Hi Alex, 

Thanks for writing this wonderful post. I've been following and supporting GFI for a while and I actually looked at working in Alternative Protein (I'm a PhD chemical engineer and spend most of my career doing scale-up research) - but it is surprisingly hard to get into, and so I ended up working with a pretty amazing direct air capture start-up. 

Alternative Protein has so much potential to be a win/win/win/win for the world - climate, land-use, water, nutrition, animal-suffering, preventing famines - it's a total no-brainer ... except to the lobbies who want to preserve the status quo. It is shocking that we don't spend 100 x what we currently spend on bringing this technology to the market. 

Over the past 3 years, while I haven't been working on alternative protein, I have been learning so much (not intentionally!) that may be relevant to the challenges you describe. I won't try to capture it all here, but would be happy to talk to one of your scale-up team members. 

Let me briefly explain what I've learned:

1. Aggressive scaling is possible and you can get it funded. DAC is an even less attractive market than Alternative Protein in many ways, but there is a way to get investors and regulators on board. But it's not trivial. It requires going beyond the business-as-usual approach and focusing on scaling. Basically, one company that says "we'll let all those other people figure out the details - we're going to scale - fast! - and we're going to be ready to use the best technology that the others develop. In other words, instead of waiting until you're "ready" to scale, you scale in parallel with the technology growth. This can be compelling for investors, because you have a tangible time-line within which you plan to be profitable. (Yes, I know this is massively over-simplified and so on, but I can share real examples of where this strategy has worked and how).
2. There is EU Funding at the right scale. One of my side-roles while I was between roles was as an "expert" reviewer for EU Horizon projects. They have "flagship projects" which get up to ~ 20 million euros of funding - these are designed to get the first full-scale production plant build for technologies that struggle to scale. I reviewed proposals in a different area, but I'm sure that alternative protein can have potential in some ways. Writing these proposals is hard work and very tedious, but it can be the breakthrough that is needed. 

3. Legislation is a vital part of the battle. The recent farcical ruling in the EU that products cannot be called meat-names if they're not meat is an example of what can go wrong. (I live in Brussels but I'm not really in the policy / lobbying network, but I see people who are in the climate space, and it is very powerful. Less in the sense that you can influence major policy decisions, but more in the sense that you can influence which initiatives a quite junior commission officer might decide to support with the 100 million euros they have to invest in some particular objective. Do you have people on the ground, in PLux, chatting to people about how alternative protein is a great way to help the climate, to reduce animal suffering, to provide food security for the EU, ... ??

   I think Rutger Bregman is a big supporter of Alternative Protein. Certainly one of the co-leaders of his program is. It would be interesting to see if there's a way that he would consider Alternative Protein as a topic for the next generation of the School of Moral Ambition. This would give a big injection of resources and support in the non-technical aspects, like legislation and funding. If you have a tangible proposal of what this might look like, I know my contact in his org would get it to him. 

4. Many scale-up projects fail at the zeroth step (this from my long industrial career) because they have not clearly defined the one (or two, or three) technical obstacles that, if solved, would enable scale-up. This is also a reason that Horizon applications fail. You need an absolutely ruthless analysis of all the assumptions you're making, and a "devil's advocate" review before you can then say "if we could solve this, we could scale this technology." But once you get it down to the point where you need just one or two innovations, it starts to become more interesting to investors and research funders. 

I wish I had time to follow and deeply understand the technology behind alternative protein - I followed a few lectures and read some articles, but I'm not a biochemical engineer, and so I don't pretend to have the necessary technical mastery. But there are already lots of amazing scientists and engineers working on the technical challenges. If you think it'd be useful to chat to someone from a more hard-nosed scale-up perspective, let me know.  

I keep coming back to this post and feeling that, if anything, I didn't express strongly enough just how awful and dangerous Trump is. 

This is a great post!

I've worked in non-EA roles where I was a hiring manager and we had many high-quality applicants for a single role. For example, hiring post-doc chemists is humbling when you see 50 CV's of people who have each done incredible work and are far more qualified than I am. 

At first, it seems like an abundance of choice. But what is surprising is that we almost never reject someone without a real reason. Sure, "there were better candidates" can be true, but usually I can put my finger on a few reasons why we decided this. You are probably a great person, but if you don't get hired, it's very likely that someone can tell you exactly why - what was it that that other candidate had or did differently? 

So feedback is super useful - but only if you can get good, honest feedback - and you'll only get this if you are very receptive, not defensive and totally respectful of the interviewer's time. 

