JamesÖz

Karma: 4,849

Currently grantmaking in animal advocacy, at Mobius. I was previously doing social movement and protest-related research at Social Change Lab, an EA-aligned research organisation I’ve founded.

Previously, I completed the 2021 Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program. Before that, I was the Director & Strategy lead at Animal Rebellion + in the Strategy team at Extinction Rebellion UK, working on movement building for animal advocacy and climate change.

My blog (often EA related content)

Feel free to reach out on james.ozden [at] hotmail.com or see a bit more about me here

Announcing the Strategic Animal Funding Circle!

JamesÖz29 Aug 2024 11:35 UTC

92 points

0 comments2 min readEA link

Job opportunities with new Labour MPs

JamesÖz8 Jul 2024 11:55 UTC

73 points

0 comments1 min readEA link

JamesÖz 28 Jun 2024 17:01 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Marie Reinke’s comment on: Megaprojects for animals
Fixed! Thanks for flagging this

JamesÖz 27 Jun 2024 21:25 UTC
4 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: jackva’s comment on: “Denmark will be first to impose CO2 tax on farms, government says”
Can you unpack your thinking on the complentarities of AP chicken and beef a bit more? My hunch is that the cost differential between beef and chicken is relatively pretty big e.g. the cheapest chicken costs around £2.5/kg and the cheapest mince is £5/kg (see photo and data below from Hannah Ritchie) so the former is just extremely hard to compete with. As such, I think it’s very plausible/likely that we’ll get price parity alternative proteins for the cheapest beef but maybe not with the cheapest chicken, in contrast to your comment.
Additionally, there are effects like:
- Companies are much more likely to try to compete with beef as price parity is more plausible, so there’s more innovation, talent and competition there, which makes the likelihood of reaching price parity higher.
- Innovations that help beef won’t necessarily spillover into improving chicken products (e.g. mince is much easier to make than whole-cut chicken, there is no need for the iron/heme taste in chicken, etc.)
So overall I’m not convinced that the carbon tax is net good for animals as the complementarities between chicken and beef don’t seem that great. Curious to hear more though on your thoughts on this.

JamesÖz 17 Jun 2024 22:29 UTC
31 points
8 ∶ 2
in reply to: Owen Cotton-Barratt’s comment on: [Linkpost] An update from Good Ventures
This isn’t true for any of the other sub-focus areas that will be exited though, which I thought was strange. Given that nothing other than digital minds work was listed, how would any potential donors or people who know potential donors know about OP exiting things like invertebrates or wild animal welfare?

(I’m basing those sub-focus areas on the comments in this thread because of exactly this problem—I’m unclear if there’s more being exited or if those two are definitely part of it)

JamesÖz 4 Jun 2024 16:55 UTC
26 points
3 ∶ 0
on: I bet Greg Colbourn 10 k€ that AI will not kill us all by the end of 2027
Just flagging that I, and others I know, would also be happy to take folks up on the animal welfare side of this trade if AI-concerned folks are interested! Reach out if so (and happy to discuss basically all amounts above $1,000).

JamesÖz 21 May 2024 16:51 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: ClimateDoc’s comment on: Announcing UK Voters for Animals!
Have you seen them on our website here?

Announcing UK Voters for Animals!

eleanor mcaree14 May 2024 23:07 UTC

132 points

8 comments1 min readEA link

JamesÖz 6 May 2024 21:39 UTC
6 points
0 ∶ 0
on: JamesOz’s Shortform
Mobius (the Bay Area-based family foundation where I work) is exploring new ways to remove animals from the food system. We’re looking for a part-time Program Manager to help get more talented people who are knowledgable about farmed animal welfare and/or alternative proteins into US government roles. This entrepreneurial generalist would pilot a 3-6 month program to support promising students and early graduates with applying to and securing entry-level Congressional roles. We think success here could significantly improve thoughtful policymaking on farmed animal welfare and/or alternative proteins. You can see more about the role here.
Key details on the role:
- Application deadline: Tuesday 28th of May, at 23:59pm PT. Apply here.
- Contract: 15-20 hours per week for 3-6 months, with the possibility of extending.
- Location: Remote in the US.
- Salary: $29-38 per hour (equivalent to approx. $60,000-$80,000/year) depending on experience. For exceptional candidates, we’re happy to discuss higher compensation. This would be a contractor role, with no additional benefits.
Please share with potentially interested people!

