I totally share the perspective that the way things currently work, and the dominant institutions, are likely to be shaken up in the coming years/decades, and that this presents opportunities to try to steer things in the right direction. I agree that this is probably more impactful than trying to correct things after the fact.
I have a few questions about the framing or the emphasis, which I think could change the conclusions one reaches regarding what we should do:
Q1: how might these alternative paradigms impact the scale of suffering? As you acknowledge, the problem of capitalism is not that it causes animal exploitation, but that it’s increased its scale. In evaluating the risk of each paradigm, I then would be interested to see your take on how the numbers of animals or severity of suffering might change with each paradigm.
Q2: multi-cause disruption or just AI? I share the perspective that AI may disrupt economic systems, but I’m less sure about the other factors you mentioned. Global inequality has increased since 1970, but if you look further back, inequality levels were higher. Climate change is going to have big effects, but despite calls by some people to rethink economic systems, the solutions being seriously considered seem to largely sit within the current economic paradigm. And then, I’m actually not aware of institutional decay at a global level—is there evidence for that, as a distinct phenomenon? These questions lead me to wonder whether this could be framed more directly as a response to anticipated AI takeoff scenarios.
Q3: alternative economic systems or other systems/institutions? Related to the above, you shift from “these factors might disrupt economic systems” to (in your own words) “economic systems are changing”. But it seems quite easy to imagine AI takeoff scenarios that still work within a growth-oriented capitalist system (and also for futures with climate change). If we’re unsure about whether economic systems will change or not, one option is to hedge and try to affect all proposed paradigms, but another strategy would be to try to help animals in ways that are robust across different economic paradigms—such as by trying to influence AI development to encode more animal-friendly values. Of course, doing both would be good—but there would be an argument for focusing efforts on paradigms or institutions that we are confident will shape whatever changes occur in the future.
Thank you so much for taking the time to engage with this piece so thoughtfully! Your questions help clarify some key assumptions I’m making and highlight areas where I could be more precise. I appreciate the constructive pushback.
On Q1 (scale of suffering): Just to clarify one point of framing “As you acknowledge, the problem of capitalism is not that it causes animal exploitation, but that it’s increased its scale.” I don’t feel this is my conclusion, I see industrial capitalism as having structurally embedded animal commodification (turning them into ‘production units’), with neoliberalism then scaling that up massively. So capitalism created both a qualitative shift in how animals are conceptualised and enabled quantitative expansion. I’m therefore worried new paradigms could repeat similar structural exclusions regardless of scale.
Having said that, you’re absolutely right, scale is important to understand. I perhaps haven’t been clear enough that my planned inclusion/exclusion analysis would look at whether emerging systems will trend toward reducing animal numbers or finding new ways to exploit them at scale.
For example, postgrowth paradigms with genuine consumption reduction might decrease total animal use, but if the focus remains on “ethical” local products without challenging underlying commodification, we could see welfare improvements with persistent numbers. For AI scenarios, the scale implications feel even more dramatic: post-scarcity could eliminate animal agriculture entirely, or it could make intensive systems so efficient that animal use expands in ways we haven’t imagined. Developing better frameworks for estimating scale effects across paradigms could be a valuable contribution of this research.
On Q2 (multi-cause vs AI-focused): This is a really fair challenge to my framing, and you’re right that I should provide more evidence for some of these claims. The institutional decay point particularly deserves more evidence, I was thinking of things like declining trust in democratic institutions and international cooperation, but you’re right that “decay” might be too strong or not sufficiently global. I do think the fact that climate solutions being seriously considered largely sit within the current economic paradigm might actually reflect our dominance by that paradigm rather than its resilience, alternative approaches may simply not get adequate consideration in mainstream policy spaces.
I appreciate the suggestion to frame this more directly around AI takeoff, but I’m genuinely curious about how multiple factors might interact, especially energy constraints. I speak with others who believe AI will “starve itself” due to energy limitations, while others see AI as the primary disruptor, there are genuinely differing views out there. Rather than betting on one factor being the “main disruptor,” I think the convergence itself creates the instability that opens windows for change. We might not know which combination of pressures will be decisive, but I do feel confident that the current trajectory is unsustainable and that economic systems are changing, the question is how, not whether. Right now I want to stay curious about all these factors rather than narrowing prematurely to one driver.
On Q3 (robustness across paradigms): This really gets to the heart of the strategic question, and I think you’ve identified the key tension in my approach. You’re absolutely right that there’s a case for focusing on interventions that are robust across economic paradigms rather than trying to influence each potential alternative. The AI governance angle you mention is compelling precisely because AI development seems more certain to happen than, say, degrowth adoption. That said, I do think we can be confident that economic systems are changing, not just might change. The convergence of multiple pressures (AI, climate, energy constraints, etc.) creates instability that opens windows for change, even if we can’t predict which factors will be most decisive. When I’ve shared this work elsewhere, others have pointed out that even the 2033 farmed animal projections I cite assume the current (unsustainable) system can be sustained for another eight years, which they find implausible. We might not know which disrupting factor will be primary, or how they’ll combine, but the status quo trajectory seems untenable. However, your point about robust interventions is well-taken. Maybe the most valuable approach is identifying leverage points that matter regardless of which paradigm emerges.
Thanks again for such a thoughtful engagement. These questions were really helpful!
Hi Karen, great post!
