Jakub Stencel

Interim Executive Director, co-founder @ Anima International
1489 karmaJoined Working (6-15 years)Kraków, Polska

Participation
2

  • Attended an EA Global conference
  • Attended more than three meetings with a local EA group

Comments
37

Thinking about it for 5 minutes from a global perspective,[1] EA funding would be >85% responsible. It's hard to say what "work" means here, but most of the strategy was created by The Humane League,[2] not effective altruism. 

But counterfactuals here are hard, people who pushed for this could maybe find new donors, but back then animal advocacy wasn't too excited about cage-free work. So it could take some effort to find funding and most of the current funding would definitely not be found. A good way to think about it is that if Open Philanthropy disappeared now I think there would be no one to step in and fill the gap. And this despite it being 2025 and despite how tractable we now know this work is.

In my very personal take, EA was crucial for modern animal advocacy to achieve what it achieved. I wrote more about it here - https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/GCaRhu84NuCdBiRz8/ea-s-success-no-one-cares-about

  1. ^

    Note that I may be not answering your question, because I think you are asking specifically about USA.

  2. ^

    Although, to be fair, in early 2000s similar approach was applied in policymaking in Austria by Martin Balluch.

How people who write on the EA Forum and on LessWrong can have non-obvious significant positive impact by influencing organizations (like mine) - both through culture and the merit of their reasoning.

I enjoyed this post (upvoted, but disagree-voted). I think skepticism about animal charities is well-placed for the reasons you outlined - we don't really have robust evidence. But I wanted to quickly comment on your description of corporate outreach. I won't go into details, especially because people like Fai provided more elaborate answers, but I want to provide some anecdata to counter your partner's one.

As a person who have seen corporate work from animal advocacy from inside for the last 10 years. I can tell you just a different tactic can produce outsized difference. In Poland, we have tried different tactics - trained by The Humane League - and in a few months we had enormous wins from the biggest national players. I also saw Open Wing Alliance training groups and after just few weeks of such training they were delivering wins when before that they were stuck sometimes for years. I think the counterfactual impact of groups like The Humane League was vast.

I think it's good to think about corporate work as a coordination problem with multiple agents having their own goals and incentives, especially big companies, so how it works is not as straightforward as you described.

This is not to say that any corporate outreach work is tractable or that you should donate to animal charities. There are other conditions that need to be fulfilled for things to work, etc. But my main point is that we should not simplify or downplay these changes, at least in cage-free cause area.

I deeply appreciate you writing this and much agree.

I sometimes worry that EAs may optimize for consequences rather than for integrity and this may be the reason people distance themselves from EA.

[In my view it then creates a dangerous world of "solitude, filth and ugliness". :) ]

by illegitimate means and I'm a target of aggression

 

Can you give example of that? Not saying you are not right, but not sure I can easily picture what falls into these categories. Pls ignore if this would drain you more.

Just want to say that I love it and it made my day. Awesome idea!

Thanks for the info. Subscribed.

Really devastating news. I had a pleasure to meet Steven. His dedication and warmth was deeply inspiring to me, and his down to earth character made him fun to be around. You will be missed. :(

This seems true to me, although I don't have great confidence here.

For some years at times I had thought to myself "Damn, EA is pulling off something interesting - not being an organization, but at the same time being way more harmonious and organized than a movement. Maybe this is why it's so effective and at the same time feels so inclusive." Not much changed recently that would make me update in a different direction. This always stood out to me in EA, so maybe this is one of its core competencies[1] that made it so successful in comparison to so many other similar groups?

It's possible that there is a limit on how long you can pull it off when community grows, but I would be a bit slow to update during turbulent waters - there is for sure valuable signal during these (like "how well are we handling harsh situations?"), but also not so valuable ("is our ship fast?").

  1. ^

Thank you, Ubuntu. I love that post by Max Roser.

Load more