Cutting a decade into five years gives a lot of value, and even setting the stage for when great alternatives exist is valuable.
Throwing a number out as a weak model, Iād say that about 5-15% of worlds where the meat industry manipulates government to strongly rely on factory farming for a significantly long time. A decade? Two decades? Three? In the other possibilities, I expect factory farming to limp along but be shifted out at varying speeds. They would still try to stifle alternatives, but not be in a dominant position.
I think food companies are already interested in alternative meat products, which means you donāt have a full cartel. Even in the 5-15%, I expect the meat companies to inevitably adopt the technology themselves even if theyāve choked out all the competitors. Not having the competitors is still very much a problem given how long they would delay the change.
(Climate change, for example, is a harder problem because it requires more coordination and most people canāt just substitute electricity into their car. Food is a lot more of a substitutable good.)
Interesting . Your take that the meat industry would still be dominant in 2-3 decades only 5-15% of the time makes me curious. This requires that tastier and cheaper meat substitutes are around the corner, or at least available medium-term in the available quantities. This is interesting, but it is not the sentiment I got from people who made future projections of alternative proteins by 2050. (I donāt have the exact references in my head, sorry)
For efficiency argument, it was more about āmaking food that uses less land and is cheaperāābut not with the same taste, so not the same comparison, you donāt have to take it into account.
But regarding the third section I think we are in agreement: it is worthwhile to support alternative proteins in every case, since having them decades earlier would do a tremendous amount of good.
Just to be clear, my intended belief there was a 5-15% of meat industry taking dominance for 2-3 decades after the introduction of an alternative that is very close or beats meat entirely.
Though I do think it is plausible the alternatives come soon, AI technology is advancing rapidly; and I donāt believe many peopleās models are properly factoring in AI technology of our current level being applied to more areas, much less what weāll have in the future after significant advancements.
Of course, EA tends to be a lot better at that than other charities.
As an example: Theorem proving is bottlenecked by the annoying but solvable triplet of: data, money to train larger models, and companies focusing on it. Scaling the current methods would hit noticeable limits due to planning/āsearch being hard, but would allow a lot of automation towards proving software correct. AlphaProof itself is then a step above the methods that came before it. This could provide a good amount of value in terms of ensuring important software is correct but is generally ignored or assumed to need massive breakthroughs.
I find it plausible that more systems in the vein of AlphaFold (protein prediction, most centrally relevant to meat) can be extended to other areas of chemistry with a significant amount of time & effort to collect data and design. Thereās big data collection problems here, we have a lot of data about food but it is more locked away inside companies and not as carefully researched to a low level as proteins.
I know the theorem proving better than I do the AlphaFold area, but that gets across my general view of āmany mental models assume too much like we are in 2018 but with single isolated notable advancements like AlphaFold/āAlphaProof/āChatGPT rather than a field with much to explore via permutations of those core ideasā.
Interesting. It feel like this still requires a lot of effort to make it usable in the context of alternative proteins (plus marketing, developing incentives, fighting the opposition, etc.), but if it works, that could indeed be a good news.