(highlight:: Insect welfare could be huge in the future
Summary:
Insects have become a concern for me after learning about their potential for well-being and suffering.
The rapidly growing numbers of farmed insects and their impact on the environment are alarming. Currently, we farm around one trillion insects per year, and this number could reach up to 70 trillion by 2050.
It's crucial to take action to prevent this from happening and protect their welfare.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think the big one, the big animal related view I've changed my mind on fairly recently is insects. I very much used to view them as these kind of unfeeling automatons did not give them a second thought. I was very happy to not worry about their well-being. But after seeing some of the moral weak work that rethink priorities has put out, I now feel worried about the insects. My sense is there's still quite a lot we don't know. And I could imagine easily changing my mind again. I should also clarify that this is my personal view rather than open philanthropy's view. But I feel quite worried that insects may be more capable of experiencing both positive well-being and suffering than I had thought previously. And given just how many insects there are, that's quite a nightmare to think about.
Speaker 2
Yeah, for sure. It just seems to be going so fastly out of control. When you look at the numbers, we spoke to Andreas last week and even insects outnumber the amount of shrimp that we farm already. And it's kind of like, yeah, the numbers are huge.
Speaker 1
They really are. They really are.
Speaker 3
Yeah, I think currently it's at one trillion farmed insects per year. And some estimations that could be up to 70 trillion farmed insects by 2050, which is kind of worrying, especially as people are kind of pushing it from a climate angle as well. So I think we need to do a lot of work to not let that happen, basically.)
- Time 0:01:32
-

(highlight:: Open Philanthropy Does Have To Decline Potentially Great Projects Due Lack of Funding
Summary:
One common misconception about open fill is the idea that there is unlimited funding available.
In reality, even though we have tens of millions of dollars, it is not enough to address the entire problem. We have to make trade-offs and decline funding for some projects that could benefit animals.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
But what are some common misconceptions that people have of open fill and yeah, does this come up a lot? And yeah, what are they?
Speaker 1
One good question. Perhaps the biggest or most damaging misconception that I come across is this idea that we have like a bottomless pool of funding. And I think the implication of that is that sometimes when we decline to fund a project, people think it's because it's just bad that we think, you know, this is a terrible thing. You shouldn't be doing it. It's not worth any funding whatsoever. And that's not really the case at all. Although tens of millions of dollars feels like a lot of money when you compare it to the scope of the problem, it quickly feels like not that much money at all. And so we are having to make trade offs every dollar we give to one project as a dollar. We can't give to another project. And so unfortunately, we do often have to decline to fund projects that probably could do quite a lot of good for animals in the world.)
- Time 0:07:44
-

(highlight:: The symbiotic relationship between corporate work and policy work in animal welfare
Summary:
Corporate work has a symbiotic relationship with policy work, especially in Europe where successful corporate campaigning organizations have weakened industry resistance.
This has led to the possibility of enacting EU-wide legislation to improve the lives of animals. Corporates sometimes support such measures to prevent low welfare imports and raise their own standards, making them allies in the fight.
Taking businesses out of resistance and involving them in policy work is a powerful tool.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The other thing that I quite like about corporate work is that it has this symbiotic relationship with policy work. So you see, for example, in Europe where there's this real possibility that EU-wide legislation will be enacted to improve the lives of armed animals. I personally think part of the reason we have that possibility is because there was such a successful group of corporate campaigning organizations in Europe to kind of weaken industry Resistance. And we can the resistance of some individual countries where already a large number of the products sold in that country were cage-free or were other less poor welfare products.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I always find that really interesting when it comes to things like imports as well. Sometimes there's angles where the corporate's actually want this as much as we do because they don't want them to push low welfare imports coming in when they're having to lift their Standards. So I definitely agree. I feel like this angle of taking the businesses out of that resistance and actually sometimes having them on-site, especially when it gets to more serious, sometimes wider policy Work. Seems like a really good tool.)
- Time 0:15:33
- corporate campaigning, policy advocacy, low-welfare imports,

