Podcasts about humane league

In this eye-opening episode, Mariann Sullivan speaks with three pioneering advocates who are successfully preventing octopus factory farming across the United States. Amanda Fox (Executive Director of Animal Rights Initiative), Allie Taylor (President of Voters for Animal Rights), and Brenna Anderst (Senior Policy Advisor at The Humane League) share how their coalition has already secured bans in Washington and California, with…

Our story tonight is called The Lilac Booth, Part Two, and it's a story about a lovely spring day at the farmer's market and the sweet smell of a favorite flower. It is also about street food and sunshine, memories pulled forward by a breath of perfume, crumpled dollar bills, and the kind of beauty that can sit on your windowsill. Subscribe to our ⁠Premium channel.⁠ The first month is on us.

Today's talk is about the growing animal advocacy movement in Africa! I was honored to speak with Aurelia Adhiambo about the challenges posed by industrialization and factory farming and how they differ from country to country.   She represents Africa in many animal welfare conversations from Open Wing Alliance and The Humane League to the Effective Altruism Animal Welfare Fund and the Animal & Vegan Advocacy Africa Summit. She's a wealth of knowledge!  I think you'll enjoy learning a bit about animal advocacy in Africa right now.  SHOW NOTES: https://ForAnimalsForEarth.com/show/87 EMAIL AURELIA: aadhiambo@thehumaneleague.org OPEN WING ALLIANCE ACTION APP: https://action.openwingalliance.org/signup

Introduction The Giving What We Can research team is excited to share the results of our 2024 round of evaluations of charity evaluators and grantmakers! In this round, we completed three evaluations that will inform our donation recommendations for the 2024 giving season. As with our 2023 round, there are substantial limitations to these evaluations, but we nevertheless think that they are a significant improvement to a landscape in which there were no independent evaluations of evaluators' work. In this post, we share the key takeaways from each of our 2024 evaluations and link to the full reports. We also include an update explaining our decision to remove The Humane League from our list of recommended programs. Our website has now been updated to reflect the new fund and charity recommendations that came out of these evaluations. Please also see our website for more context on [...] ---Outline:(00:14) Introduction(01:16) Key takeaways from each of our 2024 evaluations(01:39) Global health and wellbeing(01:44) Founders Pledge Global Health and Development Fund (FP GHDF)(04:07) Animal welfare(04:11) Animal Charity Evaluators' Movement Grants (ACE MG)(06:08) Animal Charity Evaluators' Charity Evaluation Program(08:33) Additional recommendation updates(08:37) The Humane League's corporate campaigns program(11:26) ConclusionThe original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: November 27th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NhpAHDQq6iWhk7SEs/gwwc-s-2024-evaluations-of-evaluators-1 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Introduction The Giving What We Can research team is excited to share the results of our 2024 round of evaluations of charity evaluators and grantmakers! In this round, we completed three evaluations that will inform our donation recommendations for the 2024 giving season. As with our 2023 round, there are substantial limitations to these evaluations, but we nevertheless think that they are a significant improvement to a landscape in which there were no independent evaluations of evaluators' work. In this post, we share the key takeaways from each of our 2024 evaluations and link to the full reports. We also include an update explaining our decision to remove The Humane League from our list of recommended programs. Our website has now been updated to reflect the new fund and charity recommendations that came out of these evaluations. Please also see our website for more context on [...] ---Outline:(00:10) Introduction(01:13) Key takeaways from each of our 2024 evaluations(01:36) Global health and wellbeing(01:41) Founders Pledge Global Health and Development Fund (FP GHDF)(04:07) Animal welfare(04:10) Animal Charity Evaluators' Movement Grants (ACE MG)(06:08) Animal Charity Evaluators' Charity Evaluation Program(08:35) Additional recommendation updates(08:39) The Humane League's corporate campaigns program(11:29) ConclusionThe original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: November 27th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/NhpAHDQq6iWhk7SEs/gwwc-s-2024-evaluations-of-evaluators-1 --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Today, on the Hudson Mohawk Magazine, We start with Mark Dunlea sharing information about an event scheduled for Saturday October 12th, by Troy's Street Peace Project, to unveil an outdoor sculpture intended to raise awareness about the problem of gun violence in the Lansingburgh community. Then, Andrea Cunliffe talks with Mary Bonczar [BONN-zir] from the League of Women Voters about topics related to registering and voting in the upcoming elections. After that, retired National Weather Service meteorologist Hugh Johson joins us for our weekly look at climate and his weather forecast. Once again hurricanes are in the news. Later on, Lennox Apudo and Jadyen Ida-Peche of the Capital Region branch of the Humane League discuss that organization's advocacy for the humane treatment of farm animals. Finally, correspondent Benno Greene talked with Alex, one of the co-leaders of Health Care Workers for Palestine, about that group's weekly protests at Albany Medical Center.

Jadyn Ide-Pech, a senior at RPI and a member of the Capital Region branch of The Humane League shares her experiences in advocating for the humane treatment of farm animals and why this is an important issue. She talked with Lennox Apudo.

Season 6 Episode 23: What drives someone to dedicate their life to animal rights activism? Aaron Ross, Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy at The Humane League, shares his compelling journey from high school curiosity to becoming a prominent figure in the animal rights movement. Learn how Aaron's initial questions about the ethics of consuming different animals led him to a vegetarian lifestyle and the foundation of local animal rights organizations. Hear his personal stories of overcoming skepticism and witnessing the evolution of societal attitudes towards animal welfare.Delve into the history and growth of The Humane League, an organization that started with a franchise model in 2005 and has since become a key player in corporate animal welfare campaigns. Aaron discusses the pivotal moments, strategic shifts, and the role of influential leaders like David Coman-Hidy in transforming the movement from grassroots activism into a professional, pragmatic effort. Understand the challenges faced as the movement scaled up, particularly after receiving significant funding around 2016, and how the focus on farmed animals, especially chickens, has led to impactful cage-free campaigns.Discover the surprising link between jiu-jitsu and activism as Aaron shares how the principles of the sport have influenced his advocacy work. Learn about the prevalence of veganism among world champion jiu-jitsu practitioners and the potential benefits of a plant-based diet for athletes. Aarons episode on How I Learned To Love Shrimp is a podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/sg/podcast/how-i-learned-to-love-shrimp/id1679799929?i=1000645240183Follow my Facebook page to get updates on upcoming episodes. https://www.facebook.com/curiousvedanth/To listen to earlier episodes, visit curiousvedanth.comTo listen at leisure on your phone and get notified about future episodes, subscribe by searching for 'Curious Vedanth' wherever you get podcasts, such as Apple Podcast, Stitcher, Google Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, etc.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing The Midas Project - and our first campaign!, published by Tyler Johnston on June 13, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary The Midas Project is a new AI safety organization. We use public advocacy to incentivize stronger self-governance from the companies developing and deploying high-risk AI products. This week, we're launching our first major campaign, targeting the AI company Cognition. Cognition is a rapidly growing startup [1] developing autonomous coding agents. Unfortunately, they've told the public virtually nothing about how, or even if, they will conduct risk evaluations to prevent misuse and other unintended outcomes. In fact, they've said virtually nothing about safety at all. We're calling on Cognition to release an industry-standard evaluation-based safety policy. We need your help to make this campaign a success. Here are five ways you can help, sorted by level of effort: 1. Keep in the loop about our campaigns by following us on Twitter and joining our mailing list. 2. Offer feedback and suggestions, by commenting on this post or by reaching out at info@themidasproject.com 3. Share our Cognition campaign on social media, sign the petition, or engage with our campaigns directly on our action hub. 4. Donate to support our future campaigns (tax-exempt status pending). 5. Sign up to volunteer, or express interest in joining our team full-time. Background The risks posed by AI are, at least partially, the result of a market failure. Tech companies are locked in an arms race that is forcing everyone (even the most safety-concerned) to move fast and cut corners. Meanwhile, consumers broadly agree that AI risks are serious and that the industry should move slower. However, this belief is disconnected from their everyday experience with AI products, and there isn't a clear Schelling point allowing consumers to express their preference via the market. Usually, the answer to a market failure like this is regulation. When it comes to AI safety, this is certainly the solution I find most promising. But such regulation isn't happening quickly enough. And even if governments were moving quicker, AI safety as a field is pre-paradigmatic. Nobody knows exactly what guardrails will be most useful, and new innovations are needed. So companies are largely being left to voluntarily implement safety measures. In an ideal world, AI companies would be in a race to the top, competing against each other to earn the trust of the public through comprehensive voluntary safety measures while minimally stifling innovation and the benefits of near-term applications. But the incentives aren't clearly pointing in that direction - at least not yet. However: EA-supported organizations have previously been successful at shifting corporate incentives in the past. Take the case of cage-free campaigns. By engaging in advocacy that threatens to expose specific food companies for falling short of customers' basic expectations regarding animal welfare, groups like The Humane League and Mercy For Animals have been able to create a race to the top for chicken welfare, leading virtually all US food companies to commit to going cage-free. [2] Creating this change was as simple as making the connection in the consumer's mind between their pre-existing disapproval of inhumane battery cages and the eggs being served at their local fast food chain. I believe this sort of public advocacy can be extremely effective. In fact, in the case of previous emerging technologies, I would go so far as to say it's been too effective. Public advocacy played a major role in preventing the widespread adoption of GM crops and nuclear power in the twentieth century, despite huge financial incentives to develop these technologies. [3] We haven't seen this sort of activism leveraged to demand meaningful...

The Humane League, an advocacy organization seminal to both encouraging the egg industry to improve its conditions for laying hens, but also to hold restaurants accountable when they don't keep their promises to use only cage free eggs. Kelly Myers, Director of Corporate Engagement joins to discuss this sea change, and the new Humane League Eggspose, that busts the bad actors who promise one thing, and do another.Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.

The Humane League, an advocacy organization seminal to both encouraging the egg industry to improve its conditions for laying hens, but also to hold restaurants accountable when they don't keep their promises to use only cage free eggs. Kelly Myers, Director of Corporate Engagement joins to discuss this sea change, and the new Humane League Eggspose, that busts the bad actors who promise one thing, and do another.Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.

How do we put farmed animals on the agenda for policymakers? This week, Gabriel Wildgen joins us to discuss the Animal Policy Alliance, a project of The Humane League that is working to connect state and local animal organizations across the US to each other and help them get what they need to compete with animal agriculture. ABOUT OUR GUESTS Gabriel…

The Fair & Fowl Ranking Report is produced by  @TheHumaneLeague   and  @openwingalliance  . About 100 animal welfare organizations come together to influence brands to only source cage-free eggs.  Once the pledges are made, the groups follow up to ensure that the brands are working toward their goals. In the Fair & Fowl Ranking Report, they rank brands who are transparent and reporting their progress with a favorable “good egg” rating. They rank brands who are not reporting and ignore their outreach efforts with a “bad egg” rating.  The Fair & Fowl Ranking Report for the Global Travel Industry was recently released. Brooke Fane, Global Corporate Campaigns Coordinator for The Humane League, joined me in episode 80 to discuss the Fair & Fowl Ranking Report.  We chatted about the various rankings and which travel brands are doing well or leaving something to be desired in their reporting.   We also talked about the Humane Hospitality Campaign which was so successful that the three companies who made changes from the campaign should ultimately impact 861,000 hens annually.  That's 861,000 less animals suffering while trapped in cages with about an iPad's size footprint to live on. Amazing! SHOW NOTES (INC. VIDEO & AUDIO): https://ForAnimalsForEarth.com/show/80 Thanks guys!

