Comments
This is amazingly comprehensive and I'm glad you took the time to make it accessible to people who are not involved with EA ideas.
Two interesting quotes from a brief glance:
Let us define “pleasure risks (p-risks)” as risks where an adverse outcome would prevent pleasure on an astronomical scale, vastly exceeding all pleasure that has existed on Earth so far
[This references Michael Dickens' post on "Disappointing Futures", and I love the term "p-risks" 😊]
At present, very few people are working on animal law from a longtermist perspective, and very few people are working on longtermism from a multi-species perspective. [...]
We believe this separation between animal law and longtermism is a mistake, in both directions. [...]
As a preliminary matter, a question remains as to whether incremental or fundamental legal change would plausibly do the most good for animals. We believe that the answer to this question, which hinges on many difficult empirical and normative judgments, is highly uncertain. We also doubt that these strategies are mutually exclusive; for instance, some incremental changes for animals might also help make fundamental changes more feasible. Thus, we believe the optimal approach will likely include a mixture of both strategies.
I really appreciate the work you're all doing! I'm interested in longtermism and liberal political theory, and the section on institutional design appears relevant to that.