Quick comment: in most questions, they totally ignore fish and invertebrates. On "other" I am adding these examples. For instance: 7. To what extent should imports of animal products comply with equivalent animal welfare standards to those applied in the EU? Other > free text
More ideas for internships and on-site experiences: Actually, working for a politician is one particular idea I hadn´t thought of! Internships in political parties with a strong animal rights department would be a good option too. A long shot, but maybe also universities, some young people might be thinking of whether academia and research is a good fit for them, and having a short period of time in a lab or following a researcher would be helpful. I will keep brainstorming.
Regarding remote jobs I might have been looking for narrow type of jobs that offer remote options but only within a country, or a metropolitan area. For instance: most EU-related jobs (I am a lawyer specialised in EU law) lead to Brussels´s metropolitan area.
What I have also observed is that the tag "remote" on job offers is not as remote as it seems regardless of the branch (sales, marketing, compliance, operations). For instance, today in Tälist I found this remote job but only for Austria and Bavaria, or this 100% remote job in Poland. In the AAC´s job board today, this remote job only within Italy, or this job that once you go to the actual job post is Hybrid and based in New York. Of course I understand it´s hard for organizations managing job boards to check every single job post and remove "remote" for the jobs that aren´t so remote as they seem, or they might not want to limit the job results by asking the users to choose their country or city.
On the Alt-Proteins world, which is the other career path I have been considering during 2024: Tälist´s report summarizes this on page 14. "b. REMOTE POLICIES The job board data reveals that nearly 27% of job postings are hybrid roles. Fully remote positions, however, represent only 4.5% of the total postings. In contrast, on-site roles dominate the landscape, making up approximately 69% of all job listings, indicating a strong preference among employers for in-person work environments." From: Tälist’s Alt. Protein Career & Hiring Report , Data-Driven Insights on the Global Talent and Job Market (Oct. 2024) . This report can be received per email after logging in to Tälist. I don´t like that it´s not easy to share, but here it goes if anyone needs the data or the source: https://altprotein.jobs/career-hiring-report?s=gfi .
In the handful of coaching and 1-to-1 advice sessions I have had with Animal advocacy charities one of the first questions has always been: are you open to relocate? But this might be changing quickly, and that will make me VERY happy.
Going back to the original worry: I see how, on the one hand, an increase in remote jobs would support your fears or a fragmented movement. But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
→ Edition: Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game? Any historian who can help :) ?
Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
I actually considered moving from technical support to sales in the same company, thinking of the earning to give approach. I imagined I would develop skills that can transfer to other industries, and gradually lead to marketing, or UX for product landing pages, product management... (these might not be better paid, depending on the product, most definitely not better paid).
The personal fit bit stopped me. I am a problem solver and prefer projects (even if short term). I can't read people's moods well and being a good salesperson would take me too long and too much effort. For "naturally" persuasive people, I think ths is perfect (keeping in mind the temptations and trying to stay away from selling harmful products). I can think of very good options in machinery, logistics solutions, transportation, agriculture. Not only software.
For industries with a handful of well known competitors, there's another way to keep your salary high even if you don't hit the targets always. Your ex-employee won't like you moving to another provider and explaining potential buyers the weaknesses of their products, which you know very well. I see this at work, we have ex-sales reps from competitors. Before you smell that they might fire you, or change your position to a less lucrative one, you can point to the possibility of quitting and this changes the power dynamics.
Another plus for this option is that it can easily be remote, and include loads of travelling to conferences, fairs and events. Plus there's no need for a degree. It's a very low risk career change or career path. Plenty of companies offer sales jobs and many train you very well. I can't be sure but I don't think AI will wipe out salespeople. When it comes to money, you want someone to blame and point with your finger when a sales promise wasn't fulfilled. Especially with expensive services and products, personal trust is crucial. You can't afford failing in the first impressions.
It's true that it rarely comes as a prestigious career but we can always change the game rules. Recently, I read and listened to ferry operators who felt super accomplished for bringing staples to the island where otherwise how would people live and buy groceries? And the truck driver feeling that her job was super important because all the people who go to the shop and can find the goddies that wouldn't be there otherwise. (Yes some of those goodies are probably causing teeth to rot and obesity but you have the veggies and grains as well).
