Great post, clear and insightful! I really appreciate how you’ve presented this perspective on the cultivated meat debate. 

Your point about the substitution effect and that this may not replace conventional meat but instead compete with other alternative proteins is striking and not something I had considered before. I had assumed that meat-eaters would be more likely to embrace cultivated meat, but your argument that hybrid products might not attract them, given the reception to things like the Beyond or Impossible Burgers, is compelling.

I love that you're asking such critical questions and admire how you’ve kept the post concise while still offering constructive recommendations for the EA movement. 

My hope is that cultivated meat will enable us to replace animal products for companion animals, but I realise looking at your information on scale and cost I'm being pretty optimistic on that. Do you feel that will be a viable option at some point in the future?

Also, I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't know the reference to Omelas so thank you for introducing me to that story.

Thanks again for such a thought-provoking and well-balanced post!

Thank you for writing this comprehensive proposal. I agree with your conclusion it's not a case of if but when and we should be improving our pandemic planning now.

Industrial animal agriculture creates conditions where pathogens can evolve and spread rapidly between densely housed animals, potentially creating new zoonotic diseases that can jump to humans. This factor alone raises the likelihood of future pandemics and strengthens the case for robust early detection systems.

The comparison to fire protection spending provides a compelling perspective. It's striking that New Zealand spent nearly 3 times more on fire protection than pandemic preparedness, despite COVID-19 costing the country roughly 50 times more than annual fire damage. This kind of data-driven comparison makes a strong case for increasing pandemic surveillance investment.

I hope you're able to get this information to MoH!

It’s encouraging to see more conversations like this happening. There’s real value in weaving our decades of lived experience, professional know-how and long-view perspective into EA’s ambitious vision. Older participants still have a lot of skin in the game and a strong desire to help shape the future. I know I do!

I’ve never felt judged for my age personally, nor would I judge others. I’ve met EAers of all ages who are genuinely welcoming and curious. But not everyone experiences it that way. I can imagine some older people taking one look at the sea of 20-somethings and thinking, “Maybe this isn’t for me.” Not because they don’t care, but because they feel out of place or even a bit scared to step into a space that seems to belong to another generation.

I’ve found spaces like HIP's Impact Accelerator Program (High Impact Professionals) to a great way to engage and learn more about EA. Aimed at mid-career or senior professionals looking to use their careers for more good, they’ve created a thoughtful, age-inclusive community where everyone is encouraged to contribute from where they are in life. (FYI: The next round starts in June. Find more information and FAQs here: https://bit.ly/498iBkm)

I'll be attending EAG London and so will help shift the average age :)! I look forward to meeting a diverse range of people!

Thank you for mapping the systemic risks of Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) – I really appreciate this post and how you’ve highlighted some worrying trends.

I’m horrified by the idea of PLF. While it could potentially, maybe, help some animals in some ways – at what cost? 

I agree with you that by supporting it we would be locking in values that factory farming is ok and strategically entrenching an exploitative system. Efforts to improve conditions absolutely matter – but we need to make sure the ‘how’ doesn’t eclipse the deeper question of ‘should we?’ That tension feels especially urgent with PLF, which risks locking in factory farming more deeply than ever.

The future we need doesn’t come from better surveillance of suffering, but from phasing out the systems that cause it. 

I appreciated how you countered the natural question –“Isn't it plausible that improving conditions for billions of animals is high-impact?” by reframing the discussion from per-animal welfare gains to system-level consequences (Quantifying the Net Impact section).

The idea of using regulation as a tool to create liability and slow down investment is compelling - and perhaps necessary if PLF expansion is politically inevitable. A key question, perhaps, is - what would the world look like in 2040 if PLF succeeds versus if we block or delay it? The challenge is walking a fine line: resisting effectively without becoming part of the machinery we’re trying to dismantle.

I think you are right to conclude that it is a pro-industry tool. That’s why we need to be cautious - not to mistake PLF for progress, when it may in fact be entrenchment in disguise.

This post inspired me to complete the BlueDot Future of AI course! Thanks Max! 

Sharing in case this is useful for others - online, 2hr course: https://course.bluedot.org/future-of-ai

Thank you for this post. I think it does a great job of outlining the double-edged sword we're facing -  - the potential for AI to either end enormous suffering or amplify it exponentially.

Your suggestion to reframe our movement's goal really expanded my thinking: "ensure that advanced AI and the people who control it are aligned with animals' interests by 2030." This feels urgent and necessary given the timelines you've outlined.

I'm particularly concerned that our society's current commodified view of animals could be baked into AGI systems and scaled to unprecedented levels. 

The strategic targets you've identified make perfect sense - especially the focus on AI/animal collaborations and getting animal advocates into rooms where AGI decisions are being made. We should absolutely be leveraging AI-powered advocacy tools while we can still shape their development. 

Thank you for this clarity. I'll be thinking much more deeply about how my own advocacy work needs to adapt to this possible near-future scenario.

Thanks both for sharing this retrospective - it's a great summary of the campaigns' efforts, challenges and learnings. I appreciate the work that went into this, particularly the manual coordination and outreach—it’s no small task to organise a campaign like this!

I think the decision to focus on two key recommendations was a smart and pragmatic decision, people are easily overwhelmed and we need people to care and act.

Your insights about communication preferences (email over messenger) are useful. 

We run campaigns which involve letter/email templates in the style of your possible alternative #2 but that then faces the issues of MP offices receiving similar messages which may then be discounted /not counted as individual correspondence. Use of some automation /AI tool may help avoid this but we've not explored that space a lot.

Thanks again for describing your actions so clearly and sharing the insights.

FYI the UK Voters for Animals link doesn't seem to go where you want it to!

Thanks for sharing your post on what I think is an important topic. 

I like how you have clearly stated the problem and you make a great point about the complexity of engaging with EA, especially for mid-career professionals.  I agree the HIP programme seems to be an effective way to navigate this space more smoothly, and I can sympathise with the challenges you’ve highlighted.

Building on your ideas regarding career stage-based filtering and personalised recommendations, making it easier for newcomers to find relevant pathways without cognitive overload, could there be an interactive "guided exploration" tool—perhaps an AI-driven assistant or decision-tree quiz—that helps users quickly assess their best starting point based on their background, interests and constraints? I wonder if anyone has experimented with similar tools before or are there existing resources that could be adapted for this? 

Many thanks for sharing this study on Generation Z's attitudes toward animals and the environment across different countries. 

For me, the universal neglect of farmed animals was unexpected and stands out. Despite general concern for animal welfare, respondents across all countries primarily focused on companion animals and wildlife, with farmed animals rarely mentioned - especially in Asian countries. This blind spot seems significant given the scale of factory farming globally. 

Thanks for sharing! I appreciate the thought-provoking argument about climate change exacerbating wild animal suffering through shifts toward r-selected species. The case that climate change could ultimately cause more suffering than factory farming by reshaping ecosystems in ways that increase the prevalence of short, painful lives is an important one to consider.

However, I was struck by the lack of discussion on factory farming as a significant driver of climate change itself. Given that industrial animal agriculture is a major source of methane emissions, deforestation, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss addressing factory farming is not just a separate moral issue but a crucial part of mitigating climate change. By tackling factory farming we address climate change too! 

By not addressing this connection I feel the article is presenting a misleading dichotomy between the harms of climate change and factory farming, when in reality they are deeply interconnected.