At the end of the day the ceiling for how much you can change without touching the core, the ethics, is limited. I don't think that ceiling is that high, because interests collide and the interests of animals and humans are not just going to magically align due to new technology. 

The big thing I think we are missing, well, one of them, is getting people to act for farmed animals, (not only for welfare reforms but also more "radical" activism), into a community, regardless of what they eat. What you said, Bruce, "I don't care what you eat", that is a good thing to say from an alternative protein promotion perspective, but also for (some, not all) animal rights advocacy perspective. "I want you (the meat eater) with us in this ethical fight" - sending a letter to the mayor or senator, protesting, voting, aligning careers to animal's interests, and much more. EAs are well positioned to do this work, and this is where the animal right movement has failed. I think we never made non-vegans feel welcome, at home, in our activities.  

imo truth (which I find extremely important) has value as so far as it is an experience or relating affecting experience. Same with variety, and consciousness is the basis for experience. So as far as those things are at the individual level, they exist and have meaning, but there is no meaning to this as far as it is viewed not at the individual level, e.g. variety between lives (unaware of each other) , truth as viewed from above by some god (though from a practical perspective it is good and wise that we value truth this way).

I agree morality like rights is not something that exists outside experience, nothing does (or nothing meaningful does, I use the word exist only for experiences), but as far as morality is a thought experiment we use to better experiences, that is a useful tool

Thanks for putting your thoughts in detail about all this! For me it comes down to the question: Is there any value in something that doesn't exist? I think there isn't. A variety which is between lives, which is experienced by no one, doesn't exist. On the other hand when I calculate welfare and I sum them up, I am doing an operation on the welfare but I am only playing with things that really exist. I'm not adding anything fictional. I think our language in many ways promote caring for fictional not existing things. imo this is a philosophical mistake. We should only care about reality. 

Thanks Tristan. I agree local branding has a big advantage for urban animals. The global org is there for the other half: research, and helping with collaboration, community, and connections between the local groups. It could also do some local interventions itself, based on its research and for a specific global purpose, in partnership with a local org. I think that is something to try and figure out later rather than decide now. Many global non-profits have local chapters too.

Thanks so much Cat! I will add this to the post, I see Wild Animal Initiative are funding many urban animal related studies . 

What do you think about the branding of urban animals vs wild animals? do you see more gains in urban animals being inside the wild animals field, having their own "branding", or perhaps both? 
And where should we "put" the animals that are somewhere on the spectrum between urban and wild

I agree cities seems like a very high potential grounds for effective interventions for EA people

Thanks for the post, this is SO CRUCIAL!

Sounds like a great idea to me!

Do we need a yearly strategy paper of the EA movement?

I think Ethical co-evolution of humanity and AI is a very interesting concept, that on the one hand points out to humans staying in control and not handing over power and knowldge of what is "right" to AI, but on the other hand willing to learn and develop, understanding we are shortsighted when it comes to morality, and also may have a lot to learn from AI!