I think donor matching is a good idea and this post has a great title- it got me to read the article more than once. And now I want to donate to the bonus fund but I just have one question first:

Do the non-bonus donors get to decide which charity to support within a range of charities, and if so what's in that range?

Just wanted to say thanks for your eye opening analaysis.

And I'm not surprised because Fodor relentlessly releases amazing content.

Check out his podcast if you don't believe me or just want to learn more about science.

Thanks for the recommendations!

Nice!

Does this address the odds and extent of cricket sentience?

I also tried and failed to find a good source to support his claim of screwworm prevalence (and would love further research).

Thanks for this! I think I needed to hear it

Thanks so much for your insight!

I learned a lot although I wish i would have been more clear and asked about the tractability of alternative proteins to price parity (instead of just the tractability of "promoting" them). Because:

• Plant-based milks are still more expensive (source) and maybe not as nutritious (e.g. less calcium, B12, etc.) so I think they (and many other existing products) may not be a reliable indicator of the potential of this field to make "conventional animal agriculture obsolete".
• I think their potential to replace factory farming lies in the viability of them becoming more/just as cheap, tasty, nutritious as conventical animal products but I'd love to know if you (and other experts) think that's probably a pipe dream.

I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong (although I'm sure you're very busy) and also wanted to say thanks again.

Do you think that promoting alternative proteins is (by far) the most tractable way to make conventional animal agriculture obsolete?

Do you think increasing public funding and support for alternative proteins is the most pressing challenge facing the industry?

Do you think there is expert consensus on these questions?

I liked your comment a lot, but I'm pretty sure you misunderstood a big part of the argument because there's a pretty big typo in this post.

In the original recording(4:07) Fredrich argues that advancing alternative proteins should be a significant part of longtermist thinking, but not that they're "one of the best ways at making the long-term future go well" or even "on par with AI risk or bioengineered pandemics".

But this transcript makes it seem like he is saying the opposite in the intro:

"They [alternative proteins] should be the priority..."

I think you still bring up a lot of good points though.