Can we call it the Meat EatING problem? The currently labelled "meat eater problem" has been referred to a number of times during debate week. The forum wiki on the “meat eater” problem summarises it like this. “Saving human lives, and making humans more prosperous, seem to be obviously good in terms of direct effects. However, humans consume animal products, and these animal products may cause considerable animal suffering. Therefore, improving human lives may lead to negative effects that outweigh the direct positive effects.” I think this an important issue to discuss, although I think we should be extremely sensitive and cautious while discussing it. On this note I think we should re-label this the meat eating problem, as I think there are big upsides with minimal downside. 1. Accuracy: I don’t think the core problem actually the people who’s lives we are saving, its that they then eat meat and cause suffering. I think its important to separate the people from the core problem as this better helps us consider possible solutions 2. Persuasion: I think we’re more able to persuade if we discuss the problem separated from the people. I can talk about the “meat eating problem” with non-EA friends and it will be hard but they might understand, but if through the very name of the issue I make the people themselves the problem, that can easily make me seem callous, and people can switch off. 3. Fairness: Even if you disagree with me on accuracy and double down that the core problem is the people, I think its pretty unfair to lump the label of a serious philosophical problem on the poorest people on earth - people with little education who are often just trying to survive and have never had the chance to consider this issue.  It seems to me that this problem was mainly thought up and developed by the EA community (which is great), and we could probably just decide to call it something different from here on out. I’m asking the forum team to consider changing the

I'm grateful for the articles @MichaelStJules writes on the forum. He seems to be motivated by a deep desire to understand what will benefit moral patients. For example, I particularly value his sequence on the impact of fishing on fish welfare (The moral ambiguity of fishing on wild aquatic animal populations and other articles)

Future debate week topics? 1. Global health & wellbeing (including animal welfare) vs global catastrophic risks, based on Open Phil's classifications. 2. Neartermism vs longtermism. 3. Extinction risks vs risks of astronomical suffering (s-risks). 4. Saving 1 horse-sized duck vs saving 100 duck-sized horses. I like the idea of going through cause prioritization together on the EA Forum.

I really like the vote and discussion thread. In part because I think that aggregating votes will improve our coordination and impact.  Without trying to unpack my whole model of movement building; I think that the community needs to understand itself (as a collective and as individuals) to have the most impact, and this approach may really help. EA basically operates on a "wisdom of wise crowds" principle, where individuals base decisions on researchers' and thinkers' qualitative data (e.g., forum posts and other outputs) However, at our current scale, quantitative data is much easier to aggregate and update on. For instance, in this case, we are now seeing strong evidence that most people in EA think that AW is undervalued (as seems will be the case) relative to global development. Also who thinks what in relation to that claim and why. This is extremely useful for community and individual decision-making. It would never be captured in the prior system of coordinating via posts and comments. Many people may/will act on or reference this information when they seek funding, write response posts, or choose a new career option. In a world without the vote, and just forum posts, these actions might otherwise not occur. In short, very keen on this and to see more of this. 

The plant-based foods industry should make low-phytoestrogen soy products. Soy is an excellent plant-based protein. It's also a source of the phytoestrogen isoflavone, which men online are concerned has feminizing properties (cf. soy boy). I think the effect of isoflavones is low for moderate consumption (e.g., one 3.5 oz block of tofu per day), but could be significant if the average American were to replace the majority of their meat consumption with soy-based products. Fortunately, isoflavones in soy don't have to be an issue. Low-isoflavone products are around, but they're not labeled as such. I think it would be a major win for animal welfare if the plant-based foods industry could transition soy-based products to low-isoflavone and execute a successful marketing campaign to quell concerns about phytoestrogens (without denigrating higher-isoflavone soy products). More speculatively, soy growers could breed or bioengineer soy to be low in isoflavones, like other legumes. One model for this development would be how normal lupin beans have bitter, toxic alkaloids and need days of soaking. But in the 1960s, Australian sweet lupins were bred with dramatically lower alkaloid content and are essentially ready to eat. Isoflavone content varies dramatically depending on the processing and growing conditions. This chart from Examine shows that 100 g of tofu can have anywhere from 3 to 142 mg of isoflavones, and 100 mg soy protein isolate can have 46 to 200 mg of isoflavones.