JamesÖz 5 May 2024 14:25 UTC
20 points
3 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Lewis Bollard, Program Director of Farm Animal Welfare at OpenPhil
What’s a view you hold most EA-minded animal advocates would disagree with?

JamesÖz 4 May 2024 15:58 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Lewis Bollard, Program Director of Farm Animal Welfare at OpenPhil
In your view, what are some of the biggest challenges facing the farmed animal movement today and what is Open Phil doing about them?

JamesÖz 4 May 2024 14:25 UTC
11 points
2 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Lewis Bollard, Program Director of Farm Animal Welfare at OpenPhil
What are some important lessons or things you’ve learned on how to do grantmaking well over the past 9 years that you would give to yourself when you were starting at OP?

JamesÖz 4 May 2024 14:24 UTC
8 points
1 ∶ 0
on: AMA: Lewis Bollard, Program Director of Farm Animal Welfare at OpenPhil
What are 2-3 of the biggest ways you’ve updated your thinking in terms of what works / strategies to improve farmed animal welfare over the past few years?

JamesÖz 30 Apr 2024 1:06 UTC
16 points
6 ∶ 2
in reply to: finm’s comment on: Is there any way to be confident that humanity won’t keep employing mass torture of animals for millions of years in the future?
I’m not convinced that the chances that efforts to end factory farming will (by default) become more likely to succeed over time—what’s your thinking behind this? Given the current trajectory of society (below), whilst I’m hopeful that is the case, it’s far from what I would expect. For example, I can imagine the “defensive capabilities” of the actors trying to uphold factory farming improve at the same or faster rate relative to the capabilities of farmed animal advocates.
Additionally, I’m not sure that the information value about our future prospects, by the simple statement, outweighs the suffering of trillions of animals over coming decades. This feels like a statement that is easy for us to make as humans, who largely aren’t subject to suffering as intense as faced by many farmed animals, but it might be different if we thought about this from behind a veil of ignorance where the likely outcome for a sentient being as a life of imprisonment and pain.

JamesÖz 30 Mar 2024 21:22 UTC
6 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: AIM Animal Initiatives
Obviously, I don’t speak for OP or EA AWF fund but they literally only publish 1-3 sentences per grant so I’m not surprised at all if they don’t mention it, even if it is a consideration for them. That said, I might just be projecting because this was partially the reason why I supported giving them a grant!
Agree though that stunners aren’t literally a one-off and never touch again, but as you mention I think the overall cost of the intervention to animals helped is significantly better for shrimp stunning in my opinion, as well the avenue for industry adoption being much more clear and more likely.

JamesÖz 30 Mar 2024 15:14 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: AIM Animal Initiatives
Yeah good point re Shrimp Welfare Project! I should have said “most animal funders don’t want to subsidise the animal ag industry without a clear mechanism for passing these costs over to the industry”.
For example, in the case of SWP, my understanding is that SWP wants to get these relatively cheap stunners ($50k and only a one-off cost) for a few major producers to show both producers and retailers that it is a relatively cheap way to improve animal welfare with minimal/no impacts on productivity. Then, I believe the idea is to get retailers (e.g. like this) to commit only to sourcing from producers who stun their shrimps, thereby influencing more producers to buy these stunners out of their own pocket (and repeat until all shrimp are being stunned before slaughter).
I think the case with feed fortification with layer hens is much less obvious and less simple due to the impact of feed costs (which are significant and ongoing), so IMO it wasn’t clear to animal funders how these costs would be passed onto the industry at a later date, rather than subsidising feed fortification in perpetuity.
A smaller note is that there is also a very small number of animal funders who follow this suffering-reduction-focused theory of change so if one major funder (e.g. OP) doesn’t fund you, this can be very problematic (as in the case of Healthier Hens). Also many funders don’t act rationally, so it’s also important the research takes that into account (not convinced that funders weren’t acting rationally in this case though).