Please follow Arthur on Twitter and check out his blog! Thank you for just summarizing my point in like 1% of the words-Aaron, to Arthur, circa 34:45Summary(Written by Claude Opus aka Clong)* Aaron and Arthur introduce themselves and discuss their motivations for starting the podcast. Arthur jokingly suggests they should "solve gender discourse".* They discuss the benefits and drawbacks of having a public online persona and sharing opinions on Twitter. Arthur explains how his views on engaging online have evolved over time.* Aaron reflects on whether it's good judgment to sometimes tweet things that end up being controversial. They discuss navigating professional considerations when expressing views online.* Arthur questions Aaron's views on cause prioritization in effective altruism (EA). Aaron believes AI is one of the most important causes, while Arthur is more uncertain and pluralistic in his moral philosophy.* They debate whether standard EA global poverty interventions are likely to be the most effective ways to help people from a near-termist perspective. Aaron is skeptical, while Arthur defends GiveWell's recommendations.* Aaron makes the case that even from a near-termist view focused only on currently living humans, preparing for the impacts of AI could be highly impactful, for instance by advocating for a global UBI. Arthur pushes back, arguing that AI is more likely to increase worker productivity than displace labor.* Arthur expresses skepticism of long-termism in EA, though not due to philosophical disagreement with the basic premises. Aaron suggests this is a well-trodden debate not worth rehashing.* They discuss whether old philosophical texts have value or if progress means newer works are strictly better. Arthur mounts a spirited defense of engaging with the history of ideas and reading primary sources to truly grasp nuanced concepts. Aaron contends that intellectual history is valuable but reading primary texts is an inefficient way to learn for all but specialists.* Arthur and Aaron discover a shared passion for rock climbing, swapping stories of how they got into the sport as teenagers. While Aaron focused on indoor gym climbing and competitions, Arthur was drawn to adventurous outdoor trad climbing. They reflect on the mental challenge of rationally managing fear while climbing.* Discussing the role of innate talent vs training, Aaron shares how climbing made him viscerally realize the limits of hard work in overcoming genetic constraints. He and Arthur commiserate about the toxic incentives for competitive climbers to be extremely lean, while acknowledging the objective physics behind it.* They bond over falling out of climbing as priorities shifted in college and lament the difficulty of getting back into it after long breaks. Arthur encourages Aaron to let go of comparisons to his past performance and enjoy the rapid progress of starting over.TranscriptVery imperfect - apologies for the errors.AARONHello, pigeon hour listeners. This is Aaron, as it always is with Arthur Wright of Washington, the broader Washington, DC metro area. Oh, also, we're recording in person, which is very exciting for the second time. I really hope I didn't screw up anything with the audio. Also, we're both being really awkward at the start for some reason, because I haven't gotten into conversation mode yet. So, Arthur, what do you want? Is there anything you want?ARTHURYeah. So Aaron and I have been circling around the idea of recording a podcast for a long time. So there have been periods of time in the past where I've sat down and been like, oh, what would I talk to Aaron about on a podcast? Those now elude me because that was so long ago, and we spontaneously decided to record today. But, yeah, for the. Maybe a small number of people listening to this who I do not personally already know. I am Arthur and currently am doing a master's degree in economics, though I still know nothing about economics, despite being two months from completion, at least how I feel. And I also do, like, housing policy research, but I think have, I don't know, random, eclectic interests in various EA related topics. And, yeah, I don't. I feel like my soft goal for this podcast was to, like, somehow get Aaron cancelled.AARONI'm in the process.ARTHURWe should solve gender discourse.AARONOh, yeah. Is it worth, like, discussing? No, honestly, it's just very online. It's, like, not like there's, like, better, more interesting things.ARTHURI agree. There are more. I was sort of joking. There are more interesting things. Although I do think, like, the general topic that you talked to max a little bit about a while ago, if I remember correctly, of, like, kind of. I don't know to what degree. Like, one's online Persona or, like, being sort of active in public, sharing your opinions is, like, you know, positive or negative for your general.AARONYeah. What do you think?ARTHURYeah, I don't really.AARONWell, your. Your name is on Twitter, and you're like.ARTHURYeah. You're.AARONYou're not, like, an alt.ARTHURYeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I. So, like, I first got on Twitter as an alt account in, like, 2020. I feel like it was during my, like, second to last semester of college. Like, the vaccine didn't exist yet. Things were still very, like, hunkered down in terms of COVID And I feel like I was just, like, out of that isolation. I was like, oh, I'll see what people are talking about on the Internet. And I think a lot of the, like, sort of more kind of topical political culture war, whatever kind of stuff, like, always came back to Twitter, so I was like, okay, I should see what's going on on this Twitter platform. That seems to be where all of the chattering classes are hanging out. And then it just, like, made my life so much worse.AARONWait, why?ARTHURWell, I think part of it was that I just, like, I made this anonymous account because I was like, oh, I don't want to, like, I don't want to, like, have any reservations about, like, you know, who I follow or what I say. I just want to, like, see what's going on and not worry about any kind of, like, personal, like, ramifications. And I think that ended up being a terrible decision because then I just, like, let myself get dragged into, like, the most ultimately, like, banal and unimportant, like, sort of, like, culture war shit as just, like, an observer, like, a frustrated observer. And it was just a huge waste of time. I didn't follow anyone interesting or, like, have any interesting conversations. And then I, like, deleted my Twitter. And then it was in my second semester of my current grad program. We had Caleb Watney from the Institute for Progress come to speak to our fellowship because he was an alumni of the same fellowship. And I was a huge fan of the whole progress studies orientation. And I liked what their think tank was doing as, I don't know, a very different approach to being a policy think tank, I think, than a lot of places. And one of the things that he said for, like, people who are thinking about careers in, like, policy and I think sort of applies to, like, more ea sort of stuff as well, was like, that. Developing a platform on Twitter was, like, opened a lot of doors for him in terms of, like, getting to know people in the policy world. Like, they had already seen his stuff on Twitter, and I got a little bit, like, more open to the idea that there could be something constructive that could come from, like, engaging with one's opinions online. So I was like, okay, fuck it. I'll start a Twitter, and this time, like, I won't be a coward. I won't get dragged into all the worst topics. I'll just, like, put my real name on there and, like, say things that I think. And I don't actually do a lot of that, to be honest.AARONI've, like, thought about gotta ramp it.ARTHUROff doing more of that. But, like, you know, I think when it's not eating too much time into my life in terms of, like, actual deadlines and obligations that I have to meet, it's like, now I've tried to cultivate a, like, more interesting community online where people are actually talking about things that I think matter.AARONNice. Same. Yeah, I concur. Or, like, maybe this is, like, we shouldn't just talk about me, but I'm actually, like, legit curious. Like, do you think I'm an idiot or, like, cuz, like, hmm. I. So this is getting back to the, like, the current, like, salient controversy, which is, like, really just dumb. Not, I mean, controversy for me because, like, not, not like an actual, like, event in the world, but, like, I get so, like, I think it's, like, definitely a trade off where, like, yeah, there's, like, definitely things that, like, I would say if I, like, had an alt. Also, for some reason, I, like, really just don't like the, um, like, the idea of just, like, having different, I don't know, having, like, different, like, selves. Not in, like, a. And not in, like, any, like, sort of actual, like, philosophical way, but, like, uh, yeah, like, like, the idea of, like, having an online Persona or whatever, I mean, obviously it's gonna be different, but, like, in. Only in the same way that, like, um, you know, like, like, you're, like, in some sense, like, different people to the people. Like, you're, you know, really close friend and, like, a not so close friend, but, like, sort of a different of degree. Like, difference of, like, degree, not kind. And so, like, for some reason, like, I just, like, really don't like the idea of, like, I don't know, having, like, a professional self or whatever. Like, I just. Yeah. And you could, like, hmm. I don't know. Do you think I'm an idiot for, like, sometimes tweeting, like, things that, like, evidently, like, are controversial, even if they, like, they're not at all intent or, like, I didn't even, you know, plan, like, plan on them being.ARTHURYeah, I think it's, like, sort of similar to the, like, decoupling conversation we had the other night, which is, like, I totally am sympathetic to your sense of, like, oh, it's just nice to just, like, be a person and not have to, like, as consciously think about, like, dividing yourself into these different buckets of, like, what sort of, you know, Persona you want to, like, present to different audiences. So, like, I think there's something to that. And I, in some ways, I have a similar intuition when it comes to, like, I try to set a relatively strong principle for myself to not lie. And, like, it's not that I'm, like, a Kantian, but I just, like, I think, like, just as a practical matter, the problem with lying for me at least, is then, like, you have to keep these sorts of two books, sets of books in your head of, like, oh, what did I tell to whom? And, like, how do I now say new things that are, like, consistent with the information that I've already, like, you know, falsely or not, like, divulge to this person. Right. And I think, in a similar way, there's something appealing about just, like, being fully honest and open, like, on the Internet with your real name and that you don't have to, like, I don't know, jump through all of those hoops in your mind before, like, deciding whether or not to say something. But at the same time, to the, like, conversation we had the other night about decoupling and stuff, I think. I think there's, like, it is an unfortunate reality that, like, you will be judged and, like, perhaps unfairly on the things that you say on the Internet, like, in a professional sphere. And, like, I don't know, at some level, you can't just, like, wish your.AARONWay out of it. Yeah, no, no, that's, like, a. Okay, so I. This is actually, like, I, like, totally agree. I think, like, one thing is just. I, like, really, honestly, like, don't know how, like, empirically, like, what is the actual relationship between saying, like, say, you get, like, I don't know, like, ten, like, quote tweets, people who are, like, misunderstanding your point, like, and, like, I don't know, say, like, 30 comments or whatever replies or whatever. And, like, it is, like, not at all clear to me, like, what that corresponds to in the real world. And, like, I think I may have erred too much in the direction of, like, oh, that's, like, no evidence at all because, sorry, we should really talk about non twitter stuff. But, like, this is actually, like, on my mind. And this is something like, I didn't. Like, I thought about tweeting, like, but didn't, which is that, like, oh, yeah, I had, like, the building underground tweet, which, like, I think that's a good example. Like, anybody who's, like, reasonably charitable can, like, tell that. It's, like, it was, like, I don't know, it was, like, a reasonable question. Like, and we've mentioned this before, like, this is, like, I don't want to just, like, yeah, it's, like, sort of been beaten to death or whatever, but, like, I feel like maybe, like, I came away from that thinking that, like, okay, if people are mad at you on the Internet, that is, like, no evidence whatsoever about, like, how it, like, how a reasonable person will judge you and or, like, what will happen, like. Like, in real life and, like, yeah, maybe I, like, went too hard in that direction or something.ARTHURYeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, to, like, agree, maybe move on to non twitter, but, yeah, like, to close this loop. I think that, like, I agree that any. Any one instance of individuals being mad at you online, like, it's very easy to, like, over react or extrapolate from that. That, like, oh, people in the real world are gonna, like, judge me negatively because of this. Right. I think in any isolated instance, that's true, but I just. I also get the sense that in the broad world of sort of, like, think tanks and nonprofits and things where, like, your position would. Especially if you're, like, in a research position, like, to some degree, like, representative the opinions of an employer. Right. That there's a kind of, like, character judgment that goes into someone's overall Persona. So, like, the fact that you have, like, one controversial tweet where people are saying, like, oh, you think, you know, like, poor people don't deserve natural light or something like that. Like, that. Any one instance, like, might not matter very much, but if you, like, strongly cultivate a Persona online of, like, being a bit of a loose cannon and, like, oh, I'm gonna say, like, whatever controversial thing comes to mind, I can see any organization that has, like, communicating to a broader audience is, like, an important part of their mission. Like, being hesitant to, like, take a chance on a young person who, like, is prone to, you know, getting into those kinds of controversies on, like, a regular basis.AARONYeah, yeah. And actually, like, maybe this is, like, sort of meta, but, like, I think that is totally correct. Like, you should 100% up. Like, up if you're an employer listening to this. And, like, I don't know. Who knows? There's, like, a non zero chance that, like, I don't know, maybe, like, not low. Lower than, like, 0.1% or something like that. That will be the case. And, like, no, it is totally true that, like, my. I have, like, subpart. Wait, you better. I'm gonna, like. No, no quoting out of context here, please. Or, like, not know, like, clipping the quote out of, like, so it becomes out of context. But, like, it is, like, I have definitely poor judgment about how things will be, um, like, taken, uh, by the people of the Internet, people of the world. I, like, legitimately, I think I'm below not. Probably not first percentile, probably below 50th percentile, at least among broadly western educated, liberal ish people. And so, yes, it's hiring me for head of communication. I mean, there's a reason I'm not. I wouldn't say that I'm not applying to be a communications person anywhere, but I don't know, it's not crazy that I would. If you want to. Yeah, you should. Like, it is, like, correct information. Like, I'm not trying to trick anybody here. Well, okay. Is there anything else that's on your mind? Like, I don't know, salient or, like.ARTHURThat'S what I should have done before I came over here, but nothing, like, on the top of my head, but I feel like there's, I don't know, there's all kinds of, well, like, there's something you've, like, wandered into.AARONYeah, like, I think you have bad cause prioritization takes.ARTHUROh, right.AARONLike, maybe we shouldn't just, like, have the AI versus, like, I don't know, it's like my, like, the AI is a big deal. Tribe is like, yeah, not only winning, but, like, pretty obviously and for obvious reasons. So, like, I don't know, I don't, like, really need to have, like, the, you know, the 70th, like, debate ever about, like, oh, it's like, AI.ARTHURWait, sorry. You mean they're winning for obvious reasons insofar as, like, the victories are apparent or that you think, like, the actual arguments leading to them.AARONOh, yeah.ARTHURBecoming more prominent are obvious.AARONYeah. Setting aside the. In the abstract, what, non, like, empirical or empirical, but, like, only using data, like, pre chat, GPT release, like, setting aside that whole cluster of arguments, there is the fact that, like, I don't know, it seems very, very apparent to, like, the chattering classes of people who care about this stuff that, like, AI is, like, both the overt has expanded tremendously, like, also moved. It seems like the AI is as big of a deal, like, as the Internet is, like, the lower bound and, like, much, much more important than that. Is, like, the upper bound. And so, like, and, like, that's a. That's like, a significant shift, I guess. One thing is just, like, there have a lot been a lot of conversations, like, in EA spaces, and, like, I'm just, like, thinking about the AdK podcast. I feel like I've heard it multiple times, but maybe I'm making that up where it's like, one person is, like, makes the case for, like, I don't know, taking AI or, like, thinking that, like, yeah, AI broadly is, like, the most important altruistic area, right? And then the other person says no, and then they do the same, like, five discussion points back and forth.ARTHURYeah.AARONSo, like, I don't think we should do that.ARTHURSure.AARONThat was a really long winded way of saying that.ARTHURI see. So, so, but, but you're, you're trying to emphasize that, like, the kind of, like, reality of the pace of, you know, improvement in artificial intelligence and the fact that it is going to be, like, an incredibly important technology. Like you said, the lower bound being, like, as important as the Internet, I think, of the upper bound is like, I don't know, something like electricity provided we're not gonna, you know, all die or something. Or maybe more transformational extra. But. But I guess we're trying to say is that, like, the Overton window has, like, shifted so much that, like, everyone kind of agrees this is a really transformative technology. And, like, you know, therefore.AARONWell, I guess I. Sorry, wait, I interrupted. I'm an interrupting person. I'm sorry.ARTHURThat's good. It's a natural part of conversation, so I don't feel bad.AARONContinue.ARTHUROh, oh, no, no. I just. I like, like, yeah, maybe we don't need to rehash the, like, whether or not AI is important, but I'm curious, like, what you think. Yeah, like, what do you think is sort of wrong about my.AARONNo, I was just about to ask that, like, when I interrupted you. I actually don't fully know what you believe. I know we, like, go into different, like, vibe camps or, like, there's another. There's like, a proper noun, vibe camp. This is like a lowercase letters.ARTHURVibe count, vibe sphere.AARONYeah, yeah. And, like. But, like, I don't know, do you have, like, a thesis?ARTHURYeah, see, okay. I don't. I think in many ways, like, maybe just to lay out, like, I think my lack of a thesis is probably the biggest distinction between the two of us when it comes to these kind of cause prioritization things.AARONRight.ARTHURBecause, like, I think I, like, over the years have, as I became more interested in the effect of altruism, have sort of changed my views in many different directions and iterations in terms of, like, my basic moral philosophy and, like, what I think the role of EA is. And I think over time, like, I've generally just become, like, more kind of pluralistic. I know it's a bit of a hand wavy word, but, like, I think I have sufficient uncertainty about, like, my basic moral framework towards the world that, like, this is just a guess. Maybe we'll discover this through conversation. But I think, like, perhaps the biggest disagreement between you and I that, like, leads us in different directions is just that I am, like, much more willing to do some kind of, like, worldview diversification sort of move where like, just, you know, going from, like, a set of assumptions, you know, something like hedonistic utilitarianism and, like, viewing ea as, like, how can I as an individual make the greatest, like, marginal contribution to, like, maximizing this global hedonistic welfare function, right. I think, like, I hold that entire project with a little bit of, like, distance and a little bit of uncertainty. So, like, even if, you know, like, granting the assumptions of that project that spits out, like, okay, AI and animals are, like, the only things that we should care about. I think, like, I'm willing to, like, grant that that might follow from those premises. But I think, like, I hold the premise itself about, like, what the kind of EA project is or what I, as an individual who's, like, interested in these ideas should do with my career at, like, sufficient, you know, distance that I'm, like, willing to kind of, like, entertain other sets of assumptions about, like, what is valuable. And, like, therefore, I'm just, like, far less certain in committing to any particular cause area. I think before, before we get deeper into the weeds about this, just to put like, a sharper point on the, like, more meta point that I'm trying to make is that, like, so I think, like, I don't know if there was this ADK episode from like, a long time ago about solutions to the Fermi paradox. And I know this sounds unrelated, but I'm gonna try.AARONNo, no, that's cool.ARTHURAnd one of the things he talked about was like, you know, basically, like, the Fermi paradox isn't actually a paradox if you, like, understand the ways that, like, essentially, like, when you have uncertainty in, like, a bunch of different point estimates, those uncertainties, like, when combined, should yield like, a probability distribution rather than just like, the headline is often, like, the point estimate of, like, oh, we should expect there to be like, so many aliens, right? But it's like when you have uncertainties on, like, each decision, you know, like, each assumption that you're making in all of the parameters of the equation, right? Like, so I think, like, I guess to apply that a little bit to kind of my, like, sort of moral philosophy is, like, I think, like, the reason why I just am very kind of, like, waffly on my cost prioritization and I'm, like, open to many different things is just that, like, I start from the basic assumption that, like, the, you know, the grounding principle of the EA project, which is like, we should try to do good in the world and we should try to do, like, you know, good in the world in ways that are, like, effective and actually, like, you know, have the consequences that we, we want. Right. That, like, I am very bought into that, like, broad assumption, but I think, like, I have sufficient uncertainty at, like, every chain of reasoning from, like, what does good mean? Like, what, you know, what is the role of, like, me as an individual? Like, what is my comparative advantage? What does it mean to be cause neutral, like, at all of these points of decision? I feel like I just have, like, sufficiently high level of uncertainty that, like, when you get to the end of that chain of reasoning and you arrive at some answer of, like, what you ought to do. Like, I think I hold it sort of very lightly, and I think I have, like, very low credence on any, like, one, you know, conclusion from that chain of research.AARONYeah, yeah. That's what cut you off too much. But, like, but, like, I think there's, like, a very, like, paradigmatic conversation which is like, oh, like, should we be pluralistic? And it's happened seven bazillion times. And so, like, I know I want to claim something different. So. Sorry. I guess there's two separate claims. One is like. And you can tell if, like, I sort of. I was sort of assuming, like, you would disagree with this, but I'm not sure is, um. Yeah, like, even if you just, like, purely restrict, um, you're, like, philosophizing or, like, restrict your ethics just to, like, um, humans who are alive right now and, like, like, basically, like, have the worldview that, like, implies malaria nets. Yeah, um, I, like, think it's, like, very unlikely that, like, actually, like, the best guess intervention right now, like, is the set of, like, standard yay interventions or whatever. And, like, another, like, very related, but, like, some, I guess, distinct claim is, like, I don't know exactly. I don't. Yeah, I really don't know at all what this would look like. But, like, it seems very plausible to me that even under that worldview, so not a long term is worldview at all, like, probably doing something related to, like, artificial intelligence. Like, is, like, checks out under. Yeah, under, like, the most, like, norm, like, normal person version, like, restricted version of EA. And, like, I don't know.ARTHURI think I. Yeah, so I think I am inclined to agree with the first part and disagree with the second part. And that's why I want you to spell this out for me, because I. I actually am sympathetic to the idea that, like, under sort of near termist restricting our class of individuals that we want to help to human beings, like, who are alive today. Right. Under that set of assumptions, I similarly think that there's, like, relatively low likelihood that, like, the standard list of sort of, like, give well, interventions are the best. Right.AARONWell, not.ARTHUROr.AARONYeah, yeah, or, like, I'm telling you, like, yeah, if you think. Sorry. Um, yeah, my claim was, like, stronger than, like, that. That. Or, like, what one would interpret that as, like, if you just, like, take it like, super literally. So, like, I think that, like, um, not only expose, like, they're not even our, like, real best guesses, like, like, an actual effort would, like, yield other best guesses. Not only like, oh, yeah. Like, this is our, like, this is like a minority, but like, a plurality of the distribution, if that makes sense.ARTHUROkay, then. Then I do think we disagree because I think where I was going to go from that is that I think to me, like, I'm not as informed on these arguments as I should be. So, like, I will fully admit, like, huge degree of, like, epistemic limitation here, but, like, I think my response was just going to be that I think, like, the case for AI would be sort of even weaker than those givewell style interventions. So even though they're, like, unlikely to be, you know, the best, like, you know, like x post in some, like, future where we, like, have more information about other kinds of ways that we could be helping people. Right. They're like, still, you know, better than the existing alternatives and.AARONYeah, yeah, I'm gonna.ARTHURSo what is the case for, like, near termist case for AI? Like, what if you could.AARONYeah, yeah. Just to, sorry. I like, promise I will answer that. But like, just to clarify. Yeah, so I'm like, more confident about, like, the give world charities are, like, not the ex ante best guess than I am that the better, like one of the best. Like, in fact, ways to help only humans alive right now would involve AI. So, like, these are related, but like, distinctive and the AI one I'm like, much less confident in and haven't, I guess, in some sense, just because it's so much more specific.ARTHURActually, let's do both parts because I realized earlier also what I meant was not ex ante, but ex post. Like, with much larger amount of information about other potential interventions, we might determine that something is better than Givewell. Right. But nonetheless, in the world that we actually live in, with the information that we currently have, the evidence is sufficiently strong for impact under the kinds of assumptions we're saying we're operating under. Right. That, like, you know, other, other competing interventions, like, have a very high bar to click. Like, maybe they're worthwhile in, like, a hit space giving kind of way. Like, in that, like, it's worth, like, trying a bunch of them to, like, see if one of them would outperform givewell. But, like, for the time being, you know, that whatever givewell spreadsheet says at any current time, I think is pretty, like, is pretty compelling in terms of, like, you know, higher certainty ways to help individuals.AARONYeah. So, um.ARTHURSo, so one, I want to hear, like, why you disagree with that. And then two, I want to hear, like, your case for, like, AI.AARONYeah, okay. I think I'm responding to this. Like, you can cut me off or whatever. Um, so, like, fundamentally, I want to, like, decouple. Haha. Or. Yeah, this is something I like doing and decouple, um, the, like, uh, yeah, who we care about. And, like, um, how, like, how aesthetically normal are we gonna be? So, like, I want to say, like, okay, even, yeah, if you. If you're, like, still in the realm of, like, doing analytic philosophy about the issue. And, like, you just, like, say, like, okay, we're just, like, gonna restrict, like, who we care about to, like, humans alive right now. There's, like, still a lot of weird shit that can, like, come out of that. And so, like, my claim, I think actually, like, what's what. Maybe this is, like, somewhat of a hot take, whatever. But I think, like, actually what's happening is, like, there is, like, a, quote, unquote like, worldview that, like, vibe associates and to some extent, like, explicitly endorses, like, only just like, for whatever reason, like, trying to help humans who are alive right now, or, like, maybe, like, who will become alive in the near future or something. But, like, this is always paired with, like, a default, like, often non explicit assumption that, like, we have to do things that look normal. Or, like. And to some extent you can. Some extent you can, like, formalize this by just, like, saying you, like, care about certain deep impact. I think there's, like, not even that technical, but, like, mildly, like, technical reasons why. Like, if you're still in the realm of, like, doing analytical philosophy about the issue, like, that doesn't check out, like, for example, you don't actually know, like, which specific person you're gonna help. I'm, like, a big fan of, like, the recent reaping priorities report. So I spent, like, five minutes, like, rambling and, like, doing a terrible job of explaining what I. What I mean. And so the idea that I'm getting at is that I think there's like a natural, like, tendency to think of risk aversion in like, an EA or just like generally, like, altruistic context. That basically means, like, we like, understand like, a chain of causality. And there are like, professional economists, like, doing RCT's and they like, know what works and what doesn't. And, like, this isn't, like, there's like, something there that is valuable. Like, doing good is hard. And so, like, you know, careful analysis is actually really important. But I think this, like, doesn't, there's a tendency to, like, ignore the fact that, like, these type of, like, give well style, like charities and give well, style, like, analysis to identify the top charities. Basically to, as far as I know, almost exclusively, like, looks at just one of, like one of like, the, the most salient or like, intended, like, basically first order effects of an intervention. So we, like, it's just not true that we know what the impact of like, giving $3,000 to the gens malaria foundation is. And, like, it's like, you know, maybe there are, like, compelling, compelling reasons to, like, think that basically it all washes out or whatever. And, like, in fact, like, you know, reducing deaths from malaria and sickness is like the absolute, like the single core effect. But, like, as far as I know, there's, like, not, that seems to be mostly just like taken as a given. And I don't think this