Felix works as a business consultant (earn to give) and lives in Berlin, Germany. Mainly interested in animal welfare and nuclear security. Member of the EA & Consulting Network. Academic background in mathematics and political science. Worked as journalist before.
Felix_Werdermann šø
Karma: 126
Thank you very much for organizing and for writing it up (and for inviting me)!
Iām wondering whether this concept can be transferred one-to-one to other regions. I think a major advantage was that the event could be promoted via the Vegan Student Associations in various Dutch cities. That way, you reach exactly the right target group:
Interested in animal welfare
Interested in career advice /ā inspiration
Not necessarily already in contact with EA (which increases the counterfactual impact of the event).
When I think about whether such an event would also make sense in Germany for example, I find it unfortunate that there arenāt really Vegan Student Associations here. That probably also has to do with university culture, there simply arenāt student associations for every hobby and interest. Itās possible there are some vegan student groups that Iām just not aware of. Otherwise, I would think that maybe the Plant-Based Universities groups could be approached.
That said, I suspect that organizing such an event would still be effective even without such highly targeted promotion channels. Iām looking forward to seeing more of this!
Thank you!
In conversations with effective altruists, we sometimes hear thereās a perception that GFI is sufficiently or even well-funded. Or that thereās less scope for impact in giving to an established charity.
Iāve also heard the argument that GFI should be supported by climate-focused donors, and that money from EA animal-welfare donors should go to other animal charities. If I, as an animal advocate, donate to GFI, is there a risk that GFI would then pass up opportunities to secure additional funding from climate philanthropists (where I assume there is more money overall)?
Eco Resilience Initiative also recommends GFI as the best donation opportunity to fight biodiversity loss.
Iād like to add a few thoughts and perspectives that came to mind while reading:
āAI-driven research could dramatically reduce alternative protein costsābut the same technology will likely help animal agriculture cut down expenses for conventional animal products.ā You later write that alternative proteins are likely inherently more efficient conversion systems than animal farming. An additional aspect here could be that alternative proteins have so far received significantly less research and development than the meat industry. This means that the proportional progress through the use of AI in this area could be significantly higher ā a kind of āCeiling Asymmetryā. In other words: there is still a lot of untapped potential in alternative proteins that AI can unlock, whereas conventional meat production systems are already largely optimized.
I find the Truth Asymmetry interesting. I wonder if we will eventually reach a point where an AI concludes that there is no reasonable (scientific) basis to treat farmed animals differently from pets.
āFor example, the industry may already be able to pay for the best human marketers, lobbyists and company leaders. AI could enable animal advocacy organizations to catch up by leveling the playing fieldā If it eventually no longer comes down to securing the best people but rather the best AIs, this will probably be primarily a question of cost ā and here the industry has a considerable advantage due to its financial resources. The āmoral advantageā of the animal advocacy movement is less relevant here than in the battle for the best human talents.
The Cooperation Asymmetry is also very interesting. In fact, the industry faces the classic āfree rider problemā: Why should an individual farmer or a small operation pay membership fees to an agricultural association when that association will lobby anyway and the individualās influence is minimal? Industry associations therefore often need to provide other incentives, such as offering member advice, providing relevant information, and so on.
My understanding of the argument regarding āMeat reduction data from Germanyās Statistical Officeā is that significantly less meat is consumed in January than in the other months (I donāt understand the argument in the sense that Veganuary has contributed to the downward trend over the years). Perhaps it would be better to compare the value for January 2023 with the monthly average for 2023 than with the monthly average for 2022, because this would rule out the possibility that the comparatively low consumption is due to the downward trend over the years. However, since the annual decline is less than 12.5% or 14.3%, consumption in January is also lower than the average month of the corresponding year.
The fact that the consumption of poultry meat in Germany has risen in recent years is very regrettable, but I donāt believe that this is due to Veganuary. However, the German Statistical Office should also have figures for different animal species, so you should be able to see whether the consumption of poultry meat is higher, lower or similar in January compared to other months.
I donāt think comparing January with December is very helpful because December is an atypical month due to Christmas.
