I vote that slowing intensification is a bit more likely to be the best use of resources at current margins. I agree that this probably has lower tractability and that, as @Moritz Stumpe 🔸 says, the African advocacy movement can't effectively absorb as much funding and labour as the Asian movement. But I think there's a very narrow window to slow the takeoff of sub-Saharan factory farming, and we should take the low-probability, high-EV, urgent bet while we can.

That said, I actually think that steering this takeoff, i.e. 'welfare advoacy in future high production regions', is probably a better use of resources than either slowing intensification or 'welfare advocacy in neglected, high production regions'.

It's a great question, Angel, and I strongly think everybody should feel highly uncertain -- I feel very open to changing my mind. I've been researching the intensification of hen farming in sub-Saharan Africa for the past few months, so that informs my answer, but I don't feel as informed about intensification in Latin America, or the intensification of aquaculture.

Latin America and the Caribbean together account for approximately 72,000 km, compared to Africa’s 40,000 km

Do you have a guess for what % of each coastline is already used for aquaculture?

Hey Kieran! I guess you're thinking about fish and invertebrate welfare as the more talent-constrained subcauses (correct me if I'm wrong?) but I'm curious which kinds of profiles or job types you think are more talent-constrained than others? Also interested in your take, @lauren_mee 🔸 !

it's just smaller than other conflicts

It's odd to say this when you don't give a comparable casualty figure for Gaza, which would be 77,000 to 109,000 for May 2025, and when you estimate that, with a famine, casualties could reach 2,100,000.

I think it's worthwhile distinguishing between the demandingness objection as an argument against insect/worm/mite/nematodes' interests mattering, and as an argument against them being sentient. I think you can make the first case but not the second.

This makes sense, thanks for the response! :)

I don’t think this affects the outcome of the case but is import ant for other reasons.

Hey! Thanks for your efforts and for the post-mortem.

Why did you prioritise these two asks out of the inquiry's 18 recommendations? (Some prioritisation makes sense, but it's not obvious to me why these specifically).

And why do you feel "the marginal return from the final few participants was probably quite low"? (It makes sense to met that you hit marginal diminishing returns at some point, but it's not clear to me how many volunteers it takes to get there, and it probably makes more sense to me to think about it in terms of number of MPs contacted).

Interesting reporting, thanks Garrison! Globally, the general public would, I suspect, be much more sympathetic to a case brought by an AG than by Musk. Of course, within Americans there's a risk of partisan polarisation.

Dorff cites the example of The March of Dimes. The anti-polio foundation was able to legally shift its mission after the disease was effectively eradicated

Tangentially, I'd be interested in a case study about why this group decided to continue and how they decided on what they'd pivot to.

Hey Keyvan, thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm reminded of Kirsty's reflections on stepping aside from her role at Anima because she thought that was the best decision for the animals; I really admire a culture that embraces humility, changing your mind, and staying focused on the animals.