is justified. And so I don't think this, like, really checks out as like, a type of risk aversion that stands up to scrutiny. And I found this tweet. Basically, I think this is like, good wording. The way to formalize this conception is just have narrow confidence intervals on the magnitude of one first order effect of an intervention. And that's an awfully specific type of risk aversion. This is not generally what people mean in all walks of life. And then I mentioned this rethink priorities report written by Laura Duffy first, Pigeonhauer Guest. And she basically lists three different types of risk aversion that she does in some rating priorities, like analysis. So, yeah, number one, avoiding the worst. Basically, this is the s risk style or modality of thinking. The risk. The thing we really, really want to avoid is the worst states of the world happening to me. And I think to many people, that means a lot suffering. And then number two, difference making risk aversion. Basically, we want to avoid not doing anything or causing harm. But this focus is on, like, not on the state of the world that results from some action, like, but like your causal effect. And then finally, number three, ambiguity aversion. Basically, we don't like uncertain probabilities. And for what it's worth, I think, like, yeah, the givewell style, like, leaning, I think, can be sort of understood as an attempt to get to, like, addressed, like, two and three difference making an ambiguity aversion. But like, yeah, for reasons that, like, are not immediately, like, coming to my head and like, verbalize, I, like, don't think. Yeah, basically for the reasons I said before that, like, there's really no comprehensive analysis there. Like, might seem like there is. And like, we do have like, decent point estimates and like, uncertainty ranges for like, one effect. One. But like, I. That doesn't, as far as I can tell, like, that is not like, the core. The core desire isn't just to have like, one narrow, like, nobody. I don't think anyone thinks that we, like, should intrinsically value, like, small confidence intervals. You know what I mean? And this stands in contrast to, as I said before, also s risk of french organizations, which are also, in a very real sense, doing risk aversion. In fact, they use the term risk a lot. So it makes sense. The givewell vibe and the s risk research organization vibes are very different, but they, in a real sense that they're at least both attempting to address some kind of risk aversion, although these kinds are very different. And I think the asterisk one is the most legitimate, honestly. Yeah. Okay, so that is a. There was sort of like a lemma or whatever and then. Yeah. So, like, the case for AI in like, near term only affecting humans. Yes. So, like, here's one example. Like, this is not the actual, like, full claim that I have, but like, one example of like, a type of intervention is like, seeing if you can make it basically like, what institutions need to be in place for, like, world UBI. And let's actually try to get that policy. Let's set up the infrastructure to get that in place. Like, even now, even if you don't care about, like, you think long termism is false, like, don't care about animals, don't care about future people at all, it seems like there is work we can do now, like, within, you know, in like, the realm of like, writing PDF's and like, building. Yeah, building like, like, political institutions or like, at least. Sorry, not building institutions, but like, affecting political institutions. Like via. Like, via, like, I guess like both like, domestic and like, international politics or whatever that, like, still. And sorry, I like, kind of lost like, the grammatical structure of that sentence, but it seems plausible that, like, this actually is like better than the givewell interventions, just like if you actually do like an earnest, like best guess, like point estimate. But the reason that I think this is plausible is that all the people who are willing to do that kind of analysis are like, aren't, aren't restricting themselves to like, only helping humans in like the near future. They're like, I don't know. So there's like a weird, like missing middle of sorts, which, depending on what the counterfactual is, maybe bad or good. But I'm claiming that it exists and there's at least a plausible gap that hasn't really been ruled out in any explicit sense.ARTHUROkay, yeah, great. No, no, that's all very useful. So I think, I guess setting x risky things aside, because I think this is a usual way to get at the crux of our disagreement. Like, it's funny, on the one hand, I'm very sympathetic to your claim that sort of like the kinds of things that give, well, sort of interventions and, you know, RCT's coming out of like development economics are interested in, like, I'm sympathetic to the idea that that's not implied by the kind of like basic near termist EA, philosophical presupposition.AARONThank you for just summarizing my point in like 1% of the words.ARTHURYeah, yeah. So I'm like, I actually strongly agree with that. And it's precisely why, like, I'm more open to things that aren't like givewell style interventions, why I'm very sympathetic to the economic growth side of the growth versus RCT perennial debate, all that. That's maybe interesting side discussion. But to stay on the AI point, I guess putting existential risk aside, I want to make the standard economist argument for AI optimism and against what you were just trying to say. So like, to me, like, I think it is like plausible enough that we should be concerned that, like, increasing AI progress and dissemination of AI technologies decreases returns to labor in the global economy. I think it's plausible enough that we should care about that and not dismiss it out of hand. But, like, I think it's far less likely that, like, or sorry, not. Well, I want to be careful with. I think it's potentially more likely that almost exactly the opposite is true. So, like, if I look at like the big picture history of like global economic growth, like the classic, you know, hockey stick graph where like GDP per capita for the world is like totally flat until, you know, like about 200 years ago. Right? Like, I think the standard, like this is a super interesting rich topic that I've been like learning a lot more about over the last few years. And I think, like the devil is very much in the details. But nonetheless, I think the kind of like classic, you know, postcard length summary is basically correct that like, why did that happen? That happened because like productivity of individual workers, like dramatically increased, like orders of magnitude due to technological progress, right? And like, whether that to what degree that technological progress is sort of like political institutional technologies versus like direct, like labor augmenting technologies is like, you know, whatever, way too deep to get into in this discussion. I don't have like good informed takes on that. But like, nonetheless, I think that, like, the basic like, sort of lump of labor fallacy, like, is strongly at play at these worries that AI is going to displace workers. Like, I think if like, you look at all these, you know, previous technologies, like the, you know, Luddites destroying the power looms or they weren't really power looms, but they were like this more like, you know, better kinds of handlers or whatever. Right, right. Like, I think the worry that people have always had, and again, I get, I'm giving the standard economists soapbox thing that everyone has heard before, but like, I just don't see why AI is categorically different from these other technological advancements. And that, like, at a glance, like, for me as an individual, like trying to build a research career and like get a job and stuff, my ability to access GPT four and Claude, like has I think, like dramatically increased my marginal productivity and like would presumably also increase my wage in the long term because I can just do a lot more in the same amount of time. So, like, it seems to me like just as if not more likely that the better AI technology gets, you have people that are able to produce more in economic value with the same amount of labor and therefore are going to increase economic growth and increase their wages rather than just somehow displace them out of the labor market. And I think there is something that I think EA should maybe paying more attention to, but like maybe they're too concerned with existential risk. There is some interesting experimental economics research already, like looking at this question, which is like having people who work in kind of like standard sort of like, you know, operations and middle management sort of office jobs, like using AI in their work. And I think one of the interesting findings seems to be like a lot of these experiments are finding that it has sort of an equalizing effect, which is like for the most productive employees at a given task, their productivity is like only very modestly improved by having access to large language models. But like, the least productive employees see like very large improvement in their productivity from these technologies. So, like, in my opinion, it seems plausible that like, you know, better access to these sorts of technologies would, if anything, make your, like, standard, you know, employee in the global economy, like, you know, not only more productive, but have this sort of like leveling of the playing field effect. Right. Where like people who, who do not have the current capacities to like produce a lot of value are sort of, you know, brought up to the same level as like.AARONYeah. So, like, I think these are all reasonable points. I also think, um, sorry, I think I have like three, like points, I guess. Yeah. On the object level, I like, don't think I have anything to like, add to this discussion. The one thing I would point out is that it seems like there's, as far as I can tell, like no disagreement that like in principle you can imagine a system that is better than all humans at all tasks that does not have the effect you're talking about in principle, better than humans, better than, better and cheaper than all humans at all tasks.ARTHURRight. With no human input required.AARONYeah, in principle, yeah.ARTHUROkay.AARONYeah, yeah. Like, I don't think this is a radical claim. So like, then there's like the now moving away from the object level. Like, okay, so we've like set this now. Like the normal, like default thing is to like have an debate where, oh, you make some more points in the direction you just said. And I said makes more points. I just said. But like, the thing I want to point out is that like this discussion is like absent from near termist EA because all the people who are taking ideas seriously have already moved on to other areas. And there was one more, but just.ARTHURTo jump on that for a second. But I think I totally take your point that then maybe a lot more people should be thinking about this. Right. But to me, like, whether that's possible in principle, like, like, and I think you're obviously going to agree with me on this. Like, to what degree that's relevant depends on like whether we are living in a world where like those systems are on the horizon or are going to exist in the near term future. Right. And like, to what degree that, you know, imprincible possibility, like, represents the actual path we're heading on is like sort of the real crux of the issue.AARONOh, yeah. Okay. Maybe I actually wasn't sure. Yes, because we're living in a more.ARTHURStandard story where like this just increases the marginal product of labor because everyone gets more productive when they, like, learn how to use these technologies, and it doesn't mean it's not going to be disruptive, because I think there's a lot of interesting IO research on how, with the implementation of computer technologies in a lot of workplaces, it was very difficult to train older employees to use the new systems. So really, the only solution for a lot of firms was essentially just, like, fire all of their old employees and hire people who actually knew how to use these technologies. But presuming we get past the disruptive transition where the old people get screwed or have to learn how to adapt, and then the young people who grew up learning how to use AI technologies enter the workforce, it seems very possible to me that those people are just going to be the most productive generation of workers ever. Accordingly.AARONYeah. Yeah. Again, I think there's, like, sorry, I, like, don't. I guess I was about to just, like, make this. It make the same point that I. That I was before. I guess, like, put a little bit more, like, yeah, be a little bit clearer about, like, what I mean by, like, this debate isn't happening. It is, like, it doesn't seem. Maybe I'm wrong, but, like, like, reasonably confident that, um, givewell isn't doing the thing that, like, the long term esteem on open philanthropy is where they're like, try to answer this question because it's really fucking important and really informs and really informs what kind of, like, what the best near term interventions are. And, like, maybe that's, like, I don't want to pick on Givewell because, like, maybe it's in, you know, givewell is, like, maybe it's, like, in their charter or, like, in some sense, just like, everybody assumes that, like, yeah, they're going to do, like, the econ RCT stuff or whatever, but, like, well, but there'd be value.ARTHURThat, like, that would be my defensive give. Well, like, is that, like, you know, you, like, comparative advantage is real, and, like, you know, having an organization that's like, we're just not gonna worry about these. Like, they don't even do animal stuff, you know? And I think that's a good decision. Like, I care a lot about animal stuff, but I'm glad that there's an organization that's, like, defined their mission narrowly enough such that they're like, we are going to, like, do the best sort of econ development rct kind of stuff. And if you're, like, into this project, like, we're gonna tell you the best way to use your.AARONYeah, I think that like, I don't know, in the abstract. Like, I think. I guess I'm, like, pretty, pretty 50 50 on, like, whether I think it's good. I don't think they should, like, if anybody's deciding, like, whether to, like, give a dollar to give well or, like, not give well with Nea, I think, like, yeah, it's like, don't give a dollar to give well. Like, I don't think they should get any funding, EA funding or whatever. And I can defend that, but, like, so, yeah, maybe that particular organization, but I. Insofar as we're willing to treat, like, near term sea as, like, an institution, like, my stronger claim is, like, it's not happening anywhere.ARTHURYeah, well, I mean, I, like, you're right. At one level, I think I more or less agree with you that it should be happening within that institution. But I think what, at least to me, like, your broad sketch of this sort of near termist case for AI, like, where that discussion and debate is really happening, is in, like, labor economics. You know what I mean? Like, it's not that aren't people interested in this. I just think the people who are interested in this, like, and I don't think this is a coincidence are the people that, like, don't think, you know, the paperclip bots are going to kill us. All, right? They're like, the people who are just, like, have a much more, like, normie set of priors about, like, what this technology is going to look like.AARONYeah, I do.ARTHURAnd, like, they're the ones who are, like, having the debate about, like, what is the impact of AI going to be on the workforce, on inequality, on, you know, global economic growth, like, and I think, like, but, like, I guess in a funny way, it seems like what you're advocating for is, like, actually a much more, like, Normie research project. Like, where you just have, like, a bunch of economists, like, being funded by open philanthropy or something to, like, answer these questions.AARONI think the answer is, like, sort of, um. Does some extent. Yeah, actually, I think, like, I. Like, I don't know. I'm, like, not. Yeah, I actually just, like, don't know. Like, I don't, like, follow econ, like, as a discipline. Like, enough to, like, I, like, believe you or whatever. And, like, obviously it's, like, it's, like, pretty clearly, like, both. I guess I've seen, like, examples I've thrown around of, like, papers or whatever. Yeah, there's, like, clearly, like, some, like, empirical research. I, like, don't know how much research is, like, dedicated to the question, like, yeah, I guess there's a question that's like, if you know, like, yeah. Is anybody, like, trying to. With, like, reasonable. With, like, reasonable parameters, estimate the share of, like, how, like, late the share or the returns to, like, labor or whatever will, like, change in, like, the next, like, ten years or five? Not. Not only. Not only, like, with GPT-3 or, like, not. Not assuming that, like, GPT four is going to be, like, the status quo.ARTHURYeah, I mean, to my knowledge, like, I have no idea. Like, basically I don't have an. All the stuff that I'm thinking of is from, like, you know, shout out Eric Brynjolfsson. Everyone should follow him on Twitter. But, like, like, there's some economists who are in the kind of, like, I o and, like, labor econ space that are doing, like, much more, like, micro level stuff about, like, existing LLM technologies. Like, what are their effects on, sort of, like, the, like, you know, I don't know, knowledge work for lack of a better word, like, workforce, but that, yeah, I grant that, like, that is a very much more, like, narrow and tangible project than, like, trying to have some kind of macroeconomic model that, like, makes certain assumptions about, like, the future of artificial.AARONYeah, and, like, which maybe someone is doing.ARTHURAnd, I mean, I.AARONNo, yeah, I'm interested. People should comment slash dm me on Twitter or whatever. Like, yeah, I mean, I think we're just, like, in agreement that. I mean, I mean, like, I think I have some, like, pretty standard concerns about, like, academic, like, academia, incentives, which are, like, also been, like, rehashed everywhere. But, like, I mean, it's an empirical question that we, like, both just, like, agree is an empirical question that we don't know the answer to. Like, I would be pretty surprised if, like, labor economics has, like, a lot to say about. About fundamentally non empirical questions because, like, it doesn't. Yeah, I guess, like, the claim I'm making is, like, that class of research where you, like, look at, like, yeah. Like, how does chat GPG, like, affect the productivity of workers in 2023? 2024? Really? Just like, I mean, it's not zero evidence, but it's really not very strong evidence for, like, what the share of labor income will be in, like, five to ten years. Like, yeah, and it's, like, relevant. I think it's, like, relevant. The people who are actually building this technology think it's going to be, like, true, at least as far as I can tell. Broadly, it is a consensus opinion among people working on building frontier AI systems that it is going to be more transformative or substantially more transformative than the Internet, probably beyond electricity as well. And if you take that assumption, like, premise on that assumption, it seems like the current. I would be very surprised if there's much academic, like, labor economics that, like, really has a lot to say about, like, what the world would be, like in five to ten years.ARTHURYeah, I think I was just gonna say that I'm, like, sufficiently skeptical that people, like, working on these technologies directly are, like, well positioned to, like, make those kinds of. I'm not saying the labor econ people are, like, better positioned than them to make those progress, but, like, I think.AARONNo, that's totally fair. Yeah, that is really to be fair.ARTHURAlso that, like. Like, I think some of this is coming from, like, coming from a prior that I, like, definitely should, like, you know, completely change with, like, the recent, you know, post GPT-3 like, explosion these technologies. But I just think, like, for, like, just if you look at the history, like, I'm not. I'm not saying I endorse this, but, like, if you look at the history of, like, you know, sort of AI, like, not like optimism per se, but, like, enthusiasm about, like, the pace of progress and all this, like, historically, like, it had a, like, many, many decade track record of, like, promising a lot and failing that, like, was only, like, very recently falsified by, like, GPT-3 and.AARONI mean, like, I think this is basically just, like, wrong. It's like, a common misconception. Not like you're. I think this is, like, totally reasonable. This is, like, what I would have. Like, it seems like the kind of thing that happened. I'm pretty sure, like, there have been some, like, actually, like, looking back analyses, but it's, like, not wouldn't. It's not like there's zero instances, but, like, there's been a real qu. It is not, like, the same level of AI enthusiasm, like, as persistent forever. And, like, now we're like, um. Yeah, now it seems like. Oh. Like we're getting some, like, you know, results that, like, that, like, maybe justify. It seems like, um. Yeah, the consent, like, people are way. Hmm. What am I. Sorry. The actual thing that I'm trying to say here is I basically think this is just not true.ARTHURMeaning, like, the consensus was like, that.AARONLike, people didn't think Agi was ten years away in 1970 or 1990.ARTHURWell, I mean, some people did. Come on.AARONYeah. So I can't.ARTHURYou mean, just like, the consensus of the field as a whole was not as I like.AARONSo all I like, I have, this is, like, this is the problem with, like, arguing a cast opinion. Like, my cashed opinion is, like, I've seen good, convincing evidence that, like, the very common sense thing, which is like, oh, but AI, there's always been AI hype is, like, at least misleading and, like, more or less, like, wrong and that, like, there's been a, like, a, yeah, and like, I don't actually remember the object level evidence for this. So, like, I can try to, like, yeah, that's fine.ARTHURAnd I also like to be clear, like, I don't have a strong, like, strongly informed take, like, for the, like, AI. Yeah, hype is overblown thing. But, like, putting that aside, I think the other thing that I would wonder is, like, even if individuals, like, who work on these technologies, like, correctly have certain predictions about the future that are pretty outside the window or that people aren't sufficiently taking seriously in terms of what they think progress is going to be. And maybe this is some lingering, more credentialist intuitions or whatever, but I think that. I am skeptical that those people would also be in a good position to make kinds of economic forecasts about what the impacts of those technologies.AARONYeah, I basically agree. I like, yeah, it's, I guess, like, the weak claim I want to make is, like, you don't have to have that high a percentage on, like, oh, maybe there's, like, some, like, maybe these people are broadly right. You don't have to think it's above 50% to, like, think that. Like, I think the original claim I was, like, making is, like, um, is like, why probably, like, standard, like, labor economics, like, as a subfield. Like, isn't really doing a ton to, like, answer the core questions that would inform my, like, original thing of, like, oh, like, is ubi, like, like, a better use of money than, like, I give you against malaria foundation or whatever? Um, I, like, yeah, I just, like, don't. Yeah, maybe I'll be, like, pleasantly surprised. But, like, yeah, we could, we could also, I don't know. Do you want to move on to.ARTHURA. Yeah, yeah, sure.AARONSorry. So I didn't mean to. You can have the last word on.ARTHURNo, no, I don't. I don't think I have the last word. I mean, I think it's funny, like, just how this has progressed in that, like, I think, like, I, I don't completely, like, I think, I don't completely disagree, but I also don't feel like my, like, mind has been, like, changed in a big way, if that makes sense. It's just like, maybe we're in one of these weird situations where, like, we kind of, like, do broadly agree on the, like, actual object level, like, questions or whatever, but then there's just some, like, slight difference in, like, almost, like, personality or disposition or, like, some background beliefs that we, like, haven't fully fleshed out that, like, that, like, at least in terms of how we, like, present and emphasize our positions. Like, we end up still being in different places, even if we're not actually that.AARONNo, something I was thinking about bringing up earlier was, like, oh, no. Yeah, basically this point. And then, like. But, like, my. My version of, like, your defensive of the, like, I guess, like, the give. Well, class is, like, my defense of donating to, like, the humane league or whatever, and, like, maybe it doesn't check. And, like, I don't know. I just. Yeah, it's for whatever reason, like, I. I, like, yes, something. I'm still, um. I guess I still don't. Sorry. I just did, like, a bunch of, like, episodic, like, jumps in my head, and I, like, I always forget, like, oh, they can't see my thought patterns in the podcast. Yeah, it seems, like, pretty possible that a formal analysis would say that even under a suffering focused worldview, yet donating to s risk prevention organizations, beats, for example, are at least beats like the Humane League or the Animal Welfare Fund, which we recently raised funds for.ARTHURDo you want to talk? So, there's many things we could talk about. One potential thing that comes to mind is, like, I have a not very well worked out, but just, like, sort of lingering skepticism of long termism in general, which, like, I think doesn't actually come from any, like, philosophical objection to long termist premises. So, like, I think the.AARONYeah, I think.ARTHURI don't know what you want to talk about.AARONI mean, if you really want. If you're, like, really enthusiastic about it.ARTHURI'm not.AARONHonestly, I feel like this has been beaten to death in, like, on 80k. There's cold takes. Like, there have been a. Sorry. I feel like we're not gonna add anything. Like, I'm not gonna add anything either.ARTHUROkay. I don't feel like I would.AARONI mean, we can come. Another thing is, like, yeah, this doesn't have to be super intellectual. Talk about climbing. We're talking about having a whole episode on climbing, so, like, maybe we should do that. Like, also anything. Like, I don't know. It doesn't have to be, like, these super, like, totally.ARTHURNo, no. That was something that came to mind, too, and I was like, oh, the long term isn't thing, but like, it would be fun to just like, talk about something that's like, much less related to any of these topics. And in some ways, given both of our limitations in terms of contributing to these object level EA things, that's not a criticism of either of us, but just in terms of our knowledge and expertise, it could be fun to talk about something more personal.AARONYeah, I need to forget that it's. Yeah. I don't know what is interesting to you.ARTHURI'm trying to think if we should talk about some other area of disagreement because I feel like, like, I'm like, this is, this is random and maybe we'll cut this from the podcast. This is a weird thing to say, but I feel like Laura Duffy is one of the few people that I've, like, met where we just have like a weird amount of the same opinions on like, many different topics that wouldn't seem to like, correlate with one another, like, whatsoever. And it's funny, like, I remember ages ago, like, listening to y'all's discussion on this podcast and just being like, God, Laura is so right. What the fuck does Aaron believe about all these things?AARONAnd I'm willing to relitigate some if it. If it's like something that hasn't been beaten to death elsewhere.ARTHURSo I think we should either talk about like, something more personal, like we should talk about like rock climbing or something, or we should, like, now I.AARONHave to defend myself. You can't just say, you know, yeah. Was it the, like, oh, old philosophy is bad.ARTHUROld philosophy.AARONOld philosophy is fucking terrible. And I'm guessing you don't like this take.ARTHURI do not. Well, I find this take entertaining and, like, I find this take, like, actually, like, I mean, this totally, like, this sounds like a huge backhand compliment, but, like, I actually think it's, like, super useful to hear something that you just, like, think is, like, so deeply wrong, but then you, like, take for granted when you, like, surround yourself with people who, like, would also think it's so deeply wrong. So I think it's, like, actually, like, very useful and interesting for me to, like, understand why one would hold this opinion.AARONAlso, I should. I guess I should clarify. So, like, I. It's like, this is like, the kind of thing that, like, oh, it's like, kind of is like, in my vibe disposition or whatever. Yeah. And, like, also, it is not like, the most high stakes thing in the world, like, talking in the abstract. So, like, when I said, like, oh, there, it's fucking terrible. I was, like, I was, like, being hyperbolic.ARTHUROh, I know.AARONI know. No, but, like, in all serious, like, not in all seriousness, but just, like, like, without being, I don't know, using any figurative language at all, I'm, like, not over. There are definitely things that I'm, like, much more confident about than this. So, like, I wouldn't say I'm, like, 90. Oh, it's a. Me too.ARTHURI'm, like, pretty open to being wrong on this. Like, I don't think I have, like, a deep personal vested stake.AARONYeah, no, I don't think.ARTHURIt's just, I think. Okay, so this is something. Or actually maybe. Maybe an interesting topic that we are by no means experts on but could be interesting to get into is, I think, like, a lot of the debates about, like, what is, like, the role of, like, kind of higher education in general or, like, somewhat hard to separate from these questions of, like, oh, yeah, old text. Because I'm sort of have two minds of this, which is, like, on the one hand, I think I buy a lot of the, like, criticisms of, like, the higher ed, like, sort of model. And that I think, like, this general story which is not novel to me in any way, shape or form, that, like, we have this weird system where, like, universities used to be a kind of, like, the american university system, like, you know, comes in a lot of ways from, like, the british university system, which. Which, if you look at it historically, is sort of like a finishing school for elites, right? Like, you have this, like, elite class of society, and you kind of, like, go to these institutions because you have a certain social position where you, like, learn how to, like, be this, like, educated, erudite, like, member of the, like, elite class in your society. And there's, like, no pretense that it's any kind of, like, practical, you know, skills based education that'll help prepare you for the labor force. It's just like, you're just, like, learning how to be, like, a good, you know, a good, like, member of the upper class, essentially. Right? And then that model was, like, very, like, successful and, like, I think, in many ways, like, actually important to, like, the development of, like, lots of institutions and ideas that, like, matter today. So it's not like, it's not like, you know, it's, like, worth, like, taking seriously, I suppose. But, like, I think there's some truth to, like, why the hell is this now how we, like, certify and credential, like, in a more kind of, like, merit, like, meritocratic sort of, like, world with more social mobility and stuff. Like, why is this sort of, like, liberal arts model of, like, you go to, like, learn how to be this, like, erudite person that, like, knows about the world and, like, the great texts of the western tradition or whatever. Like, I think there's something to the, like, this whole thing is weird. And, like, if what college is now supposed to do is, like, to train one to be, like, a skilled worker in the labor force, like, we ought to seriously rethink this. But at the same time, I think I do have some, like, emotional attachment to, like, the, like, more flowery

