The Daily Show did a segment on EA and Shrimp Welfare Project

I quite liked this! I thought the part where the environmental advocate was like "well actually I do think animal suffering is important" was kind of hilarious + wholesome, and also I admire them for being willing to agree here despite their other reservations about EA. <3

Nice job @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla 🔸 and all! Proud to be a part of the "we look at numbers + care about shrimp" club :)

I kinda like that we’re back (so back?) to “a new movement called effective altruism”.

Props to @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla 🔸 for dealing with the razzing. Enduring people’s incredulous reactions is an important part of the work and you did a fantastic job being patient and earnest.

This is one of the most useful videos about effective altrutism I've seen. The humor is on point and accessable with zero preachiness! Can't believe both this and Rutger were on the Daly show in the last week.

In the last week I feel that "generally shareable" EA content has had a huge boost.

Of course they're going for the easy jokes. It's a comedy show. I'm glad EA is getting more widespread, mainstream exposure.

I asked a friend for his opinion — he’s very supportive of EA ideas and familiar with them, but not directly involved in the community. He said:

It’s funny and well done enough to go viral, and people are influenced by what others think — something funny and cool makes everything behind it seem cooler too. It also goes against the potentially boring / patronizing / nerdy vibe that’s probably the first impression someone gets if they don’t know anything about the topic (especially if they’re not into science). So I’d say it’s psychologically much more impactful than trying to “raise awareness” in a classic way.

Shrimp aren’t seen as sentient enough in people’s minds for a quick two-minute marketing stunt to make them reconsider their views.

I think this is a really good way to market it.

Nice job, @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla 🔸! Just curious if you've seen an increase in donations after this video was posted?

Maybe this is good publicity for EA, but I doubt that it will increase donations for shrimp much. It portrayed the issue as "not totally crazy" but definitely not "really important", which is what most (more rational) people care about in their donations. I'd expect that only those who are already very EA-minded and care a lot about neglectedness would jump directly from this to donating.

I think the framing of the first half was perfect, incredulous and funny, but I think the second half missed a chance at turning that initial reaction into reflection while still avoiding being preachy. With very small tweaks, like removing the visual of Ronny eating them at the end (but still saying "we can eat them"), I think it could have toed that line better. Or, there could have been a foil to Ronny (beyond the journalist), so that Ronny could have acted even more dismissive.

From a broader view, I wonder how we can answer effect size questions about other tweaks, because it some sense it's just speculation. Regardless, big win.

Nice analogy — it reminded me of Futurama’s “The Problem with Popplers.” This is a good effort. Inviting skeptical scrutiny is the right move, and admirable, kudos. 

This Daily Show 'bit' will not surely increase concerns and donations for shrimp. People are unlikely to believe that the shrimp welfare project is even real.

Chieng: So you decided to dedicate all your time and money into saving the lives of shrimp...
Zorrilla: Not quite. We're actually working to reduce the suffering when they die...
Chieng: So after all your work is done, they still die?
Zorrilla: Yes, less painfully.
Chieng: How did you make this even stupider?

Chieng has made an excellent and arguably bulletproof observation with his rhetorical question.

Even if the numbers of shrimp being killed is larger than fish, chickens, cows, pigs, the idea that skipping over the effort to prevent their death and focusing on reducing their suffering when they die does not have any merit.

The simple thought experiment is: you are a shrimp. A human with a dollar is nearby. Do you, as a shrimp, want the person to spend that dollar on possibly preventing your death? Or do you, as a shrimp, want that person to instead spend that dollar to possibly make you suffer less when you die?

What we have here is that the person who cares is making and funding a machine for not preventing death, but rather, funding a machine to reduce suffering before an inevitable death.

What am I missing, @Andres Jimenez Zorrilla 🔸 ?