And if one day you can retire and be a full time EA, sales skills are perfect for finding donors, lobbying... !
I only feel that the fear about a lack of in-site organizations might not be realistic. If that was the case, most job offers would be remote and Animal Advocacy Careers's reports have consistently covered that most jobs are not remote. The Good Food Institute reaches a similar conclusion, only this includes for-profit organisations. I wonder, where does this hunch (or knowledge) about organisations being remote come from? I would like to know more as I have been under the impression that I have to move all my life (again) for such a job since the remote options seem scarce.
I would add public institutions to the mix. Internships in regional / federal governments, or international organisations. They tend to have already good systems to run internships.
Thank your for sharing your honest and detailed career path! Full of bends, unexpected rocks, steep hikes...
Only could you if possible elaborate on your transition to IT/tech? You mentioned that you applied for jobs as data analyst.
Did you start learning coding, data analysis, DevOps...? IT is extremely wide and I also think that nobody should be scared of giving it a try because there's always a niche they will enjoy. How was your experience and what branch of IT have you focused on?
The exercise purposefully asks us to ignore any "loopholes", and focus on the dilemma of either saving 100 people now or saving >1000 in the future. What would you choose being these the only 2 choices? What you suggest opens the door to saving everyone, however, the exercise doesn´t include this third option.
The 100 people living today, whoever is responsible for this toxic waste, can´t make thousands of people in 200 years pay for this mistake. It is wrong to bury the toxic waste and save people now if we are sure that this will cause even more deaths in 200 years for 2 reasons:
a) the number of people affected.
b) the lack of decision power and choice that the affected people have.
Logically speaking, it makes no sense to think differently if the leak were to happen in 2000 years and kill thousands of people, however, here I wouldn´t be so confident in my choice. To explain why I don´t feel confident, I am forced to bend and question the premises of the experiment. I hope that in 2000 years people will be more advanced and have the means to avoid toxic waste poisoning, so admitting that in 2000 years people will die because of toxic waste buried now would mean to me that we aren´t so bright and great, and we don´t have much potential. This would radically change the way I think about so many other topics.
Saving now 100 people in hopes that, later on, humans would know what to do disregards the dilemma because this implies that nobody dies (and that´s not the case, someone will die, either a hundred or thousands). Saving now 100 people puts the weight of acting on future people´s shoulders. If we didn´t bury the waste, they wouldn´t need to find a solution for it, in the first place.
Let´s imagine that we take option A and save 100 people today in the hopes of finding a way to save thousands in 200 years. Let´s imagine that this equals 6-7 generations of people (if new babies are born every 30 days on average). This means that our grandchildren´s grandchildren would be among the possibly poisoned and killed people. Let that sink in, and now, we should focus on whether future generations will be able to react fast enough.
When is it time to start coming up with ideas to avoid or survive the leak? Is it 5 years before it happens enough? 2 months? How do they know when it will exactly happen? I wouldn´t be very confident in their ability to react in time. The second generation will trust that the third generation will come up with a solution, and the third generation will hope the same about the fourth.
Besides, why would they care? The example of their ancestors will deter them from caring enough. Why should generations 2 to 5 pay for the research and the countermeasures for a problem that they didn´t cause, and won´t suffer? We can apply the same logic to 2000 years.
2. Donating to AMF problem:
It will be fine by me. I would trust the experts and hope that inflation rates really don´t have a negative effect on the donation´s potential, and I would hope that some technology or means needed to fight malaria get cheaper and that my donation can do better in 5 years than today. I would only be worried if AMF closes down in the meantime!
I was reading the Zeitung on Sunday morning. You know that I never skip this self-care ritual of mine, and I was surprised to see your familiar face in a photo taken by a journalist in your town covering a Pro-Rasse rally. I am very supportive of you taking action about the causes that you believe righteous, and this made me ponder whether I should join your National Socialist cause in order to enable the best possible version of the homo sapiens.
