I agree that it could be useful but I don't think it's as neglected as you think.

Anecdotally I know quite a few people in your second category, people in less 'EA' branded areas/orgs (although a lot will have more impact). There are several orgs looking into advising donors that haven't heard/aren't interested in EA (Giving Green, Longview, Generation Pledge, Ellis Impact, Founders Pledge, etc).

I think some may not be seen in EA spaces as much because of PR concerns but I think the main reason is that they are focused on their target audiences or mainly just interact with others in the effective giving ecosystem.

Also it's not quite the forum, but I did link to a blog listing Azim Premji on this global health landscape post (not that you would ever be expected to know that).

I think the evidence that EA has "abandoned" open borders is relatively weak, it looks more like that it was never a high priority, and still isn't. 

There has been interest in labour mobility, and in 2024 and 2025 Open Phil funded related areas - 1, 2, 3. But the tag has changed and it now falls under global health, innovation or abundance.

I'm not sure forum posts are relevant when it's just 1-2 posts a year, and suggest ongoing limited engagement.

0.15% by 2100 seems pretty scary (would probably suggest spending more resources on it then we currently do).

And how much of a reward is it for your boss to ask if you want to write something (with a sense of obligation and worry about what happens if you don't say yes). Nice story though.

I don't get that sense. Compared to most other movements I feel that people involved in EA are less likely to think those things (blind deferral/spread the brand/trust institutions)

We should shut down EA UK, change our mind
 

EA UK is hiring a new director, and if we don't find someone who can suggest a compelling strategy, shutting down is a likely outcome despite having ~9 months of funding runway.

Over the last decade EA in the UK has been pretty successful, Loxbridge in particular has the highest number of people involved in EA, there are multiple EA related organisations, and many people in government, tech, business, academia, media, etc who are positively inclined towards EA.

Because of this success (not that we're claiming counterfactual credit), there is less low hanging fruit for a national/city group to do.

For example:

• Conferences - EAG London and student summits are run by CEA
• Co-working - There are at least 3 different places to co-work (LEAH, LISA, AIM) for 100+ people, as well as many other orgs that have space for guests
• Student groups - A combination of Arcadia Impact and CEA
• Incubation of new organisations - AIM/CE
• Media outreach - Mainly done by the most relevant organisations/CEA

I'm not saying mission accomplished, but for EA specific community building in the UK, I think there will have to be a good understanding of the existing landscape and ideas for what is missing and is unlikely to be done by someone else.

"A few years ago, I began to rethink that approach. More recently, with the input from our board, I now believe we can achieve the foundation’s goals on a shorter timeline, especially if we double down on key investments and provide more certainty to our partners."

It seems it was more of a question of whether they could grant larger amounts effectively, which he was considering for multiple years (I don't know how much of that may be possible due to aid cuts).

Is there any data to back up the environmental movement growing and stalling around those times? It may have got a lot of media attention but it seems like the real gains on climate change were made by people who have been working in clean tech for decades and politicians that were already lobbying for various policies in the 2000s/2010s.

I imagine if you work in that field people will show interest in the topic, I'd be interested in if you know there is outsized interest in cultivated meat over other alt proteins.

I'm not sure I see any data in that LinkedIn post, do we know how sales have changed over time and price points for these products? I find this type of data more convincing. I'd be more interested in seeing global info, and looking at sales of various products, in the retail and business sectors to get a good sense of what is actually happening in plant based margarine vs margarine vs butter vs plant based butter market.


The Jacob Peacock article is about them being the same price, not significantly cheaper, which I think is the wrong way to think about it. Most examples historically of animal products being replaced have been because of big cost differences rather than cost parity (horses/cars, whales/oil, fur/other fabrics). That doesn't mean that people don't still ride horses, hunt whales or use fur, just that it is a much smaller percentage.