OOO from Dec 23 to Jan 13.
Hello! I'm Toby. I'm Content Manager at CEA. I work with the Online Team to make sure the Forum is a great place to discuss doing the most good we can. You'll see me posting a lot, authoring the EA Newsletter and curating Forum Digests, making moderator comments and decisions, and more.
Before working at CEA, I studied Philosophy at the University of Warwick, and worked for a couple of years on a range of writing and editing projects within the EA space. Recently I helped run the Amplify Creative Grants program, to encourage more impactful podcasting and YouTube projects. You can find a bit of my own creative output on my blog, and my podcast feed.
Reach out to me if you're worried about your first post, want to double check Forum norms, or are confused or curious about anything relating to the EA Forum.
Awesome! Good luck on all of the above.
I'm guessing that you have, but have you listened to bio(un)ethical? It's more on bioethics than on biorisk, but it might be interesting to you if you are thinking of making a podcast which aims to explain bio topics.
Related to EA, I'd like to:
Unrelated to EA, I'd like to:
Just finished- it turns out I had less left on my 10% trial pledge than I thought, so I gave a bit extra.
Most went to the Humane League UK appeal earlier this year, I gave $500 to the EA Forum Donation Election, and I just gave £400 to the EA Animal Welfare Fund.
PS- Are donations tax deductible in the UK (Besides giftaid)? I've been operating on the assumption that they aren't, but if they were, I could give more.
So pleased to see this! Please update us on the next steps when you know about them. (Though I understand that sometimes it is better not to share details about legal cases).
Specifically, I'm wondering: does the judge agreeing with the key argument open up other potential legal cases, for example? If DEFRA's labelling scheme became a reality, would that mean they'd have to make statements about the wellbeing of Frankenchickens?
From the rest of the comments, it looks as if I misunderstood this line: "The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK." I.e., it looks as if it should be rephrased to "solely because of how they have been bred", still a good thing, but not the home run I was hoping for.
I really appreciated clarification from @JBentham (this is particularly helpful), and the pushback on the content of the post from @Habryka, @VettedCauses and others!