The work of The Humane League and other animal welfare activists led 161 new organisations to commit to using cage-free products, helping free millions of chickens from cruel battery cages.
The EU Commission said it will āput forward a proposal to end the ādisturbingā systematic practice of killing male chicks across the EUā ā another huge win for animal welfare campaigners.
Fish welfare was discussed in the UK Parliament for the first time ever, featuring contributions from effective-altruism-backed charities.
The welfare of crabs, lobsters and prawns was recognised in UK legislation thanks to the new Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill
Rethink Priorities, meanwhile, embarked on their ambitious Moral Weight Project to provide a better way to compare the interests of different species.
Of these, it seems like the first, third, and fifth items have clear EA links, but the second and fourth are less clear. Iād be interested to hear if there were EA-linked orgs significantly involved in advocacy around either the UK animal sentience legislation or the EU commission male chick culling ban proposal.
Iām a ālong timeā āanimal welfareā āEAā and Iām confused by Jamieās thread here.
I agree that I think itās possible to co-opt and take credit, and this is bad.
Iām not sure this has happened here. I donāt understand Jamieās purpose. Iām worried his comment is unnecessarily disagreeable.
Itās good to have good people (EA) do good work on animal welfare. Itās great if this list draws attention to work that we think EAs should support.
(1) reduce the chance that effective altruism does end up co-opting and/āor incorrectly taking credit. (I donāt expect that Shakeel was intentionally trying to do this.)
(2) Lower priority, but I was intrigued about how the phrase āin EAā was being used more generally. Context: I think that what gets counted as āEAā or not often rests a lot on self-identification, which I donāt see as a particularly important or useful consideration. Iām more interested in whether projects seem cost-effective (in expectation), or at least whether people seem to be actually be putting the ācore principlesā of EA to good use. (Hereās CEAās list on that.) I suspect whatās going on here though is more about whether the projects have been Open Phil funded.
The animal welfare items were:
Of these, it seems like the first, third, and fifth items have clear EA links, but the second and fourth are less clear. Iād be interested to hear if there were EA-linked orgs significantly involved in advocacy around either the UK animal sentience legislation or the EU commission male chick culling ban proposal.
Iām a ālong timeā āanimal welfareā āEAā and Iām confused by Jamieās thread here.
I agree that I think itās possible to co-opt and take credit, and this is bad.
Iām not sure this has happened here. I donāt understand Jamieās purpose. Iām worried his comment is unnecessarily disagreeable.
Itās good to have good people (EA) do good work on animal welfare. Itās great if this list draws attention to work that we think EAs should support.
Yeah, no particular purpose other than to
(1) reduce the chance that effective altruism does end up co-opting and/āor incorrectly taking credit. (I donāt expect that Shakeel was intentionally trying to do this.)
(2) Lower priority, but I was intrigued about how the phrase āin EAā was being used more generally. Context: I think that what gets counted as āEAā or not often rests a lot on self-identification, which I donāt see as a particularly important or useful consideration. Iām more interested in whether projects seem cost-effective (in expectation), or at least whether people seem to be actually be putting the ācore principlesā of EA to good use. (Hereās CEAās list on that.) I suspect whatās going on here though is more about whether the projects have been Open Phil funded.