This is awesome. I really liked how you considered both short term and long term, clear and diffuse effects, and noted how they changed your confidence. 

It seems like this should be highly valuable for:

• People working in animal advocacy
• For donors who want to make their own judgements about which interventions to support
• For other researchers who want to build on this, or to identify how different assumptions lead to support for different causes. 

I agree with @david_reinstein that it would be nice to see this made into a more visually polished and navigable form, but in terms of the content itself I found it very easy to understand the reasoning and assessments. 

I think this may have been a misunderstanding, because I also misunderstood your comment at first. At first you refer simply to the people who play the biggest role in shaping AGI - but then later (and in this comment) you refer to people who contribute most to making AGI go well - a very important distinction!  

That's fair. I would love it if we had data on this, and to be honest I am unsure about whether being strictly vegan is always right - my stronger objection to this article was about not being strictly vegetarian. That is easier to do and I think is perceived as less strict, at least in western societies. On the other hand, as I said in another comment I think that it's very hard to eat meat and fully internalise nonspeciesism at the same time. A true nonspeciesist should be disugsted by meat, because that's literally a dead body in front of you. So I think it's worth it to be strictly vegetarian primarily to reinforce your own values, internally - but also for the signalling effect.

Hey, I agree that many people associate veganism with 'annoying people'. But that's actually...more reason to call yourself vegan, if you're not an annoying person yourself! Break the stereotype, and normalise being standing for vegan values :)

My sense is that a lot of people in EA are against factory farming, but still buy into human supremacy and are ok with free-range farming. Then the 90% approach reflects the appropriate attitude and is fine. But for those like myself who have long-term hopes of ending animal exploitation altogether, I think it makes sense to signal that we oppose all of it. Requiring others to be strict is certainly counter-productive, though. I also don't think change has to be all or nothing - I actually think it's really good for people who make exceptions sometimes to call themselves vegan.

I think this kind of signal might work for high-functioning EAs, but not for your average person. It's too complicated: "I don't want to participate in a practice that harms animals" is much easier to understand. 

By the logic you've expressed in the post, I think you could also consider eating leftover meat, meat that's for free, meat that's from someone you know... so it gets complicated. My expectation is that most people see such behaviour, and think this person kind of cares about animal welfare, but only a bit.

That all said, I think (although I'm uncertain) that reason (1) in my last comment might actually be the most important.

You might want to read this other new article on the forum.

This post assumes that the main reason for going vegan is due to your individual consumer impact. But there are at least three other, in my opinion stronger, reasons to go vegan:

1. Because evidence suggests that when we eat animals we are likely to view them as having lower cognitive capabilities or moral status (see here for a wikipedia blurb about it). My own experience is that I started thinking and caring about animals more after I stopped eating them.
2. As a social signal, to show to others that you object to this practice as a whole.
3. You just find it easier to live according to simple ethical principles rather than calculating the expected utility in every situation.

Consumer boycotts aren't often effective at putting industries out of business. Social and political movements are, and the above three points contribute better to social and political change.

In response to the health argument:
The argument seems to be primarily an argument about ignorance: we don't understand nutrition, so veganism might be bad for us in a bunch of ways that we don't yet know about. But any modern diet is pretty far from a 'natural' one, so I'm not sure why defaulting back to a normal modern diet is any better. I wouldn't worry about this myself, because the reality is that humans evolved eating a variety of diets in different places - our bodies have adapted to take on a bit of stress. 

But also, it's not that hard to cover most of the nutrients mentioned at the beginning of the post - I buy a multivitamin that's designed for vegetarians, thus has a range of vitamins in the right ratios, and combine it with omega 3, and I'm sure that I'm healthier than I was before I was vegan and I'm sure I'm healthier than the majority of the population too. So if you're willing to put in this amount of work, I don't think the argument applies.

Side note on muscles and oysters:
I think one could argue these are part of a vegan diet, if a vegan diet is one based on not harming sentient beings.

*edit to add: I also would take long-term studies on vegan health with a big grain of salt, since I think it's become dramatically easier to have a healthy vegan diet in the last 10 years, with better access to vitamins, fortified milks etc.

Right, I agree that's possible.

But I doubt most people are so rational. Climate offsets present an importantly different case - at least some are a true offset, where no more carbon is added to the atmosphere, so no additional or different harm is done. With animal offsetting, no more harm is done, but a different harm is. Most people would still feel bad about causing harm to that particular individual - and so they will still be insentivized to deny their moral relevance, even if they offset.

So I think this is likely to vary by person, depending on how tied their emotional response is to individuals vs abstract suffering.

It's clearly better in the short term. I think it's less clearly better in the long term: eating meat makes people more likely to deny the relevance of animal minds, so their motivation to promote animal welfare might not be sustained in the long run. Conversely, this effect might cause people who go vegan to actually become increasingly non-speciesist over time (I'm extrapolating from the results of the study, but I think it's a fair assumption).

I like and agree with this post a lot. I just want to push back on this part:

You typically need 100-200+ applications to land a job.

These numbers are crazy. It may be that many people make so many applications, but they certainly shouldn't: with so many applications, you can't put in the effort needed to have a really good shot, and you're probably applying for many positions where you have next to no chance anyway. Not to mention that with so many rejections, I would be highly suspicious of whoever did end up hiring me (surely there's some bad reason why they didn't hire anyone else)!

So: better to apply where you have a real shot, make fewer high-quality applications, and end up in a position where you can take an offer from an employer you feel confident you want to work for. Ideally, you might even be able to negotiate. 

Also: I haven't looked into these numbers but I suspect they might also be inflated by job-searching requirements in many unemployment insurance schemes.