How do you reconcile this with countries developing more and more factory farming and increasing animal consumption when they get richer?
(Such as China?)
Increased plenty leading to increased morality, better societies leading to more focus on effective altruism (in the general sense, rather than this specific movement), more wealth to throw around, work at replacing meat with fake alternatives (which should speed up as technology increases too), advanced technology which makes the previous far quicker to iterate on.
I certainly expect in the short-term to see increasing factory farming, but I donāt see the current economies as being a sign that it will continue indefinitely. China, for example, is rich but is also a very quickly growing economy from not-so-richāthey will scale up their meat production quickly to meet their populationās needs and desires. This, to me, is like asking why they would build a bunch of okay concrete apartments rather than fancier apartment designs from 201x with design issues despite the nicer statusābecause they need a lot of living space/āfood, the existing methods of breeding a massive amount of animals work easily at scale, the technology for it isnāt super widespread or optimized, and they arenāt massively rich in that they can easily rebuild that entire industry. They prefer eating meat and so the market meets that demand, if they could have been served by just as good alternatives that were cheaper then they would eat those.
I donāt see notable reasons to believe that farming a chicken will be the most efficient way of producing meat for the next fifty years given the rate of technology. (And thatās on the tail-end, even without AI beyond the current, thereās a lot of solutions to extract in fifty years.)
(Current alternatives have various issues. Not tasting as good. Expense. Political polarization. The first two are entirely solvable with enough effort or a generation which grew up with both. The third is a problem but is something that would be faced in any spending on animal welfare as well, and I donāt consider it a fundamental political disagreement which I think indicates it has a good chance to dissolve.)
The argument then, is that the more quickly we have people working to increase the speed of economic growth and technological advancement, the quicker the inevitable replacement of factory farming occurs. If the technology comes a year earlier, then that is another year to drive down the prices and scale up so that third-world countries donāt go through a buildup of factory farming as they become richer. Of course, this can easily be taken (and I do) as an argument that favors animal welfare investments of a certain kindāthat of increasing focus on synthesizing food. But I can certainly see the logic that increasing technological progress & economic growth would encourage (not necessarily charitable) investment and interest.
I understand the point, but Iām skeptical that investing in economic growth is the best way to lead to this desired result. If the goal is to obtain alternative proteins faster, then it seems vastly more effective to support funding and R&D for alternative proteins directly (you seem to agree with that in part).
Beyond that, itās not guaranteed that new technologies will automatically displace all types of animal farmingāsee this post for a good overview of that.
Hm, the post is good, though I see this as a relatively weak statement. The amount of factory farming would be massively lower than now, presuming that my assumptions about people switching off of meat are true.
I also expect that if we get a big boost of technology (even better AI-driven protein/āchemical synthesis or discovery), then I donāt expect the argument that weāll still farm them for dyes and such to hold. As the years go by, it becomes ever more feasible to synthesize those useful dyes or materials directly. The outcome described there would still be a lot less (several orders of magnitude?) factory farming. I do think this point depends notably on how soon you think the technology will occur and solve a lot of the general problem (getting chemicals/āproteins en masse). I find it plausible that it will come before we solve various meat alternatives (in the better or equivalent price/ātaste/ācost/ānutrition sense), but also find it mildly plausible that it takes a decade or two after.
Point three of the article that AI will make factory farming more efficient is true, but also I donāt have a reason to believe the final conclusion. Big data analytics does not provide notable evidence to believe that factory farming will outcompete alternative methods in the long runāit is an argument that they arenāt constant and so have a longer shelf-life than the naive extrapolation. Growing an animal simply requires a lot of work and energy in a specific form that I donāt have any reason to believe alternative meats require as much. As for the bioengineering example, a similar argument implies. To me, this is like saying that a person down in a mine is always going to be more efficient and scalable than a digging machine.
Point four is one that I think fills out a difference in vision. They compare it to chocolate which hasnāt been replaced. My model of the world is that over the next thirty or so years we have significant advancement in fields like chemical synthesis, reverse engineering proteins, and so on. I donāt see any reason to believe chocolate wonāt be replaced! Many of the foods made from it alter the taste massively themselves, if food companies could replace chocolate with a significantly cheaper version then they would. I believe they would be slower about it, it presumably doesnāt cost much and has been quite tuned.
It feels like thereās a missing note in the post, that they think things will stay comparatively the same as 2020 level competitiveness even though thereās very little reason to believe that. Why should I think that growing a full animal is remotely efficient for any of our needs? There are some good points or areas to think about, and the weakest claim that there might be a notable amount of factory farming is true, but I feel overall a bit baffled by the thrust of the article. Thereās a missing note to the post, a strong background assumption that technology will continue looking as it is circa 2020 with no major optimizations feasible. AI isnāt an integral part of my point, though I believe if it succeeds as it has so far then the timescale for various synthesis methods and the like moves up quite a lot, so I donāt view that quite as the distinction.
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.
How do you reconcile this with countries developing more and more factory farming and increasing animal consumption when they get richer? (Such as China?)
