What do you think about losses like these being a trigger for backsliding on other farmed animal work? 

For instance, the Animal Ag Lobby saying something like, "Look people don't care about animal welfare. Even progressive cities turned this down." Could this effect trigger something like the EATS act getting passed? I don't have an informed opinion on this, but it seems like a significant backfire risk.

I'm also worried that 308 (Denver's fur ban) would have passed without 309 (Denver's slaughterhouse ban) being right next to it. The Denver Democrats anti-endorsed both measures which may not have happened if the measures were run separately (total guess on that one, but it passed in Boulder which has very similar demographics).

At the same time, perhaps there is very significant social change & radical flank effects from forcing the vote on abolitionist work! Looking for insight.

Hmm, I hadn't considered farmed animals lives becoming net positive as a case against the meat eating problem! Thanks for pointing that out.

> the best animal welfare interventions will be much more cost-effective than the best global > health and development interventions.

I'm a bit confused by this point. It still seems like if we value this framework, we should still be considering flow-through effects in questions of cause prioritization and which GHD interventions to support. I think there are also reasonable edge cases where we may be able to influence GHD interventions to have better positive flow-through effects, if the donor is not onboard with AW.

How about modeling the flow through effects on animal welfare? This may negate any decrease in human welfare, but I haven't seen a BOTEC of this that models the income increase on the meat eating problem. I suspect it would likely still be very positive for animal welfare.

How about both lens? I could see the 'end factory farming' framing and dreaming big be really good for some folks, particularly young people with lofty ambitions who are not yet in the movement. I think it was particularly helpful for me to have this framing when joining the movement!

We could also advocate for near-term suffering reduction as a lofty goal within itself, given the right context (i.e. within EA)!

Thanks Yanni! I've been on the path of nondual meditation for about a year now, and have slowly watched the benefits manifest.

You're so right, but I'm so far away from being at this level...

How did you build your capability for this?

This to me drills home how important it is to have a few additional great people – imagine what we could an additional Carolina Galvani, Mahi Klosterhalfen or Ryan Xue. 

Hopefully we get a few more James Özden's too :)

I've been going through all of the debate posts after being out for the last week and I've also been an animal advocate for 7 years now. I don't watch footage of violence to animals anymore because of longstanding trauma from it.

Since stopping watching graphic imagery/video, no written post in the last few years has triggered such an emotional reaction in me. I had to stop halfway through to bawl my eyes out.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! After reading posts from the last week, I feel even more invigorated and motivated to continue this fight. <3

I tend to agree with Ariel Simnegar's "Open Phil Should Allocate Most Neartermist Funding to Animal Welfare", however I still have some uncertainty in moral weights.

I am very convinced by the arguments presented in Ariel Simnegar's "Open Phil Should Allocate Most Neartermist Funding to Animal Welfare". I still have uncertainty in moral weights so am not 100% agree