Great, thanks everyone so before we go into
the considerations for and against tech change
versus social change, I think we're going
to first start off with just a number of qualifications
in order to narrow down on just exactly what
we are going to be discussing.
So the first thing is for technological development,
we're just going to be constrained to food
tech, so particularly plant-based alternatives
and clean meat.
I know there're other things we could consider,
so things like virtual reality, or we could
get a lot more speculative about things like
artificial intelligence or potentially gene
editing, but we're just really not going to
go into those things.
So it's just focused on food tech, plant based
foods, and clean meat.
And I'm going to be talking about social change
advocacy, social change/advocacy, I might
use those interchangeably.
We're talking about the things that the animal
advocacy community right now thinks are priorities,
so things like strong corporate or legislative
reforms, things like personhood initiatives
to get basic rights for some species, for
some individuals of non-human species.
And possibly also work that affects society's
attitudes towards farmed animals, towards
animal farming, and towards animal farming
alternatives.
So there's a lot of range in there, this could
include supportive documentaries and non-fiction
film and television, but just assume that
we're talking about the best things in the
clean meat, plant-based food tech space and
the best things in the advocacy space.
So clean chicken meat to strong reforms or
personhood initiatives, not like clean suede
and, I don't know, whatever we think is ineffective.
So just assume we're talking about the top
things because some of this, obviously in
practice some of these considerations come
down to, well this is a bad tech idea and
this is a good advocacy idea, so just all
considering good advocacy and tech ideas.
So we're also...
I'm just making a qualification... so these
are considerations for how we should divide
and prioritize our resources as a movement,
and how... where the marginal value is.
So in practice, an individual's comparative
advantage might matter a lot.
If you have a degree in tissue engineering,
you should probably just go work in food tech,
but if you're the kind of person who could
be a really strong entrepreneur or a really
strong advocate, this is more of an open question
for you.
We're also relying... these are very highly
speculative topics and we're relying on pretty
weak evidence in either direction, so really
no one should come away from this with a strong
opinion of whether in general we should be
putting more into tech or more into advocacy,
you should really kind of just have a weak
leaning either way.
And last couple of qualifications, that we're
not each taking a side, we're going to each
talk about some considerations for advocacy
and for tech, generally just the ones that
we each find strongest on either side.
And we're going through some very loaded and
complicated considerations so we're so sorry
if we don't have time to explain some things,
but you can totally just come up to us afterwards
and get that clarification from us.
And I think another really important thing
to acknowledge is that there's obviously really
complex and important interactions between
the two, so the approaches are complimentary.
If we do make technological progress, so make
social progress easier by changing attitudes,
we also increase demand for the technological
progress.
So these are just... yeah definitely that's
worth considering and neither of us are saying
that it's either/or, obviously it's how much
do we want of this versus how much do we want
of that.
I think the other thing I would say on this
is obviously that once people have stopped
eating animals, it does seem like it would
be easier to change their attitudes towards
animals.
And I think the final point I would make here
is that historically, there does seem to be
a relationship between technological progress
and social change.
So for instance, and I don't have great sense
of this but I've heard cases where the technological
change seems to have driven the social change,
so for example, with the eradication of the
horse and cart by the automobile, with the
decimation of whaling by changes in how we
source oil.
There's also examples around female empowerment
through contraception, opposition to the Vietnam
war through televised images.
Yeah and I think I'll leave it at that for
now.
And this is one of our first cruxes and disagreements.
I think those particular examples, teasing
out the causation is very challenging because
we do expect there to be a cyclical effect,
we mentioned once you introduce technology,
it can... so in the case of animal farming,
we have these studies suggesting that if you're
thinking about eating animals or if you're
eating animals, you think they're less morally
valuable than you otherwise would, so we should
expect therefore that once people are eating
more clean meat, plant-based meat, they will
be more receptive to animal friendly attitudes.
So that's the kind of effect that can have
and then in the opposite direction, we have
things like if people are more... if people
care about the animals more, they're going
to want this technology more.
But teasing out the causation historically
between tech change and advocacy change, I
think is hard, it just seems like maybe the
best we can say is like, there is causation
in both directions and of course we also have
examples where it seems like the tech definitely
just followed morality, like clean energy
and electric cars and a lot of technology
changes that have to do with the environmentalist
movement, seem much more driven by morality
and interest in climate change than just pure
interest in efficiency.
So I said, don't think of us as taking a side,
we'll just like clarify what each point is
for.
This is a point in favor of advocacy and probably
the only time I'm going to use the white board.
