I feel that this is an interesting question.
 

In general, one uncomfortable realization that I feel I am approaching is kind of misanthropic. 

More than 100 billion animals are killed for meat and other animal products every year.

Considering there is 8 billion humans, if there was a hypothetical example where pressing a button would destroy the whole world (or even just humanity) would that be preferable compared to the suffering of factory farmed animals?

I know commonly animal welfare is put in a lower basis compared to human welfare.

However, considering the sheer amount of animal suffering in factory farms, does it not outweigh the total amount of human flourishing?

Without meaning to sound like an eco-terrorist, considering the amount of suffering one person that eats meat can do to animals, should murdering a meat eater be considered "ethical"? 
 

I feel like these are important questions to answer and depending on your answer to these questions, can probably determine what to focus (whether animal based ethics, or human improvement).

So I think this would be a better summary of the article :
```
The text discusses several key points:

1.Many people in the effective altruism (EA) community follow different types of utilitarianism as their personal "ambitious moralities" for making the world better.
2.The author distinguishes between "utilitarianism as a personal goal" versus utilitarianism as the single true morality everyone must adopt.
3."Minimal morality" is about respecting others' life goals, separate from one's "ambitious morality."
4.Judging which ambitious morality is better is not necessarily negligible since they can give quite different recommendations for how to act.
5.However, people should approach their personal moral views differently if they see them as subjective rather than objective.
6.The author uses an analogy with political parties (Democrats vs. Republicans) to illustrate respecting others' moral views while still advocating for one's own.
7."Minimal morality" is analogous to respecting the overarching democratic process, despite having different ambitious political goals.

In summary, the text argues for a pluralistic view where people can have different utilitarian "ambitious moralities" as personal goals, while still respecting a shared "minimal morality" of not imposing their view on others or acting in ways harmful to others' moral pursuits.
```

Please let me know if this is condensed enough while still answering all relevant parts of the article.

So is it basically saying that many people follow different types of utilitarianism (I'm assuming this means the "ambitious moralities"), but judging which one is better is quite neglible since all the types usually share important moral similarities (I'm assuming what this means "minimal morality")?

To be honest, the text of this article is extraordinarily long and hard to comprehend. Is there like a simplified version of this text that is in simpler English and is much shorter?

Hi, in the city I am presiding there are a lot of homeless people.

A lot of these people are near grocery stores. Considering meat is a high protein source, like if you buy turkey slices, I feel like that lasts (compared to buying something like tofu). So I was wondering whether its okay to buy meat to give it to a homeless person. This forum seems to think veganism is highly impactful so I don't know. 

Or perhaps, rather than donating meat, I could donate money to them? I don't know if that is good either because there isn't really much of a big difference if a homeless person buys meat vs I buy the meat for them.

Furthermore, there are some instances where some argue that homeless people would spend the money on drugs and alcohol. But when I'm not in a position to give food (because I don't have it with me currently), I donate like a dollar. Would this be considered good or bad?

But boycotts where you are trying to make a policy change require mass organization then?

So I shouldn't care too much about opening strangers water bottles and opening the cap or whatever and emptying its contents, kind of like what the article says. Interesting.

Could the same logic be applied elsewhere? 

E.g. boycotting Nestle results in reduced money for Nestle which causes Nestle to exploit people in Africa less?

Idk, red cross says check with a physician beforehand. Furthermore, the blood donation center I am currently going to frequently asks if I am taking those supplements before I donate. It seems like there must be something external that is relevant about those supplements - its not just another source of iron.

How is veganism effective then? Like blood/platelet/plasma donation is ineffective because there are already lots of blood donations out there, but somehow veganism if effective despite there being plenty of meat eaters out there?

Furthermore, earlier on regarding saving hospitals money, I have been thinking if that really saves any lives in a very indirect manner. For context, I live in the US in a for-profit healthcare system. Should I care about saving hospitals money? Who receives the benefit in this scenario? Maybe hospital has more money to save more people, or maybe the admins in charge gets a bigger payraise...