If I understand correctly, you compare a donation to an animal welfare organization to an investment in alt protein? At least that is the case in the linked article. I find this comparison somewhat unfortunate, because with a donation the money is gone, with an investment (hopefully) not. A better comparison would be a donation to an animal welfare organization vs. a donation to e.g. the Good Food Institute, which uses the money to encourage more private or public investment.
Regarding displacement: Intuitively, I canāt imagine that increased consumption of alt protein wonāt reduce meat consumption at the moment (to what extent I canāt judge). In the long term, Iām pretty sure it will, because I think thereās a kind of natural upper limit to total food consumption (apart from perhaps the possibility that more and more food will be thrown away).
My assumption was that player 1 and player 2 each have one year and can dedicate that year either to Intervention A or Intervention B. In the joint game, Player 1 would choose Intervention A if they were alone and Intervention B if Player 2 was also involved. If we always construct a joint game in this wayāso that, depending on the coalition formed, the interventions are chosen and divided in a way that achieves the best overall outcomeāthen this joint game, by definition, leads to the best overall outcome.
Additionally, I am unclear on what āoptimizing for cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley valueā is supposed to mean. In order to optimize something, there must be multiple optionsāso, multiple games, right? Even if we include the joint game, it would still be best for Player 2, in terms of the Shapley value, to play the game āIntervention Aā with a Shapley value of 50.
But I think itās not very useful to continue discussing this unless the claim āAgents individually optimizing for cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley value globally optimize for total cost-effectiveness.ā is precisely defined.
Yes, itās a coordination problem. I understand the claimāAgents individually optimizing for cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley value globally optimize for total cost-effectiveness.ā in the way that they donāt coordinate but optimize individually.
What about this example?
Intervention A
Value of {}: 0
Value of {1}: 0
Value of {2}: 0
Value of {1,2}: 100
-> Shapley value of 1 is: 50, shapley value of 2 is: 50.
Intervention B
Value of {0}: 0
Value of {1}: 60
Value of {2}: 0
Value of {1,2}: 60
-> Shapley value of 1 is: 60, shapley value of 2 is: 0.
Player 1 would go for intervention B, player 2 would go for intervention A. Result: value of A = 0; value of B = 60 ā total utility 60. It would be better if both players decide for A.
Assume that the invention of calculus has utility 100 and the invention of Shapley value has utility 10. Newton (player 1) can invest one year to invent calculus or invest one year to invent Shapley values. Leibniz (player 2) can invest 350 days to invent calculus or invest one year to invent Shapley values.
For the invention of calculus:Shapley values for invention of calculus:
For the invention of Shapley values:
Shapley values for invention of Shapley values:
For both Newton and Leibniz the Shapley value is higher for the invention of calculus (50 compared to 5), so they both invent calculus. Overall result: +100 utility.
It would have been better if Leibniz had invented calculus and Newton had invented Shapley values in that time. Overall result: +110 utility.
Improved approach: āOne solution would be to first decide for the project with the highest cost-effectiveness (in Shapley value) and then recalculate the Shapley values.ā
The project with the highest cost-effectiveness (in Shapley value) is that Leibniz invents calculus (Shapley value = 50 /ā 350 days). So Leibniz will invent calculus. Now, the Shapley values are recalculated. Leibniz only has 15 days left in that year. Thatās not enough for inventing Shapley values.For the invention of calculus (it is already invented by Leibniz, so no additional benefit):
Shapley values for invention of calculus:
For the invention of Shapley values (Leibniz does not have enough time):
Shapley values for invention of Shapley values:
So, Newton would decide to invent Shapley values (Shapley value = 10 compared to Shapley value = 0 when inventing calculus).
Overall result: +110 utility.
PS. Sorry, I donāt know how to make the screenshots smaller...
On Nuance in Scale:
I actually found the point about the number of lab mice/ārats quite interestingāI wasnāt really aware of it before, even though I did know that mice and rats make up the majority of lab animals and that the total number of farmed land animals is dominated by chickens.
Overall, however, I believe that the proxies mentioned here are quite reasonable. Specifically, in defense of them, I would add:
Minority farmed animals vs. majority lab animals: Work on farmed cows will also raise public awareness about the living conditions of farmed animals in general, which will ultimately benefit other species (e.g., chickens).