Exploring Philanthropy's Impact and Joy Join us for Episode 24 of the Inspired Money Podcast, "The Power of Giving: Making an Impact through Philanthropy." This session sheds light on the transformative effects of giving, highlighting stories from philanthropy experts and their experiences in the field. Fostering Generosity Philanthropy goes beyond donations. It's about connecting communities and individuals through acts of kindness. This episode features a distinguished panel: Vicky Bond, Wendy H. Steele, Tony J. Selimi, and Pietro Emanuele Garbelli. They share their experiences and insights into the extensive impact and personal satisfaction derived from philanthropic efforts.

I'm not a financial advisor; nothing I write in Superpowers for Good should be considered investment advice. You should seek appropriate counsel before making investment decisions.Remember, you can watch the Superpowers for Good show on e360tv. To watch the episode, download the #e360tv channel app to your streaming device–Roku, AppleTV or AmazonFireTV–or your mobile device. You can even watch it on the web or YouTube.When you purchase an item, launch a crowdfunding campaign or invest after clicking a link here, we may earn a commission. It's an easy way to support our work.Devin: What do you see as your superpower?Vicky: I believe my relentlessness or tenacity, determination, whatever you want to say that is, has been a real driver in my life–always.“The Humane League works to end the abuse of animals raised for food,” says the nonprofit's president, Vicky Bond. “We're working to end cages for laying hens worldwide through our work with the Open Wing Alliance.”Always an animal lover, Vicky trained as a veterinarian. She shares her experience:While training to be a vet, I witnessed factory farms for the first time. I got to see how these animals suffered day in and day out in these systems. As a veterinarian, you would go on a farm and treat the individual animal. You may give bulk antibiotics for the animals, but you weren't treating the fundamental issue: these systems are wrong. Animals should not be in them, and being in them causes them a lot of suffering. So, while doing my veterinary degree, I went and did a master's of environment, development and policy and learned about the impact of policy work of that institutional change that you can make and how much you can scale up impact.So, when I left that school–I did work as a vet for a while–but I also got involved in more activist-led things, in policy change and ended up being able to work what I do now, which is to create change for farm animals on a large scale, impacting hundreds of millions of animals versus what I could have done as a veterinarian, which would have probably been much smaller on the individual level of animals.The work is staggering. In the US alone, producers are raising about 1.5 billion chickens, including broiler and laying hens. About 9 billion are raised annually in this country alone–broiler chickens are slaughtered after just six weeks.Vicky describes what she's seen firsthand:I've been on these on these farms. You walk into a very large shed, and all you can hear is the clanging noises of the birds' beaks and feet on the metal because that's their entire life. They spend their life in this metal cage, four or five of them–not even enough space to spread their wings. They will be fed, given water, and that's all they get. They never get to see sunlight. They never get to spread their wings. They often end up pecking at each other through sheer boredom. They end up with broken bones. All in the name of cheap eggs.“When we talk about the world, we're talking about over 70 billion land animals raised and slaughtered every year for food,” Vicky says. It's not sustainable. The cruelty is not sustainable. The food system itself–we need to move to more plant-based options to remove some of the eggs, dairy, and meats from our diets so that we can have a sustainable food system.”She is emphatic that animal suffering needn't be a part of our food supply. “It is perfectly plausible for us to have farming systems that are higher welfare and that move away from these intensive practices that see animals stacked on top of each other, beak to beak,” she says.“We want a day when animals aren't abused for food,” Vicky continues. “We want to see that through incremental change, like ending cages, like ending farrowing crates, which is where mama pigs are put while they're pregnant–and they can't even turn around.”The Humane League is making progress. “We started this work over a decade ago now,” she says. “At the time in the US, 5 percent of birds were cage-free here for laying hens; we're now at 14 percent. So, we're seeing an impact of 130-plus million birds every year.”Throughout her career, she has used and strengthened her tenacity, making it a superpower.AI Episode Summary1. The Humane League, led by President Vicky Bond, aims to end the abuse of animals raised for food, predominantly by working with food companies to improve farm animal welfare in their supply chains.2. They also focus on policy and legislative changes, advocate for individual diet changes, and aim to end the use of battery cages for laying hens through collaborative global efforts with the Open Wing Alliance.3. The Humane League engages in peaceful protests to raise public awareness and hold companies accountable for farm animal welfare, especially in regard to ending the confinement of laying hens in cages.4. Vicky Bond described the poor conditions of caged hens, emphasizing the lack of space and natural behaviors, highlighting the broken bones and the lack of access to sunlight, which leads to suffering—all for the production of cheap eggs.5. Vicky argues for a sustainable food system that doesn't include farm animal cruelty, stating that higher welfare farming systems are possible and that we should shift towards plant-based options to maintain sustainability.6. Incremental changes advocated by The Humane League have led to significant welfare improvements, citing that the percentage of cage-free hens has increased from 5 to 14 percent in the US, thereby affecting the lives of over 130 million birds annually.7. Vicky Bond transitioned from veterinary practice to animal welfare advocacy after witnessing the suffering of animals on factory farms, realizing she could have a broader impact on animal welfare through policy change and activism rather than individual veterinary care.8. Actions that individuals can take to support the Humane League include volunteering, taking digital action through Fast Action Network, raising awareness on social media, donating, and making informed purchase decisions based on welfare-conscious product labeling.9. Vicky encourages a gradual approach to changing dietary habits towards plant-based options, acknowledging that swift changes can be difficult and recommending gradual steps like "Meatless Mondays" or substituting one meal a day with a plant-based alternative.10. Finally, Vicky shared her superpower of tenacity, recounting her refusal to back down against industry leaders, such as a rabbit farm donor, ultimately influencing him to consider cage-free options, highlighting the importance of staying persistent to achieve goals.Share to encourage others to take action.How to Develop Tenacity As a SuperpowerVicky shared a story that illustrates her tenacity:A number of years ago now, I was working on rabbit farming. So rabbit farming–we don't hear of it that much, but it's the second most farmed species in Europe. I was working across Europe. I was at a conference and trying to push to end cages for rabbits as well because they're predominantly in battery cages in Europe. We're at the conference, and I didn't know at the time, but he was the largest owner of all the systems, basically, in Austria, Germany and other places. After the conference, he came up to me and said, “Well, it's nice to meet you, but what would you know about rabbit farming? This is unrealistic, and I can show you why it's good to keep them in cages.”In that moment, I just didn't stand for it. I was very much like, “Well, the science is this. I disagree strongly on this. I've got systems. I've seen systems that work that are not in cages. It is doable. This is very much a profit-driven mentality.”He was pretty upset and left. Then, the next day, he came up to me and was like, “I was thinking about what you said. I do think we should potentially–this does sound like this might be the future for rabbit farming. I want to understand more. Here's my card. Can we have a conversation?”So, in those moments, I've come up against industry leaders. It's not shrinking down. But actually, standing tall, I think, has paid off.The tenacity paid off! Vicky offers some advice for strengthening yours:Think that mistakes are good. We're going to make mistakes, but learning from them is the important bit. So, if you have a clear goal, don't give up. You will get there. The path might be wandering and might not appear exactly how you hoped it would, but you will get there if you stay the course of time. So, stay strong, stay relentless. You can make it.By following Vicky's advice and example, you can strengthen your tenacity. With practice and patience, you can make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileVicky Bond (she/her):President, The Humane League, The Humane LeagueAbout The Humane League: The Humane League is a global nonprofit that exists to end the abuse of animals raised for food. We work to influence the world's largest food companies to improve the treatment of animals by adopting higher welfare practices for the animals raised for food in their supply chain, which includes a current focus on accelerating the food industry's momentum and legislation toward production of cage-free eggs. Website: www.thehumaneleague.orgX/Twitter Handle: @thehumaneleagueCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/thehumaneleagueOther URL: FastActionNetwork.com; EndCages.com; InspireBrandsBetrayal.com; DupedbyDunkin.com; SonicsSecrets.comBiographical Information: Vicky Bond is a doctor of veterinary science, animal welfare scientist, and president of The Humane League, a global animal protection nonprofit that exists to end the abuse of animals raised for food. Bond trained as a veterinary surgeon and practiced as a veterinarian with the primary goal of helping animals. When she witnessed firsthand the horrors that take place on factory farms, she realized that if she really wanted to help animals, she had to work to end factory farming. From there, Bond worked internationally in research and food business departments for several animal protection organizations. She worked closely with food corporations, including restaurants, retailers, food service companies, producers, and suppliers, as well as in slaughterhouses, to better understand and improve their supply chains and business structures to improve the lives of animals raised for food. X/Twitter Handle: @vickybond_thlLinkedin: linkedin.com/in/vicky-bond-b9107936/Upcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.* Impact Cherub Club Meeting hosted by The Super Crowd, Inc., a public benefit corporation, on February 20, 2024, at 1:00 PM Eastern. Each month, the Club meets to review new offerings for investment consideration and to conduct due diligence on previously screened deals. Everyone is welcome to join the free events.* SuperCrowdHour February with the CfPA Executive Committee: This free event on February 21, 2024, at 1:00 PM Eastern, features President Brian Christie, Vice President Jenny Kassan, Secretary Brian Belley and Chair Scott McIntyre. Learn how you can join and make a difference. Earn rewards!* SuperCrowdBaltimore, March 21, 2024: This in-person event at the B&O Rail Museum features some of Baltimore's prominent citizens and community leaders. Save 30 percent with the discount code “SuperCrowd.”* Superpowers for Good - Kinect Capital Live Pitch, March 28 at 9 PM Eastern/6 PM Pacific: Four companies currently raising via crowdfunding will pitch their offerings live via the Superpowers for Good streaming television show on e360tv. Kinect Capital will host the pitch. Applications to pitch will open soon! Save the date! More information is coming soon! * SuperCrowd24, April 17-18: This two-day virtual event is our biggest event of the year. Don't miss it. Save 50 percent with the discount code “SuperCrowd.”* SuperCrowdChicago, June 12, 2024. Save the date! More information is coming soon!SuperCrowd Community Event Calendar* Successful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET * Leveraging Donor-Advised Funds for Climate Investing, Raise Green, Today at 11 AM ET* Strengthening Positive Peace to Create Hope in the World, February 24, Fredericksburg, VA* Neighborhood Economics, February 26-28 in San Antonio, Texas* Crowdfunding Professional Association Webinar Series - March 13, 2:00 PM ET* Investment Crowdfunding Demystified, Crowdfund Better, March 26 at 2:00 PM ETIf you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 4,000+ members of the SuperCrowd, click here. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

