I love how you have given different routes to challenge it:
Is it even legal in the EU? (I suspect they will have this covered).
Is it as effective as they claim? Is it competitive with alternative routes?
The core of my role is to evaluate this. But you have given me some additional doubts to question their proposal.
On the other hand, these are very credible experts on bioprocessing and biotechnology in general, so it is unlikely that they are making stupid claims (because they know that they will be checked) or proposing things that are unfeasible.
(I will re-study their proposal with the help of your insights to see if I identify any of the typical flaws you identify).
Insect sentience. My idea is to frame this more as a PR risk - I can mention it as an ethical risk in and of itself, but I think it's more impactful to say "how will you react if people cite the New York declaration on Animal Consciousness and claim you are inflicting pain and suffering on millions of innocent insects?"
The invasive point is also interesting. I can see people developing a NIMBY mentality towards that.
I have not read all the links you posted, but I will try to before the final evaluation.
For those working on diet-change, this is a wonderful example. Perspective on this is that Belgium is not like California.
There is not a strong vegan movement like in India - this is just a cool city with a strong beer and party culture and a great university.
But this one city has made some amazing progress on diet-change that we could all learn from.
What I find interesting about this: This was all achieved without any pressure or guilt. Nobody is being asked to become vegan. There are no vegans looking disapprovingly at anyone eating meat.
People are just being shown the positives, in a positive way "Look at all the amazing, tasty vegan food out there, I bet you didn't know it was that good!" Then they get the feel-good factor of knowing they're also helping improve the world, lower climate impact, less animal suffering - and it's cool and it's all a positive experience.
Schoolchildren are being exposed to vegan dishes, but not in a political, activist way - nothing that will get parents rebelling. it's all positive. It results in lots of places having vegan options they didn't have before - no pressure to choose them, but many people do. And eventually, many of these people may become vegans. And even if they don't, they will probably consume a lot less meat.
I am obviously not aware of what's happening elsewhere, but this feels like a real win/win approach that could work in any city. Because it's fun, it's exciting, it's novel, it's different. And, as a bonus, it also helps reduce animal suffering.
Good point about overheads. I suppose what I had in mind was maybe closer to a part-time work as a contractor / consultant - so no overheads. It's a way for the senior person to be able to choose to work for a low salary for an impactful charity while maybe earning more on non-NGO work.
Nice article about the maze - I worked in one of those once :(
Absolutely, thanks for pointing this out! Those long words beginning with A - I wouldn't mind, but I have a whole folder in my email about "alternative proteins" ... I will fix this now ...
I wrote an article and the EA Forum server crashed and the whole text was lost ... but now it is miraculously back again. If anyone was involved in sorting this, THANK YOU!
This highlights the massive importance of EA's grasping this moment where we are a bit in the spotlight and using it to gain credibility as a dependable and thorough source of accurate information about AI Safety.
We need the right people to be taking, or at least informing the decisions about AI Safety and Alignment over the next few decades. The AI and LessWrong communities would be ideal. We need to have a world where nobody will take a vital policy decision about AI Safety if it is strongly opposed by the EA community, because we have proven to be prescient in the past, and we have a deep understanding of the subject matter.
This is not the time for weirdness. As more magazines like the Economist profile the EA movement, we need to ensure that they don't get to focus on the arguments that they find ridiculous, be that longtermism or AI sentience or shrimp welfare. Not because these arguments are not important, not because EA's are wrong, but because right now the most important thing may be "do not appear weird!" and also "do not give those who disagree with us easy ways to discount our arguments."
If you want a role-model for how not to do this: We have a president in the US who has probably done more harm to EA-supported causes than any human being in history because some morons in the Democratic party insisted that trans-women should be allowed to compete in high-level women's sports - an issue that probably impacted less than 5 people, each of whom now suffer much more under this administration. Somebody needed to tell them to shut the fuck up, at least until after the election, because FOX news was running this story every night to prove that Democrats were a threat to women. We need to think the same way - when there are things that 99% of the public think are weird, let's not allow our movement to be defined by them so that people can say "yes, the EA's say we're not ready to unpause yet, but aren't they the guys who say that we should take decisions based on the welfare of machines on other planets thousands of years from now rather than what's good for people today?" (yes, they will misrepresent arguments too, of course).
