I don't donate to any "EA" animal welfare charities, but I 100% support vegan advocacy; about a quarter of my donations go to Vegan Outreach. 

I'm all for having the good data backing up various interventions. But stepping back, killing sentient animals unnecessarily for taste preference is morally indefensible. The easiest way to solve this problem is to reduce demand.

Sometimes the simple and obvious answers are the ones worth investing in.

I know this is likely an unpopular view, but what makes the human species so precious? Going back in evolutionary time, what if Neanderthals or T. rex or even jellyfish decided they were the pinnacle of evolution and closed the door behind them?

I'm not saying I want humans to go extinct, but it is speciesist to say we are as good as it gets and halt the process of natural selection. 

This dropdown is clipped for me in Chrome on my laptop. I can't read the full text of the options

The other major problems with trying to calculate your way to a neat and orderly table of "the best" interventions:

1. There is no single absolute objective perspective on value weights. Just listen to conversations at EAG or in the forum. There will never be full consensus on the value of a quadrillion crustaceans vs. billions of mammals, or on the value of future sentient beings vs. current ones.
2. Preferences matter. And in fact, a diversity of preferences is essential. If we only used the final ranking, in the extreme case we devote 100% of our resources to Program A. But not everyone is passionate about A, and the world probably can not handle the capacity for everyone to productively contribute to A. So we need people to have a preference for all projects, even and especially those further down the list so we have reasonable coverage of interventions across the entire problem space.

For some, spending can be a soothing activity, but being a shopaholic is harmful, like many other addictions. The hole most people are trying to fill with any addiction: a lack of strong, close, healthy relationships. You must have at least one relationship (and ideally 3–5 according to Dunbar) where you can regularly be vulnerable and talk about all your feelings. If you don’t, work on that 😇 You can start with therapy or a support group to help you build up your skills. That's what I did, since I didn't learn this in my family of origin.

Good.store showed the Profit for Good model works (100% of profits go to charity). They continued to grow, expanding from coffee, socks, and soap into tea, undies, and cleaning products. The big milestone in 2025: they opened the maternal health center in Sierra Leone.

I bring it up because I think anyone who cares about being compassionate and effective (you 😇) should consider voting for maternal health in Africa over contributing to the profits of large international conglomerates.

I was responding to the No space for sinners section above, where the author claims the opposite.
 

Is Barack Obama black? Technically, no; he is bi-racial. But he identifies as black, and most people—when asked—would say he is black (Wikipedia concurs).

I think veganism should be treated the same way. You don't have to be 100% perfect for you or others to consider you vegan.

Being pedantic about definitions does not help reduce suffering, IMO.

They all touch on mental health interventions in some way.

Maybe your belief is that if enough people "at the top" of EA agree to this, they can influence a majority of the EA community to follow. My sense is that EAs are more independent freethinkers than most other groups, so I don't think this scenario is likely.

Given that, what you're proposing is essentially relabeling the current set of "EAs who care about animal welfare" to "EA". A few EAs who aren't already in this camp might follow you over, but on the whole I strongly suspect this would alienate everyone else who doesn't sign up for this worldview, and it would just fracture the community.