The number of animals in a region vs. the number of animals affected: It is always preferable to prioritize interventions that reach a large percentage of animals in a given country over those that do not. Even if some of these interventions have not yet been widely tested in certain countries or may not be directly implementable in the same way as in Western countries, a stronger focus on, for example, China could also lead to the discovery of large-scale intervention strategies within the country itself.
Farmed animals vs. wild animals: Generally, there are still many unresolved questions regarding wild animal suffering. However, I donāt think anyone claims that the number of animals is the sole determining factor in prioritizationāit is simply one of several factors.
Very nice text, thank you for writing it!!
Iām not sure whether this statement is universally true (and Iām also not entirely clear on what exactly it means):
āAgents individually optimizing for cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley value globally optimize for total cost-effectiveness.āLetās take Example 2: If the invention of calculus had a very large benefit, then both Newton and Leibniz optimized their cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley value by working on it. However, the global cost-effectiveness would have been higher if only one of them had made the invention and the other had contributed to something else valuable instead.
One solution would be to first decide for the project with the highest cost-effectiveness (in Shapley value) and then recalculate the Shapley values. In that case, either Newton or Leibniz would work on the invention of calculus (depending on who had lower costs), and the other would not. But there are still situations where this approach does not lead to the highest cost-effectiveness (if the Shapley value is based on coalitions that are unrealistic due to limited available resources):
Letās assume that the three charities A, B, and C can finance a campaign for better chicken welfare with $1m. If only Charity A runs the campaign, it helps 200,000 chickens, and the same applies to Charity B. If Charities A and B launch a joint campaign, it helps 600,000 chickens. Charity C can only work alone and would help 250,000 chickens.
If a donor had $1m available, they would have to choose Charity A or B according to the Shapley value (300,000 chickens), but in reality, they would only help 200,000 chickens (assuming that a joint campaign by Charity A and B with $0.5m each is not possible or would also only help 200,000 chickens). It would be better to give the $1m to Charity C and help 250,000 chickens.
Thank you, @Kevin Xia šø , for the text!
I also find the Shapley value very interesting for attributing impactāI wasnāt familiar with it before, so thanks for the hint, @Vasco Grilošø !I think it depends on what decisions are being guided by the āimpact share.ā If the goal is to determine how a donor should allocate their money, then in your first example, the Shapley value is probably more suitable than simple counterfactuals. However, if Organization A has already decided that it has fulfilled its role in securing a corporate commitment and now Organization B is deciding whether to do the same, then counterfactuals are useful here (which are identical to Shapley values with only one actor).
Even though the Shapley value is a good reference point for donors when distributing funds, I donāt think the best overall strategy is necessarily to donate to the charities with the highest cost-effectiveness in terms of Shapley value. Instead, donations should also be ācoordinated.ā This becomes particularly clear in the second example: If Organization A and Organization B had nearly the same costs for referring to a grant, their cost-effectiveness would also be nearly the same, and a donor would most likely have to support either no charity or both charities for that purpose. It is obviously smarter to fund only one (or none) of them in this case.
One solution would be to first fund the project with the highest cost-effectiveness (in Shapley value) and then recalculate the Shapley values. In the second example, this would mean that first, Organization A or Organization B is funded (whichever has slightly lower costs), and then the other organization is no longer funded for this purpose.
However, in the first example, problems could arise if the total donation budget is insufficient to fund both organizations, meaning that in the end, the money has no effect at all.
Even though this scenario may seem unrealistic (since Organization Aās actions would likely still have a positive impact, even if Organization B does nothing), this problem also appears in a slightly modified model that may be more realistic. Letās assume that if Organization A or Organization B acts alone, they would help 200,000 chickens. The Shapley value per organization would still be 300,000 chickens, but if the funds are not sufficient to support both organizations, funding one of them would only help 200,000 chickens. In that case, it would be better to fund a third charity, Charity C, which could help 250,000 chickens (in Charity Cās campaign, no other organizations would play a role).
Hi Engin, thanks for your reply!