So basically tech doesn't go backwards like
social change can, once we've developed a
technology, we know how to use it, we can
use it, but social change is just harder to
say that's going to stick around.
Once we do it, which is... okay just let me
draw this up for you... so basically, say
we're here.
We're going along, and then we make clean
meat happen, and then this is where we start
making it happen.
And then it levels off here and the whole
world is just clean meat, no animal farming,
great.
This is our progress.
And just put these on both of these here.
This is the value over time, so say this is
what we expect the world to be.
If we work on technology and bring the tech
faster, then what we're doing is bringing
it up here, but it's still got the same trajectory...
I should not have put those above, just assume
those are together.
And our difference is in this space here,
so we've made it come faster but it was going
to come anyways, so down here the world is
the same value but this difference here...
because we made the tech come faster is what
we contribute.
If we instead work on advocacy, that changes
the direction of the future and not just the
speed with which it comes, because we expect
the technology to just kind of come but we
don't expect social change to necessarily
happen if we don't work on it.
Then instead what's happening is at this time,
when we start making the clean meat, if we're
also doing this advocacy then maybe we can
push up the change higher, and then we end
up with a higher value long-term world.
I hope that made sense, I appreciate that
that is complicated... the difference is now
this, that's bigger than that.
Got it.
So that's a big consideration in favor of
working on social change instead of tech and
we just think the tech might happen without
us anyways.
Now of course that could... this is also a
consideration for... well, a counter consideration
is that tech itself could be an efficient
way to achieve that change because we reduce
the dissonance and then maybe that helps us
actually get to there.
You can go for...
Yeah, sure.
So I think that counter consideration is important.
So, if we do take into account that the tech
change could be the thing that is driving
the social change, and that tech unlike social
change can't go backwards.
I think that the timeline, versus the direction
change, to me doesn't seem to clearly point
in favor of focusing on social change.
Sure so that's one specific example of why
this could be the case, is say if we are to
have... if we expect value lock in to happen
some time soon.
So say we have... oh God this is complicated,
let's just...
I hope some of you know what value lock in
means.
Basically just assume there's some kind of
world, maybe like AGI develops, and just for
whatever reason, our values at that time matter
a lot, they extend into the future from that
point.
Then we maybe want to make sure that we speed
up value change as fast as possible as much
as possible, maybe in exchange for what would
otherwise be more robust, stronger, longer
term change... we're up, yeah we're up here.
I meant this one.
So sorry.
It's all good.
And of course some tech might offer quicker
improvement to that, so maybe aggressively
rolling out clean meat chicken nuggets reduces
cognitive dissonance more than taking the
time to develop whole chickens' bodies with
bones and special connective tissue and everything.
And maybe that's the 80/20 of the tech that
we can do for social change, but of course
there may also be other ways to work against
like speciesist prejudice that have higher
near-term returns even if we'd expect them
to have lower returns relative to other strategies
in the long-term, which could be things like
maybe focusing on dramatic changes, like rights
of personhood for some animal.
Maybe that's just what we would want to do
if we thought value lock in was going to come
really soon.
So we could just make sure we're pushing that
speciesist barrier as fast as possible, even
if not as long-term effectively as possible
were value lock in not to happen.
We're really trying to run through a lot of
things here, so excuse us for just going so,
so quickly, I missed something just earlier
that I want to make a point on.
Right, so with advocacy, there's a consideration
that maybe before our advocacy efforts can
even have any promise, we need to get to a
point where we have the same products that
we're consuming now, and just have a different
production process.
So that there's no actual trade off for the
end user, for the consumer, which might mean
that we just want to get the tech to as strong
a place as we can right now and then do the
advocacy.
Then go for the political change once we have
the identical products, just with a different
production process.
Yeah so just to jump back to the value lock
in consideration.
So I think one thing that affects my view
here is that it seems like a low probability
scenario, but potentially a really high value
scenario.
I think the other thing which I would be wary
of there is potentially if we are trying to
advance social change really quickly and perhaps
using more aggressive tactics, whatever that
would be, you are attempting to achieve personhood
for certain nonhuman animals.
I think there's some potential for there to
be short term negative effects of that, and
yeah I think I'd just be aware of that when
we are making that decision.
And I think the other thing that I would say
on this is just that, again, if we do suspect
that there is going to be this value lock
in scenario in the somewhat near future, that
the tech lever might still be the best lever
to pull on in order to achieve the social
change, and it's not necessarily that the
social change lever would be the best to pull
on.
Yeah, yeah so we want to make those chicken
nuggets and reduce that dissonance or something
like that.
