I’m not exactly sure why universities use fewer eggs than school canteens. My best guess would be that when school canteens offer vegetarian options, they’re more of a side dish rather than a fully developed meal. They might not have the space, resources, or time to prepare a dish with multiple ingredients, so they rely on eggs and omelets as a quick and easy solution. Universities, on the other hand, are used to preparing several complete meals and generally have more staff available to do so.
Keyvan Mostafavi
Karma: 401
We were already part of Anima International when we were Assiettes Végétales. So the name change was about better reflecting the new strategy. But we were also thinking for some time that having such a specific name tied to a specific strategy (“Assiettes Végétales”) was bad for strategic flexibility.
It’s hard for me to assess how influential Brian is and was, but I agree it’s probably big.
Many of his articles moved me a lot. He writes about animals with deep care and is really serious about not harming them. Even insects, which most people—including me—don’t naturally feel much empathy for. I remember feeling grateful several times while reading his articles that at least some people have such altruism for animals.
Ditching what we are good at: A change of course for Anima International in France
Thanks for your reply Elliot.
I was specifically asking about your views on why the problem animal advocates are trying to solve is much harder and disanalogous than the problem the emancipation and the gay marriage movements were tryng to solve.
Could you develop this part please? The “why this problem is much harder and disanalogous” part.
A lack of strategic clarity when developing a theory of change. For advocates who buy that we will end factory farming, this might mean that they are more likely to pursue interventions and theories of change that will do just that: end factory farming. This leads to conversations about how do we mimic previous social movements that have ‘won’ like the emancipation and gay marriage movements. While I think this work can be valuable, I often see it discussed in ways I think are insufficiently clear-eyed about why this problem is much harder and disanalogous.
I found your article very useful.
Similar thoughts to the ones you express here led me to write this post: Fighting animal suffering: beyond the number of animals killed
I’m grateful for the articles @MichaelStJules writes on the forum. He seems to be motivated by a deep desire to understand what will benefit moral patients.
For example, I particularly value his sequence on the impact of fishing on fish welfare (The moral ambiguity of fishing on wild aquatic animal populations and other articles)
Keyvan Mostafavi’s Quick takes
Thanks for the post. I’d like to see this topic discussed a bit more among the EA community.
In particular, I’d like to see more of the following:people explaining why they don’t get involved / fund interventions aimed at cultural change for animals. I think there are good reasons not to get involved. But, in my opinion, it would be useful for the movement to explicitly states the arguments underlying this situation.
a few organizations (not too many, so as not to cannibalize the robust and well proven work being done on cages or BCC for example) testing cultural change interventions, and doing their best to measure results. I like what the Social Change Lab is trying to do, for example.
I feel exactly the same as you :). Thanks Michael!
Strongly upvoted, as I think this is a very important question, and I’m glad you tried to answer it. The same goes for your other two articles on the effect of fishing. Thanks for your work.
I would also love to see similar analyses done on the impact of reducing the number of farmed animals on wild animal suffering, with different species studied separately. I am aware of Brian Tomasik’s work, but given the importance of this topic, I would like to see more research in this area (and if more work has been done, please point it out to me).
Thanks Michael! I was asking myself exactly these questions when reading the article.
With the French branch of Anima International, we also made similar estimates to evaluate our work with school and university canteens in France. We plan to make a post about this analysis. The results made us decide to look for more effective interventions.
A few points about your post:We used a similar methodology as you. In particular, we didn’t estimate the number of animals lives saved, but the number of days of suffering averted (as you did). See our recent post: Fighting animal suffering: beyond the number of animals killed
in France, the breakdown of different types of animal products is different in canteens than in households (relatively less chicken meat is eaten in canteens than in households for instance). It may also be the case in the UK, which would decrease or increase the cost-effectiveness, depending of which types of meat are over-represented in canteens
even if we advocated mainly for plant-based meals in France, often our partners implemented vegetarian meals, which often contained eggs. Since egg meals (particularly coming from caged hens) cause a lot of suffering (approximately as much as in chicken meals), it signifcantly lowered our effectiveness. So it would be worth checking in your analysis that the meals were shifted to 100% plant-based ones
all this discussion doesn’t take into account the long-term effects of having children eating more plant-based when they are young. We tried to review the scientific litterature about such effects, but we concluded that it hasn’t been studied enough to support continuing this program.
Another good example of the difference between the number of animals killed and the number of animals alive at any point in time is with shrimps and insects. This report (Shrimp: The animals most commonly used and killed for food production, see figures 1 and 2) from Rethink Priorities estimated that in 2020 :
the total number of farmed shrimp killed per year is equivalent to 40% of the number of farmed insects slaughtered to produce food and feed and others that die prior to being processed
the total number of farmed shrimp alive at any moment is equivalent to 270% the number of insects alive at any point in time on farms
(Note that the number of insects farmed may have increased since 2020)
Thanks @William McAuliffe for pointing that out to me.
Fighting animal suffering: beyond the number of animals killed
@saulius Any update on this point ?
Thanks for your reply Bob :)
@Laura Duffy @Bob Fischer
A question about your methodology : If I understand correctly, your placeholders are probability-of-sentience-adjusted, but your key takeaways are not (since they are “conditional on sentience”).
Why having adjusted for sentience in your placeholders but not in your key takeaways ?
Yes, eradicating the New World screwworm was part of the initial 94 ideas we listed. This idea didn’t make it to the second round because we have a preference for operating in France, and because navigating the Latin America context as French people seemed difficult.
I find this idea very promising as it could reduce a huge amount of animal suffering. Although I was wondering how sure we are that a death caused by the screwworm is worse than the average death in nature for those animals.