I first skimmed Darwin´s Natural Selection theory. It´s indeed impressive. I see how you might be worried about spending resources on taking care of the sick and the weak because we don´t want them to have equally sick and weak offspring. We have done this with dogs even well before we developed script! I understand, why should not we do this with our own species? Good, healthy loyal dogs were fed and had offspring. Unfriendly and sick dogs weren´t fed and taken care of, and eventually, their genes died out.
What I however could not integrate into this reasoning is the argument against tanned people, people belonging to other ethnicities or having particular sexual orientations. This is why I spent my Monday afternoon in the library, reading the scientific research on the differences between Aryans and the rest of homo sapiens. In the past, scientists have made mistakes and new scientific methods and tools have proven them wrong. What if we were wrong here as well regarding which humans should be spared to secure the human species´s best possible evolution?
I could not but think of the African slaves in the US. Ancient empires also allowed slavery, but they didn´t target 1 particular race. Anyone: white, dark, short, tall, strong, or chubby could be a slave and often, slaves would buy their freedom and become citizens. I recently had the opportunity to read more about this topic. Do you know why black Africans and not any other people were enslaved by white colonizers? Apart from taking advantage of the already-existing slave trade in Africa by Europeans and the geographical closeness, of course, it wasn´t because they were inferior, quite the opposite.
White colonizers and native people were dying of diseases against which our African fellow homo sapiens had already developed resistance. So what if black Africans have evolved and are biologically better equipped than Aryans already, and whites have been wasting their precious genes by killing them with hard labour for centuries? We could have saved a lot of money trying to cure diseases for which their genes already had an antidote. It would be a shame that we didn´t interbreed earlier.
Please, consider my observations and I will be looking forward to your next letter. I hope you can give me more insight into the White Supremacy Humanist cause, taking my worries into account.
Quick comment: in most questions, they totally ignore fish and invertebrates. On "other" I am adding these examples. For instance: 7. To what extent should imports of animal products comply with equivalent animal welfare standards to those applied in the EU? Other > free text
Hey Haven! Oh so much to discuss, I love it!
More ideas for internships and on-site experiences:
Actually, working for a politician is one particular idea I hadn´t thought of! Internships in political parties with a strong animal rights department would be a good option too.
A long shot, but maybe also universities, some young people might be thinking of whether academia and research is a good fit for them, and having a short period of time in a lab or following a researcher would be helpful. I will keep brainstorming.
Regarding remote jobs
I might have been looking for narrow type of jobs that offer remote options but only within a country, or a metropolitan area. For instance: most EU-related jobs (I am a lawyer specialised in EU law) lead to Brussels´s metropolitan area.
What I have also observed is that the tag "remote" on job offers is not as remote as it seems regardless of the branch (sales, marketing, compliance, operations). For instance, today in Tälist I found this remote job but only for Austria and Bavaria, or this 100% remote job in Poland. In the AAC´s job board today, this remote job only within Italy, or this job that once you go to the actual job post is Hybrid and based in New York. Of course I understand it´s hard for organizations managing job boards to check every single job post and remove "remote" for the jobs that aren´t so remote as they seem, or they might not want to limit the job results by asking the users to choose their country or city.
On the Alt-Proteins world, which is the other career path I have been considering during 2024: Tälist´s report summarizes this on page 14. "b. REMOTE POLICIES The job board data reveals that nearly 27% of job postings are hybrid roles. Fully remote positions, however, represent only 4.5% of the total postings. In contrast, on-site roles dominate the landscape, making up approximately 69% of all job listings, indicating a strong preference among employers for in-person work environments." From: Tälist’s Alt. Protein Career & Hiring Report , Data-Driven Insights on the Global Talent and Job Market (Oct. 2024) . This report can be received per email after logging in to Tälist. I don´t like that it´s not easy to share, but here it goes if anyone needs the data or the source: https://altprotein.jobs/career-hiring-report?s=gfi .
