Very late to the party here, but I definitely strongly agree with this constructive critique. One of the strongest reasons that corporate welfarist work has had some success in the US and EU is that those regions have very strong pre-existing land animal farming industries. So the logic of trying to make them better is defensible.
New industries, on the other hand, have extensive uncertainty. And so trying to stave off the farming all together could be a much higher "reward" endeavor than assuming it's destined to exist (e.g., see some recent wins in preemptive banning of octopus farming).
But nonetheless, I look forward to seeing this work.
Thank you so much for sharing this poetic dedication to your friend. I sadly never had the pleasure of meeting Alexa. I now wish I had. But I can tell from this heartfelt post and the website linked that they were a bright light in the dark and vast sea that the world can sometimes feel like. I love the stories you shared. Simple acts of kindness and empathy that reverberate through space and time and impact humans and non-human animals alike. No doubt that there are so many beings that will remember Alexa and their impact.
Oddly, I'm reminded of a lyric from one of my favorite albums of the last few years:
"Afraid of the empty/but too safe on the shore"
As someone who is around Alexa's age, I often feel too safe on the shore. Never fully being the kind of person that I should be. Sticking with what's familiar and comfortable. I hate to say it, but I've been the person who has walked past the unconscious man lying on the payment. I'm terrified of the empty. I've been cowardly.
Alexa seemed like the kind of person who went out into the empty, the vast sea, with a smile and big heart. And who wasn't afraid to be the kind of person that most of us will spend our entire lives trying to become (and may never reach).
Their story has affected me deeply. I look forward to processing Alexa's stories, and how they can inspire me and many others to be a little braver in the face of the open ocean of life and its challenges, and how we can do that with a little more empathy, gentleness, and compassion.
Yes, this seems accurate. I've spent some time in liberal/left spaces talking about EA with folks who highly prioritize pro-choice policy in their politics (say that 5 times fast!). If they viewed OP's arguments as being roughly synonymous with EA as a whole (it's not, but that doesn't mean the impression couldn't exist) it would be totally understandable, I think, for them to dismiss the rest of EA. "This community doesn't share my values," they might say, as bruce alludes to.
Personally, I think EA is very, very compatible with mainstream left-of-center liberalism/leftism, and, in my view, a pro-choice ethic is probably a very significant part of that. Not to say that OP's view is indefensible; it's just that I think there is a tension between their stated arguments and the broader values and politics that are the foundation of most EA's actually-existing political views.
Tentatively, I'm imagining there are a number of EAs who identify as longtermist first, and, to them, OP's argument would have some purchase. Then there's a second group who may find longtermism interesting, but they still have other commitments that they're prioritizing (liberalism, rights, leftism, social justice, global health, and so on), and they're unlikely to forsake those views in favor of a longtermist proposal that is, in a sense, pretty radical. I suspect the second group is larger than the first, but the impression that the former group is central to EA could lead to people viewing EA as not worth the time.
I think your comment is important, and I think your frustration is valid. I'm very sensitive to how EA is/can be received by non-EA folks since I've spent time in a lot of non-EA circles. Especially now that EA is in more of the public eye than it ever has been, I think there should be a real question if posts like this are worth alienating possible allies and, more broadly, contributing to an internal culture that could alienate people who can become pregnant. For probably pretty low benefit--I mean, what really are the chances that effective altruism, a largely liberal, left-of-center (i.e., pro-choice) community would broadly endorse the view that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong? And yes, sometimes arguments should be made even if they have a low chance of being persuasive/successful, but I highly doubt this is one of those cases.
I think the movement for reproductive health, freedom, and autonomy has been one of the most important social movements of the last half-century. I don't think that work should be undermined because of a shiny new utilitarian argument (OK, that comment was a little snarky, but it's legitimately how I feel). EA (I think) can and should be an ally to other justice movements.
Same. I'll reiterate what I said above: EAs may be at risk of seriously underestimating the friction that exists between animal work within and outside of EA. My worry is that if even the mention of the idea is enough to get this sort of reaction, I suspect things could get even more heated if EAs, in large numbers, were to enthusiastically support an open alliance with an industry that has a mediocre reputation. Not to mention the ways this may plausibly undermine EA's credibility with environmentalists.
Another point (although something else that I need to sit with more) is that I'm not sure EA has anything interesting to offer the beef industry. That is, they don't need EA to accomplish their goals, and we don't have any leverage whatsoever from their perspective.