Aaron Ross has spent over 20 years working for farmed animals. His relentless dedication to this cause has seen him co-found two major organisations, The Humane League and the Open Wing Alliance and train and advise countless others around the world on corporate relations and movement strategy.In this episode, we talk through an important topic, longevity, and discuss the advantages and pitfalls of this long-term dedication to this long-term fight. Aaron offers practical advice for those wanting to dedicate their career to helping animals and why staying involved over the long-term has immeasurable advantages.We've really enjoyed delving into a topic that touches less on the organisation goals and more on personal experiences of a deep topic so if you or anyone you know would like to come on to talk about a different area in this same vein, please let us know.  Relevant links to things mentioned throughout the show:EAST - Farmed Animal Welfare Group, Taiwan The Humane League CareersThe Humane League websiteOpen Wing Alliance Mark & Paul Engler – This is an UprisingJim Collins book, Good To Great, and Level 5 leadership33 Strategies of WarHahrie Han - How organisations develop activists Cal Newport - Deep WorkCal Newport - A World Without EmailJocko Willink Podcast Jocko Willink - Extreme OwnershipFranz Kafka's MetamorphosisHypatiaAmy Odene Corporate Campaign Support If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating and review us - we would really appreciate it! Likewise, feel free to share it with anyone who you think might enjoy it. You can send us feedback and guest recommendations via Twitter or email us at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Introducing the Animal Advocacy Forum - a space for those involved or interested in Animal Welfare & related topics, published by David van Beveren on February 6, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Farmed Animal Strategic Team (FAST) is thrilled to announce the launch of our Animal Advocacy Forum, a new platform aimed at increasing discussion and enhancing collaboration within the animal advocacy movement. We invite everyone involved or interested in animal welfare, alternative proteins, animal rights, or related topics to participate, share insights about their initiatives, and discover valuable perspectives. Thank you! What is FAST? For more than a decade, FAST has operated as a private Google Group list, connecting over 500+ organizations and 1,400+ individuals dedicated to farmed animal welfare. This network includes professionals from pivotal EA-aligned organizations such as Open Philanthropy, Good Food Institute, The Humane League, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) - including a wide range of smaller and grassroots-based groups. Why a forum? In response to feedback from our FAST survey, members expressed a strong interest in deeper discussions and improved collaboration. There was also considerable dissatisfaction with the 'reply-all' feature, which led to unintentional spamming of 1,400 members - as a result, FAST decided to broaden its services to include a forum. While the FAST List continues to serve as a private space within the animal advocacy movement, the FAST Forum is open to the public to foster greater engagement, particularly from those involved in the EA and other closely-aligned movements. What should be posted there? Echoing the EA Forum's Animal Welfare topic's role which provides a space for organizations to announce initiatives, discuss promising new ideas, and constructively critique ongoing work - FAST's platform serves as a dedicated hub for in-depth discussions on animal advocacy and related topics. It aims to enable nuanced debates and collaboration on key issues such as alternative proteins, grassroots strategy, corporate campaigns, legal & policy work, among others. What shouldn't be posted there? Discussions related to ongoing investigations or internal strategy, especially regarding campaigns or initiatives not yet public, should not be shared on the forum to safeguard the confidentiality and security of those efforts. Why not use the EA Forum? While the EA Forum is a valuable resource for animal advocacy dialogue, the FAST forum is designed to foster a more focused and close-knit community. The EA Forum's broad spectrum of topics and distinct cultural norms can be intimidating for some, making it challenging for those specifically focused on animal advocacy to find and engage in targeted conversations. This initiative mirrors other communities such as the AI Alignment Forum, which serve to concentrate expertise and foster discussions in a critically important area. With that in mind, we strongly encourage members to continue sharing key content on the EA Forum for visibility and cross-engagement within the broader EA community.[1] Where do I start? Feel free to join us over at the Animal Advocacy Forum and become an active participant in our growing community.[2] To get started, simply register, complete your profile, and start or contribute to discussions that match your interests and expertise. This is also a great opportunity to introduce yourself and share insights about the impactful work you're doing. Thank you! Thank you to the organizations and individuals who have provided invaluable feedback and support for the forum and FAST's rebranding efforts, including Animal Charity Evaluators, Veganuary, ProVeg International, Stray Dog Institute, Animal Think Tank, Freedom Food Alliance, GFI, and the AVA Summit. Also, a big...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Project for Awesome 2024: Make a short video for an EA charity!, published by EA ProjectForAwesome on January 31, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Project for Awesome (P4A) is a charitable initiative running February 16th-18th this year (2024), and videos must be submitted by 11:59am EST on Tuesday, February 13th. This is a good opportunity to raise money for EA charities and promote EA and EA charities to a wider audience. In the last years, winning charities got between $14,000 and $38,000 each. Videos don't need to be professional! In short, People make short 1-4 min videos supporting charities, upload them on Youtube and submit them to the P4A website by 11:59am EST on Tuesday, February 13th. The videos must be new videos specifically for this year's P4A and should mention P4A. People vote on the videos on the weekend, February 16th-18th. Money raised during the Project for Awesome is split, with 50% going to Save the Children and Partners in Health, and 50% going to charities voted on by the community. One more video for a charity lets everyone vote one more time for that charity. This year, we want to support seven EA charities: Against Malaria Foundation, GiveDirectly, The Humane League, Good Food Institute, ProVeg International, GiveWell and Fish Welfare Initiative. Please consider making a short video for one (or more) of these charities! You will help us to coordinate if you sign up here. Please join the Facebook group, EA Project 4 Awesome 2024! In 2017, we secured a $50,000 donation for AMF, GiveDirectly and SENS. In 2018 GiveDirectly, The Good Food Institute and AMF all received $25,000. In 2020, seven out of eight of the charities we coordinated around have won ~$27,000 each, for a total that year of ~$189,700! In 2022, 3 out of 11 supported charities won. Last year, The Good Food Institute got ~$37,000. Here are some resources: Project for Awesome website A document with infos, resources and instructions http://www.projectforawesome.com/graphics How to Make a P4A video in 20 Minutes or Less Slides for a P4A video planning event from 2021 Video guidelines from the P4A FAQ: Your video must be made specifically for this year's P4A. So, you must mention Project for Awesome in the video itself, and it should have been created recently. You should put reasonable effort into making sure any information you include in your video is accurate, from anecdotal examples to statistics. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, so we want to make sure that P4A videos are providing thoughtful, accurate context about the work that organizations are doing in the world. Try not to make your video too long. People are going to be watching a ton of videos during P4A, and no one wants to sit through a rambly, unedited vlog for ten minutes. Keep your video short and to the point so that people will watch the whole thing and learn all about your cause. A good length to aim for is 2-4 minutes, unless you have such compelling content that it just needs to be longer. Try not to spend too much time explaining what the Project for Awesome is. Most people watching your video will already know, so just mentioning it briefly and directing people to the website is plenty. An explanation in the description as well as a link to projectforawesome.com is also a great addition so people who stumble across your video can learn more about us. Similarly, try not to spend too much time promoting your own channel in your video. One or two sentences is fine to explain the type of videos you usually make if they're different from what you're doing for your P4A video, but much more than that and it just looks like you're using the P4A to help promote yourself, which isn't what this is all about. Please include a content warning at the beginning of your video if you're discussing sensit...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: EA Wins 2023, published by Shakeel Hashim on December 31, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Crossposted from Twitter. As the year comes to an end, we want to highlight and celebrate some of the incredible achievements from in and around the effective altruism ecosystem this year. 1. A new malaria vaccine The World Health Organization recommended its second-ever malaria vaccine this year: R21/Matrix-M, designed to protect babies and young children from malaria. The drug's recently concluded Phase III trial, which was co-funded by Open Philanthropy, found that the vaccine was between 68-75% effective at targeting the disease, which kills around 600,000 people (mainly children) each year. The work didn't stop there, though. Following advocacy from many people - including Zacharia Kafuko of 1 Day Sooner - the WHO quickly prequalified the vaccine, laying the groundwork for an expedited deployment and potentially saving hundreds of thousands of children's lives. 1 Day Sooner is now working to raise money to expedite the deployment further. 2. The Supreme Court upholds an animal welfare law In 2018, Californians voted for Proposition 12 - a bill that banned intensive cage confinement and the sale of animal products from animals in intensive confinement. The meat industry challenged the law for being unconstitutional - but in May of this year, the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 12, a decision that will improve the lives of millions of animals who would otherwise be kept in cruel and inhumane conditions. Organizations such as The Humane League - one of Animal Charity Evaluators' top charities - are a major part of this victory; their tireless campaigning is part of what made Prop 12 happen. Watch a panel discussion featuring The Humane League at EAG London 2023 here. 3. AI safety goes mainstream 2023 was the year AI safety went mainstream. After years of work from people in and around effective altruism, this year saw hundreds of high-profile AI experts - including two Turing Award winners say that "mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority". That was followed by a flurry of activity from policymakers, including a US Executive Order, an international AI Safety Summit, the establishment of the UK Frontier AI Taskforce, and a deal on the EU AI Act - which, thanks to the efforts of campaigners, is now going to regulate foundation models that pose a systemic risk to society. Important progress was made in technical AI safety, too, including work on adversarial robustness, mechanistic interpretability, and lie detection. Watch a talk from EAG Boston 2023 on technical AI safety here. 4. Results from the world's largest UBI study Since 2018, GiveDirectly - an organization that distributes direct cash transfers to those in need - has been running the world's largest universal basic income experiment in rural Kenya. In September, researchers led by MIT economist Taveneet Suri and Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee, published their latest analysis of the data - finding that giving people money as a lump sum leads to better results than dispersing it via monthly payments. Long-term UBI was also found to be highly effective and didn't discourage work. The results could have significant implications for how governments disburse cash aid. Watch GiveDirectly's talk at EAGx Nordics 2023. 5. Cultivated meat approved for sale in US After years of work from organizations like the Good Food Institute, in June 2023 the USDA finally approved cultivated meat for sale in the US. The watershed moment made the US the second country (after Singapore) to legalize the product, which could have significant impacts on animal welfare by reducing the number of animals that need to be raised and killed for meat. Watch the Good Food Institute's Bruce Friedrich talk about alternative ...

We hear it all the time: "I eat eggs only from free-range chickens", or "It's OK, it's a cage-free chicken". Vicky Bond, President of The Humane League, is here to bust the myth of "happy hens" in modern farming. She also discusses the myth that the best way to improve the welfare of farmed animals is to convince everyone to stop using animal products altogether. (Technically it *is*, but it isn't realistic on a large scale at the moment.) Vicky is president of The Humane League, a global animal protection nonprofit that exists to end the abuse of animals raised for food. She is also a veterinarian and an animal welfare scientist who has spent more than a decade advocating for animals. Before becoming President of The Humane League (THL), Vicky led The Humane League United Kingdom as Managing Director. Under Vicky's leadership, both THL and THL UK have directly made an impact on the world's largest food corporations (including PepsiCo, Kellogg's, Compass, and Sodexo). THL and THL UK also work on policy to push for laws to end factory farming practices, including state bans like Prop 12 that ends cages for calves, laying hens, and mother pigs while they're pregnant.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Where are the GWWC team donating in 2023?, published by Luke Freeman on December 20, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In this post several Giving What We Can team members have volunteered to share their personal giving decisions for 2023. Wondering why it's beneficial to talk about your donations? Check out our blog post, "Should we be private or public about giving to charity?", where we explore the advantages of being open about our philanthropy. We also recommend reading Claire Zabel's insightful piece, "Talk about donations earlier and more", which underscores the importance of discussing charitable giving more frequently and openly. If you enjoy this post, we also encourage you to check out similar posts from teams at other organisations who've shared their personal giving this year too, such as GiveWell and CEA. Finally, we want to hear from you too! We encourage you to join the conversation by sharing your own donation choices in the comments on "Where are you donating this year and why?". This is a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other and to inspire more thoughtful and impactful giving. Now, let's meet some of our team and learn about their giving decisions in 2023! Fabio Kuhn Lead Software Engineer I took the Giving What We Can Pledge in early 2021 and have consistently contributed slightly above 10% of my income to effective charities since then. Similarly as last year, in 2023, the majority of my donations have been directed towards The Humane League (50%) and The Good Food Institute (5%). I continue to be profoundly unsettled by our treatment of other sentient species. Additionally, I am concerned about the potential long-term risk of moral value lock-in resulting from training AI with our current perspectives on animals. This could lead to a substantial increase in animal suffering unless we promptly address this matter. Considering my view on the gravity of the issue and the apparent lack of sufficient funding in the field, I am positive that contributing to this cause is one of the most impactful options for my donations. The majority of my donations are processed through Effektiv Spenden, allowing for tax-deductible donations in Switzerland. Additionally, I made other noteworthy donations this year: 15% to the Effektiv Spenden "Fight Poverty" fund, which is based on the GiveWell "All Grants Fund". 5% to Effektiv Spenden itself, supporting the maintenance and development of the donation platform. A contribution of 100 CHF to the climate fund, as an attempt of moral offsetting for my carbon footprint. Grace Adams Head of Marketing I took a trial pledge in 2021 for 3% of my income and then the Giving What We Can Pledge in 2022 for at least 10% of my income over my lifetime. My donations since learning about effective giving have primarily benefitted global health and wellbeing charities so far but have also supported ACE and some climate-focused charities as part of additional offsetting. I recently gave $1000 AUD to the Lead Exposure Elimination Project after a Giving Game I ran and sponsored in Melbourne. With the remaining donations, I'm likely to split my support between Giving What We Can's operations (as I now think that my donation to GWWC is likely to be a multiplier and create even more donations for highly effective charities - thanks to our impact evaluation) and GiveWell's recommendations via Effective Altruism Australia so I can receive a tax benefit (and therefore donate more). Lucas Moore Effective Giving Global Coordinator and Incubator I took the Giving What We Can Pledge in 2017. Initially, I gave mainly to Against Malaria Foundation, but over time, I started giving to a wider variety of charities and causes as I learnt more about effective giving. In 2022, I gave mostly to GiveDirectly, and so far in 2023, my donations h...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: #GivingTuesday: My Giving Story and Some of My Favorite Charities, published by Kyle J. Lucchese on November 29, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Happy Giving Tuesday! A friend inspired me to share my giving story and some of my favorite charities. I was raised to love all and to give generously with my time, money, and spirit, aspirations I strive to live up to. When I first read The Life You Can Save in 2009, I realized that I could and should be doing more to help others wherever they are. It wasn't until 2011 when I came across GiveWell and Giving What We Can that I really put these ideas into action. I pledged to donate at least 10% of my income to effective charities and was driven to study business in hopes that I could earn to give more (I still don't make "make much" but it is a lot from a global perspective). Though I believe significant systemic reforms are needed to create a more sustainable and equitable world, I continue to donate at least 10% of my income and use my career to support better todays and tomorrows for all beings. Between now and the end of the year, I will allocate my donations as follows: 20% - The Life You Can Save's Helping Women & Girls Fund: This fund is for donors who seek to address the disproportionate burden on women and girls among people living in extreme poverty. Donations to the fund are split evenly between Breakthrough Trust, CEDOVIP, Educate Girls, Fistula Foundation, and Population Services International. 20% - Animal Charity Evaluators' Recommended Charity Fund: This fund supports 11 of the most impactful charities working to reduce animal suffering around the globe. The organizations supported by the fund include: Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği, Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, Faunalytics, Fish Welfare Initiative, The Good Food Institute, The Humane League, Legal Impact for Chickens, New Roots Institute, Shrimp Welfare Project, Sinergia Animal, and the Wild Animal Initiative. 20% - Spiro: a new charity focused on preventing childhood deaths from Tuberculosis, fundraising for their first year. Donation details on Spiro's website here. Donations are tax-deductible in the US, UK, and the Netherlands. 15% - Giving What We Can's Risks and Resilience Fund: This fund allocates donations to highly effective organizations working to reduce global catastrophic risks. Funds are allocated evenly between the Long-Term Future Fund and the Emerging Challenges Fund. 10% - Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund: This fund supports highly impactful, evidence-based solutions to the "triple challenge" of carbon emissions, air pollution, and energy poverty. Recent past recipients of grants from the Climate Change Fund include: Carbon180, Clean Air Task Force, TerraPraxis, and UN High Level Climate Champions. 10% - GiveDirectly: GiveDirectly provides unconditional cash transfers using cell phone technology to some of the world's poorest people, as well as refugees, urban youth, and disaster victims. According to more than 300 independent reviews, cash is an effective way to help people living in poverty, yet people living in extreme poverty rarely get to decide how aid money intended to help them gets spent. 5% - Anima International: Anima aims to improve animal welfare standards via corporate outreach and policy change. They also engage in media outreach and institutional vegan outreach to decrease animal product consumption and increase the availability of plant-based options. Other organizations whose work I have supported throughout the year include: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation EA Funds' Animal Welfare Fund, Global Health and Development Fund, Infrastructure Fund, and Long-Term Future Fund FairVote GiveWell's Top Charities Fund, All Grants Fund, and Unrestricted Fund Project on Government Oversight The Life You Can Save...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: GWWC's new recommendations and cause area funds, published by Sjir Hoeijmakers on November 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Giving What We Can's new fund and charity recommendations are now online! These recommendations are the result of our recent evaluations of evaluators. Our research team hasn't evaluated all impact-focused evaluators, and evaluators haven't looked into all promising causes and charities, which is why we also host a variety of other promising programs that you can donate to via our donation platform. We're also thrilled to announce the launch of a new donation option: Giving What We Can cause area funds. These funds offer a convenient option for donors who want to be confident they'll be supporting high-impact giving opportunities within a particular cause area and don't want to worry about choosing between top-rated funds or having to manually update their selections as our recommendations change. Global Health and Wellbeing Fund Effective Animal Advocacy Fund Risks and Resilience Fund You can set up a donation to one or more of these funds, and we'll allocate it based on the best available opportunities we know of in a cause area, guided by the evaluators we've evaluated. As the evaluators we work with and their recommendations change, we'll update accordingly, so your donations will always be allocated based on our latest research. Our recommendations Our content and design teams have been working hard to revamp our recommendations page and donation platform, so you can more easily find and donate to the charities and funds that align with your values. We encourage you to check them out, give us feedback, and share with your friends (we've made some sample social media posts you could use/adapt). Global health and wellbeing: GiveWell's Top Charities Fund (Grants to the charities below) GiveWell's All Grants Fund (Supports high-impact opportunities across global health and wellbeing) Malaria Consortium (Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention Programme) Against Malaria Foundation (Bednets to prevent malaria) New Incentives (Childhood immunisation incentives) Helen Keller International (Vitamin A supplementation) Animal welfare: EA Funds' Animal Welfare Fund (Supports high-impact opportunities to improve animal welfare) The Humane League's corporate campaign work (Corporate campaigns for chicken welfare) Reducing global catastrophic risks: Longview's Emerging Challenges Fund (Previously the "Longtermism Fund" - name change to be reflected on our website tomorrow) (Supports high-impact work on reducing GCRs) EA Funds' Long-Term Future Fund (Supports high-impact work on reducing GCRs) As always, we value your feedback, so if you have any questions or comments, please leave them in the comments section here or under our recent post on our evaluations; participate in our AMA today and tomorrow; and/or get in touch with us! Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