In the handful of coaching and 1-to-1 advice sessions I have had with Animal advocacy charities one of the first questions has always been: are you open to relocate? But this might be changing quickly, and that will make me VERY happy.
Going back to the original worry:
I see how, on the one hand, an increase in remote jobs would support your fears or a fragmented movement. But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
→ Edition: Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game? Any historian who can help :) ?
Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Thank you for this analysis!
I actually considered moving from technical support to sales in the same company, thinking of the earning to give approach. I imagined I would develop skills that can transfer to other industries, and gradually lead to marketing, or UX for product landing pages, product management... (these might not be better paid, depending on the product, most definitely not better paid).
The personal fit bit stopped me. I am a problem solver and prefer projects (even if short term). I can't read people's moods well and being a good salesperson would take me too long and too much effort. For "naturally" persuasive people, I think ths is perfect (keeping in mind the temptations and trying to stay away from selling harmful products). I can think of very good options in machinery, logistics solutions, transportation, agriculture. Not only software.
For industries with a handful of well known competitors, there's another way to keep your salary high even if you don't hit the targets always. Your ex-employee won't like you moving to another provider and explaining potential buyers the weaknesses of their products, which you know very well. I see this at work, we have ex-sales reps from competitors. Before you smell that they might fire you, or change your position to a less lucrative one, you can point to the possibility of quitting and this changes the power dynamics.
Another plus for this option is that it can easily be remote, and include loads of travelling to conferences, fairs and events. Plus there's no need for a degree. It's a very low risk career change or career path. Plenty of companies offer sales jobs and many train you very well. I can't be sure but I don't think AI will wipe out salespeople. When it comes to money, you want someone to blame and point with your finger when a sales promise wasn't fulfilled. Especially with expensive services and products, personal trust is crucial. You can't afford failing in the first impressions.
It's true that it rarely comes as a prestigious career but we can always change the game rules. Recently, I read and listened to ferry operators who felt super accomplished for bringing staples to the island where otherwise how would people live and buy groceries? And the truck driver feeling that her job was super important because all the people who go to the shop and can find the goddies that wouldn't be there otherwise. (Yes some of those goodies are probably causing teeth to rot and obesity but you have the veggies and grains as well).
And if one day you can retire and be a full time EA, sales skills are perfect for finding donors, lobbying... !
Thanks Patrick!
This is a fantastic idea!
I only feel that the fear about a lack of in-site organizations might not be realistic. If that was the case, most job offers would be remote and Animal Advocacy Careers's reports have consistently covered that most jobs are not remote. The Good Food Institute reaches a similar conclusion, only this includes for-profit organisations. I wonder, where does this hunch (or knowledge) about organisations being remote come from? I would like to know more as I have been under the impression that I have to move all my life (again) for such a job since the remote options seem scarce.
I would add public institutions to the mix. Internships in regional / federal governments, or international organisations. They tend to have already good systems to run internships.
I hope I get to see this in real life!
Thank your for sharing your honest and detailed career path! Full of bends, unexpected rocks, steep hikes... Only could you if possible elaborate on your transition to IT/tech? You mentioned that you applied for jobs as data analyst. Did you start learning coding, data analysis, DevOps...? IT is extremely wide and I also think that nobody should be scared of giving it a try because there's always a niche they will enjoy. How was your experience and what branch of IT have you focused on?
The exercise purposefully asks us to ignore any "loopholes", and focus on the dilemma of either saving 100 people now or saving >1000 in the future. What would you choose being these the only 2 choices? What you suggest opens the door to saving everyone, however, the exercise doesn´t include this third option.
1. Toxic Waste Problem:
The 100 people living today, whoever is responsible for this toxic waste, can´t make thousands of people in 200 years pay for this mistake. It is wrong to bury the toxic waste and save people now if we are sure that this will cause even more deaths in 200 years for 2 reasons:
a) the number of people affected.
b) the lack of decision power and choice that the affected people have.