JamesÖz 30 Mar 2024 0:26 UTC
10 points
1 ∶ 1
in reply to: MichaelStJules’s comment on: AIM Animal Initiatives
FWIW in the early stages of Healthier Hens, I heard some of the following pieces of feedback which IMO seem significant enough that it may have been a bad decision for CE to recommend a feed fortification charity for layer hens:
- Feed costs are approximately 50% of costs for farmers, so interventions that make feed even more expensive are likely to be hard to achieve
- CE’s report focuses on subsidising this feed for farmers to lessen the potential risk of the above point, but I think misses the crucial factor where most animal funders don’t want to subsidise the animal agriculture industry without a clear mechanism for passing these costs over to industry, hence making fundraising quite hard (which did turn out to be true)
- Following on, if the subsidisation avenue was not pursued, it’s not clear what leverage Healthier Hens (or any other feed fortification charity) would have over feed mills or farms to get them to significantly increase their costs of production. For example, in the report, CE says “Entrepreneurs may pivot based on their own research: for example, they may instead partner with certifiers to encourage them to include feed standards for calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin D3 in their standards” but again, this is a significant ask of farms (and therefore certifiers) which I think was glossed over in the report.
It’s also worth noting that the experts interviewed in this report were 1 free-range egg farmer, 1 animal nutritionist and 2 Indian animal advocates (as it was originally thought to work best in India). None of them mentioned the concerns above but the person I spoke to (involved in global corporate welfare) thought that if CE had spoken to someone with reasonable global campaigning / corporate welfare experience, these problems would have been unearthed. I’m not sure how true this is but thought it was relevant info to the above discussion.
(My overall view on the meta-comment by mildlyanonymous is that it’s too vague to be useful and hard to verify many things but the intention of reducing poor allocation of talented co-founders and scarce funding is important, hence suggesting improvements to CE’s research process does seem valuable)
Edited afterwards: I added “without a clear mechanism for passing these costs over to industry” to the second bullet point after Michael’s good point below.

JamesÖz 28 Mar 2024 15:39 UTC
9 points
0 ∶ 0
on: JamesOz’s Shortform
Social Change Lab has two exciting opportunities for people passionate about social movements, animal advocacy and research to join our team!
Director (Maternity Cover)
We are looking for a strategic leader to join our team as interim Director. This role will be maternity cover for our current Director and will be a 12-month contract from July 2024. As Director, you would lead our small team in delivering cutting-edge research on the outcomes and strategies of the animal advocacy and climate movements and ensuring widespread communication of this work to key stakeholders.
Research and Communications Officer
We also have a potential opportunity for a Research and Communications Officer to join our team for 12 months. Please note this role is dependent on how hiring for our interim Director goes, as we will likely only hire one of these two roles.
Please see our Careers page for the full details of both roles and how to apply. If you have any questions about either role, please reach out to Mabli at mabli@socialchangelab.org

JamesÖz 24 Feb 2024 1:04 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: emre kaplan’s comment on: JamesOz’s Shortform
No I didn’t sadly—I started using Readwise instead to capture learnings from books & other mediums, as it’s got better UX than Anki in my opinion. Still yet to make a good list of concepts/facts though so ideas welcome!

My lifelong pledge to give away 10% of my income each year (and where I donated in 2023)

JamesÖz13 Feb 2024 1:58 UTC

92 points

3 comments11 min readEA link

JamesÖz

An­nounc­ing the Strate­gic An­i­mal Fund­ing Cir­cle!

Job op­por­tu­ni­ties with new Labour MPs

An­nounc­ing UK Vot­ers for An­i­mals!

My lifelong pledge to give away 10% of my in­come each year (and where I donated in 2023)

Announcing the Strategic Animal Funding Circle!

Job opportunities with new Labour MPs

Announcing UK Voters for Animals!

My lifelong pledge to give away 10% of my income each year (and where I donated in 2023)