Not a question, but simply: thank you, Allan! What you do is amazing, and really cool. Kudos!
Forumite
Karma: 565
I thought this was a well-written, thoughtful and highly intelligent piece, about a really important topic, where getting as close as possible to the truth is super-important and high-stakes. Kudos! I gave it a strong upvote. :)
I am starting from the point of being fairly attached to the “let’s try to end factory farming!” framing, but this post has given me a lot to think about.
I wanted to share a bunch of thoughts that sprung to my mind as I read the post:
One potential advantage of the “let’s try to end factory farming!” framing is that it encourages us to think long-term and systematically, rather than short-term and narrowly. I take long-termism to be true: future suffering matters as much as present-day suffering. I worry that a framing of “let’s accept that factory farming will endure; how can we reduce the most suffering” quickly becomes “how can we reduce the most suffering *right now*, in a readily countable and observable way”. This might make us miss opportunities and theories of change which will take longer to work up a head of steam, but which over the long term, may lead to more suffering reduction. It may also push us towards interventions which are easily countable, numerically, at the expense of interventions which may actually, over time, lead to more suffering-reduction, but in more uncertain, unpredictable, indirect and harder-to-measure ways. It may push us towards very technocratic and limited types of intervention, missing things like politics, institutions, ideas, etc. It may discourage creativity and innovation. (To be clear: this is not meant to be a “woo-woo” point; I’m suggesting that these tendencies may fail in their own terms to maximize expected suffering reduction over time).
Aiming to end factory farming encourages us toaim high. Imagine we have a choice between two options, as a movement: try to eradicate 100pc of the suffering caused by factory farming, by abolishing it (perhaps via bold, risky, ambitious theories-of-change). Or, try to eradicate 1pc of the suffering caused by factory farming, through present-day welfare improvements. The high potential payoff of eradicating factory farming seems to look good here, even if we think there’s only (say) a 10pc chance of it working. I.e, perhaps the best way to maximise expected suffering reduction is, in fact, to ‘gamble’ a bit and take a shot at eradicating factory farming.
A potentially important counterpoint here, I think, is if it turns out that some welfare reforms deliver huge suffering reduction. I think that the Welfare Footprint folks claim somewhere that moving laying hens (?) out of the worst cage systems basically immediately *halves* their suffering (?) If true, this is huge, and is a point in favour of prioritising such welfare measures.
If we give up on even trying to end factory farming, doesn’t this become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If we do this, we guarantee that we end up in a world where factory framing endures. Given uncertainty, shouldn’t (at least some of) the movement try to aim high and eradicate it?
I’m not sure that the analogy with malaria/poverty/health/development is perfect:
Actually, we do seek to end some diseases, not just control them. E.g. we eradicated smallpox, and are nearly there for polio. Some people are also trying to eradicate malaria (I think). (Though eradicating a disease is in many ways easier than eradicating factory farming, so this analogy maybe doesn’t work so well.)
Arguably, the focus within EA global health discourse on immediate, countable, tangible interventions (like distributing bednets) has distracted us from more systemic, messy—but also deep and important—questions, such as: Why are some countries rich and others poor? What actually drives development, and how can we help boost it? How can we boost growth? Why do some countries have such bad health systems and outcomes? How can we build strong health systems in developing countries, rather than focus ‘vertically’ on specific diseases? *Arguably*, making progress on these questions could, over the long term, actually deliver more suffering-reduction than jumping straight to technocratic, direct ‘interventions’.
Some of global development discourse *is* framed in terms of *ending* poverty, at least sometimes. For example, the Sustainable Development Goals say we should seek to ‘end poverty’, end hunger’, etc.
I’m very unsure about this, but I *guess* that a framing of “factory faming is a gigantic moral evil, let’s eradicate it” is, on balance, more motivating/attracting than a framing of “factory farming is a gigantic moral evil, we’ll never defeat it, but we can help a tonne of animals, let’s do it” (?)
*If* we knew the future for sure, and knew it would be impossible ever to eradicate factory farming, then I do agree that we should face facts and adjust our strategy accordingly, rather than live in hope. My gut instinct though is that we can’t be sure of this, and there are arguments in favor of aiming for big, bold, systemic changes and wins for animals.
