CB🔸

Karma: 1,027

I’m living in France. Learned about EA in 2018, found that great, digged a lot into the topic. The idea of “what in the world improves well-being or causes suffering the most, and what can we do” really influenced me a whole lot—especially when mixed with meditation that allowed me to be more active in my life.

One of the most reliable thing I have found so far is helping animal charities : farmed animals are much more numerous than humans (and have much worse living conditions), and there absolutely is evidence that animal charities are getting some improvements (especially from The Humane League). I tried to donate a lot there.

Long-termism could also be important, but I think that we’ll hit energy limits before getting to an extinction event—I wrote an EA forum post for that here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wXzc75txE5hbHqYug/the-great-energy-descent-short-version-an-important-thing-ea

CB🔸Jan 11, 2025, 9:29 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: D Neil Jones’s comment on: The great energy descent (short version) - An important thing EA might have missed
Wow, impressive insights there!
Thanks for the feedback—indeed, in our quest to harness more and more energy, it’d going to be easier and easier to accidentally destroy ourselves.
The evolutionary perspective you mention is useful. Indeed, it appears that our culture is aimed at getting more and more energy overall (necessary to grow the economy) and evolves faster and faster so that we do more and more things each year (which is economic growth in its essence).
This framework you’re talking about does seems useful. And don’t control these dynamics that much indeed.

CB🔸Jan 9, 2025, 8:47 AM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Angelina Li’s comment on: Angelina Li’s Shortform
Agreed, I try to do that since it encourages authors to continue doing good work (and it’s generally nice).

Thinking something nice about someone’s work and not saying it is like wrapping a gift and not giving it.

CB🔸Jan 2, 2025, 10:39 AM
1 point
1 ∶ 1
on: The Humane League Needs Your Money More Than Alt Proteins, Probably
This posts sounds interesting on an important topic, and the conclusion makes me curious. What I skimmed seems relevant. However, I’m easily scared by long posts where I can’t grasp quickly the main points (this is more on me than you but I thought you’d want to know).

Is it possible to add a summary at the beginning and titles to make the main points stand out more?

I find that this post provides useful guidelines : https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dHHuEYdbMqBf2deyj/using-the-executive-summary-style-writing-that-respects-your

CB🔸Dec 22, 2024, 2:20 PM
5 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Hugh P’s comment on: Ten big wins in 2024 for farmed animals
Oh, that’s a good catch.

Insect based foods tend to apply to alternative protein grants—although the share of the insect market dedicated to meat substitutes is very small. From what I’ve seen, The Good Food Institute doesn’t include insects in their definition of alternative proteins (since, well, they are animal proteins).

It also wouldn’t be very strategic to include insects in the list since they perform worse than plant based alternatives from an environmental and, most importantly, acceptability standpoint. I’m on mobile so I don’t have a source right now but it was from a Smetana 2023 paper on meat substitutes iirc.

CB🔸Dec 18, 2024, 7:49 PM
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform
Makes sense ! I understand the position.

Regarding AI x animals donation opportunities, all of this is pretty new but I know a few. Hive launched a Ai for Animals website, with an upcoming conference: https://www.aiforanimals.org/

I also know about Electric Sheep, which has made a fellowship on the topic : https://electricsheep.teachable.com/

CB🔸Dec 18, 2024, 7:37 PM
5 points
5 ∶ 0
on: Ten big wins in 2024 for farmed animals
Great list—Always good to see the stuff that is working and that we can make a difference !

CB🔸Dec 16, 2024, 5:07 PM
7 points
3 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform
I agree with this comment. Thanks for this clear overview.

The only element where I might differ is whether AI really is >10x neglected animals.

My main issue is that while AI is a very important topic, it’s very hard to know whether AI organizations will have an overall positive or negative (or neutral) impact.
First, it’s hard to know what will work and what won’t accidentally increase capabilities. More importantly, if we end up in a future aligned with human values but not animals or artificial sentience, this could still be a very bad world in which a large number of individuals are suffering (e.g., if factory farming continues indefinitely).

