Thanks, I really appreciate you sharing your perspective! I've mostly thought about the signalling benefits of pledges so far, not so much the potential downsides. But I can see how that might play out in some contexts.

Congrats on the recent pledge! :)

I agree that the flexibility to choose which charities to support makes the pledge feel much less constraining. At the same time, there is still a lock-in in committing to giving itself and to a fixed share of income.

That said, it's great to hear the current framing worked well for you. My impression is just that different people respond to different approaches to commitment, and I think the 10% pledge is the most aspirational option for some but not for everyone.

Good question, thanks for bringing this up!

A few thoughts come to mind:

• Long-term commitments can fade over time, so periodic recommitment could help by creating moments of reflection and renewed motivation. In that sense, successive time-bound pledges might be more effective than an open-ended pledge that is very similar to a recurring donation membership at a charity.
• OFTW directs donations to a curated set of charities focused on global poverty. That reduces decision complexity, but it also means pledgers have less agency and cannot support other cause areas.
• The 1% framing lowers the barrier substantially but, as you note, may not resonate as strongly with people who want to give very ambitiously, which I think is closer to the audience GWWC wants to reach.

Overall though, for the goals they are pursuing and the people they are trying to reach, their framing seems very sensible to me.

Thanks a lot for your comment and for taking the time to run the numbers. :)

A few thoughts in response to your points:

1. The 0.9 g EPA/DHA per 100 g you used is on the lower end, and many sources put sardines higher. We used ~1.4 g as an average in the table, which changes the calculation somewhat. But more importantly, sardines don't just replace EPA/DHA supplements. They also replace the protein source of a meal (often the most expensive component) and provide several other nutrients, that would otherwise have to be supplemented (e.g. B12) or that are not essential but beneficial (e.g. carninutrients).
2. I agree that incorporating half a tin of sardines per day wouldn't be very practical for most people. If you look at it weekly though it's 315 g, which corresponds to about three meals where sardines are the main protein source. Whether that's easy to manage will differ a lot between individuals and probably depend heavily on how pleasant or unpleasant one finds the taste. It can be quite strong (mostly true for canned sardines, not fresh ones), but it also varies by brand (I'd recommend e.g. "Fish Tales"), and people can also aquire the taste over time. I agree that for some people taking supplements is behaviourally easier than having about 3 sardine (or mussel) meals per week.
3. One important point here is that sardine prices vary quite a lot by country. In Germany they're relatively expensive, whereas in countries like France or the UK they're often noticeably cheaper. Beyond that, I think again it's important to consider that sardines don't just provide protein, but also EPA/DHA and several other micronutrients, which might otherwise need to be supplemented. That effectively reduces their price compared to looking at protein alone.

Hope this is helpful!

Beyond the potential impact, this is also a lot of fun and a meaningful experience!

Trying to express what an organisation does and why it matters in a short video is a creative challenge that can deepen your connection to the cause. I'll be contributing a video for ProVeg for the third time this year and hope to see many other EA charities take part as well. :)

Thanks for writing this Cian. I think it is a really important conversation, and I agree we should not assume cultivated meat will inevitably go mainstream simply because of the benefits it promises.

Alongside the concerns you raise, I think nutritional equivalence also deserves more attention. Muscles in animals often store nutrients that muscle tissue itself does not need in order to grow. Cultivated meat will not naturally contain these nutrients, so unless it's fortified, its nutrient density will be lower than that of conventional meat. Since fortification adds costs without improving taste, producers may only do it partially, as we already see with plant-based alternatives today. As a result, it's unlikely that cultivated meat will fully match the nutritional profile of conventional meat, at least in early products. We can already see this with current products, e.g. Wildtype's salmon, which is not nutritionally equivalent to conventional salmon. This could become a significant barrier to consumer acceptance.

On your visual comparison between the production processes of GMO soybeans and cultivated chicken, I think it's important to consider the counterfactual in each case. Non-GMO soybean farming looks much the same as GMO farming. While cultivated chicken production may not look especially appealing or natural, conventional chicken farming looks far worse and to most people shockingly unpleasant. Animal advocates have been working for decades to raise awareness of these conditions, but in the absence of alternatives that deliver the same results, it's understandable that so little has been accomplished. Cultivated meat could change this, but for that to happen, I believe it's crucial to build positive narratives that highlight not only adequacy or equivalence but the many advantages (e.g. optimised nutritional value, no antibiotics, no risk of zoonotic pandemics, lower environmental impact, and more). Of course, it's important that producers actually deliver on this potential. Also, while many cultivated meat companies currently work with GMOs, certification schemes such as the C-Label require certified products to be GMO free, which shows an awareness of consumer scepticism on the part of producers.

Overall, I find your conclusions very compelling and the post a very important contribution to the debate. Much appreciated!

Thanks for this thoughtful piece. I really appreciate the pragmatic framing and the effort to look beyond the binary of vegan vs. non-vegan.

That said, I'd like to challenge the heuristic that the bigger the animal, the better, based on the idea that fewer individuals are killed per calorie. While it's true that, for example, chickens' small size increases the number of animals killed, higher-order consequences might shift the overall moral cost calculation.

Compared to chickens, cows live much longer, may suffer more intensely, produce more greenhouse gas emissions, and require far more land, contributing to biodiversity loss and causing additional animal deaths through crop production. So, when factoring in these broader effects, chickens might actually be the preferable choice, even putting aside that they arguably offer better nutrition per calorie.

Curious how you see these downstream consequences factoring into the argument.

Thanks for bringing that post into the conversation! We really appreciate the cautious approach it advocates and agree that there's a great deal of uncertainty when it comes to understanding the full welfare implications of wild-caught fish.

That said, we think the situation with sardines and anchovies might be somewhat different from many other species. These small pelagic fish are already being caught at or near maximum catch levels, primarily to produce feed for farmed salmon. So increasing human consumption wouldn't lead to more fishing, but rather to a diversion of existing catch from salmon feed to direct human food. This shift could reduce the scale of salmon farming, thereby lowering both the direct suffering of farmed fish and the wider ecological harms associated with aquaculture.

Because these small pelagic fish are already being caught (unlike species like tuna, which are mostly caught for direct human consumption) the food web effects of this shift may be more or less neutral. And while anchovies do eat krill, which might be sentient, this concern may be outweighed by the positive ripple effects of reducing salmon farming.

On the human side, sardines and anchovies may help some people stick to a veganish diet by improving nutrient intake and reducing reliance on supplements or costly alternative proteins, which could further reduce harm overall.

Thanks Vasco, I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement!

I agree that feed conversion losses mean more than 1 kg of alternative feed would be needed to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. So if that alternative feed uses as much land as the replaced plant-based food, land use could indeed increase. However, many promising feed alternatives (based on microbial fermentation, insects, or algae) may have a much smaller land footprint than typical crops grown for human consumption. So the net effect on land use depends on what those alternatives are. That said, many current feed alternatives might be less efficient.

I think it's important to also consider not just the calories or kilograms involved, but the nutritional value. Sardines and anchovies are exceptionally nutrient-dense, as discussed in the "Health and Nutrition" section. So even if land use were slightly higher per kilogram, the nutritional return per land area might still be better. It's definitely a complex question, and I'd love to see more data on this.

Thanks for the suggestion! We think herring might differ from sardines and anchovies in several relevant ways. For more detail on our thinking, take a look at Elizabeth Crewe's reply to the comment by Sagar K Shah.