Elizabeth watched the woman at the next table grip her phone like it might leap from her hands. The stranger's face had been growing steadily redder for the past five minutes, her expensive coffee cooling untouched beside her.

"This is insane," the woman muttered, loud enough to carry. She looked up, catching Elizabeth's eye. "Sorry, but have you seen this? Our government is literally funding shrimp exercise programs. Shrimp! On these little tiny treadmills!"

Elizabeth watched the woman at the next table grip her phone like it might leap from her hands. The stranger's face had ...

 

Elizabeth set down her oat milk latte, recognizing the headline from her morning news scan. The old familiar fire rose in her chest – the same one that had once driven her to chain herself to laboratory doors – but she tamped it down, smoothing her voice into something gentle. "Mind if I join you? I'm Elizabeth."

"Amanda," the woman said, gesturing to the empty chair. Her phone screen glowed with the garish colors of her preferred schlocky news site.

"You know what's interesting about shrimp?" Elizabeth began, careful to keep her tone conversational. She pulled up a photo on her own phone: rows of fishing boats, nets gleaming in dawn light. "Commercial fishing operations are actually starting to use these new innovative electrical stunners. Helps with meat quality, they say. This group, the Shrimp Welfare Project, they're making it happen without a dime of taxpayer money."

Amanda's brow furrowed. "But why would they..." She trailed off, losing interest, scrolling further. "Oh god, look at this one – they're spending millions studying chicken gender. In the middle of a recession!"

Elizabeth noticed Amanda's "Make America Great Again" phone case and chose her next words carefully. "My cousin runs a poultry farm in Georgia. He started using this new egg scanning technology – saves him thousands because he doesn't have to pay workers to cull the male chicks anymore. Plus, no waste."

"Huh." Amanda set her phone down for the first time. "That actually makes sense. But look at this mouse study they're talking about – there's no way you can defend that."

Elizabeth nodded slowly, her fingers tracing the rim of her cup. "Research ethics are complicated. But speaking of mice..." She pulled up another photo, this one showing tiny plastic containers stacked floor to ceiling. "This is from a reptile food supplier. Each box has a living mouse inside, barely room to turn around."

Amanda leaned in, squinting at the image. Her hand moved unconsciously to her throat. "My Katie has two hamsters. She'd cry for days if she saw this." She swallowed hard. "They're God's creatures too, aren't they? Even the little ones."

Elizabeth reached into her bag, movements unhurried. The pamphlet she withdrew was crisp, professional – nothing like the photocopied manifestos of her past. "There's a sanctuary just outside town. They do good work, faithful work."

Amanda studied the pamphlet's cover, her earlier anger transformed into something softer, more purposeful. "My church group... they might want to hear about this." Through the coffee shop window, winter sunlight caught the edge of her cup, casting a warm glow across the table where two women sat, finding unexpected common ground in the spaces between their differences.


Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus
Relevant opportunities