I thought about this question over the last few months while drafting our strategy and vision. A few thoughts and observations:
Some other EA organizations also seem to have adopted directional visions instead of static visions describing an ideal world. 80k had this in their 2014 business model: āOur aim is to have the biggest possible social impact.ā
2022 CEA: āCEAās overall aim is to do the most we can to solve pressing global problems ā like global poverty, factory farming, and existential risk ā and prepare to face the challenges of tomorrow.ā
What I primarily need from a vision statement is to succinctly and clearly communicate my goal to my team, supporters, and the general public. The problem with static vision statements is that they are unable to properly communicate what we are trying to do.
Making the ideal world come sooner or making it more likely to come is only one part of doing good. Another important part of doing good is affecting non-ideal worlds by making them less bad or making the worst futures less likely. It becomes more difficult to explain my focus on harm-mitigation with a static vision statement, because in many cases harm-mitigation doesnāt obviously make the ideal world come sooner. I think harm mitigation is worthwhile even if it has zero impact on when the ideal world comes.
On the other hand, one main distinction that both the general public and animal advocates are primarily interested in is whether the organization is against all animal farming or not. Directional vision statements make your position on this unclear. When you say āIām trying to do the most good for the animalsā, people(both mainstream public and animal advocates) keep asking you āI donāt get it, are you a vegan organisation or not?ā.
Pretty much all animal advocacy organizations I know of have static vision statements describing an ideal world. Iām still confused about what is the best way to proceed here.
I thought about this question over the last few months while drafting our strategy and vision. A few thoughts and observations:
Some other EA organizations also seem to have adopted directional visions instead of static visions describing an ideal world. 80k had this in their 2014 business model:
āOur aim is to have the biggest possible social impact.ā
and they currently have this more detailed blog post about the meaning of social impact.
2022 CEA:
āCEAās overall aim is to do the most we can to solve pressing global problems ā like global poverty, factory farming, and existential risk ā and prepare to face the challenges of tomorrow.ā
What I primarily need from a vision statement is to succinctly and clearly communicate my goal to my team, supporters, and the general public. The problem with static vision statements is that they are unable to properly communicate what we are trying to do.
Making the ideal world come sooner or making it more likely to come is only one part of doing good. Another important part of doing good is affecting non-ideal worlds by making them less bad or making the worst futures less likely. It becomes more difficult to explain my focus on harm-mitigation with a static vision statement, because in many cases harm-mitigation doesnāt obviously make the ideal world come sooner. I think harm mitigation is worthwhile even if it has zero impact on when the ideal world comes.
On the other hand, one main distinction that both the general public and animal advocates are primarily interested in is whether the organization is against all animal farming or not. Directional vision statements make your position on this unclear. When you say āIām trying to do the most good for the animalsā, people(both mainstream public and animal advocates) keep asking you āI donāt get it, are you a vegan organisation or not?ā.
Pretty much all animal advocacy organizations I know of have static vision statements describing an ideal world. Iām still confused about what is the best way to proceed here.