Maybe the idea is some sort of meat-eating Kuznets curve? Though evidence for that is limited.
Wow, as expressed in your link, the evidence for a Kuznet curve in this domain is indeed pretty poor.
Increased plenty leading to increased morality, better societies leading to more focus on effective altruism (in the general sense, rather than this specific movement), more wealth to throw around, work at replacing meat with fake alternatives (which should speed up as technology increases too), advanced technology which makes the previous far quicker to iterate on.
I certainly expect in the short-term to see increasing factory farming, but I donāt see the current economies as being a sign that it will continue indefinitely. China, for example, is rich but is also a very quickly growing economy from not-so-richāthey will scale up their meat production quickly to meet their populationās needs and desires. This, to me, is like asking why they would build a bunch of okay concrete apartments rather than fancier apartment designs from 201x with design issues despite the nicer statusābecause they need a lot of living space/āfood, the existing methods of breeding a massive amount of animals work easily at scale, the technology for it isnāt super widespread or optimized, and they arenāt massively rich in that they can easily rebuild that entire industry. They prefer eating meat and so the market meets that demand, if they could have been served by just as good alternatives that were cheaper then they would eat those.
I donāt see notable reasons to believe that farming a chicken will be the most efficient way of producing meat for the next fifty years given the rate of technology. (And thatās on the tail-end, even without AI beyond the current, thereās a lot of solutions to extract in fifty years.)
(Current alternatives have various issues. Not tasting as good. Expense. Political polarization. The first two are entirely solvable with enough effort or a generation which grew up with both. The third is a problem but is something that would be faced in any spending on animal welfare as well, and I donāt consider it a fundamental political disagreement which I think indicates it has a good chance to dissolve.)
The argument then, is that the more quickly we have people working to increase the speed of economic growth and technological advancement, the quicker the inevitable replacement of factory farming occurs. If the technology comes a year earlier, then that is another year to drive down the prices and scale up so that third-world countries donāt go through a buildup of factory farming as they become richer.
Of course, this can easily be taken (and I do) as an argument that favors animal welfare investments of a certain kindāthat of increasing focus on synthesizing food. But I can certainly see the logic that increasing technological progress & economic growth would encourage (not necessarily charitable) investment and interest.
I understand the point, but Iām skeptical that investing in economic growth is the best way to lead to this desired result. If the goal is to obtain alternative proteins faster, then it seems vastly more effective to support funding and R&D for alternative proteins directly (you seem to agree with that in part).
Beyond that, itās not guaranteed that new technologies will automatically displace all types of animal farmingāsee this post for a good overview of that.
Hm, the post is good, though I see this as a relatively weak statement. The amount of factory farming would be massively lower than now, presuming that my assumptions about people switching off of meat are true.
I also expect that if we get a big boost of technology (even better AI-driven protein/āchemical synthesis or discovery), then I donāt expect the argument that weāll still farm them for dyes and such to hold. As the years go by, it becomes ever more feasible to synthesize those useful dyes or materials directly. The outcome described there would still be a lot less (several orders of magnitude?) factory farming. I do think this point depends notably on how soon you think the technology will occur and solve a lot of the general problem (getting chemicals/āproteins en masse). I find it plausible that it will come before we solve various meat alternatives (in the better or equivalent price/ātaste/ācost/ānutrition sense), but also find it mildly plausible that it takes a decade or two after.
Point three of the article that AI will make factory farming more efficient is true, but also I donāt have a reason to believe the final conclusion. Big data analytics does not provide notable evidence to believe that factory farming will outcompete alternative methods in the long runāit is an argument that they arenāt constant and so have a longer shelf-life than the naive extrapolation. Growing an animal simply requires a lot of work and energy in a specific form that I donāt have any reason to believe alternative meats require as much. As for the bioengineering example, a similar argument implies. To me, this is like saying that a person down in a mine is always going to be more efficient and scalable than a digging machine.
Point four is one that I think fills out a difference in vision. They compare it to chocolate which hasnāt been replaced. My model of the world is that over the next thirty or so years we have significant advancement in fields like chemical synthesis, reverse engineering proteins, and so on. I donāt see any reason to believe chocolate wonāt be replaced! Many of the foods made from it alter the taste massively themselves, if food companies could replace chocolate with a significantly cheaper version then they would. I believe they would be slower about it, it presumably doesnāt cost much and has been quite tuned.
It feels like thereās a missing note in the post, that they think things will stay comparatively the same as 2020 level competitiveness even though thereās very little reason to believe that. Why should I think that growing a full animal is remotely efficient for any of our needs?
There are some good points or areas to think about, and the weakest claim that there might be a notable amount of factory farming is true, but I feel overall a bit baffled by the thrust of the article. Thereās a missing note to the post, a strong background assumption that technology will continue looking as it is circa 2020 with no major optimizations feasible. AI isnāt an integral part of my point, though I believe if it succeeds as it has so far then the timescale for various synthesis methods and the like moves up quite a lot, so I donāt view that quite as the distinction.
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.