My comment made four points:

1) Your post argues for the importance of work beyond welfare campaigns but doesn't explore tractability; most EAs would fully endorse the importance of that work but are skeptical of most approaches to enact systems change. As a result, your post doesn't address the actual objection.

2) Your post calls for people to move beyond utilitarianism as a way to solve the problems you highlighted with the current EA approach. However, you're speaking to an audience that likes the current approach, so all this does is make your ask to change even more demanding. Not only are you asking a change in approach, but you're asking a change in belief.

3) Your call to change moral theories is unnecessary. You're already making the claim that animals and people would be better off if we shifted our approach. If argued successfully, that would compel a utilitarian to shift their approach, so you don't actually need to change anyone's moral theory.

4) The other calls to action seemed to be suggesting more of the same things that advocates have been doing for years with no clear sign that things will be different, let alone better.

Your reply does not address points 1, 3, and 4. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on those points:
What would you say to an EA who fully endorses the importance of reforming the food system as a whole but doesn't believe it is possible at the scale you describe (particularly given how animal consumption continues to rise and veg*nism is flat)?
Do you agree that asking people to change moral theories (not just their approach) decreases the effectiveness of your ask among committed utilitarians? Why or why not? If so, why is it worth the cost?
What makes your plan and coalition different from what has been tried before?

You did partially address point 2, though indirectly. I think you are probably correct that there are new people entering EA spaces who are uncertain of their moral philosophy and will be considering philosophies other than utilitarianism, the typical (though not universal) lean of EAs. However, this post is clearly targeting a broad and influential audience. You will not reach that audience by insisting that everyone change their moral theory, not their approach. Thankfully (re: point 3), I don't think you have to.

The rest of your comment focuses on arguments in favor of moral philosophies outside of utilitarianism and restates your case for more holistic change under those philosophies. Beyond some straw manning^[1] and some definitional quibbles^[2], you make a reasonable case. However, for the reasons I gave above, I don't think this is the case you need to be making.

The strongest part of your argument is pushing people to consider "animal subjects-of-a-life, the climate crisis, health, pandemic risk, and food security". In theory, utilitarians should consider all of these points, but in practice, many utilitarian EAs focus almost exclusively on animals. I think a post about how the EA movement is missing these other categories of risk and is undercutting the value of work outside of welfare reforms would be impactful and well-received. However, it would need to be paired with arguments about tractability, since that's the key sticking point.

1. ^{^}

   Implying that utilitarians believe that "adequate, tolerable, and bearable" are good enough is inaccurate. Utilitarians try to maximize welfare of animals, and the focus on welfare campaigns over systems change comes from a belief that systems change is much less likely to work. Again, the disagreement comes from tractability, not importance, but your argument is centered around the latter.

2. ^{^}

   Regan or Masson's frameworks, as stated, don't seem contrary to what utilitarians consider in practice. Based on the line "An individual animal has welfare here in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them logically independently of the utility (i.e., if things go well or badly for them and it doesn’t matter how others value it)," it seems like you may be conflating utility to others with utility in the context of utilitarianism. Utilitarians are notoriously bad at choosing words that mean what they sound like they mean, so this isn't on you. "Welfare"/"utility" refers to literally anything that would make a sentient being regard their subjective experience better or worse, including everything you talk about when discussing Regan and Masson's work.

This is a comment critical of your approach in this article. I am sympathetic to the broader claim you are making, that the EA movement should be more systems-change focused. However, I don't think your target audience will hear that message for the issues stated below. Please hear this from the perspective of an ally recommending a tactical shift.

This article does not meaningfully engage with any of the actual reasons why most people in the EA movement take a different approach to helping animals than what you recommend. You make a great case for the importance of shifting our food system, but the vast majority of EAs who work on animal welfare already believe this.

The real challenge is tractability: what can we do that will actually work? This is left unaddressed.

Your calls to action are also unlikely to be effective.

On your first point, if you tell anyone with a strong moral commitment, "I know what you should do, but you'll have to fundamentally change your moral theory to believe it's a good idea," they're going to drop your suggestion, not the moral theory. For example, I feel confident that no one on this forum could entice you to become a utilitarian using the merit of shrimp welfare campaigns.

The thing is, you don't need to convince anyone to stop being a utilitarian. If you have good reason to believe that changing the food system will be what's best for animals and people (you do, your article is about this), then that means utilitarians should change the food system. IF there's a tractable way to do it.

The other two calls to action are generic and don't suggest any real change. They imply that the reason why we have failed to change the food system already is that we haven't formed coalitions or made plans to do so. Clearly, we have done these things. The movement is still losing, badly. Animal consumption is rising and veg*nism is flat. We all want to change these trends, and we need more than a call to come together to fix them.

If you ever need a classic rap song to communicate your desire to be more influential in animal philanthropy, just say:

I wish I was a little bit taller

I wish I was a Bollard

It seems pretty bad to allow people to react to their own comments/posts beyond the initial karma bump of an upvote. It allows users to artificially create the appearance of positive engagement with their posts, which skews initial perceptions and detracts from the truth-seeking goals of the Forum.

I'd be surprised if preventing people from saving starfish from asphyxiating on the beach is the best way to help shellfish even if all the assumptions in this calculation hold. If not, Shrimp Welfare project should probably start the SPFSTSNABWWTSTONAF (stop people from saving these specific neglected animals becuase we want to save those other neglected animals fund).

D:

I'm so glad I found this when I did. I had been filling out the 7 row of a multiplication table, but after 5 steps, I hit a major road block. Deep Thought was exactly what I needed to push through and figure it out.

Thank you so much!

The whole AGI welfare movement is treating the advance of an animal friendly future as more monolithic than it truly is. I think the future will be weirder than that.

I know of someone who walked out of a city and regretted it whom you might be able to reach. Last I heard they had an Appointment in Samarra, so you can presumably find them there.

This is really discouraging to see. People posting false claims with fake evidence distracts from people like you posting true claims in a misleading way, which is totally fine.