Do we also have a reference for what numbers are typically good in other interventions?

But AGI provides a clear mechanism of erosion of democracy (as a country you need less of your population) and a destabilising wave due to the difference in capabilities of countries.

I’m pretty confident the EA community is underdiscussing on how to prevent global AGI powered autocracy, especially if the US democracy implodes under AGI pressure. There are two key questions here: (I) How to make the US more resilient, and (ii) how can we make the world less dependent on the US democracy resilience.

I don't know what SAD means, probably worth defining it early on in the post.

I agree. A reason why it may be easier is that the average age of farmers is high, close to 60. This may be sufficiently high, and population sufficiently small, that standard national support schemes could bear with it.

On alternative proteins: I think the EA community could aim to figure out how to turn animal farmers into winners if we succeed with alternative proteins. This seems to be one of the largest social risks, and it's probably something we should figure out before we scale alternative proteins a lot. Farmers are typically a small group but have a large lobby ability and public sympathy.

I have thought about it for a few minutes, and while I agree with all you say -- talking to people from advocates "in their own camp" will certainly lower the social cost -- it will still frame refraining from animal consumption as a cost. I think it would make change much easier if going vegan provided back something people sought, not just moral satisfaction. Those things can be money, pleasure, social status... but I think we need to provide something back; and something they want.

Thanks for your comment Tobias! I read and enjoy your Substack a lot

However, having been in the animal/vegan movement for a few decades, it doesn't strike me that the approaches you mention haven't been tried. Both companies and NGOs have been trying to make all things veg cool for a long time...

Probably you are right, I am fairly new to the area. This is probably more visible for companies than NGOs, though.

I think many believed that this approach might be sufficient until, say, five years ago (until Beyond Meat crashed and all).

Clay Christensen's framework suggests an important problem with focusing on plant-based burgers is that they are essentially a (hopefully indistinguishable) replacement, which would mean they are attacking the incumbent's core markets and value proposition and thus would be categorised as sustaining rather than disruptive innovation. This makes it hard to displace incumbents. But many experts have surely considered this and many other considerations long ago.

I still think the issues are social to a very great extent, but maybe they have become more ideological and identity related still, to the extent that they can't be solved in the way you suggest?

The average person that I know who has not been in touch with the animal welfare movement does not seem to place much of their identity in relation to meat. There is certainly some social consensus that is sympathetic to farmers and people living in rural areas more generally, as they would be with, e.g., doctors. This is where most farmers seem to draw their political power from, but I think this is distinct from most individual identities because animal welfare is a low saliency issue. In fact, I would argue that climate change is much more ideological and identity-related.

I don't have any insight, but what you are proposing looks good to test out, perhaps starting small and validating the hypothesis.

What would be the motivation? Is writing a good skill to have and thus merits practising?