We need to stick to the script: EA's are people who care intensely about people, about animals, about humanity, who devote their lives to helping people in very poor countries or to averting animal suffering, who study risks to humanity and think deeply about what we need to do to avert them - who have been consistently proven right - on poverty and development, on climate, on AI ...
I know this is very anti-EA mentality. But I'm not talking about internal EA discussions. I'm talking about when EA representatives (and this is another vital point: we NEED EA representatives, people who are chosen by the EA community to speak for us, so that journalists cannot just talk to random people and claim their views are representative).
I'm a member of Pause AI, and I find it super valuable to have all the arguments that I (presumably should) disagree with clearly stated to give me pause for thought.
We do this far too little.
I still think we should pause (at least, after one quick read-through), but I also think that if we pause, we need to look at each argument like this seriously to find solutions or mitigations.
IMHO the world has to make Alternative Protein work - for animals, for climate, for poverty, for nutrition. It is the win/win/win/win solution we all need.
I am still deeply frustrated by the lack of political support - especially compared to the massive support given to farmers which makes it far from a level playing-field even trying to reach parity.
When I worked on direct air capture of CO2, there was always an analogous discussion of whether the (or a) technology could work, could be industrialised, could be price-competitive (in that case, with the projected price/tonne of carbon trading markets). The technology is so far from maturity, and the scale needed is so massive that it's difficult to predict accurately from experience or first principles.
But there was a very interesting analysis which I saw presented by Katrien Sievert, in which they predicted likely rates of technological evolution and cost-reduction based on the complexity involved. For example, solar panels could be rapidly improved by one "invention" (e.g. a more efficient surface that could absorb light efficiently at two different energies), so it was realistic to see efficiency increasing and price / kWh dropping rapidly. On the other hand, for a mature and complex technology (e.g. a plane engine), it wasn't obvious that one simple invention could suddenly improve efficiency or reduce cost - rather it would require a suite of inventions.
I wonder would an analogous analysis make sense for cultivated protein, to get a realistic idea of possible timelines, but also maybe to identify the most promising route for massive scaling and cost-reduction. Or would you say that the technology is already mature enough to be past this stage?
I would love to see a JFK-like commitment to this - by 2040 at least half the world will feed itself a nutritious diet rich in meat and fish, without having to kill any animals - allied with a genuine commitment to make it happen. I love that people like you keep pushing the narrative (which I also fully believe) that this is fully technically within reach, and lacking only the political will to make it happen - ideally sooner rather than later.
A tiny minority of vegans seem to give non-vegans who don't care about animals a pass, but to put a lot of energy into finding fault with people who work to improve animal-welfare but are not vegans.
I find this attitude both misguided and counter-productive.
I think there a many people who, if veganism did not exist, would work in animal-charities, but who today would feel to embarrassed to do so without being vegan. (I would feel that way!) Ultimately, it is the animals who suffer because of this.
I really like the mentality of FarmKind, who, among other great things they do, have created a calculator which enables non-vegans (like me) to estimated the donation I would need to make to enable me to have an overall net-positive impact on animal welfare.
I think vegans are deeply admirable - despite their claims to the contrary, it is not easy, there are sacrifices, even if there is also the moral clarity that comes from feeling that you live your principles.
I believe, as the post says, that the world is not moving towards veganism, BUT that there are win/win solutions out there that we can all fight for. From the short term fight for the welfare of factory-farm animals, to the long-term vision of alternative protein so that you can eat meat & fish without any animals having to suffer - so that we'd all become vegans by default. As a chemical engineer, I'm really excited by the potential of this technology to change the world, and frustrated by the low level of attention it receives, and especially by the way that our lobbyist-driven governments give massive subsidies to factory-farms while actively creating obstacles for alternative protein.