These are just some thoughts that sprang to mind, I don’t think that in and of themselves they fully repudiate the case you thoughtfully made. I think more discussion and thought on this topic is important; kudos for kicking this off with your post!
(For those interested, the Sentience Institute have done some fascinating work on the analogies and dis-analogies of factory farming vs other moral crimes such as slavery—eg here and here.)
Hey Gemma! Thanks for your response, and for flagging those other links.
To be honest, I want to keep my involvement in this quite light-touch/low-effort, and I don’t plan to write up a Submission Guide. However, if other people reading this wanted to do some work on this and think about how best to engage/influence the Curriculum Review, I’d be up for convening a call. If anyone is interested, comment here and/or DM me…
UK National Curriculum review
[Trigger warning: violence] Animal vs human welfare: sharing some personal reflections
Is it time for development economists to start considering the welfare of non-human animals?
Using AI to match people to jobs?
Thanks, Seth!
FWIW, I thought that the choice of venue for EAG Bay Area 2024 was quite good. It was largely open plan—so lots of chance encounters. A nice mixture of privacy and openness for the 1-on-1s, which (rightly, to my mind) the event focusses on. Comfortable, but not flashy. I just got normal, professional vibes from it—it felt like a solid, appropriate choice.
Where can I meet for-profit startup co-founders/collaborators?
An example of how to write a good job description
Nice! This is open to people in Europe, right?
Date format: this year is 02024
I agree with this. Thanks, Amy, for all the work you and your team have done/are doing on the EA Global events, which are delivered to such a high standard and which, I think, contribute to a tonne of good!
First, gut reaction, based on a quick skim: WOW, this looks like incredibly smart, thoughtful and potentially-impactful work. Kudos to the authors for doing this!
Potentially actionable opportunity: eliminating the New World screwworm (flesh-devouring maggots that affect a billion animals each year)
Nice one—thanks for your willingness to engage on this, Dustin. I’ve DM’d you…:)
Hey Dustin,
It’s so awesome that you’re working on this important issue!
Please take the below comments in a spirt of constructive challenge, and with huge respect for your work on this topic!
From your website, it looks like you’ve chosen to go for a very “welfarist” approach, of basically accepting that insect farming will happen, and trying to make it cause a bit less suffering.
But, given the nascent/early stage of insect factory farming, isn’t there a strong case that we should try to block/delay the development of this new form of factory farming? It seems like there is so much that could be done, in relation to regulation, trying to discredit insect factory farming among policymakers/environmentalists/the public, etc. We are at the early stages of this industry and it feels like we may still have time to decisively alter the trajectory of it.
Going straight for a super “soft”, welfarist approach feels like potentially a major missed opportunity .
Given the tiny amount of resources we have to play with, getting this call right is key.
It would be great to hear whether you systematically considered and worked through the arguments in favour and against trying to actually block/slow the development of insect factory farming, before deciding on your current approach?
If so, please would you be willing to share those arguments?
If not, would you be willing to pause for a moment and think this through with folks from the community?
Imagine that we were in the 1950s/60s, and had had the opportunity to try to fundamentally alter the development trajectory of factory farming. Wouldn’t it have been better if we’d at least tried to really stop it then, rather than pivoting straight to “please be a bit kinder to the animals as you ‘farm’ them”?
Another question on a separate note:
If your org is determined to play “good cop” with the insect factory farming industry, do you think there is space for a different body to play “bad cop”?
Again—please take these comments in the spirit of constructive debate in which they are intended. Maybe, of course, your approach is right. It just feels like testing this is really important.
Wishing you all the best as we try to figure out how to do the most good here :) :)
Whoop—exciting :) Thanks for all your effort in organising these great conferences!
Last year, EAG Bay Area was billed as mainly a global catastrophic risk-focussed event, whereas EAG London was more cause-area-broad/neutral.
For 2025, it seems like you aren’t explicitly badging EAG Bay Area as GCR-focussed. Is this a fair reading of things, and (totally optionally), might you be able to share some of your thinking on this point? (I don’t really have a particular preference either way, just curious!)
Thanks!