Very late to the party here, but I definitely strongly agree with this constructive critique. One of the strongest reasons that corporate welfarist work has had some success in the US and EU is that those regions have very strong pre-existing land animal farming industries. So the logic of trying to make them better is defensible.
New industries, on the other hand, have extensive uncertainty. And so trying to stave off the farming all together could be a much higher "reward" endeavor than assuming it's destined to exist (e.g., see some recent wins in preemptive banning of octopus farming).
But nonetheless, I look forward to seeing this work.
Thank you so much for sharing this poetic dedication to your friend. I sadly never had the pleasure of meeting Alexa. I now wish I had. But I can tell from this heartfelt post and the website linked that they were a bright light in the dark and vast sea that the world can sometimes feel like. I love the stories you shared. Simple acts of kindness and empathy that reverberate through space and time and impact humans and non-human animals alike. No doubt that there are so many beings that will remember Alexa and their impact.
Oddly, I'm reminded of a lyric from one of my favorite albums of the last few years:
"Afraid of the empty/but too safe on the shore"
As someone who is around Alexa's age, I often feel too safe on the shore. Never fully being the kind of person that I should be. Sticking with what's familiar and comfortable. I hate to say it, but I've been the person who has walked past the unconscious man lying on the payment. I'm terrified of the empty. I've been cowardly.
Alexa seemed like the kind of person who went out into the empty, the vast sea, with a smile and big heart. And who wasn't afraid to be the kind of person that most of us will spend our entire lives trying to become (and may never reach).
Their story has affected me deeply. I look forward to processing Alexa's stories, and how they can inspire me and many others to be a little braver in the face of the open ocean of life and its challenges, and how we can do that with a little more empathy, gentleness, and compassion.
I'm so sorry for the loss of your dear friend.
Yes, this seems accurate. I've spent some time in liberal/left spaces talking about EA with folks who highly prioritize pro-choice policy in their politics (say that 5 times fast!). If they viewed OP's arguments as being roughly synonymous with EA as a whole (it's not, but that doesn't mean the impression couldn't exist) it would be totally understandable, I think, for them to dismiss the rest of EA. "This community doesn't share my values," they might say, as bruce alludes to.
Personally, I think EA is very, very compatible with mainstream left-of-center liberalism/leftism, and, in my view, a pro-choice ethic is probably a very significant part of that. Not to say that OP's view is indefensible; it's just that I think there is a tension between their stated arguments and the broader values and politics that are the foundation of most EA's actually-existing political views.
Tentatively, I'm imagining there are a number of EAs who identify as longtermist first, and, to them, OP's argument would have some purchase. Then there's a second group who may find longtermism interesting, but they still have other commitments that they're prioritizing (liberalism, rights, leftism, social justice, global health, and so on), and they're unlikely to forsake those views in favor of a longtermist proposal that is, in a sense, pretty radical. I suspect the second group is larger than the first, but the impression that the former group is central to EA could lead to people viewing EA as not worth the time.
I think your comment is important, and I think your frustration is valid. I'm very sensitive to how EA is/can be received by non-EA folks since I've spent time in a lot of non-EA circles. Especially now that EA is in more of the public eye than it ever has been, I think there should be a real question if posts like this are worth alienating possible allies and, more broadly, contributing to an internal culture that could alienate people who can become pregnant. For probably pretty low benefit--I mean, what really are the chances that effective altruism, a largely liberal, left-of-center (i.e., pro-choice) community would broadly endorse the view that terminating a pregnancy is morally wrong? And yes, sometimes arguments should be made even if they have a low chance of being persuasive/successful, but I highly doubt this is one of those cases.
I think the movement for reproductive health, freedom, and autonomy has been one of the most important social movements of the last half-century. I don't think that work should be undermined because of a shiny new utilitarian argument (OK, that comment was a little snarky, but it's legitimately how I feel). EA (I think) can and should be an ally to other justice movements.
Same. I'll reiterate what I said above: EAs may be at risk of seriously underestimating the friction that exists between animal work within and outside of EA. My worry is that if even the mention of the idea is enough to get this sort of reaction, I suspect things could get even more heated if EAs, in large numbers, were to enthusiastically support an open alliance with an industry that has a mediocre reputation. Not to mention the ways this may plausibly undermine EA's credibility with environmentalists.
Another point (although something else that I need to sit with more) is that I'm not sure EA has anything interesting to offer the beef industry. That is, they don't need EA to accomplish their goals, and we don't have any leverage whatsoever from their perspective.