Thank you, Tom, this is fantastic !
I love how you have given different routes to challenge it:
I have not read all the links you posted, but I will try to before the final evaluation.
Really appreciate the time you put into this!
Cheers
Denis
For those working on diet-change, this is a wonderful example. Perspective on this is that Belgium is not like California.
There is not a strong vegan movement like in India - this is just a cool city with a strong beer and party culture and a great university.
But this one city has made some amazing progress on diet-change that we could all learn from.
What I find interesting about this: This was all achieved without any pressure or guilt. Nobody is being asked to become vegan. There are no vegans looking disapprovingly at anyone eating meat.
People are just being shown the positives, in a positive way "Look at all the amazing, tasty vegan food out there, I bet you didn't know it was that good!" Then they get the feel-good factor of knowing they're also helping improve the world, lower climate impact, less animal suffering - and it's cool and it's all a positive experience.
Schoolchildren are being exposed to vegan dishes, but not in a political, activist way - nothing that will get parents rebelling. it's all positive. It results in lots of places having vegan options they didn't have before - no pressure to choose them, but many people do. And eventually, many of these people may become vegans. And even if they don't, they will probably consume a lot less meat.
I am obviously not aware of what's happening elsewhere, but this feels like a real win/win approach that could work in any city. Because it's fun, it's exciting, it's novel, it's different. And, as a bonus, it also helps reduce animal suffering.
Veggie Thursdays and vegan surprises! How Ghent became a plant-based paradise | Food | The Guardian
Thank you to people who have DM'd me some great information about this!
Good point about overheads. I suppose what I had in mind was maybe closer to a part-time work as a contractor / consultant - so no overheads. It's a way for the senior person to be able to choose to work for a low salary for an impactful charity while maybe earning more on non-NGO work.
Nice article about the maze - I worked in one of those once :(
Absolutely, thanks for pointing this out! Those long words beginning with A - I wouldn't mind, but I have a whole folder in my email about "alternative proteins" ... I will fix this now ...
I wrote an article and the EA Forum server crashed and the whole text was lost ... but now it is miraculously back again. If anyone was involved in sorting this, THANK YOU!
This highlights the massive importance of EA's grasping this moment where we are a bit in the spotlight and using it to gain credibility as a dependable and thorough source of accurate information about AI Safety.
We need the right people to be taking, or at least informing the decisions about AI Safety and Alignment over the next few decades. The AI and LessWrong communities would be ideal. We need to have a world where nobody will take a vital policy decision about AI Safety if it is strongly opposed by the EA community, because we have proven to be prescient in the past, and we have a deep understanding of the subject matter.
This is not the time for weirdness. As more magazines like the Economist profile the EA movement, we need to ensure that they don't get to focus on the arguments that they find ridiculous, be that longtermism or AI sentience or shrimp welfare. Not because these arguments are not important, not because EA's are wrong, but because right now the most important thing may be "do not appear weird!" and also "do not give those who disagree with us easy ways to discount our arguments."
If you want a role-model for how not to do this: We have a president in the US who has probably done more harm to EA-supported causes than any human being in history because some morons in the Democratic party insisted that trans-women should be allowed to compete in high-level women's sports - an issue that probably impacted less than 5 people, each of whom now suffer much more under this administration. Somebody needed to tell them to shut the fuck up, at least until after the election, because FOX news was running this story every night to prove that Democrats were a threat to women. We need to think the same way - when there are things that 99% of the public think are weird, let's not allow our movement to be defined by them so that people can say "yes, the EA's say we're not ready to unpause yet, but aren't they the guys who say that we should take decisions based on the welfare of machines on other planets thousands of years from now rather than what's good for people today?" (yes, they will misrepresent arguments too, of course).