In this bonus episode we are sharing an episode by another podcast: How I Learned To Love Shrimp. It is co-hosted by Amy Odene and James Ozden, who together are "showcasing innovative and impactful ways to help animals". In this interview they speak to David Coman-Hidy, who is the former President of The Humane –League, one of the largest farm animal advocacy organisations in the world. He now works as a Partner at Sharpen Strategy working to coach animal advocacy organisations.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Humane League - Room for More Funding & 2023 Impact, published by carolinemills on November 17, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. About The Humane League The Humane League (THL) exists to end the abuse of animals raised for food. THL is laser focused on the efforts that have the biggest impact for the greatest number of animals. We are distinguished from other animal welfare organizations by the effectiveness of our corporate campaigns, our unique role as the most aggressive campaigners, and our approach to multiplying our movement's impact globally through the Open Wing Alliance (OWA) and in the US through the Animal Policy Alliance (APA). Our scalable interventions have a proven track record of reducing farm animal suffering - according to a 2019 Rethink Priorities report, our corporate cage-free campaigns affect nine to 120 years of a hens life per dollar spent, and have a follow-through rate of 48%-84% (we've found up to 89% in recent years)[1]. We are proud to be recognized by Animal Charity Evaluators and Founders Pledge as one of the most effective animal protection charities in the world. "While we expect all of our evaluated charities to be excellent examples of effective advocacy, THL is exceptional even within that group. Giving to THL is an excellent opportunity to support initiatives that create the most positive change for animals." - Animal Charity Evaluators, 2023 THL evaluation report Our Strategy & 2023 Impact THL believes in focusing our collective energy where it will do the most good. Since chickens represent 90% of all land animals raised for food, any interventions we make for chickens have the greatest potential impact. And restrictive battery cages - small wire cages used to confine laying hens - are one of the worst sources of suffering for chickens. Ending the battery cage means ending the acute suffering of millions of birds. Holding companies accountable to their cage-free commitments. Thousands of companies around the world have pledged to transition to 100% cage-free, eliminating the practice of confining hens in tiny, barren battery cages. Now, THL is holding these companies accountable, ensuring they keep their promises. Globally, 89% of companies followed through on their 2022 cage-free pledge. And in the US and globally, THL pushed the companies falling behind on their commitments to follow through on their promise. In 2023, THL held 36 companies with global cage-free commitments accountable to reporting progress on their pledges. Companies like Kellogg's, PepsiCo, and Yum! Brands - the world's largest service restaurant company and the parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell - began publicly reporting on their cage-free commitments. All of this is translating to real change on the ground, with 39.4% of the US egg-laying flock free from cages (over ~120 million hens), up from ~5% when THL began this work in 2014.[3] (Global data is currently unavailable) Progressing the cage-free movement globally. In addition to holding companies accountable for their existing commitments, THL is working to secure new cage-free commitments in key strategic areas around the world. Through the OWA, our coalition of nearly 100 member groups in 67 countries, THL is developing a global movement of effective animal advocates that conduct coordinated international and regional campaigns for layer hen and/or broiler chicken welfare. This year, the OWA pushed 103 global companies to pledge to rid their supply chains of cruel battery cages, including first cage-free commitments from corporations headquartered in Japan, the Middle East, Greece, Ukraine, Peru, Ecuador, South Africa, Argentina, South Korea, and Taiwan. Jollibee Foods Corporation, the largest and fastest-growing restaurant group in Asia, pledged to reform its global supply chain,...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: AMA: The Humane League UK - farmed animal welfare, our funding gap and match funding campaign. Ask us anything., published by Gavin Chappell-Bates on November 13, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Hi, We're The Humane League UK (THL UK), an animal protection charity that exists to end the abuse of animals raised for food. You're free to ask us anything, just post your question as a comment. We'll start answering questions on Friday 17th November, and we will continue answering on Monday 20th and Tuesday 21st November. We might not be able to answer all the questions we receive but we will try to answer as many as we can. Our funding gap and match funding campaign We have already strategically planned our activities for this financial year (2023-24) which we are confident will bring about significant change for farmed animals. However, we currently have a shortfall of approximately 280k. To help us close this gap we will be running a match funding campaign from 22nd-28th November. Donors from the Founders Pledge community have kindly agreed to match fund all donations during this period up to the value of 30,000, meaning we have the opportunity to raise 60,000 in total to support our work. If you are considering donating to support farmed animal welfare, this would be an effective way to do so, both doubling your donation and helping us reduce our funding gap, thus enabling us to continue with our planned activities. Details of the campaign will be available on our website from the 22nd November, including a link to donate. However, if you would like to discuss making a significant gift during the campaign please email Gavin at gcbates@thehumaneleague.org.uk Our focus for the rest of this year is on: Securing commitments from leading UK supermarkets to adopt the Better Chicken Commitment. Continuing to push for legislative changes to improve the welfare of chickens raised for meat - our case against Defra will be heading to court again for a second hearing in Spring 2024. Following the release of the Animal Welfare Committee's (AWC) opinion on fish at the time of slaughter, continuing to push for fishes to finally be given increased protection in UK law. About The Humane League UK THL UK works relentlessly to spare farmed animals from suffering and push for institutional and individual change. By using data-driven, cost-effective strategies to expose the horrors of modern factory farms, we strive to eliminate the worst cruelties of industrial animal agriculture, creating the biggest impact for the greatest number of farmed animals. We strategically target companies and pressure them to eliminate the worst and most widespread abuses in their supply chain. Through focussed campaigns we influence them to commit to animal welfare improvements and hold them accountable. We also work to enact laws that ban the confinement and inhumane treatment of animals. To bolster our corporate campaigning, we train and mobilise volunteer activists across the country to drive our campaigns forward. They help us put vital pressure on companies and raise awareness of factory farming amongst the general public. You can read more about us and our impact in our 2022-23 Annual Report or visit our website: thehumaneleague.org.uk If you are interested in hearing more, please subscribe to our newsletter. The Impact of Our Work THL UK is distinguished from other British animal protection organisations by the effectiveness of our corporate campaigns and the relentlessness of our staff and volunteers, making us a respected leader in the global movement. With our research-backed strategy of combining corporate campaigns, grassroots legislative advocacy, and movement building, we are mending our broken food system. We focus on broiler chickens, hens and fish as they are farmed in the largest numbe...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing Our 2023 Charity Recommendations, published by Animal Charity Evaluators on November 9, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Every year, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) spends several months evaluating animal advocacy organizations to identify those that work effectively and are able to do the most good with additional donations. Our goal is to help people help animals by providing donors with impactful giving opportunities that can reduce animal suffering to the greatest extent possible. We are excited to announce that this year, we have selected six recommended charities. In previous years, we have categorized our recommended charities into two separate tiers: Top and Standout. This year, we have decided to move to only one tier: Recommended Charities. Having just one tier more fairly represents charities and better supports a pluralistic, resilient, and impactful animal advocacy movement. We expect it will also increase our ability to raise funds for the most important work being done to reduce animal suffering. Additionally, this shift will allow us to make better-informed grants to each charity and reduce time spent on administrative tasks. In 2023, we conducted comprehensive evaluations of 14 animal advocacy organizations that are doing promising work. We are grateful to all the charities that participated in this year's charity evaluations. While we can only recommend a handful of charities each year, we believe that all the charities we evaluate are among the most effective in the animal advocacy movement. However, per our evaluation criteria, we estimate that additional funds would have marginally more impact going to our Recommended Charities, making them exceptional giving opportunities. Faunalytics, The Humane League, and Wild Animal Initiative have all retained their status as Recommended Charities after being re-evaluated this year. Newly evaluated charities that join their ranks are Legal Impact for Chickens, New Roots Institute, and Shrimp Welfare Project. The Good Food Institute, Fish Welfare Initiative, Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği and Sinergia Animal have all retained their recommended charity status from 2022. Below, you will find a brief overview of each of ACE's Recommended Charities. For more details, please check out our comprehensive charity reviews. Recommended in 2023 Faunalytics is a U.S.-based organization that connects animal advocates with information relevant to advocacy. Their work mainly involves conducting and publishing independent research, working directly with partner organizations on various research projects, and promoting existing research and data for animal advocates through their website's content library. Faunalytics has been a Recommended Charity since December 2015. To learn more, read our 2023 comprehensive review of Faunalytics. Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) works to make factory-farm cruelty a liability in the United States. LIC files strategic lawsuits for chickens and other farmed animals, develops and refines creative methods to civilly enforce existing cruelty laws in factory farms, and sues companies that break animal welfare commitments. LIC's first lawsuit, the shareholder derivative case against Costco's executives for chicken neglect, was featured on TikTok and in multiple media outlets, including CNN Business, Fox Business, The Washington Post, and Meatingplace (an industry magazine for meat and poultry producers). This is the first year that Legal Impact for Chickens has become a Recommended Charity. To learn more, read our 2023 comprehensive review of Legal Impact for Chickens. New Roots Institute (formerly known as Factory Farming Awareness Coalition, or FFAC) is a U.S.-based organization that works to empower the next generation to end factory farming. The...

Join the SoFlo Vegans podcast as we sit down with an influential figure in the world of animal welfare, Vicky Bond, the President of The Humane League. In this exclusive interview, we delve into the inspiring journey of Vicky Bond, who has taken the reins as the new President of The Humane League and is leading the charge in the fight for animal rights and a more compassionate world.Vicky Bond's commitment to improving the lives of animals is both inspiring and heartwarming. Her passion for creating a more humane and sustainable future is evident in her work and leadership with The Humane League. With a wealth of experience and expertise in animal protection advocacy, Vicky brings a fresh perspective to the organization, driving forward the mission to end the suffering of animals in factory farming, cosmetic testing, and beyond.In this engaging interview, Vicky shares her insights on the latest advancements in animal welfare, the strategies being employed to create real change, and the impact that The Humane League is making in the world. We'll explore her vision for the organization, her dedication to fostering a culture of empathy, and her commitment to influencing corporations and consumers alike to make more compassionate choices.Whether you're a long-time advocate for animals or someone looking to learn more about the incredible work being done to protect them, this podcast is a must-listen. Join us as we gain valuable insights into the world of animal welfare, the power of grassroots activism, and the leadership of Vicky Bond and The Humane League in making the world a better place for all living beings.Don't miss this enlightening and inspiring conversation with Vicky Bond, President of The Humane League, on the SoFlo Vegans podcast. Stay tuned for a deep dive into the transformative work being carried out to improve the lives of animals and create a kinder world for all.

Hey Pickles!Welcome to October & Autumn & Spooky Season!This week, we tell you all about the Panama rocks Fall Foliage Festival! We found Vegan food there, much to our surprise!We also have some good news in our Noteworthy segment concerning the Tracy Murphy - Asha Farm Sanctuary case. Read about it here:  https://www.lockportjournal.com/news/local_news/animal-sanctuary-owner-has-gag-order-revised/article_1b6dd69a-5be7-11ee-ba89-6bc20db15ea2.html?fbclid=IwAR0_juSbxrA-Oi1_edeh33Uc1vaFNXhNYGkH9lQE3K1knKe65zBSoxYFYiI_aem_AXVBUvU9JOQJePuqyu7dhG7sPM4Atq5itzfQSl8bxD5MlyR9ije5fvE3J_lbTQpvpmIIt's a Game Week, and we play a fun & sometimes challenging game of Would You Rather.Our Vegan Org of the Week is Food For Life Global.You can learn more about them & get involved here:  https://ffl.orgWe have a new Listener Shout Out, a Reason To Be Vegan from The Humane League, and more!Thank you for spending some of your time with us, and we hope you enjoy the show!Love, Sam & ChristineSupport the showJoin Our Patreon https://www.patreon.com/CompassionandcucumbersSign Up For Our Newsletterhttps://www.compassionandcucumbers.comOur YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@compassioncucumbersveganpod/videos72 Reasons To Be Vegan *paid link https://amzn.to/3W8ZwsUVisit Our Website https://www.compassionandcucumbers.comSam's Etsy https://www.etsy.com/shop/CucumberCraftworksJoin the AFA Vegan Voter Hub https://agriculturefairnessalliance.org/vegan-voter-hub/

There are some big things going on in animal welfare law right now that need our help.  Like ASAP need us to reach out to our Senators and Representatives to urge them to vote on the side of animal protection. Gabriel Wildgen from The Humane League joined me in today's episode to give us the low down.  In this conversation, you'll learn all about what's happening (spurred by retaliation when California's Prop 12 was passed in 2018 to help farm animals), and how to quickly contact your Congresspeople. Please share this as widely as you can.  Like and comment so that we can reach more people quickly. The more time that passes, the more danger that we can't stop it from happening.  Thank you SO much.