My tentative and not very solid view is that work at the intersection of AI x animals is promising (eg work that aims to get AI companies to commit towards not committing animal mistreatment), and attempts for a pause are interesting (since they give us more time to figure out stuff).

If you think that an aligned AGI will truly maximise global utility, you will have a more positive outlook.

But since I’m rather risk averse, I devote most of my resources to neglected animals.

CB🔸Dec 13, 2024, 5:17 PM
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Insect farming: recent investment trends and growth projections
Very interesting, thanks!

CB🔸Nov 28, 2024, 12:14 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: cynthiaschuck’s comment on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
Interesting, thank you.

On the second point this reads like very optimistic (the way animals are treated in rich countries is just very bad). I agree that it’s maybe easier to appeal to ethical values and develop alternatives now but it’s hard to know if this will be enough to offset all the negative stuff associated by ‘more power and money = easier to buy animal products’. But I won’t have much time to engage and it’s not that important since we can’t change this part of the trajectory.

CB🔸Nov 26, 2024, 7:54 PM
3 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AI Can Help Animal Advocacy More Than It Can Help Industrial Farming
The post is interesting and well argued, but I am not sure I agree—one example I have in mind is Microsoft using AI to double the productivity of a shrimp farm, likely by increasing density.

Regarding this : “The industry also operates under finite resource constraints, including feed, water, energy, and land” It is also possible that AI, by increasing economic growth and developing better energy sources, can indirectly increase animal consumption by giving more resources to people.

I agree that animal welfare activists should use AI to boost their outreach, however.

CB🔸Nov 23, 2024, 3:59 PM
6 points
3 ∶ 2
in reply to: AxellePB 🔹’s comment on: AxellePB ’s Quick takes
This would be great!

Even better would be something dedicated to the topic of the impact AI will have on animals. It’s very likely (unavoidable?) that most of the beings affected by AI will be animals (although artificial sentience could be somewhere).

An AI aligned with humans but not animals would have terrible effects for many beings in the world, so just pushing for AI safety for humans is not enough by itself to bring a positive world.

The intersection on AI x animals seems promising though.

CB🔸Nov 21, 2024, 6:25 PM
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: David Mathers🔸’s comment on: Why I Think All The Species Of Significantly Debated Consciousness Are Conscious And Suffer Intensely
Pain feels worse when it’s conscious than when it’s unconscious?

I mean, sometimes I have a stomachache that I barely notice and which is mostly unconscious until I look at it. And it doesn’t motivate me to change a lot. However, having someone whipping me really motivates me to move elsewhere—something I wouldn’t do if the feeling were mostly unconscious (I’d mostly just step back by reflex). Probably the same reason that wakes me up when I’m hit in my sleep.

So pain as a conscious valenced negative experience seems like a strong motivator to act on.
The fact that things can be perceived unconsciously is interesting, but if it were enough to survive in nature, I don’t see a lot of reasons why we, humans, would have developed conscious pain in the first place?

CB🔸Nov 21, 2024, 12:34 PM
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Why I Think All The Species Of Significantly Debated Consciousness Are Conscious And Suffer Intensely
Thanks for the post ! This is valuable.

I find the argument convincing: why would evolution not include something as similar as pain in autonomous animals, and why would they have such similar behavior in pain if they were not conscious?

CB🔸Nov 21, 2024, 2:21 AM
6 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Donation Election Discussion Thread
I think work on animals is comparatively neglected, due to the high numbers of individuals of bad conditions. More specifically, the smaller the animals, the more numerous and neglected they tend to be, which leads to underfunding.