We need to stick to the script: EA's are people who care intensely about people, about animals, about humanity, who devote their lives to helping people in very poor countries or to averting animal suffering, who study risks to humanity and think deeply about what we need to do to avert them - who have been consistently proven right - on poverty and development, on climate, on AI ...
I know this is very anti-EA mentality. But I'm not talking about internal EA discussions. I'm talking about when EA representatives (and this is another vital point: we NEED EA representatives, people who are chosen by the EA community to speak for us, so that journalists cannot just talk to random people and claim their views are representative).
Great post!
I'm a member of Pause AI, and I find it super valuable to have all the arguments that I (presumably should) disagree with clearly stated to give me pause for thought.
We do this far too little.
I still think we should pause (at least, after one quick read-through), but I also think that if we pause, we need to look at each argument like this seriously to find solutions or mitigations.
Thank you for posting this!
This is great, and I love Ula's build below.
IMHO the world has to make Alternative Protein work - for animals, for climate, for poverty, for nutrition. It is the win/win/win/win solution we all need.
I am still deeply frustrated by the lack of political support - especially compared to the massive support given to farmers which makes it far from a level playing-field even trying to reach parity.
When I worked on direct air capture of CO2, there was always an analogous discussion of whether the (or a) technology could work, could be industrialised, could be price-competitive (in that case, with the projected price/tonne of carbon trading markets). The technology is so far from maturity, and the scale needed is so massive that it's difficult to predict accurately from experience or first principles.
But there was a very interesting analysis which I saw presented by Katrien Sievert, in which they predicted likely rates of technological evolution and cost-reduction based on the complexity involved. For example, solar panels could be rapidly improved by one "invention" (e.g. a more efficient surface that could absorb light efficiently at two different energies), so it was realistic to see efficiency increasing and price / kWh dropping rapidly. On the other hand, for a mature and complex technology (e.g. a plane engine), it wasn't obvious that one simple invention could suddenly improve efficiency or reduce cost - rather it would require a suite of inventions.
I wonder would an analogous analysis make sense for cultivated protein, to get a realistic idea of possible timelines, but also maybe to identify the most promising route for massive scaling and cost-reduction. Or would you say that the technology is already mature enough to be past this stage?
I would love to see a JFK-like commitment to this - by 2040 at least half the world will feed itself a nutritious diet rich in meat and fish, without having to kill any animals - allied with a genuine commitment to make it happen. I love that people like you keep pushing the narrative (which I also fully believe) that this is fully technically within reach, and lacking only the political will to make it happen - ideally sooner rather than later.
Considering technology characteristics to project future costs of direct air capture - ScienceDirect
A tiny minority of vegans seem to give non-vegans who don't care about animals a pass, but to put a lot of energy into finding fault with people who work to improve animal-welfare but are not vegans.
I find this attitude both misguided and counter-productive.
I think there a many people who, if veganism did not exist, would work in animal-charities, but who today would feel to embarrassed to do so without being vegan. (I would feel that way!) Ultimately, it is the animals who suffer because of this.
I really like the mentality of FarmKind, who, among other great things they do, have created a calculator which enables non-vegans (like me) to estimated the donation I would need to make to enable me to have an overall net-positive impact on animal welfare.
I think vegans are deeply admirable - despite their claims to the contrary, it is not easy, there are sacrifices, even if there is also the moral clarity that comes from feeling that you live your principles.
I believe, as the post says, that the world is not moving towards veganism, BUT that there are win/win solutions out there that we can all fight for. From the short term fight for the welfare of factory-farm animals, to the long-term vision of alternative protein so that you can eat meat & fish without any animals having to suffer - so that we'd all become vegans by default. As a chemical engineer, I'm really excited by the potential of this technology to change the world, and frustrated by the low level of attention it receives, and especially by the way that our lobbyist-driven governments give massive subsidies to factory-farms while actively creating obstacles for alternative protein.