(A bit disjointed)

This is a suggestion I found interesting and exciting. However, perhaps its implementation might be... too early? As you mentioned, there are few in-person orgs, and they don't seem to be constrained by the amount of motivated individuals (though I might be wrong there, esp if people at the AASF were interested). 

I was a bit surprised by the "steep dropoff after graduation" claim. I think this is very likely to be true, but this could give the - very false - impression that there are many motivated students in the movement, which is not what I've observed. At most animal advocacy protests I've attended (or other non-EA pro-animal in-person event), it's very hard to find people under 25. 

I'm actually the president of an animal ethics student org, which is part of a network that was created with the idea of filling that gap. It's less ambitious for sure (and way less costly), but it has the perk of trying to motivate students to take more basic steps to join the movement or build a pro-animal identity, because in my understanding, people who would currently feel motivated to do such a fellowship after graduating are probably rare.

Tentative feedback: you cite other bottlenecks in animal advocacy, and I feel like they are likely to affect the impact of such a program were it too exist (too little funding, too few orgs). I'd also suggest that the "in-person" criteria is demanding and might be counter-productive (though I understand why you find it critical). If so much animal advocacy work is currently remote, it might be better to own up to it and see if there are some motivated individuals who can still give their all in remote jobs (hopefully with strong connections in other ways, such as having opportunities to attend conferences and retreats, go to sanctuaries, etc).

Though if the "in-person" part is crucial, it might be better, on the margin, to work on ways to strengthen the in-person aspects of animal advocacy (though I'm not sure of robust ways to do that, and I assume it could be very costly).

Overall, I think this post is particularly valuable for highlighting the sort of things the movement should be aiming for: I'd also be very interested in more data on how many individuals are currently involved in animal advocacy in any way, shape, or form.

Very transparent, concise, and action-guiding, thank you Constance! Bookmarked to re-read it before the next conference I'll attend. I'm pretty confident that at least some of the tips here will be concretely useful to me in the future!

Do you expect an additional aspiring super-connector to be more useful: 

a) In a large hub (say, Bay Area) where other competent, value-aligned connectors might already dwell?

b) In a smaller hub (say, Amsterdam), where it seems that no one has currently picked up the ball?

c) As a nomad who goes from hub to hub at different times of the year, while never remaining for more than a few months in any major city?

(I guess the crux here is whether one thinks that there are already competent "connectors" in the largest hubs)

[crosscommenting from Substack]

Wow! I'm not emotional (and unsure if I get the same emotions from EAG conferences) but this post did make me feel a bit sappy. I met many people that I find really impressive at the conference (including you), and was baffled to see that their personality is as agreeable and entertaining as their work is thorough. Aaron and Jack were particularly cool. But the highlight of the post was seeing the amazing Joanna shouted out - if she can help invertebrates as well as she can draw them, I'm hopeful for the future!

Really hope to see you at more UK events before you move back... In any case, it was a pleasure to see you again... especially the part where you Benthsplained shrimp welfare work to a barman at 1AM.

Concise, concrete, helpful: much appreciated, thank you!

I appreciate the shortness of this post: plus, that makes it more convenient to use as a link if I ever find myself making this point in a discussion.

Morality for me is about crying out at the horrors of the universe and pleading for them to stop.

I think about this quote on a nearly daily basis, it sits close to my heart. I agree that this is one of your most important articles!

(Not a very high-effort comment, reposting it from Substack for encouragement)^[1]I

Super excited to see you going into this area. It's a thorny field where a lot of speculation is currently needed, and it seems most people who care about this (not that there are many of us), still defer to Brian Tomasik articles from fifteen years ago. It's cool to see someone with your degree of visibility carrying the torch, and it motivates me to speak up on this topic too. I applied to give a talk about how to reduce wild animal suffering now (and considerations for wild animal suffering in the future) at an animal advocacy conference this summer, and while I have no confirmation that I'll be able to do it, you played a role in me proposing this topic. 