Logically speaking, it makes no sense to think differently if the leak were to happen in 2000 years and kill thousands of people, however, here I wouldn´t be so confident in my choice. To explain why I don´t feel confident, I am forced to bend and question the premises of the experiment. I hope that in 2000 years people will be more advanced and have the means to avoid toxic waste poisoning, so admitting that in 2000 years people will die because of toxic waste buried now would mean to me that we aren´t so bright and great, and we don´t have much potential. This would radically change the way I think about so many other topics.
Saving now 100 people in hopes that, later on, humans would know what to do disregards the dilemma because this implies that nobody dies (and that´s not the case, someone will die, either a hundred or thousands). Saving now 100 people puts the weight of acting on future people´s shoulders. If we didn´t bury the waste, they wouldn´t need to find a solution for it, in the first place.
Let´s imagine that we take option A and save 100 people today in the hopes of finding a way to save thousands in 200 years. Let´s imagine that this equals 6-7 generations of people (if new babies are born every 30 days on average). This means that our grandchildren´s grandchildren would be among the possibly poisoned and killed people. Let that sink in, and now, we should focus on whether future generations will be able to react fast enough.
When is it time to start coming up with ideas to avoid or survive the leak? Is it 5 years before it happens enough? 2 months? How do they know when it will exactly happen? I wouldn´t be very confident in their ability to react in time. The second generation will trust that the third generation will come up with a solution, and the third generation will hope the same about the fourth.
Besides, why would they care? The example of their ancestors will deter them from caring enough. Why should generations 2 to 5 pay for the research and the countermeasures for a problem that they didn´t cause, and won´t suffer? We can apply the same logic to 2000 years.
2. Donating to AMF problem:
It will be fine by me. I would trust the experts and hope that inflation rates really don´t have a negative effect on the donation´s potential, and I would hope that some technology or means needed to fight malaria get cheaper and that my donation can do better in 5 years than today. I would only be worried if AMF closes down in the meantime!
My dearest Wolfi,
I was reading the Zeitung on Sunday morning. You know that I never skip this self-care ritual of mine, and I was surprised to see your familiar face in a photo taken by a journalist in your town covering a Pro-Rasse rally. I am very supportive of you taking action about the causes that you believe righteous, and this made me ponder whether I should join your National Socialist cause in order to enable the best possible version of the homo sapiens.
I first skimmed Darwin´s Natural Selection theory. It´s indeed impressive. I see how you might be worried about spending resources on taking care of the sick and the weak because we don´t want them to have equally sick and weak offspring. We have done this with dogs even well before we developed script! I understand, why should not we do this with our own species? Good, healthy loyal dogs were fed and had offspring. Unfriendly and sick dogs weren´t fed and taken care of, and eventually, their genes died out.
What I however could not integrate into this reasoning is the argument against tanned people, people belonging to other ethnicities or having particular sexual orientations. This is why I spent my Monday afternoon in the library, reading the scientific research on the differences between Aryans and the rest of homo sapiens. In the past, scientists have made mistakes and new scientific methods and tools have proven them wrong. What if we were wrong here as well regarding which humans should be spared to secure the human species´s best possible evolution?
I could not but think of the African slaves in the US. Ancient empires also allowed slavery, but they didn´t target 1 particular race. Anyone: white, dark, short, tall, strong, or chubby could be a slave and often, slaves would buy their freedom and become citizens. I recently had the opportunity to read more about this topic. Do you know why black Africans and not any other people were enslaved by white colonizers? Apart from taking advantage of the already-existing slave trade in Africa by Europeans and the geographical closeness, of course, it wasn´t because they were inferior, quite the opposite.
White colonizers and native people were dying of diseases against which our African fellow homo sapiens had already developed resistance. So what if black Africans have evolved and are biologically better equipped than Aryans already, and whites have been wasting their precious genes by killing them with hard labour for centuries? We could have saved a lot of money trying to cure diseases for which their genes already had an antidote. It would be a shame that we didn´t interbreed earlier.
Please, consider my observations and I will be looking forward to your next letter. I hope you can give me more insight into the White Supremacy Humanist cause, taking my worries into account.
Liebe Grüße,
Your Victoria G.