However correct or compelling these critiques turn out to be,[1] I want to praise the incredibly constructive framing here. Most ‘criticism’ on the Forum does not evince 1) the conviction that the underlying problem is still extremely important, 2) the resolve to continue making progress on it, and 3) the trust that actors will update on evidence/arguments. Wonderful.
The evidence on shrimp stunning does seem terrifyingly thin
The cage-free controversy is comparatively well studied (but still too little), and very sensitive to assumptions about inputs to quality of life
Meat alternative uptake is a known issue. The question is how long we should keep trying things before deciding the theory of change is fundamentally flawed (much longer, imo!)
However correct or compelling these critiques turn out to be,[1] I want to praise the incredibly constructive framing here. Most ‘criticism’ on the Forum does not evince 1) the conviction that the underlying problem is still extremely important, 2) the resolve to continue making progress on it, and 3) the trust that actors will update on evidence/arguments. Wonderful.
FWIW, my summary of the discourse is:
The evidence on shrimp stunning does seem terrifyingly thin
The cage-free controversy is comparatively well studied (but still too little), and very sensitive to assumptions about inputs to quality of life
Meat alternative uptake is a known issue. The question is how long we should keep trying things before deciding the theory of change is fundamentally flawed (much longer, imo!)
I agree that this framing is very strong, but I also think that criticism on the forum is often very strong and constructive.