1. ^{^}

   I must confess that I comment early whenever I see a Bentham's Bulldog post about invertebrates or other animals, to send a signal that some dedicated readers do care about the subject and want to see more of it. Let's just say that for now, my positive reactions still stick out amidst the comments, sadly.

(my answer is kind of messy as I probably misunderstood some of your points while first writing it, and then edited in a disorderly fashion)

What will shape the future is always unclear. Naively predictable factors that seem much larger than animal advocacy to me are:

• Caring about the environment / sustainability: it's likely that if these factors remain important in society, some forms of farming could be severely restricted (cow farming, but also perhaps some forms of fish farming?)
• Cultural / commercial contingencies: stuff like the popularity of sushi in the west, successful ad campaigns by red lobster, seem to have significantly influenced the demand for small animals
• Technological development: current developments may make cow farming more sustainable (good for small animals), but productivity developments will probably be more significant for small animal farming, which is much less efficient currently and has more room for improvement.

Sure, animal advocates could strategically try to influence these factors in one direction or the other, but I'd see at possible marginal impact over force currently beyond their control. Regarding second-order effects of the moral advocacy / cultural influence aspect of animal advocacy, I can't remember ever encountering any indication of the fact that people in the west were eating more chickens^[1], crustaceans and fishes because of culturally-encouraged empathy for large animals. Maybe there are non-consumer cases where a link can be drawn, such as ethical criticisms of meat from large animals being leveraged by the insect farming industry, but this is more of an imaginary example as I'm not sure this has been the case.

As for whether animal advocates are still likely to influence SARP: yes, but plausibly only marginally, unless they act with a strategic mindset in some key field (eg through getting a ban on the use of Precision Livestock Farming for large animals but not for small animals). I agree that it should be taken more seriously. However, I think whether current animal advocacy efforts increase or decrease SARP is very unclear to me. There are definitely strategic questions to be asked here, such as whether welfare reforms that drive up the prices of products from large animals will increase the consumption of small animals, or whether the movement should try to be aligned with the environmental movement (who seems to have a larger effect on SARP), and reminding advocates that SARP actually matters a lot is a good step in that direction. I wonder to what extent the big animal welfare orgs are currently thinking about this (it seems to be on L214's mind from what I've heard floating around, but it's unclear whether their current efforts are going in the right direction).

1. ^{^}

   Matt Ball is definitely an interesting case, it's surprising that the person who's probably been the most outspoken about SARP is also the one anti-invertebrate sentience advocate in the movement.

Thanks for questioning my imprecise definition! I was thinking (too?) broadly of vegans in general or casual activists. Even within this community, few prioritize animal suffering as evidenced by low participation in animal advocacy events and careers. While we could narrow our focus to 'extremely dedicated animal advocates,' this represents just thousands of individuals worldwide against billions of consumers and thousands of highly motivated industry stakeholders who likely match or exceed their commitment level.

This makes important points about strategy in a field where a lot is yet to be mapped and defined, and this is potentially useful in order to do that. I appreciate your concision, too.

The most important asymmetry for animal advocates seems to be the truth asymmetry, especially moral alignment to consumers. One of the only reasons I can find to feel hopeful about farmed animal advocacy is that animal advocates are likely to be much more aligned with the general preferences of individual consumers than those who wish to encourage factory farming. Optimistic scenarios of AGI development allowing for better decision-making could increase the chances that these consumer preferences can be leveraged (though I'm not sure how hopeful I am about this for now). 

An asymmetry that seems more doubtful to me is the motivational asymmetry: I don't get the impression that the majority of animal advocates are strongly motivated by reducing animal suffering, and there might be a sufficient number of stakeholders (in a broad sense) in animal agriculture who are likely to be as motivated as the minority of "highly motivated" animal advocates.

This will probably be helpful for my own strategic thinking on this question, so thank you for posting this!