Add new comment

I formed this opinion through personal conversations and reading a bunch of threads on Felicifia. I don’t know of any particularly strong writing on this. I may write something up because I believe this is really important.

Regarding Open Phil-specific strategy:

For Open Phil to fund some form of advocacy other than cage-free campaigns for the sake of improving the far future, it would have to be the case that (1) this is worthwhile in the first place, and (2) something works better than cage-free campaigns.

On (2), a priori it would be surprising if the best intervention for preventing factory farming in the short term is also best for helping animals in the long term. A posteriori, it doesn’t seem that plausible to me that cage-free reforms have particularly good long-term effects, although Lewis disagrees and I haven’t heard his reasoning.

On (1), this depends on details of Open Phil’s strategy that I don’t know about. If you’re only funding one intervention per category, then you’d have to argue that some sort of animal advocacy is the most important thing for the far future. This is how Open Phil’s grants have looked so far, but I suspect this is just because making grants takes a long time and you’re focusing on breadth before depth. But right now these fields are small enough that Open Phil could fully fund most x-risks work and fully fund animal advocacy for less than 10% of its annual budget. In particular, far future-focused animal advocacy is an extremely small field right now.

(Personal note: several months ago, I was fairly confident that x-risk reduction was more important for the far future than animal advocacy. But I’ve recently spent some time carefully quantifying the arguments for each, and far future-focused animal advocacy actually looks better, even if I assume you’re correct that non-human animals are far less important than humans. I’m going to publish a writeup on this in the near future.)