Yeah, so I think... so this is another consideration
which informs my opinion on this, would be
that in general, I think that the comparative
advantage of advocates is going to be doing
advocacy which requires this care and empathy
for animals.
For tech change, I think we're generally just
going to be more replaceable there.
We'd be able to have scientists or other people
who don't necessarily care about animals but
they are motivated by profits and that sort
of thing, they could potentially work on those
things whereas for us if we do care about
animals, our comparative advantage seems to
an area which would require that care.
And of course, that could also mean that we
would see very high returns by starting tech
projects, because maybe we're the most motivated
in starting them but then investors and consumers
can go take it from us once we've started
it.
This same consideration also means... is also
a general argument for the relative tractability
of tech development so maybe we're more replaceable,
but maybe it's also more tractable.
You can see why we think you should only really
lean weakly one way or the other, because
these are all quite speculative considerations
that just lean one way or the other a little
bit.
Nothing is very strong here, nothing is "Okay
well this is obvious, we should be over here."
Something I've been thinking a bit about lately
is that it's possible... sorry I assume everyone
here, most people have a basic concept of
the moral circle, it's just who you include,
who you think is morally relevant, what entities
right now, humanity's moral circle mostly
includes humans, most of us more or less,
and then it kind of goes gray out into like,
okay we care quite a bit about dogs and cats
in the US, we care a little bit about pigs
and chickens right now.
At least we don't like factory farming.
We don't really care about insects, we don't
really care about digital minds yet so they're
further away from the moral circle.
And one consideration for working on tech
instead of advocacy is that it's possible
that the moral circle just has a set point,
and it's just going to trend towards some
particular point, it's not going to be able
to expand forever.
If there is a set point, it's probably focused
around powerful beings and it's probably...
if there is such a set point, it's going to
be... it's likely to be a place where those
who are included are those who you can get
a lot out, of and those who are excluded are
the ones who are a burden to take care for,
who don't really give you anything in return.
You just have to care for like children, who
are just always going to be children, aren't
going to be... end up having productive, aren't
going to end up being productive to your society
and the things that you want out of your life.
And that will probably mean that maybe our
moral circle stops at humans, or it's just
a lot harder to get past humans because humans
of different ethnicities, having reduced racism
means lower conflict and that's great for
us.
But maybe just including chickens is not necessarily
great for us, it's great for the chickens.
So that would be then a reason just for thinking
that the advocacy is less tractable and therefore
we want to work more on the tech.
Yeah so that's a really interesting point
on this potential set point to a moral circle
expansion.
I think that for me, there seems to be just
a large amount of uncertainty and speculation
involved in whether there is a set point,
and if there is a set point, where that set
point is.
So I find that for me, that is not one of
the most, I guess considerations which is
most informing my opinion here.
Obviously, it is definitely a consideration
and we should definitely take that into account,
but I think that something that I find more
informative is that for clean meat, I think
there are significant questions around whether
we can achieve cost competitiveness with farmed
animal products.
So there's been one report from the Open Philanthropy
Project, there's also been a paper published
on this by Van der Weele and Tramper in 2014,
and the basic thesis here is that... so with
clean meat, you need a growth medium for the
cells to proliferate, and the minimum costs
of the growth medium currently are such that
clean meat just can't become cost competitive.
So I think at the minimum costs we're looking
at something like $8 per kilogram and factory
farmed animal products are just... they're
literally a fraction of that right now.
But on the other hand, there are proponents,
companies working in this area.
So for example, Hampton Creek reported that
they would have clean meat in restaurants
by 2018.
Another group recently reported that by the
end of 2018, the prices would be at $8 per
kilogram.
And yeah, I think I'll go with that.
So this going to get at, I think, a major
crux on some of these considerations, but
basically clean meat should necessarily become
cheaper than animal meat in the long term
because it necessarily involves less energy
in terms of the physical constraints of the
universe.
If you're growing an entire individual, you
have to develop their brain and their immune
system, I mean they might need some kind of
immune system for clean meat, but we don't
need to create a sentient intelligent brain.
It feels like we can skip that part, we can
skip the skeleton, so that's a lot of processes
that just don't need to be part of the clean
meat process.
So theoretically, given enough technological
advancement, the physical constraints of the
universe suggest that this is what should
happen eventually, maybe that's in 100 years,
maybe it's 1,000 years.
But it should happen eventually, which gets
us to the crux here, which is that if you
discount your uncertain impacts a lot, however
far away they are, if they're farther into
the future, if they're further away in space.