I agree that itās better to have multiple major donors than one major donor (e.g. itās better to have four major donors who contribute to 20% of all funding each; than one major donor who gives 80% of all funding). I would assume that EAAWF and ACE rely on smaller donors who would have donated invidually otherwise. So in the case thatāfor exampleāthere is one major donor (60%) and many small donors (summing up to 40%), I donāt know if itās good to pool the money of the small donors by ACE or EAAWF (as long as they donate to equally effective charities) so that there are one major donor (60%), and e.g. ACE and EAAWF as further major donors (each 20%). On the one hand, itās easier for ACE and EAAWF to react to a cut of funding by the major donor. On the other hand, there will probably be many charities which depend on ACE or EAAWF instead of many small donors. Of course, if the total amount of donations increases by new major donors, itās a different thing.
You write that Funds like ACE or the EA Animal Welfare Fund can be a solution to the coordination problem when financial cutbacks are necessary (and you donāt want to apply across-the-board cuts). Thatās true, but such funds also create exactly the dependencies on a few large donors that you criticize in the text, donāt they? This dependency wouldnāt exist if the money came directly from many small donors.
In general, one could say that ACE and EAAWF are better informed than individuals (also regarding the question of which organizations are particularly effective), but the same could be said about OP. I also find that plausible in principle, but I also think that a certain degree of ādemocratizationā makes sense because it reduces the risk of wrong decisions and keeps a public discussion about effectiveness ongoing, which ultimately (hopefully) leads to better identification of more effective measures.
A lower dependency on major donors could also be good if we assume that (at least in some situations) the organizations themselves are better able than the large donors to assess which measures are most effective. With a high dependency, they might implement the measures preferred by the major donor, even though they actually believe that other measures would be more effective.
And then there are the arguments mentioned in the text. Can the arguments be summarized in such a way that the main problem of fragility is that larger fluctuations in financial resources are to be expected, and in the event of significant cutbacks, structures, experiences, and security that have been built up over years would be lost, and rebuilding them would come with additional costs?
An EAās guide to Berlin
Great initiative and excited to see the incubatees!
Who did fill out the survey or which ākey groupsā are represented?
I also find this a very exciting question and would like to read more about it. I am also surprised that there has been relatively little written about it so far. I would assume that ACE must have made some comparisons in past years, back when GFI was still being evaluated.
A few remarks:
For charities in the alt-protein space, it definitely makes sense to also seek funding from the climate sector, because there is simply more money available there overall than in the animal welfare sector. If a charity like GFI ranks among the most cost-effective charities in two areas, it could even make sense for both donors with a climate background and donors with an animal background to agree on donating to GFI. See this interesting article on the EA Forum.
For strategic reasons, GFI has never put the topic of animal welfare front and center. As far as I know, GFI no longer being evaluated by ACE also has other reasons, namely that GFI has become very large, and with that the effort required for an evaluation, relative to the expected benefit (especially ACEās recommended charities fund), has become very high.
From my perspective, the comparison between donations to THL and investing in an alt-protein startup is somewhat off, because an investment is about getting the money back, ideally with a return, whereas a donation is not. Accordingly, I would assume that a donation to, for example, GFI has more impact than an investment of the same amount in a startup. If that were not the case, all GFI donors should invest in startups instead. I find this assumption plausible, because GFI can do things that benefit the entire ecosystem, for example advocating for public research funding.
By the way, GFI does not receive government funding, and I think this is also not planned.
Social norms are definitely a factor in the adoption of cultivated meat. However, I believe that social norms can also change, and will change, especially if the alternatives are cheaper and tastier. In that sense, I would not put too much weight on statements by people today who say they will never switch, even if it were cheaper and tastier. That may be true in individual cases, but I see no reason why the younger generation should opt for slaughter-based meat if it is more expensive and less tasty.
Some rough ideas on how one might model the overall calculation: One option would be to assign each change, for example higher animal welfare standards or higher consumption of alternative products, a durability or half-life. That is, without additional follow-up intervention, the effect of an intervention persists for X years or is reduced by half within X years. Another option would be to assume a long-term baseline trajectory, for example how the share of people living vegan develops over time or how animal welfare legislation evolves over time, and then, for each intervention, try to measure how much it brings a given stage of development forward in time. For example, reaching 2 percent of people living vegan five years earlier than assumed, whereas in the baseline scenario the share in those five years would have been 1 percent. An important question in this context would be whether reaching a development stage earlier also shifts later states forward in time, for example when 50 percent of people live vegan.