I totally share the perspective that the way things currently work, and the dominant institutions, are likely to be shaken up in the coming years/decades, and that this presents opportunities to try to steer things in the right direction. I agree that this is probably more impactful than trying to correct things after the fact.
I have a few questions about the framing or the emphasis, which I think could change the conclusions one reaches regarding what we should do:
Q1: how might these alternative paradigms impact the scale of suffering? As you acknowledge, the problem of capitalism is not that it causes animal exploitation, but that it’s increased its scale. In evaluating the risk of each paradigm, I then would be interested to see your take on how the numbers of animals or severity of suffering might change with each paradigm.
Q2: multi-cause disruption or just AI? I share the perspective that AI may disrupt economic systems, but I’m less sure about the other factors you mentioned. Global inequality has increased since 1970, but if you look further back, inequality levels were higher. Climate change is going to have big effects, but despite calls by some people to rethink economic systems, the solutions being seriously considered seem to largely sit within the current economic paradigm. And then, I’m actually not aware of institutional decay at a global level—is there evidence for that, as a distinct phenomenon?
These questions lead me to wonder whether this could be framed more directly as a response to anticipated AI takeoff scenarios.
Q3: alternative economic systems or other systems/institutions? Related to the above, you shift from “these factors might disrupt economic systems” to (in your own words) “economic systems are changing”. But it seems quite easy to imagine AI takeoff scenarios that still work within a growth-oriented capitalist system (and also for futures with climate change). If we’re unsure about whether economic systems will change or not, one option is to hedge and try to affect all proposed paradigms, but another strategy would be to try to help animals in ways that are robust across different economic paradigms—such as by trying to influence AI development to encode more animal-friendly values. Of course, doing both would be good—but there would be an argument for focusing efforts on paradigms or institutions that we are confident will shape whatever changes occur in the future.
Let me know if any of those are unclear!
Hi Tristan,
Thank you so much for taking the time to engage with this piece so thoughtfully! Your questions help clarify some key assumptions I’m making and highlight areas where I could be more precise. I appreciate the constructive pushback.
On Q1 (scale of suffering): Just to clarify one point of framing “As you acknowledge, the problem of capitalism is not that it causes animal exploitation, but that it’s increased its scale.” I don’t feel this is my conclusion, I see industrial capitalism as having structurally embedded animal commodification (turning them into ‘production units’), with neoliberalism then scaling that up massively. So capitalism created both a qualitative shift in how animals are conceptualised and enabled quantitative expansion. I’m therefore worried new paradigms could repeat similar structural exclusions regardless of scale.
Having said that, you’re absolutely right, scale is important to understand. I perhaps haven’t been clear enough that my planned inclusion/exclusion analysis would look at whether emerging systems will trend toward reducing animal numbers or finding new ways to exploit them at scale.
For example, postgrowth paradigms with genuine consumption reduction might decrease total animal use, but if the focus remains on “ethical” local products without challenging underlying commodification, we could see welfare improvements with persistent numbers. For AI scenarios, the scale implications feel even more dramatic: post-scarcity could eliminate animal agriculture entirely, or it could make intensive systems so efficient that animal use expands in ways we haven’t imagined. Developing better frameworks for estimating scale effects across paradigms could be a valuable contribution of this research.
On Q2 (multi-cause vs AI-focused): This is a really fair challenge to my framing, and you’re right that I should provide more evidence for some of these claims. The institutional decay point particularly deserves more evidence, I was thinking of things like declining trust in democratic institutions and international cooperation, but you’re right that “decay” might be too strong or not sufficiently global. I do think the fact that climate solutions being seriously considered largely sit within the current economic paradigm might actually reflect our dominance by that paradigm rather than its resilience, alternative approaches may simply not get adequate consideration in mainstream policy spaces.
I appreciate the suggestion to frame this more directly around AI takeoff, but I’m genuinely curious about how multiple factors might interact, especially energy constraints. I speak with others who believe AI will “starve itself” due to energy limitations, while others see AI as the primary disruptor, there are genuinely differing views out there. Rather than betting on one factor being the “main disruptor,” I think the convergence itself creates the instability that opens windows for change. We might not know which combination of pressures will be decisive, but I do feel confident that the current trajectory is unsustainable and that economic systems are changing, the question is how, not whether. Right now I want to stay curious about all these factors rather than narrowing prematurely to one driver.
On Q3 (robustness across paradigms): This really gets to the heart of the strategic question, and I think you’ve identified the key tension in my approach. You’re absolutely right that there’s a case for focusing on interventions that are robust across economic paradigms rather than trying to influence each potential alternative. The AI governance angle you mention is compelling precisely because AI development seems more certain to happen than, say, degrowth adoption.
That said, I do think we can be confident that economic systems are changing, not just might change. The convergence of multiple pressures (AI, climate, energy constraints, etc.) creates instability that opens windows for change, even if we can’t predict which factors will be most decisive. When I’ve shared this work elsewhere, others have pointed out that even the 2033 farmed animal projections I cite assume the current (unsustainable) system can be sustained for another eight years, which they find implausible. We might not know which disrupting factor will be primary, or how they’ll combine, but the status quo trajectory seems untenable.
However, your point about robust interventions is well-taken. Maybe the most valuable approach is identifying leverage points that matter regardless of which paradigm emerges.
Thanks again for such a thoughtful engagement. These questions were really helpful!