Thank you for writing this, it is useful to see how some EA-ers might view me! I don't go around criticising EA for not addressing root causes, but I feel it is important we address them and I have queried the apparent lack recognition of them in EA. Alongside that I’d don’t deny the need for immediate interventions right now. It's not either/or.

I feel like the framing of an either/or choice in the post is reductive. The EA movement should be broad enough to have a more nuanced approach to look at root causes - it is possible these could have huge ripple effects - while acknowledging the need for continued direct interventions. We can, to continue your narrative, help the person who has been shot while also working on policy reform around gun control. Noting, you can follow a chain of root causes all the way to arguing the root cause is violent behaviour in a society which accepts such casual violence. Surely the key to doing the most good is finding the sweet spot of a tractable root cause?

If we ignore root causes and only focus on the immediate inventions there are a number of risks:

1.    The underlying issues worsen and expand faster that we can address their symptoms. For example, if we only provide malaria nets without addressing climate change, rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns could expand malaria zones into new regions, overwhelming our capacity to help.

2.    We might exhaust limited resources treating symptoms while the source of the problem continues to generate new case. Like trying to bail out a boat without fixing the leak – you’ll eventually get tired.

3.    We miss a chance to prevent suffering entirely. Rather than treating waterborne illnesses let’s invest in the sanitation infrastructure to ensure no one becomes ill to start with!

4.    Root causes interact and amplify each other, making problems more difficult to solve without addressing the underlying systems. For example, factory farming relies on antibiotics to keep animals healthy in crowded situations. The drive to maximise output  and profits has led to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Overuse of antibiotics (enabled by poor regulation of antibiotics) leads to drug-resistant bacteria which spread to humans through food, water and the environment. As antibiotic resistance grows treating infections becomes harder, threatening public health and increasing health care costs. Simply reducing antibiotic use without changing factory farm conditions would still leave animals vulnerable to disease, for example

This doesn’t mean EA should stop direct interventions – help is required now. But we need a balanced approach that includes immediate interventions and long-term systemic change.
 

I believe we do need a range of political views in EA and animal advocacy. In part as not one group has all the answers, but equally if we are to create a world which is better for animals we need people from all walks of life on board. Having a diversity will enable us to reach social tipping points quicker by drawing in the innovators/fast followers from a range of groups.

From an animal advocacy perspective, I agree we have to provide our message in a range of ways that can align with conservative priorities – and that could mean highlighting the economic benefits of doing or not doing something. I think we’re able to make arguments about how costly animal agriculture is, especially when looking at the costs of pollution and health care, linked to the $ value, as opposed to the people/non-human animal impact. For example, a recent NZ study* modelled that moving to predominantly plant-based diets could substantially improve public health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs by NZ$11 to 22 billion. (Having said that I may have a stereotypical view of what is important to conservatives and how to engage them in the cause!)

My other concern, as others have mentioned, is their views in other areas may stray too far from what is deemed reasonable by ‘general society’ or yourself, if like me, your values for animals put you at odds with much of ‘general society’! I feel already as EAs our views are not held by ‘general society’ – otherwise there wouldn’t be a need. Working with people which such differing views can be difficult.

* https://healthierlives.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Modelling-methods-and-theoretical-scenarios.pdf

Thanks for sharing this reflection. The quote from Ernestine Rose “If we are loyal to our highest convictions, we need not care how far it may lead. For truth, like water, will find its own level.” is extremely apt - I love it!

It can be challenging in advocacy to remain authentic as advocates are worn down by societal resistance or a temptation to compromise. But that authentic voice, the demand for transformative change, helps movements thrive and is necessary for genuine and lasting progress.

It is interesting how animal and climate advocates reference women's suffrage as a successful campaign model. Yet no surprise as we fight against similarly established power structures we need to be persistent, intersectional, and support and build upon our grassroots to grow into a broader societal movements.  

It seemed fitting that I came across this article with the suffragrette references after reading your post: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/14/climate-activists-who-target-artworks-using-suffragette-tactics-says-artist-alex-margo-arden

I wish the IP28 well and sincerely hope it stimulates conversations and change. 

I agree this is a powerful representation of the numbers of individuals involved. Thanks!