Jeremy Henderson

Karma: 5

Jeremy Henderson 19 Jul 2022 15:39 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Vgvt’s comment on: Reducing aquatic noise as a wild animal welfare intervention
I’m not a scientist, so I don’t have any specific information about the impact of marine mammals on ocean productivity. My gut instinct is that they probably serve a pretty valuable function to the ecosystem, but that’s really based on nothing and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I do think that sound being invisible and underwater is a big part of the issue. And beyond that, you have to get people to understand the impacts that underwater noise has on marine animals. Honestly, I think maybe the way to go on marketing would be something more anthropocentric: getting people thinking about how unpleasant it is to live next to a construction site or an airport might be a good entry point into the issue.

Jeremy Henderson 18 Jul 2022 20:49 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Reducing aquatic noise as a wild animal welfare intervention
This is a great write-up, thank you for sharing it. Overall, I think I share your skepticism about this as a viable cause area. I’m new to (but very interested in) WAW, and I think it’s very interesting to view this issue from that perspective. I’ve come across the issue in my work (confidentiality precludes me from going into many details) and it looks like your understanding of the issue is spot-on.
A few general points:
- Tractability strikes me as a major concern here. In my experience, underwater noise tends to be an issue that’s heavily entangled in industry, various regulatory regimes (possibly from many jurisdictions), and other local circumstances. Countries are also more touchy about marine boundary issues than you would think at first blush. I think it could be very difficult to pinpoint where advocacy should focus.
- Don’t underestimate the value of marine mammals from a movement-building/PR perspective. Most people (and governments) view fish and invertebrates as resources open to exploitation rather than moral patients. I don’t agree with this, but it tends to be the prevailing sentiment among regulators and local communities (in my experience). There are other animals (orcas and dolphins come to mind) that people care a lot about as moral patients and around which advocacy can be built.
- Underwater noise can be a difficult issue for newcomers to immediately embrace as important. It’s not necessarily intuitive why it matters. I think there could be a lot of value in figuring out how to package the issue so that it can be understood (at least roughly) through an advertising campaign in regions where it is politically salient.

Jeremy Henderson 18 Jul 2022 19:25 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Law School: Why and When? – Considerations for Members of the EA Community
This is a great post. Thank you for the thorough rundown of the various factors that should go into this decision. I’m commenting as someone who went to law school and became a lawyer, but who has struggled to integrate my career with my interest in EA. I think it is possible that law school can be a part of a great EA career plan, but I would also (as you do) insist that people make this decision after a lot of critical reflection. There is nothing about being a lawyer that uniquely equips you to make the world a better place and my gut reaction tells me that most people motivated by EA should probably avoid it. I’d be very happy to talk with anyone considering taking this path: I would have loved a candid discussion from someone who’s been there at that stage.
Knowing what I do now, and given the development of the EA movement in the past decade, I wouldn’t have gone to law school. I would have tried some other things, knowing that law school will always exist as a Plan Z. Of course, everyone’s circumstances are different, but I think it’s always valuable to have narratives out there (at the risk of overexposing myself).
I was first exposed to the ideas of EA about ten years ago during my undergrad. I was taking senior seminars in political theory and reading Animal Liberation and The Life You Can Save, among other texts. They resonated with me, but I struggled with how to figure this into my career plan.
Coming out of undergrad, I didn’t feel like I could practically be very choosy with my career. I was the first in my family to go to university and had to take out loans to do so. I was also struggling with family issues at the time (relating to my coming out as gay) and going through my second serious bout of depression. I had a supportive partner (and still have the same one) who I could live with and lean on for support, but the relationship was new-ish and didn’t feel like something I could count on to support myself in the long run. I was of the impression that I’d fucked up by getting a liberal arts degree instead of one in engineering and I needed to get whatever job I could, ASAP.
I got a job in education policy about six months after graduating, around the same time I’d applied for law school. In hindsight, I’d describe both as panic moves. I needed something to pay the bills over the decades to come. After a lackluster eight-months at that job, I took out yet more loans and went to law school.
I turned out that I actually loved law school. As an environment for intellectual stimulation, I was very happy with it. I got to have diverse experiences, test a few options out and formed some great relationships with brilliant professors. The social life of the school was not really my thing. Life centered around cramming for exams, firm recruitment, etc. Eventually, I found my niche though, and managed to perform well and grow a lot.
But here’s the thing about legal training: the path is long, and if you let it sweep you up, you get on a specific track, and pivot points can be few and far between. By the time I was approaching graduation, I had lined up my articling job (a qualifying work year after law school in Canada) and a ‘prestigious’ clerkship for the year after that. I got offered a permanent government post during my clerkship year, which is where I still work. On reflection, the decade between applying to law school and now has felt very automatic, as would the next few decades if I don’t actively try to change trajectories.
As for the day-to-day work, my job as a government lawyer is not very effective. I earn decent money and donate a big chunk of it, but at every meeting, my EA mind is thinking about the salaries that each attendee is making, how long even small changes can take to make, and how my energy could be better spent elsewhere. I’ve learned the hard way what is obvious in hindsight: being a lawyer is a specific job, concerned about liability and facilitating other ends. It’s not a bad job, but it doesn’t make me (or most lawyers I know) excited to get up in the morning and change the world. In terms of marginal use of a decade in the prime of my life, I think I (and most people) can do a lot better.
I’m at a stage now where the burnout is real (oh yeah, did I mention that lawyering is hard?) and I’m trying to pivot to a role that has more direct meaning. It’s hard. Much harder than it would have been at 22, when you’re the young-adult version of a stem cell who could become anything. So my advice to potential law students would definitely be to (if you have the resources) wait out the discomfort of being in a state of so much potential. Try some things out for a few years before making what is arguably a default choice. Figure out what you’re good at and what makes you tick. How can you be most useful? There is a chance that the answer includes law school. But I think, for most, there’s a more direct path to impact.