For good, motivated candidates, I often offer to do a 30 minute feedback session after their last interview. I will get quite granular "when we asked you X, you replied Y, and it wasn't a very convincing answer, we would expect a candidate of your calibre to have given answer Z" or "we had 4 applicants who had done full post-docs in small-angle light scattering, which is the core of the role, and it was always going to be difficult for you without this experience." And also very basic things like "If you start to feel tired, have a strong coffee. We're judging you against other candidates who are fully focused, if you're tired, it's just harder."

When I applied for my first job in a full-time EA role, a very helpful hiring manager, Michael Aird, did exactly this, and gave me so much good feedback and tangible advice that it really step-changed my approach to EA job-seeking. 

I still got plenty of rejection though :) - I was even rejected as an attendee for EAG London even while I was doing an incubator with AIM ! So it's also great to get used to rejection and learn from it! 

Yes, in many circles the EA brand is toxic. 

But sometimes we stick our heads in the sand as if that were something we couldn't control. 

Or maybe some EA's kind of like this feeling of being outsiders and being the minority. I don't know. 

Every other group I've ever worked with accepts that PR is part of the world. Companies know that they will get good press and bad press, and that it won't always reflect reality, but they hire people to make it as positive as possible. Politicians are the same. They run focus groups and figure out what words to use to share their message with the public, to maximise support. 

Too often we act like we're above all that. We're right and that's enough. If people can't accept that, that's their loss. 

But it's not their loss. It's our loss. it's the world's loss. 

Public perception of EA's outside the EA community is often "a bunch of 'rationalist' tech guys who like to argue about abstract concepts and believe that AI should have rights," or something along those lines. This is totally at odds with vast majority of EA's who are among the most generous, caring people in the world, who want to help people and animals who are suffering. 

A world run by EA's, or on EA principles, would be so wonderful. This should be our vision if we're truly sincere. But if we want to make this happen, we need to be willing to get our hands dirty, do the PR, challenge the newspaper articles that mis-characterize us, learn to communicate in 15 second tweets as well as 22222222243 word essays so that more people can be exposed to EA ideas rather than stereotypes. 

If you ask anyone outside the EA community to name an EA, they probably only have heard of SBF. If you push them, they might wonder if Elon Musk is also an EA. It's no wonder they don't trust EA's. But it's up to us to proactively change that perception. 


 

There may have been a time when EA's should have stayed out of politics. This isn't it. 

There may been times when we should separate our EA discussions from political opinions - even if we feel strongly about political questions, we should keep those opinions away from our EA discussions. 

Today, we do not have that luxury. We need to get our hands dirty. 

Many of us care deeply about the world, yet for fear of being called "partisan" do not dare to point out the obvious FACT that there is one party which currently is standing for everything that EA's oppose. 

I have written this before, and I got a lot of downvotes, but I will say it again. 

By far the most effective, impactful think the EA movement could do would be to find a way to stop Donald Trump and his cronies destroying so much. 

I fully accept that EA's should include and listen to both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. But Republicans, even more than Democrats, should be putting their necks on the line to stop Trump destroying their party in addition to destroying the US. 

There is no coherent way that anyone could be an EA and a Trump supporter. 

Stopping Trump destroying the US, destroying AI Governance, destroying global aid, destroying climate-action, ... is the single most important task in the world right now. 

Those of us outside the US need our US colleagues, EA's and non-EA's, to do what you can. We need to push our own politicians not to be such pathetic walk-over appeasers too, and we're working on that. 

So yes, we need to start engaging in politics, at least until this emergency is over. 

 

Amazing ! 

Congrats from pledger # 9397. 

Also wonderful cameos from Helene and Romain (who was the person who pushed me over the line to pledge, one of the rare good decisions I've made ...).  

 

As someone who considers myself both an EA and a socialist (by the normal definition), I am confused by this post :D. 

Socialists believe in things like social safety nets, universal health care, equal opportunity education, respect for minorities - essentially, they believe that all humans deserve respect and the chance of a healthy, happy life, regardless of their circumstances of birth. 

I think most EA's believe something similar. 

Furthermore, if adopting what you describe as socialist thinking were the best (most effective) way to bring about change, EA's would support that. 

But I don't think you've described socialist thinking, but rather Marxist philosophy. 

And so, what you have described is not an attempt to turn EA's into socialists, but rather an attempt to turn them into Marxists. 

