Dear Jeffrey,
Thank you very much for your kind words. I really appreciate it. This made my day.
Engin Arıkan
Karma: 298
Hey Nicoll! Thank you very much. I definately agree that M&E work is very valuable and very needed. Not only because it may reveal how to spend additional 100m but also because it may allow us to better understand how to use the existing ~300m.
Thanks for the comment!
I completely agree that the funding can be absorbed by many organisations who will try their best. I also agree that there are a lot of things that we might reasonably experiment. But overall I am a bit pessimistic about them since earlier and somewhat similar campaigns did not lead to very positive results unfortunately. I also think most of the outcomes are related largely due to the performance of leaders and keystaff—so maybe some new project might succeed afterall! So I guess allocating “some” funding to new initiatives (and new leaders) makes sense but I would not expect a huge win even if we spend 100m on new initiatives. But I might wrong.
Thanks for the comment!
I definitely agree that things could be wildly different if there was a massive cultural change. But as you point out the main question is whether it is doable. I think that the bulk of funding has not gone “only” towards lobbying efforts targeting companies and politicians. There is a lot of “society outreach” work done by existing EA organisations in order to effectively pressure these companies and politicians: like petitions, protests, media outreach etc. So I guess the contrast is not necessarily “corporations” vs. “culture” but rather it is “social change for an institutional short term goal” vs. “social change for an indeterminate long term goal”. I am more supportive of the former because it has better feedback loops and it is also a good test of figuring out what is really doable and choosing the right objectives proportional to our existing capabilities. I think it would be very unlikely that a qualified animal advocacy organisation would fail to generate enough social reaction to convince a retailer to adopt a better welfare standard but at the same time would succeed in generating enough social reaction to achieve transformative legislative progress.
I guess another problem is that “culture” is very complex and cannot be changed by a small number of actors. This can also explain relative scepticism of funders since they face a practical problem of finding individual giving opportunities—not just deciding the general approach like “culture” or “corporate work”. Their job would be much harder if they need to figure out and evaluate hundreds of different actors from different fields and backgrounds.
Thanks for the comment!
I definately agree with your point that we should think more about how to create more social momentum.
But while I am very open and curious about testing new ideas about this, I am also a bit pessimistic about these efforts. I guess the main difficulty is that we just can’t “short circuit” building a movement. Many things need to come together in a long time period: social conditions, public opinion, elite opinion, corporate culture, competent leaders, team cohesion, patient funders, other stakeholders, etc. And these things need a lot of time to change and mature.
Cost-Effectiveness Estimations in Animal Advocacy are Very Contingent on Future Expectations
Although most EAs try to make cost-effectiveness estimations based on “number of animals impacted” or “amount of suffering spared”, overwhelming majority of the expected value of animal advocacy efforts depends on their long term effect.
I will try to show how these estimations have a lot of variance based on different assumptions—which explains the multiple viewpoints in animal advocacy.
I will also try to provide some pros and cons for each approach and try to reveal their assumptions that support their cost-effectiveness claims for the future.
Preliminary outline (draft):
Intro
a. Cost-effectiveness estimates between different interventions differ by a lot based on different assumptions. Some interventions can be claimed to be x100000000 more cost-effective than others (I don’t agree with Brian Tomasik here). So making the right choices matter a lot.
b. They heavily depend on expectations about the future. (For example: will there be a vegan awakening or will there be a wave of (moral) animal welfare reforms or will there be technological progress that will provide price-, taste-, convenience- competitive PBMs? etc.)
c. Cost-effectiveness estimates in animal advocacy are different from global health and development.
d. Cost-effectiveness claims of different interventions in animal advocacy are typically in conflict with the cost-effectiveness claims of other interventions since they depend on conflicting assumptions—which partly explain the infighting and debates within the movement. And since these cost-effectiveness estimates involve expectations about the future, these debates are hard to resolve.
Then I will try to describe some of the assumptions behind the cost-effectiveness claims of different interventions and provide some pros and cons that support or refute these assumptions.
1. Radical change
1.1. Radical moral change by “the commons”: (Examples: Mass media and education campaigns—New Roots Institute, Netflix documentaries, mass veg*n leafleting campaigns, best-seller books, Ted Talks, Veganuary...)
1.2. Radical moral change by “the elites”: (Examples: Community building in leading universities, Animal Law programs in law schools, “academic” publications, lobby groups...)
1.3. Radical change via technological progress (Good Food Institute, New Harvest, Material Innovation Initiative, Impossible, Beyond..., considerations related to the rise of AI)
1.4. Radical change due to environmental necessity
2. Reforms
2.1. Moral reforms (Chicken welfare campaigns, The Humane League—Open Wing Alliance: Mercy for Animals, L214, OBA, Essere Animali, Animal Equality, Sinergia Animal, Kafessiz Türkiye...)
2.2. Efficiency reforms (Fish Welfare Initiative, Shrimp Welfare Project, Future For Fish)
2.3. Technological reforms (Innovation Animal Ag)
2.4. Reforms as a path to radical change? (Or radical change efforts as a way to cash in reforms)
3. Should we expect the radical change or reforms to make significant progress in a single country or region at first and have a “spreading effect” afterwards?
3.1. Are small yet socially favorable countries really important if they will become the first examples of animal liberation?(Switzerland—Sentience für Tiere, Germany—Albert Schweitzer Stiftung, Singapore, Israel—GFI)
3.2. Are certain regions really important if they will become the first examples of animal liberation that will move other countries towards its vision? (EU policy—Compassion in World Farming, as well as THL and MFA in the US)
3.3. If these are not going to happen, then should we just simply look at where most animals live and where organisations can run cheaper than in developed countries? (Developing countries: Sinergia Animal , Kafessiz Türkiye, Fish Welfare Initiative...)
3. Wild animal welfare
3.1. Moral change (Animal Ethics)
3.2. “Management reforms”(Wild Animal Initiative welfare science research)
4. Contingency due to individual advocates and advocacy groups
5. Diversified portfolios or worldview diversification as sub-optimal and unrealistic solutions --> the need for concentration and making some bets in favor of some viewpoints
In your view, how much of the past EAIF grants were a “win”—similarly or more cost-effective than a typical grant to a Give Well top charity? What would be a rough win/loss ratio in terms of number of grants and their $ value.
Do you evaluate the impact of EA Infrastructure grants? If yes, how? And do you plan to publish these impact evaluations? If not, what are the challenges?
What seem to be the most cost effective ways to explain and possibly spread the ideas and principles of effective altruism, according to your experience as fund managers? Are there some models that seem to work in many contexts/at scale or do these projects depend heavily on the performance/talent of the individual grantees and the context?
Thanks for the comment!
I am sorry to hear that. I hope you find the necessary funding for your efforts.
I agree that more fundraisers are needed. But unfortunately without more alternative funders, fundraisers might also fail to achieve their goals. Perhaps one short term improvement might be funders being more transparent about their expectaions and their plans so that grantees can adjust themselves to potential outcomes. Being more communicative might also help. Most grantees contact funders only on grant application periods which provides only limited feedback opportunities.