Hide table of contents

Key points

  •  We host a Discord server for discussing animals and longtermism. You are more than welcome to join here.
  • There are compelling reasons to help those who will live in the long-term future, and there are compelling reasons to help nonhuman animals. As such, the intersection between longtermism and animal advocacy is starting to receive a bit more attention among the EA community.
  • This post has three main purposes:
    • To invite you to our Discord server on animals and longtermism (link above).
    • To share a list of resources on animals and longtermism that we've collected over time, in case this helps anybody.
    • To share some details about an organisation we almost launched, which would have aimed to find the best interventions for helping animals in the long-term future. We got funding, but the grant was awarded by an FTX Future Fund regrantor, so the funding fell through. In this post, we have linked our grant application/plans in case anybody wants to pick up where we left off.

Background to animals and longtermism

There are many reasons why animal advocacy and longtermism can help each other do even more good. These reasons are explored in detail in the resources that we list below. To quickly name a few:

  • The expected number of animals in the far future could be simply enormous. This means that considering the lives of animals in the far future could be a great way to have a large impact. As Browning and Viet conclude, "Work on longtermism has thus far primarily focused on the existence and wellbeing of future humans, without corresponding consideration of animal welfare. [...] Given the sheer expected number of future animals, as well as the likelihood of their suffering, we argue that the well-being of future animals should be given serious consideration when thinking about the long-term future, allowing for the possibility that in some cases their interests may even dominate."
  • Animal welfare may represent most of the moral value in the far future. This means that longtermists may need to consider the perspective of animal advocacy in order to do the most good.
  • Most animals might exist in the long-term future. This means that animal advocates may need to consider the perspective of longtermists in order to do the most good.
  • Society’s attitude towards animals is important for the long-term trajectory of society's moral values.

Animals may also interact with new phenomena, like artificial intelligence, space colonisation, artificial sentience, and brain emulations in ways that are likely to have serious moral implications.

So far, research on animals in the long-term future has fallen into these broad buckets:

  • Animals and space colonisation (making sure space exploration and colonisation is animal-friendly)
  • Wild animal welfare (e.g. resilience of wild animal populations over time, introducing wild animals to other planets, how artificial intelligence affects wild animals)
  • Animals and artificial intelligence (making sure artificial intelligence and machine learning is designed with animals in mind)
  • Digital animal minds
  • Health of the animal advocacy movement (to enable animal advocacy to sustain its efforts over time)
  • Further (meta) thinking on longtermism and animals

Resources on animals and longtermism

General animals and longtermism

The effects of artificial intelligence on animals

Wild animal suffering in the long-term future

Factory farming and space exploration

Moral circle expansion

(Credit: some of these resources I discovered on the Discord and in these slides)

Organisations working on longtermism and animals

There are a few organisations and people working on longtermism and animals, whether explicitly or indirectly. Many of these will already be well-known in EA circles (e.g. Animal Ethics, Sentience Institute, Wild Animal Initiative, Rethink Priorities, Center on Long-Term Risk, Center for Reducing Suffering, Good Ancestors Project). The biggest initiative that I'm aware of that might be less well-known in EA circles is the NYU Mind, Ethics, and Policy (MEP) Program (EA Forum post here).

The charity we almost started

  • We (myself + the rest of the moderator team from the Discord server) almost started an organisation that would have been dedicated to doing systematic research to identify the most promising ideas (if any) for launching new interventions focused on helping animals in the long-term future. (Then, the plan was, we would seek further funding in the future to actually launch those promising interventions.)
  • I was aiming for something along the lines of the research side of Charity Entrepreneurship or perhaps CEARCH, both of which invest systematic research into figuring out the most promising interventions or causes for new effective charities - except our version would have had an explicit focus on animals and longtermism.
  • We were awarded an initial USD $55,000 grant to hire a researcher to start our organisation. You can see the grant application, plus an extensive community discussion, here on Manifold Markets (archive link here).
  • However, this grant was recommended by an FTX Future Fund regrantor, so the funding fell through. We have pursued a few other options, but given the new (tighter) EA funding situation and my subsequent decision to increase my commitments in my day job, we haven't had any luck.
  • If you're interested in the interventions themselves, there is a brainstormed list available here. Note that we're skeptical of many/all of the ideas on the list - we were just noting down ideas that came to us over time, understanding that most would end up looking ineffective. The full-time researcher we were about to hire would have conducted a systematic research process first to expand this list and then to figure out which, if any, of these intervention ideas are actually any good. So please don't put too much weight onto these ideas, but they could be a useful starting point if you want to do something similar.

(This post describes work I've pursued in my spare time, and isn't directly related to my job at Animal Ask.)

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
In my past year as a grantmaker in the global health and wellbeing (GHW) meta space at Open Philanthropy, I've identified some exciting ideas that could fill existing gaps. While these initiatives have significant potential, they require more active development and support to move forward.  The ideas I think could have the highest impact are:  1. Government placements/secondments in key GHW areas (e.g. international development), and 2. Expanded (ultra) high-net-worth ([U]HNW) advising Each of these ideas needs a very specific type of leadership and/or structure. More accessible options I’m excited about — particularly for students or recent graduates — could involve virtual GHW courses or action-focused student groups.  I can’t commit to supporting any particular project based on these ideas ahead of time, because the likelihood of success would heavily depend on details (including the people leading the project). Still, I thought it would be helpful to articulate a few of the ideas I’ve been considering.  I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on these ideas and any other gaps you see in the space! Introduction I’m Mel, a Senior Program Associate at Open Philanthropy, where I lead grantmaking for the Effective Giving and Careers program[1] (you can read more about the program and our current strategy here). Throughout my time in this role, I’ve encountered great ideas, but have also noticed gaps in the space. This post shares a list of projects I’d like to see pursued, and would potentially want to support. These ideas are drawn from existing efforts in other areas (e.g., projects supported by our GCRCB team), suggestions from conversations and materials I’ve engaged with, and my general intuition. They aren’t meant to be a definitive roadmap, but rather a starting point for discussion. At the moment, I don’t have capacity to more actively explore these ideas and find the right founders for related projects. That may change, but for now, I’m interested in
Relevant opportunities