If you think your uncertain impacts are things
you should just discount basically down to
zero or somewhere close to that, then you
maybe more interested in the next few decades,
and because of that you...
well, that can go different ways on some of
these considerations.
But for this particular consideration, it
might mean that you want to work on the advocacy
and not the tech, because you don't think
the tech is going to come in the next few
decades.
But if you are more interested in the very
long term, and you're willing to take... you
don't discount that uncertainty, the uncertainty
of 1,000 years from now, of the impacts that
you can make 1,000 years from now, then you
may be more interested in pursuing the technology
because you think it's going to happen at
least sometime in that time.
And that goes for a few of the other considerations
here, so log that if that's something that
you... if you regularly either go towards
the near-term stuff or the far-term stuff,
that could make the decision much more clear
for you, which way it should go, one or the
other.
We have a couple other considerations, we
may not have time for questions but let's
try to get through this quickly so we can
do one or two.
One of the considerations for advocacy is
that many existing animal product replacements
are very high quality, and yet only a small
part of the population is vegan, and our animal
product consumption continues to rise.
So that suggests that just making the technology
good enough isn't enough, we need advocacy
around it.
We need to make people excited about it in
order to get it adopted because just having
the technology isn't enough.
I'm not sure if they are high quality.
So I have talked to people who feel like they
kind of clearly don't taste like meat, or
this is clearly different from the taste of
milk and this type of thing.
I think the other thing is that the ones which
do seem to be high quality do tend to be more
expensive, and this is just... this basic
economics is one of the factors which determine
what people buy, if the alternatives are more
expensive, then people are going to buy them
less.
So we can drive the costs down by further
technological development, then yeah, this
could potentially make progress a lot easier.
So I think the final consideration for me
is that there are axes other than tech versus
social change which I find are informing my
opinion here.
So when I'm thinking about possible donation
targets on the social change side versus the
technological development side, it feels like
there are other just very relevant differences
between them, so the track record of certain
organizations seems to be stronger on the
advocacy side.
I can look at something like THL which has
been around for a number of years and I can
feel more confident in them.
When I look at the technological development
side, these are just new startups, they have
a very limited track record.
Similarly, I feel more confident on the advocacy
side in terms of how advocates have responded
to signs of success and failure, and being
able to update their approach in light of
those things.
I feel less confident that the tech side of
things is going to be able to do that.
Yeah, so I find that there's just these other
relevant dimensions than the tech versus social
change dichotomy, which is also informing
my opinion here.
And they do seem to be importantly different
between the two options and I just thought
I would highlight that.
Well there you go, sorry we don't have any
answers for you and left you just more confused.
I guess we might have time for one or two.
Yeah sure, we have time for one quick question.
So there's a question that says, “It seems
like the second graph is based on the assumption,”
I think these two graphs here, “is based
on the assumption that once tech comes not
everyone will switch to plant-based meat.
Do you think that there will still be a large
percentage of the population that will continue
eating non-plant-based meat?
And if so, how much?”
So there are a couple of things in this, obviously
these graphs are oversimplifications, but
so I think it's unlikely that literally just
developing the tech itself is going to be
enough.
There have been plenty of other technologies
that were not adopted because advocacy got
in the way or people's attitudes got in the
way.
Even though it's a better technology, nuclear
energy got to 80% of the grid in France, only
20% in the US.
We don't want the same kind of thing to happen
to clean meat.
We don't want clean meat to be banned like
GMOs are because people are just more afraid
of cell-based meat than they are of factory
farms.
That would suck.
So we want to do advocacy work to make sure
that happens.
I think if we literally just weren't doing
any advocacy, I would not expect the entire
world to adopt clean meat.
Anytime soon at least, maybe in the long run.
It is more efficient, so it probably would
happen eventually, so this maybe is partially
just a speed consideration.
But when I say advocacy, I also mean things
to expand the moral circle more broadly.
So not just talking about what's literally
going to get animals switched off of peoples
plates for cell-based or plant-based products,
but also what's going to make them care more
about those animals so that they don't hurt
them in other ways, what's going to make them
care more about other minds so that other
problems can get solved too.
And I think if we have this moral emphasis
around the way we end animal farming, if we
end animal farming, not just because it's
more efficient but we have this advocacy going
with it that's like, we're doing this because
we care about the animals, it just also is
really easy for you to believe that now that
we have the technology and are making it easy
for you, then that affects peoples attitudes
and helps us keep expanding that circle and
protect more people.
That's all the time we have for questions.
Let's give it up for Kelly and Kieran.
