Interesting. Thanks for your comments.
In the meantime, I would treat the constitution component in the piece as a metaphor to illustrate the idea of lock-in for a general audience.
Why then do you think there are fewer amendments overtime?
I’d certainly write the constitution differently (why doesn’t it mention welfare for insects, for example?), but I more take it to mean that numerous amendments were required to make it moral, and still many more are needed.
Interesting post. Just want to chime in with a comment that I think you’re overconfident in cell-cultured meat (though I don’t blame you—there’s been a lot of boostermism). It’s possible it won’t reach price parity and be a real contender in the marketplace. We have to try, and time will tell.
Where have you been all my life? We are thinking similarly, and I’m glad you are raising these topics and added nuance/wisdom/data to them. I wrote a related piece for Fast Company a while back: https://www.fastcompany.com/90599561/once-we-have-lab-grown-meat-will-we-still-need-animal-advocacy.
Well articulated. Thanks for adding this.
I think we should have a lot of uncertainty about the future. For example:
There could be a high percentage of digital people but some non-digital people, and so animals still matter.
Digital people might cause suffering to digital animals.
We could treat digital people as terribly as we do animals.
Others have written about these ideas here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/non-humans-and-the-long-term-future.
Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for your comment. Are there any actions the EA community can take to help the AI Safety community prioritize animal welfare and take more seriously the idea that there are S-risks downstream or human values?