Hey Pickles!We hope this episode finds you well!This week in our From Our Vegan Kitchen series, we veganize a recipe that comes from Christine's Mom. It's Mamma Joyce's Amazing Meatballs! If you would like the full recipe, hop over to our Patreon page, and join our community there!Whenever my Mother made her meatballs for a family event, they were the hit of the meal. She often doubled or tripled her recipe in order to have enough for everyone. The act of making these always makes me feel like my Mom is right there with me in the kitchen. I love you, Mom & I miss you like crazy. - ChristineIn our Noteworthy segment, we tell you about an L.A. high school student that is suing the school district , and the USDA for violating her right to free speech. She was barred from handing out information about the disadvantages of dairy milk.Read about it here: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-05-09/la-ed-dairy-milk-free-speechStaying on topic, our Main Topic explores how the dairy industry is using dairy check off monies to target our youth, and influence, and even dictate menus at some of their favorite fast food restaurants.Check out Us Dairy here for more: https://www.usdairy.com/for-farmers/blog/the-evolution-of-our-youth-strategyOur Reason To Be Vegan comes to you today from The Humane League.You can read some of their reasons here: https://thehumaneleague.org/article/reasons-to-go-veganWe have a new Listener Shout Out, and we spotlight Animal Outlook as our Vegan Org Of The Week. Get involved here: https://animaloutlook.org/get-involved/That wraps things up! We hope you enjoy the show! Thank you so much for listening!Love, Sam & ChristineSupport the showJoin Our Patreon https://www.patreon.com/CompassionandcucumbersSign Up For Our Newsletterhttps://www.compassionandcucumbers.comDonate To Food Empowerment Project https://www.buymeacoffee.com/CucumbersOur YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@compassioncucumbersveganpod/videos72 Reasons To Be Vegan *paid link https://amzn.to/3W8ZwsUVisit Our Website https://www.compassionandcucumbers.comSam's Etsy https://www.etsy.com/shop/CucumberCraftworksJoin the AFA Vegan Voter Hub https://agriculturefairnessalliance.org/vegan-voter-hub/

Dr. Vicky Bond, president of The Humane League, walks us through the truth about eggs.  We discuss everything from what life looks like for egg-laying hens in our industrialized food system to which eggs to buy at the store if we're not vegan. The Humane League is a global non-profit organization focused on helping animals who are raised for food.  The group educates and influences the public, and decision-makers within brands such as McDonald's and Jollibee, to pledge and work to use only cage-free eggs by 2025. They started this project in 2015 when only 6-7% of hens were cage-free in the US.  Now the U.S. is at 40% and big brands such as Nestle have proven that it's possible to go 100% cage-free. Vicky believes that it is possible that we can end caged hens in our lifetime, but it takes the work of many animal lovers coming together to make that happen.  The Humane League provides the framework, and we simply need to sign up for the Fast Action Network and contribute a couple of minutes per day to be a part of this movement. FAST ACTION NETWORK: https://thehumaneleague.org/fast-action-network SHOW NOTES: https://foranimalsforearth.com/show/73

Hoy con Ingrid y Tamara en MVS, platicamos con Lucio Usobiaga, director del proyecto “Arca Tierra”, un lugar de encuentro para agricultores, campesinos y personas que viven en la ciudad, interesadas en llevar una alimentación y apoyar al campo. El clavadista olímpico Jahir Ocampo, nos cuenta sobre la organización global de protección de animales usados para consumo “Toca Regular” de The Humane League, con el fin de concientizar al público sobre los procesos en la producción del huevo y sus consecuencias en el bienestar de las aves y consumidores. La pregunta del día es: ¿Qué es lo que más te enorgullece de la ciudad en la que vives y por qué? El mensaje del comentarot de este día es: https://twitter.com/mvs102_5/status/1686052778756522000?s=46&t=tn2KT9U8KIhiZCzxxuu6tQ Tras tres temporadas en espacios alternativos con llenos consecutivos en todas sus funciones, la comedia Lavar, peinar y enterrar vuelve a subir el telón, por eso Pilar Boliver, nos cuenta todos los detalles. También, nuestro amigo Paco Animas, nos trae lo mejor del mundo deportivo del fin de semana, League Cup, fórmula 1, mundial femenino y el gol de Santi Giménez en el partido de pretemporada del Feyenoord ante el Benfica. Además, en el momento geek con Pontón, nos habla sobre lo que está pasando con Twitter, ahora X. Conéctate con Ingrid y Tamara en MVS, de lunes a viernes, de 10:00 AM a 1:00 PM por MVS 102.5 FM.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Evidence of effectiveness and transparency of a few effective giving organisations, published by Vasco Grilo on July 1, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Effective giving can be quite impactful. I estimated the factual non-marginal multipliers until 2021 of Ayuda Efectiva (Spain), Doebem (Brazil), Effektiv Spenden (Germany), and Giving What We Can (GWWC), i.e. how much donations they moved per dollar spent. Those of Ayuda Efectiva (1.34) and Doebem (5.53) are much lower than those of Effektiv Spenden (61.2) and GWWC (135). However, the results might differ accounting for future donations (received after 2021, but caused until then), counterfactuals, diminishing marginal returns, cost-effectiveness of caused donations, and indirect impacts of effective giving. Furthermore, the organisations were at different levels of maturity. Consequently, my estimates for the factual non-marginal multipliers are not directly comparable, and I do not know which of the 4 organisations are more effective at the margin. I did not find any proper cost-effectiveness analyses of Ayuda Efectiva, Doebem or Effektiv Spenden. I encourage these and other effective giving organisations as well as their funders (namely, Open Philanthropy) to do and publish cost-effectiveness analyses of their work (ideally including the indirect impacts of effective giving), as GWWC has done. Introduction Effective giving can be quite impactful: Supporting with 0.399 $/year the corporate campaigns for chicken welfare of The Humane League might be enough to neutralise the suffering of factory-farmed animals caused by a random person. This estimate can easily be off by a factor of 10, but illustrates that the (financial and non-financial) costs/savings of switching to a fully plant-based diet may well be much higher. Helen Keller International's vitamin A supplementation program has a cost-effectiveness of 3.5 k$ per life saved, i.e. one can save 13.8 lives (= 48.3/3.5) for the average transaction price of new cars in the United States in April 2023 of 48.3 k$. So there are good reasons for giving effectively and significantly to become a cultural norm. This is a primary goal of effective giving organisations, and I have estimated the factual non-marginal multiplier of a few of them to get a sense of whether they are accomplishing it effectively. To clarify: A factual non-marginal multiplier of x means the effective giving organisation moved x $ of donations (hopefully to effective organisations) for each dollar it spent. A counterfactual non-marginal multiplier of y means the effective giving organisation caused y $ of donations for each dollar it spent. A counterfactual marginal multiplier of z means the effective giving organisation would have caused z $ of donations for each additional dollar it had spent. y < x because effective giving organisations do not cause all the donations they move, and z < y owing to diminishing marginal returns. The effective giving organisations is underfunded if z < 1, as long as the counterfactual marginal multiplier includes all relevant effects. I was curious about Ayuda Efectiva and Doebem because their results could be more generalisable to Portugal (where I am from). I looked into Effektiv Spenden owing to it being regarded as a successful example of effective giving, and included GWWC as a major reference in this space. Methods I calculated the factual non-marginal multipliers from the ratio between donations received to be directed towards effective organisations and costs. I neglected future donations, and did not account for the opportunity cost of workers and volunteers. The greater the future donations, the greater my underestimation of the factual multipliers. The greater the opportunity cost, the greater my overestimation of the factual non-marginal multi...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Rethink Priorities' Worldview Investigation Team: Introductions and Next Steps, published by Bob Fischer on June 21, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Some months ago, Rethink Priorities announced its interdisciplinary Worldview Investigation Team (WIT). Now, we're pleased to introduce the team's members: Bob Fischer is a Senior Research Manager at Rethink Priorities, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Texas State University, and the Director of the Society for the Study of Ethics & Animals. Before leading WIT, he ran RP's Moral Weight Project. Laura Duffy is an Executive Research Coordinator for Co-CEO Marcus Davis and works on the Worldview Investigations Project. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago, where she earned a Bachelor of Science in Statistics and co-facilitated UChicago Effective Altruism's Introductory Fellowship. Arvo Muñoz Morán is a Quantitative Researcher working on the Worldview Investigations Team at Rethink Priorities and a research assistant at Oxford's Global Priorities Institute. Before that, he was a Research Analyst at the Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research and earned an MPhil in Economics from Oxford. His background is in mathematics and philosophy. Hayley Clatterbuck is a Philosophy Researcher at Rethink Priorities and an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has published on topics in probability, evolutionary biology, and animal minds. Derek Shiller is a Philosophy Researcher at Rethink Priorities. He has a PhD in philosophy and has written on topics in metaethics, consciousness, and the philosophy of probability. Before joining Rethink Priorities, Derek worked as the lead web developer for The Humane League. David Bernard is a Quantitative Researcher at Rethink Priorities. He will soon complete his PhD in economics at the Paris School of Economics, where his research focuses on forecasting and causal inference in the short and long-run. He was a Fulbright Scholar at UC Berkeley and a Global Priorities fellow at the Global Priorities Institute. Over the next few months, the team will be working on cause prioritization—a topic that raises hard normative, metanormative, decision-theoretic, and empirical issues. We aren't going to resolve them anytime soon. So, we need to decide how to navigate a sea of open questions. In part, this involves making our assumptions explicit, producing the best models we can, and then conducting sensitivity analyses to determine both how robust our models are to uncertainty and where the value of information lies. Accordingly, WIT's goal is to make several contributions to the broader conversation about global priorities. Among the planned contributions, you can expect: A cross-cause cost-effectiveness model. This tool will allow users to compare interventions like corporate animal welfare campaigns with work on AI safety, the Against Malaria Foundation with attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war, biosecurity projects with community building, and so on. We've been working on a draft of this model in recent months and we recently hired two programmers—Chase Carter and Agustín Covarrubias—to accelerate its public release. While this tool won't resolve all disputes about resource allocation, we hope it will help the community reason more transparently about these issues. Surveys of key stakeholders about the inputs to the model. Many people have thought long and hard about how much x-risk certain interventions can reduce, the relative importance of improving human and animal welfare, and the cost of saving lives in developing countries. We want to capture and distill those insights. A series of reports on the cruxes. The model has three key cruxes: animals' “moral weights,” the expected value of the future, and your preference for ...

Some months ago, Rethink Priorities announced its interdisciplinary Worldview Investigation Team (WIT). Now, we're pleased to introduce the team's members:Bob Fischer is a Senior Research Manager at Rethink Priorities, an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Texas State University, and the Director of the Society for the Study of Ethics & Animals. Before leading WIT, he ran RP's Moral Weight Project.Laura Duffy is an Executive Research Coordinator for Co-CEO Marcus Davis and works on the Worldview Investigations Project. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago, where she earned a Bachelor of Science in Statistics and co-facilitated UChicago Effective Altruism's Introductory Fellowship.Arvo Muñoz Morán is a Quantitative Researcher working on the Worldview Investigations Team at Rethink Priorities and a research assistant at Oxford's Global Priorities Institute. Before that, he was a Research Analyst at the Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research and earned an MPhil in Economics from Oxford. His background is in mathematics and philosophy.Hayley Clatterbuck is a Philosophy Researcher at Rethink Priorities and an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has published on topics in probability, evolutionary biology, and animal minds. Derek Shiller is a Philosophy Researcher at Rethink Priorities. He has a PhD in philosophy and has written on topics in metaethics, consciousness, and the philosophy of probability. Before joining Rethink Priorities, Derek worked as the lead web developer for The Humane League.David Bernard is a Quantitative Researcher at Rethink Priorities. He will soon complete his PhD in economics at the Paris School of Economics, where his research focuses on forecasting and causal inference in the short and long-run. He was a Fulbright Scholar at UC Berkeley and a Global Priorities fellow at the Global Priorities Institute. Over the next few months, the team will be working on cause prioritization—a topic that raises hard normative, metanormative, decision-theoretic, and empirical issues. We aren't going to resolve them anytime soon. So, we need to decide how to navigate a sea of open questions. In part, this involves making our assumptions explicit, producing the best models we can, and then conducting sensitivity analyses to determine both how robust our models are to uncertainty and where the value of information lies.Accordingly, WIT's goal is to make several contributions to the broader conversation about global priorities. Among the planned contributions, you can expect:A cross-cause cost-effectiveness model. This tool will allow users to compare interventions like corporate animal welfare campaigns with work on AI safety, the Against Malaria Foundation with attempts to reduce the risk of nuclear war, biosecurity projects with community building, and so on. We've been working on a draft of this model in recent months and we recently hired two programmers to accelerate its public release. While this tool won't resolve all disputes about resource allocation, we hope it will help the community reason more transparently about these issues.Surveys of key stakeholders about the inputs to the model. Many people have thought long and hard about how much x-risk certain interventions can reduce, the relative importance of improving human and [...]--- First published: June 21st, 2023 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kSrjdtazFhkwwLuK8/rethink-priorities-worldview-investigation-team --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. Share feedback on this narration.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJohn is an animal advocate and social media professional (@JohnOberg). He has served as the director of new media for The Humane League and the director of communications for Vegan Outreach, but now he's an independent advocate funded by individual donations. He's also a powerlifter — not something you usually associate with vegans. In this episode he tries to convince me to give up meat.You can listen to the episode right away in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app — though Spotify sadly doesn't accept the paid feed). For two clips of our convo — on whether humans are evolving into vegans, and dispelling the notion that all vegans are scrawny — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: the profound influence that John's mother had on his advocacy from a very young age; their lonely protest against deer culling; vegan stereotypes and gay stereotypes; the cruelty of animals to other animals in nature; the greater sentience of some creatures over others; the horrific conditions of factory farming; Ag-Gag laws; how to provide protein to people without killing animals; “the protein myth”; the Impossible Burger and other food recs from John; the proliferating types of non-dairy milk; incentivizing corporations to make vegan options; and meeting people halfway with veganism rather than demonizing them. Browse the Dishcast archive for another discussion you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Sam Ramani on Ukraine, Ben Smith on going viral, Tabia Lee on her firing as a DEI director, and Patrick Deneen on a post-liberal future. Send your guest recs and pod dissent to dish@andrewsullivan.com.A quick bit of fan mail for Chris Stirewalt:Just wanted to say your conversation with Stirewalt was f****n' great!  Entertaining, funny, and really educational. Loved it.Another fan focuses on this segment:Listening to Chris talk about goat porn and golden showers on Ted Cruz almost made me pee my pants! Absolutely hilarious.A listener dissents:I had to stop listening once it became clear that you and Chris seem to be of the opinion that the legacy media share equally with the 30-year-old disinformation industry in cleaving the American voters into hateful camps. While you did recognize that Rush was a pioneer in taking advantage of the abrogation of the Fairness Doctrine to voice his BS, you also blithely acknowledged that he was “talented entertainer.” Let's face facts: Adolph was full of hateful bile that led to the eventual destruction of Germany along with millions of innocents but the guy was really entertaining. The legacy media, for all of its faults and biases, is not equivalent to the collective disinformation industry. Wokeness does not equal lies, character assassination, conspiracy mongering, calls for the overthrow of the “deep state,” civil war, summary execution of suspected drug dealers, ad nauseam. Criticize the legacy media all you want, but don't equate them with Fox and its many copycats as part of the critique. Whataboutism is tiresome and lazy.If you want my view of the different kinds of media bias at play — and why the right is worse — this piece is a good overview. I make many distinctions. From a baseball fan:Are my ears playing tricks on me or did I just hear Chris Stirewalt attribute “Hit ‘em where they ain't” to Pee Wee Reese? If I did hear this, it's the worst piece of fake news this 72-year-old guy has heard on the Dishcast. Apparently that quote by Willie Keeler is commonly misattributed to Reese. Here's one more clip from the Stirewalt pod — on why the cult of Trump is so strong:Staying on the topic of Trump, a reader dissents:I was not planning to send you a second scathing email in two weeks, but here we are. Your latest column on Trump was surreal. “Guys, a wildfire is about to burn down all these houses. This is bad! But you must admit, the fire is beautiful! Look at the gracefully leaping orange-golden flames. Such flair and energy! It speaks to something deep inside me, I remember sitting by a campfire as a kid …“But yes, the fire is bad, so we must fight it using this beat-up old fire truck. God, I hate the truck! It's ugly and rusty, the paint is peeling, the engine makes a weird grinding noise, there's a coffee stain on the driver's seat. The truck is boring, just sitting there like a lump. No entertainment value at all! In a direct contrast between the fire and the truck, there will surely be some people who simply favor the shiny and pretty over the dull and old!“Anyway, uh, we ought to stop the fire before it burns down all these houses, so let's get inside this crappy truck, which I hate, and go fight the fire… even though the fire is lovely and exciting and fun to look at…” (you gaze into the flames, their reflection dancing in your eyes)I wan to insert that gif of Cher slapping Nick Cage's face in Moonstruck and yelling, “Snap out of it!” Yes, the fire truck certainly is beat-up and rusty, and I too wish for a newer and better model. But if you value the houses, and you recognize that they will burn unless enough people act, the right thing to say is, “Guys, let's get in the truck and go put out the f**king fire!”My core political objective right now is avoiding a second Trump term. How much clearer can I get? My concern with the loony left is both substantive on the issues, but also rooted in my view that they are empowering Trump, not weakening him. Another reader quotes me:“Trump is more likely than not returning to the White House as of now.” No offense, but have you not been paying attention for the last two years?