The problem with Marxism, as perfectly captured by Bertrand Russell, is that it is a very negative, hate-filled philosophy. It is a bit like MAGA - it is defined by who it hates (the Bourgoisie), it is focused on cutting them down. 

EA, on the other hand, is driven by love. It is about helping people, helping animals, helping avoid existential risks. EA's do not focus on "who are the people we want to hurt?" as Marxists do, but rather on who can we help, and how best can we help them. 

In my experience, most socialists (as distinct from Marxists) have a similar philosophy. 

I love this post. In the past week I have had a few eye-opening moments which strongly support this way of thinking:

1. I was speaking to a junior EU official, like under 30, less than 3 years in his role. He mentioned that people underestimate the influence people at his level can have in a big organisation. We all know that it is the politicians and very senior officials who decide the budget for important interventions, anything from Developmental Aid to AI Safety. What we often overlook is that it's often very junior people who execute these instructions, and this often means that they get to decide (or at least suggest) how the money the politicians have approved should be spent at a granular level. People who take the time to learn about this process and then look for the appropriate roles can find themselves deciding which charity should get millions of euros, or which initiative to support. People put massive effort into debating policy (how big is the budget) and in this arena, we tend to have very little influence against all the big players. But if we were to focus on how specifically a part of the budget is spent (e.g. ensuring it supports evidence-based, effective interventions), we could have much more impact. And yet, very few of us do this. 

2. I've been following Rutger Bregman for a while now, and one of the things he keeps emphasising is the importance of actually doing something tangible. I also read the following provocative quote from Cate Hall (Useful Fictions) : "Ideas are cheap and easy to find; execution is everything. Effective altruists would be a lot more effective if they internalized this." 
When we do tangible things, we tend to need tangible, boring skill-sets. The ability to parse long legal documents or study financial spread-sheets. A deep understanding of arcane areas of law and precedent - e.g. tax-law, liability law as it relates to tobacco companies, etc. for two of Rutger's initiatives. We all have great theories about how the world should be and those are important visions to keep in mind, but it isn't for the want of these visions that progress is so slow. 

People who work in politics already understand this. The movements which succeed don't just have big visions, they also have thousands of volunteers who study the precise rules of vote-counting, who look at the logistics of getting their voters to the polling stations, who (if they're in the GOP anyway) look for rules that might enable them to prevent likely opponents from voting or even from running as candidates. The boring tedious stuff.

How much of the tragedy of the past 25 years would have been avoided if some Democrat 2000 had spent a few hours studying the legal details of hanging chads and found a way to just count those votes before the whole drama even started? If someone had done that, we would never have known their name or what they did, nobody would write poems about them, but they might have prevented multiple wars and millions of deaths. 

Felicitations Jen et Romain!

This is fantastic progress for year 1, and augurs very well for the future. All of us starting new EGI's have a lot to learn from what you have done, and what worked well and didn't work. So really appreciate you writing this article and sharing. The Effective Giving community is just wonderful for sharing resources and wisdom, almost that alone makes it worth being part of. 

At Effective Giving Ireland, we're about a year behind you, but looking to deliver something good for Giving Season 2025. We'll definitely take your experience into account, and probably pester you guys with questions ...

Good luck, and continue the fantastic progress!

I love this post. I don't necessarily agree with everything, but I love that you are willing to say something provocative, to stick your neck on the line and say what probably a lot of people are thinking. 

I am in exaclty this situation. I am not a vegan, and I donate to a great charity, FarmKind. I believe that my net impact on animal welfare is positive. But I also agree that this is largely part of my privilege of being able to donate without much hardship. 

This post, more than anything else I've read or seen on this topic, made me pause and question my own ethics. Any post that has that effect is a good post, we can all do with having our ethical assumptions challenged every now and then. 

There are complex arguments about the value and necessity of being vegan, I am not expert enough to add new value to that debate. 

My one observation, from someone living in a world where if you mention EA, people respond "what's that?" - if they've heard of it, it's because of SBF. And in this world, especially in Europe, veganism is sometimes seen (absolutely without justification!) as something that people do to impress others, rather than necessarily as virtuous. (look at all the jokes about vegans). So I'm not sure how much the showing virtue argument works outside areas where veganism is already popular. But it surely doesn't hurt - more vegans will lead to even more vegans ... 

So thanks for a great post !!



PS I really hope the people to gave it an X also replied or commented, I think when someone presents a coherent argument, and you disagree with it enough to give it an X, you should explain what exactly you disagree with.