CB🔸Nov 20, 2024, 9:44 PM
5 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Fund Causes Open Phil Underfunds (Instead of Your Most Preferred Causes)

For the typical EA, this would likely imply donating more to animal welfare, which is currently heavily underfunded under the typical EA’s value system.
Opportunities Open Phil is exiting from, including invertebrates, digital minds, and wild animals, may be especially impactful.
I strongly agree: the comparative underfunding of these areas always felt off to me, given their very large numbers of individuals and low-hanging fruits.
However, it feels like more and more people are recognizing the need for more funding for animal welfare, given the results of the recent debate.

CB🔸Nov 18, 2024, 9:45 PM
11 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Refusing to Quantify is Refusing to Think (about trade-offs)
Another comment : regarding the value of longtermist intervention, while I understand numbers can be very high, my main uncertainty is that I’m not even sure a lot of common interventions have a positive impact.

For instance, is working against X-risks good when avoiding an S-risks would allow factory farming to continue? The answer will depend on many questions (will factory farming continue in the future, what is the impact of humanity on wild animals, what will happen regarding artificial sentience, etc.), none of which have a clear answer.

Reducing S-risks seems good, though.

CB🔸Nov 18, 2024, 9:41 PM
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: Refusing to Quantify is Refusing to Think (about trade-offs)
Very interesting and well formulated! It highlights several hidden assumptions that can significantly reduce your ability to have an impact.

Indeed, from what I’ve seen, the (natural) tendency of giving very low moral value to other animals (eg less than 1000 that of a human) often stems from gut feeling, with added justifications afterwards.

CB🔸Nov 18, 2024, 7:43 PM
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Share what GWWC and the 10% Pledge has meant to you
I was mentioned in a newspaper article this summer regarding this exact topic (with a typo in my name, oops!). Here is the translation:

CB is convinced of the potential of this. Just a few years ago, his job as an IT engineer earned him an annual salary of 32,000 euros. After two years, he realizes that he can give a lot of this money away, without sacrificing his happiness or quality of life. “Of course, you have to be able to secure a minimum threshold of material conditions,” anticipates the 29-year-old, who made the pledge in 2019. But generally, people increase their standard of living after their studies, or after a raise: bigger houses or cars, more spending on certain items… But we get used to these expenses very quickly, and research shows that they don’t bring significant additional happiness.”

The psychology of happiness is quite clear on this point: the accumulation of material possessions does not make us much happier. Once the peak of satisfaction has passed, our level of happiness returns to its initial, pre-purchase level—a phenomenon known as hedonic adaptation (or “hedonic treadmill”, to mean that our level of happiness tends to return to the same reference point). CB quickly gave up this headlong rush. The Lyonnais doesn’t own a car, and is satisfied with the basic, such as the Interrail Pass and youth hostels for his vacations. From the very first year of his involvement, he set himself the goal of donating anything above the minimum wage. Today, he donates 30 to 40% of his income to organizations carefully selected for their effectiveness—although he admits he would probably go back to a lower percentage if he had children.

For these donors, the satisfaction that comes with acting altruistically far outweighs any sense of sacrifice. CB has long defined himself as a passive person, skeptical about making a difference in the world. “I don’t have the network or the resources to influence laws and change public policy, even though it’s essential to act in favor of the climate, for example.” His discovery of effective altruism changed all that. “I discovered the existence of organizations specializing in the rigorous evaluation of associations, which define which interventions work well and which don’t. And that made a huge difference to me. That reassured me enormously. If there are experts, I can support them with a donation. It’s within my reach, and it can have a gigantic impact. It’s kind of a division of labor.”

Full article: https://www.ladn.eu/nouveaux-usages/donner-10-de-ses-revenus-pour-ameliorer-le-monde-cest-de-la-division-du-travail/

CB🔸Nov 17, 2024, 12:00 PM
9 points
1 ∶ 0
on: The Case For Giving To The Shrimp Welfare Project
Very convincing post ! The case for helping shrimp is strong.

Indeed, if people focused on having an impact won’t support this project, who else will ?

I also donated to them this year.

CB🔸Nov 13, 2024, 1:00 PM
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Basics of Handling Disagreements with People
Thank you for this article! I found it helpful and very clear.