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Simple charitable donation app idea, published by kokotajlod on May 12, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. I'll pay $10xN to the people who build this app, where N is the total karma of this post three months from now, up to a max of $20,000, unless something shady happens like some sort of bot farm. If it turns out this app already exists, I'll pay $1xN instead to the people who find it for me. I'm open to paying significantly more in both cases if I'm convinced of the altruistic case for this app existing; this is just the minimum I personally can commit to and afford.The app consists of a gigantic, full-screen button such that if you press it, the phone will vibrate and play a little satisfying "ching" sound and light up sparkles around where your finger hit, and then $1 will be donated to GiveDirectly. You can keep slamming that button as much as you like to thereby donate as many dollars as you like.In the corner there's a menu button that lets you change from GiveDirectly to Humane League or AMF or whatever (you can go into the settings and input the details for a charity of your choice, adding it to your personal menu of charity options, and then toggle between options as you see fit. You can also set up a "Donate $X per button press instead of $1" option and a "Split each donation between the following N charities" option.)That's it really.Why is this a good idea? Well, I'm not completely confident it is, and part of why I'm posting is to get feedback. But here's my thinking:I often feel guilty for eating out at restaurants. Especially when meat is involved. Currently I donate a substantial amount to charity on a yearly basis (aiming for 10% of income, though I'm not doing a great job of tracking that) but it feels like a chore, I have to remember to do it and then log on and wire the funds. Like paying a bill.If I had this app, I think I'd experiment with the following policy instead: Every time I buy something not-necessary such as a meal at a restaurant, I whip out my phone, pull up the app, and slam that button N times where N is the number of dollars my purchase cost. Thus my personal spending would be matched with my donations. I think I'd feel pretty good while doing so, it would give me a rush of warm fuzzies instead of feeling like a chore. (For this reason I suggest having to press the button N times, instead of building the app to use a text-box-and-number-pad.)Then I'd check in every year or so to see whether my donations were meeting the 10% goal and make a bulk donation to make up the difference if not. If it exceeds the goal, great!I think even if no one saw me use this app, I'd still use it & pay for it. But there's a bonus effect having to do with the social consequences of being seen using it. Kinda like how a big part of why veganism is effective is that you can't hide it from anyone, you are forced to bring it up constantly. Using this app would hopefully have a similar effect -- if you were following a policy similar to the one I described, people would notice you tapping your phone at restaurants and ask you what you were doing & you'd explain and maybe they'd be inspired and do something similar themselves. (Come to think of it, it's important that the "ching" sound not be loud and obnoxious, otherwise it might come across as ostentatious.) I can imagine a world where this app becomes really popular, at least among certain demographics, similar to (though probably not as successful as) veganism.Another mild bonus is that this app could double as a tracker for your discretionary spending. You can go into the settings and see e.g. a graph of your donations over time, statistics on what time of day you do them, etc. and learn things like "jesus do I really spend that much on dining out per month?" and "huh, I guess those Amazon purchase...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Maybe Family Planning Charities Are Better For Farmed Animals Than Animal Welfare Ones, published by Hank B on May 6, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This piece estimates that a donation to the Humane League, an animal welfare organization considered highly cost-effective, and which mainly engages in corporate lobbying for higher welfare standards, saved around 4 animals per dollar donated, mostly chickens. “Saving a farmed animal” here means “preventing a farmed animal from existing” or “improving the welfare of enough farmed animals by enough to count as preventing one farmed animal from existing.” That second definition is a little weird, sorry. If you're trying to help as many farmed animals as possible this seems like a pretty good deal. Can we do better? Maybe. Enter MSI Reproductive Choices, an international family planning organization, which mainly distributes contraception and performs abortions. They reported in 2021 that they prevented around 14 million unintended pregnancies on a total income of 290 million pounds, or 360 million dollars at time of writing. This is roughly 25 dollars per unintended pregnancy prevented. Let's pretend that for every unintended pregnancy prevented, a child who would have been born otherwise is not born. This is plausibly true for some of these unintended pregnancies. But not all. On the other hand, MSI also provided abortions which plausibly prevent child lives as well. Maybe that means MSI prevented 14 million child lives from starting in 2021 (if we think the undercounting from not including abortions counter perfectly the overcounting of unintended pregnancy). I have no reason to think that's particularly plausible, but let's just keep pretending that's right. Let's further pretend that all of MSI's work happened in Zambia. MSI does work in Zambia, but they also do work in lots of other countries. I choose Zambia mostly because trying to do this math with all the countries that MSI works with would be hard. Zambia had a life expectancy at birth of 62 years in 2020 according to this. According to this, Zambians consumed an average of 28kg of meat per person per year. The important subfigures here are the 2.6kg of poultry and 13kg of seafood per person per year, since chickens and fish are much lighter than other animals killed for meat. One chicken provides say 1kg of meat (I'm sort of making this number up, but similar numbers come up on google). One fish provides say 0.5kg. This means that the average Zambian would eat 2.6 chickens and 26 fish per person per year. Over a lifetime, that'd be 62 years of consumption. If a human who would have otherwise existed no longer exists because of your efforts, they also no longer eat the meat they would have eaten otherwise. Thus, if MSI prevents one human lifetime for every $25 you donate, then you'd be saving 62(2.6+26) farmed animals which is around 1,750. That's 70 animals saved per dollar donated. This analysis is so bad in so many ways. I took the number for animals saved per dollar donated to The Humane League on total faith. I also just assumed that MSI is correct in saying that they prevented 14 million unintended pregnancies and I made clearly bad assumptions to get from that number to number of human lifetimes prevented. At least we can have some confidence in the total weight of meat consumed on average by a Zambian per year and the life expectancy at birth in Zambia. However, my way of getting from total weight to animals slaughtered is pretty hokey and doesn't even include cows, sheep, pigs, etc. There are many other problems too. For example, I took the average cost per unintended pregnancy prevented by MSI. However, the average is not the relevant figure here. We'd like the marginal cost of preventing an additional unintended pregnancy. This is a figure I don...

Today we get an insight into what can be achieved when a business is used as a force for good and makes significant changes in their food supply chain – through cage-free eggs. We are joined by expert two guests: Yulia Bolotina, the Global Head of ESG at Gategroup – a global leader in airline catering, and Hannah Surowinski, the Global Corporate Relations Manager at The Humane League, an international nonprofit that is ending the abuse of animals raised for food.In this episode, we touch on the challenges of creating a positive business model, ethical sourcing in the catering industry, the role of collaboration to create change, ESG reporting, and so much more. Links:The Humane League: https://thehumaneleague.org/Gategroup: https://gategroup.com/Open Wing Alliance: https://openwingalliance.org/Fast Action Network: https://thehumaneleague.org/fast-action-networkConnect with the podcast:Join the Hospitality Mavericks newsletter: https://rb.gy/5rqyeq A big thank you to our sponsor Bizimply who are helping progressive leaders and operators making every shift run like clockwork. Head to our website at www.bizimply.com or email them directly at advice@bizimply.com.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podcorn - https://podcorn.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Announcing a new animal advocacy podcast: How I Learned to Love Shrimp, published by James Özden on April 13, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Calling all animal-interested folks! Excited to share that we've launched a new animal-focused podcast series. How I Learned to Love Shrimp is a podcast about promising ways to help animals and build the animal advocacy movement. We showcase interesting and exciting ideas within animal advocacy and will release bi-weekly, hour-long interviews with people who are working on these projects. We start the series with an introductory episode with Amy and I discussing why we wanted to start this podcast, the topics we want to cover, and some of our own views on various thorny animal advocacy topics. Our first proper episode is with Dave Coman-Hidy, former President of The Humane League. In this, we discuss the age-old debate of welfare vs abolitionism, the pros and cons of measurability, as well as promising strategies Dave is keen to see more of within animal advocacy. You can check out the episodes across all major providers (e.g. Spotify, Google Podcasts & Apple Podcasts) and also access them on our website. Please let us know what you think, give us guest recommendations and share with anyone who you think could be interested to hear. You can contact us via Twitter, our website or email at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy! Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

David Coman-Hidy is former President of The Humane League, one of the largest farm animal advocacy organisations in the world. He now works as a Partner at Sharpen Strategy working to coach animal advocacy organisations.In this episode, we discuss the age-old debate facing animal advocates: Should we pursue incremental approaches to improve welfare or should we only advocate for the total abolition of animal exploitation. Additionally, David also shares some approaches he would like to see more of within the animal advocacy movement, as well as what we could learn from other social movements. If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating and review us - we would really appreciate it! Likewise, feel free to share it with anyone who you think might enjoy it. You can send us feedback and guest recommendations via Twitter or email us at hello@howilearnedtoloveshrimp.com. Enjoy!

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Tensions between different approaches to doing good, published by James Özden on March 19, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Link-posted from my blog here. TLDR: I get the impression that EAs don't always understand where certain critics are coming from e.g. what do people actually mean when they say EAs aren't pursuing "system change" enough? or that we're focusing on the wrong things? I feel like I hear these critiques a lot, so I attempted to steelman them and put them into more EA-friendly jargon. It's almost certainly not a perfect representation of these views, nor exhaustive, but might be interesting anyway. Enjoy! I feel lucky that I have fairly diverse groups of friends. On one hand, some of my closest friends are people I know through grassroots climate and animal rights activism, from my days in Extinction Rebellion and Animal Rebellion. On the other hand, I also spend a lot of time with people who have a very different approach to improving the world, such as friends I met through the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program or via effective altruism. Both of these somewhat vague and undefined groups, “radical” grassroots activists and empirics-focused charity folks, often critique the other group with various concerns about their methods of doing good. Almost always, I end up defending the group under attack, saying they have some reasonable points and we would do better if we could integrate the best parts of both worldviews. To highlight how these conversations usually go (and clarify my own thinking), I thought I would write up the common points into a dialogue between two versions of myself. One version, labelled Quantify Everything James (or QEJ), discusses the importance of supporting highly evidence-based and quantitatively-backed ways of doing good. This is broadly similar to what most effective altruists advocate for. The other part of myself, presented under the label Complexity-inclined James (CIJ), discusses the limitations of this empirical approach, and how else we should consider doing the most good. With this character, I'm trying to capture the objections that my activist friends often have. As it might be apparent, I'm sympathetic to both of these different approaches and I think they both provide some valuable insights. In this piece, I focus more on describing the common critiques of effective altruist-esque ways of doing good, as this seems to be something that isn't particularly well understood (in my opinion). Without further ado: Quantify Everything James (QEJ): We should do the most good by finding charities that are very cost-effective, with a strong evidence base, and support them financially! For example, organisations like The Humane League, Clean Air Task Force and Against Malaria Foundation all seem like they provide demonstrably significant benefits on reducing animal suffering, mitigating climate change and saving human lives. For example, external evaluators estimate the Against Malaria Foundation can save a human life for around $5000 and that organisations like The Humane League affect 41 years of chicken life per dollar spent on corporate welfare campaigns. It's crucial we support highly evidence-based organisations such as these, as most well-intentioned charities probably don't do that much good for their beneficiaries. Additionally, the best charities are likely to be 10-100x more effective than even the average charity! Using an example from this very relevant paper by Toby Ord: If you care about helping people with blindness, one option is to pay $40,000 for someone in the United States to have access to a guide dog (the costs of training the dog & the person). However, you could also pay for surgeries to treat trachoma, a bacterial infection that is the top cause of blindness worldwide. At around $20 per ...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Tyler Johnston on helping farmed animals, consciousness, and being conventionally good, published by Amber Dawn on March 10, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This post is part of a series of six interviews. As EAs, we want to use our careers or donations to do the most good - but it's difficult to work out what exactly that looks like for us. I wanted to interview effective altruists working in different fields and on different causes and ask them how they chose their cause area, as well as how they relate to effective altruism and doing good more generally. During the Prague Fall Season residency, I interviewed six EAs in Prague about what they are doing and why they are doing it. I'm grateful to my interviewees for giving their time, and to the organisers of PFS for supporting my visit. I'm currently working as a freelance writer and editor. If you're interested in hiring me, book a short call or email me at ambace@gmail.com. More info here. Tyler Johnston is an aspiring effective altruist currently based out of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Professionally, he works on corporate campaigns to improve the lives of farmed chickens, and is interested in cause prioritisation, interspecies comparisons, and the suffering of non-humans. He's also a science-fiction fan and an amateur crossword puzzle constructor. We talked about: his work on The Humane League's corporate animal welfare campaigns how he became a vegan and animal advocate whether animals are conscious how being conventionally good is underrated On his work at The Humane League Amber: Tell me about what you're doing. Tyler: I work for The Humane League. We run public awareness campaigns to try to get companies to make commitments to improve the treatment of farmed animals in their supply chains. This strategy first gained traction in 2015, and was immediately really powerful. Since then, it has got a lot of interest from EA funders. Amber: Did The Humane League always do that, or was it doing something else before 2015? Tyler: It was a long journey; The Humane League's original name was Hugs for Puppies Amber: Aww, that's very cute! Tyler: Yeah, I feel like we'd be a more likeable organisation if we were still called that. They started doing demonstrations around issues like fur bans, and other animal welfare issues there was already a lot of energy around. They then switched to focussing on vegan advocacy, which involved things like leafleting, and sharing recipes and resources. Amber: So the strategy at that time then was to encourage people to go vegan, which would lower demand for factory farming, which would mean there were fewer factory-farmed animals? Tyler: That's right. There was some early evidence that showed this was promising, and it also just made sense to them, since most vegans would attribute their own choice to be vegan to a time in the past when they heard and agreed with the arguments. So they thought, ‘why wouldn't this export to other people?' Amber: But you said the strategy is different now - it's to lobby actual food producers to treat the animals that they're farming better. Say more about that. Tyler: That's our dominant strategy now, yeah. It's part of a broader shift in the [animal advocacy] movement toward institutional change rather than individual change. If for some given company, you either have to change the minds of, like, 10 million consumers, or a dozen executive stakeholders - the latter is just a lot more tractable. It started with running small campaigns to persuade companies to source cage-free eggs, and it turned out that this worked. Around 2015 there was a sharp turning point in the number of farmed birds that are cage-free - before 2015, the percentage was growing very slowly, from 3% to 5%, but between 2015 and today, the percentage went up from 5% to 36%. And people attr...

The RSPCA is backing a legal challenge which says fast-growing breeds of chicken, which are slaughtered at around six-weeks-old, should not be allowed. The charity The Humane League is seeking a judicial review in the High Court, arguing that fast-growing broilers have intrinsic animal welfare challenges, including being unable to support their own weight. We speak to a poultry expert with the RSPCA and the British Poultry Council, which says welfare standards on UK farms are extremely high. A medicine which controls a serious illness in piglets will soon stop being used, and there's concern that farmers will turn to antibiotics instead. Zinc oxide prevents post-weaning diarrhoea, but when it's excreted in pig slurry it can pollute soils, so its use is ending across Europe. Farmers in Northern Ireland say the new Windsor Framework is not changing enough. Sheep farmers in the province have traditionally bought stock in Great Britain, to bring in new blood to their flocks. But since leaving the EU, and with the Northern Ireland Protocol, that's been much more difficult and in some cases impossible to do. However, the National Sheep Association in Northern Ireland says the new Windsor agreement will do little to help them. Presenter - Anna Hill Producer - Rebecca Rooney

Vicky Bond, President of the Humane League, joins to discuss their campaign to transition the egg industry to cage free. Who is walking the walk and who talks the talk but doesn't walk?Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.

Vicky Bond, President of the Humane League, joins to discuss their campaign to transition the egg industry to cage free. Who is walking the walk and who talks the talk but doesn't walk?Heritage Radio Network is a listener supported nonprofit podcast network. Support What Doesn't Kill You by becoming a member!What Doesn't Kill You is Powered by Simplecast.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Good things that happened in EA this year, published by Shakeel Hashim on December 29, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Crossposted from Twitter As the year comes to an end, we want to highlight some of the incredible work done and supported by people in the effective altruism community — work that's helping people and animals all over the world. 1/ The team at Charity Entrepreneurship incubated five new charities this year, including the Center for Effective Aid Policy and Vida Plena — the first CE-incubated organisation to operate in Latin America. 2/ Over 1,400 new people signed the Giving What We Can Pledge, committing to giving away 10% or more of their annual income to effective charities. The total number of pledgers is now over 8,000! 3/ The work of The Humane League and other animal welfare activists led 161 new organisations to commit to using cage-free products, helping free millions of chickens from cruel battery cages. 4/ Open Philanthropy launched two new focus areas: South Asian Air Quality and Global Aid Policy. It's already made grants that aim to tackle pollution and increase the quality or quantity of foreign aid./ and/ 5/ Alvea, a new biotechnology company dedicated to fighting pandemics, launched and announced that it had already started animal studies for a shelf-stable COVID vaccine. 6/ Almost 80,000 connections were made at events hosted by @CentreforEA's Events team, prompting people to change jobs, start new projects and explore new ideas. EAGx conferences were held around the world — including in Berlin, Australia and Singapore.#Events 7/ The EU Commission said it will "put forward a proposal to end the ‘disturbing' systematic practice of killing male chicks across the EU" — another huge win for animal welfare campaigners. 8/ What We Owe The Future, a book by @willmacaskill arguing that we can — and should — help build a better world for future generations, became a bestseller in both the US and UK. 9/ New evidence prompted @GiveWell to re-evaluate its views on water quality interventions. It then made a grant of up to $64.7 million for @EvidenceAction's Dispensers for Safe Water water chlorination program, which operates in Kenya, Malawi and Uganda./ 10/ Lots of members of the effective altruism community were featured on @voxdotcom's inaugural Future Perfect 50 list of the people building a better future. 11/ Fish welfare was discussed in the UK Parliament for the first time ever, featuring contributions from effective-altruism-backed charities./ 12/ Researchers at @iGEM published a paper looking at how we might be able to better detect whether states are complying with the Biological Weapons Convention — work which could help improve biosecurity around the world. 13/ New research from the Lead Exposure Elimination Project showed the dangerous levels of lead in paint in Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone. In response, governments in both countries are working with LEEP to try to tackle the problem and reduce lead exposure./ and/ 14/ The EA Forum criticism contest sparked a bunch of interesting and technical debate. One entry prompted GiveWell to re-assess their estimates of the cost-effectiveness of deworming, and inspired a second contest of its own!#Prize_for_inspiring_the_Change_Our_Mind_Contest____20_000 15/ The welfare of crabs, lobsters and prawns was recognised in UK legislation thanks to the new Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill 16/ Rethink Priorities, meanwhile, embarked on their ambitious Moral Weight Project to provide a better way to compare the interests of different species. 17/ At the @medialab, the Nucleic Acid Observatory project launched — working to develop systems that will help provide an early-warning system for new biological threats. 18/ Longview Philanthropy and @givingwhatwecan launched the Longtermism Fund, a new fund...

For many reasons, community housing can be a beneficial alternative way of living that can decrease loneliness, reduce costs, boost personal growth and human connection. Creating a more village or community environment is a healthy way to learn to work with others, understand boundaries, and develop communication skills. Clearly, I'm a big proponent! Which is why I was very excited to have my long time friend, Syd Fredrickson and her colleague Zach, on the show this week to share insights about the multitude of advantages for people and the planet to consider intentional communities.On this episode, Syd and Zach share their personal experience and extensive knowledge about cooperative housing (co-living) and offer ways to explore a variety of approaches to living this lifestyle!Syd Fredrickson has lived most of her adult life in cooperative living groups, both urban & rural, some of them identified as intentional communities. She has been a delegate to the FEC, a board member on the FIC and served multiple terms of service to the NICA board [see organizational resources below.] Seattle Cooperative Housing Network -- an informal Facebook group that occasionally hosts in person gatherings, and which Zach and Syd both are a part of -- is a spin-off of NICA.  Syd has helped start and advise several communities. She used to run a consulting business called Under 1 Roof. She now works as an Affordable Housing Community Manager.   Zachary has also lived most of his adult life in cooperative living groups. He plans events for the Seattle Cooperative Housing Network. He is interested in activism, walkable cities, and how technology influences society. He organizes the Seattle chapter of the Humane League and works for a small tech company. Resources:Foundation for Intentional Community (FIC), ic.orgFederation of Egalitarian Communities (FEC), TheFEC.org Cohousing Association of America, cohousing.orgNorthwest Intentional Communities Association (NICA), nwcommunities.orgSharing Housing, sharinghousing.com Silvernest (for people over 50 mostly), silvernest.com Seattle Cooperative Housing Network, https://www.facebook.com/groups/300309303650350