(highlight:: Risks of taking a systemic v.s. targeted approach to improving animal welfare
Summary:
The movement is losing focus as organizations shift to a food systems approach instead of corporate advocacy.
The food systems approach aims to tackle multiple issues like antibiotic resistance and climate change, but there is a concern that it may not work. Instead, the focus should be on tangible change that can be achieved in the meantime.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And then I guess the last thing I worry about is that the movement is losing focus a little bit. People like new things, new things are fun and interesting and exciting. And so you see some organizations moving to like a food systems approach to their work overall and downplaying their corporate advocacy. And I think that's a shame. So that's, yeah, those are some of the big challenges I see. Yeah.
Speaker 3
When you say a food systems focus, what does that potentially look like and how is that different to the corporate campaigns?
Speaker 1
I think that's a very good question. I think that is a question that I would ask of those organizations. I guess like the less cheeky answer is that the food systems approach tends to want to take a more holistic view of animal welfare. And so it's like, let's work on antibiotic resistance. And let's work on climate change and let's work on, we know all of these important issues, but try to like reform the entire industry across the board rather than working on one targeted Problem. And you know, I think reasonable people can disagree about what the right strategy is. There are plenty of very smart, thoughtful people I know who share that perspective. My fear is that when you try to change an entire system, it could very easily never work. And so I would hate for all of our energy to go into this thing that, you know, if it works, it's amazing. But if it doesn't, we're going to be 100 years from now and things are going to look the same or worse. So in the meantime, I'd also like to see people focusing on this again, like really tangible change that we know can happen if we focus on it.)
- Time 0:18:44
-

(highlight:: Excitement About European Policy Work and Global Advocacy for Animal Welfare
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think I can speak for the team when I say that I'm at this moment in time, particularly excited about European policy work. It feels like such a rare moment to have lasting change that will last, you know, will last a generation. Yeah. So quite, quite excited about that kind of advocacy at the moment. And then speaking for myself personally, I'm also excited about the work being done to help groups around the globe and to develop the animal welfare movement around the globe. So for example, we've recently funded a group, EA Singapore, to run a fellowship and regranting project in Southeast Asia. I'm quite excited about that. I think that the Open Wing Alliance was really successful at helping to elevate the profile and expand the size of groups around the globe. And I'm hopeful that others can do that in the areas where the Open Wing Alliance hasn't had as much influence or impact.
Speaker 3
And in terms of that broad movement building approach, how do you guys think about actually, you know, increasing the effectiveness or size of a given movement in a country? What do you think is that the best approach is to actually do that?
Speaker 1
Well, it's interesting that you asked that. We actually have two of our team members, Emma Buckland and Martin Gould are right now doing a deep dive into movement building, because that's a very big question. Yeah, I expect that to be helpful.)
- Time 0:23:29
-

(highlight:: Insect welfare could be huge in the future
Summary:
Insects have become a concern for me after learning about their potential for well-being and suffering.
The rapidly growing numbers of farmed insects and their impact on the environment are alarming. Currently, we farm around one trillion insects per year, and this number could reach up to 70 trillion by 2050.
It's crucial to take action to prevent this from happening and protect their welfare.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think the big one, the big animal related view I've changed my mind on fairly recently is insects. I very much used to view them as these kind of unfeeling automatons did not give them a second thought. I was very happy to not worry about their well-being. But after seeing some of the moral weak work that rethink priorities has put out, I now feel worried about the insects. My sense is there's still quite a lot we don't know. And I could imagine easily changing my mind again. I should also clarify that this is my personal view rather than open philanthropy's view. But I feel quite worried that insects may be more capable of experiencing both positive well-being and suffering than I had thought previously. And given just how many insects there are, that's quite a nightmare to think about.
Speaker 2
Yeah, for sure. It just seems to be going so fastly out of control. When you look at the numbers, we spoke to Andreas last week and even insects outnumber the amount of shrimp that we farm already. And it's kind of like, yeah, the numbers are huge.
Speaker 1
They really are. They really are.
Speaker 3
Yeah, I think currently it's at one trillion farmed insects per year. And some estimations that could be up to 70 trillion farmed insects by 2050, which is kind of worrying, especially as people are kind of pushing it from a climate angle as well. So I think we need to do a lot of work to not let that happen, basically.)
- Time 0:01:32
-

(highlight:: Open Philanthropy Does Have To Decline Potentially Great Projects Due Lack of Funding
Summary:
One common misconception about open fill is the idea that there is unlimited funding available.
In reality, even though we have tens of millions of dollars, it is not enough to address the entire problem. We have to make trade-offs and decline funding for some projects that could benefit animals.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
But what are some common misconceptions that people have of open fill and yeah, does this come up a lot? And yeah, what are they?
Speaker 1
One good question. Perhaps the biggest or most damaging misconception that I come across is this idea that we have like a bottomless pool of funding. And I think the implication of that is that sometimes when we decline to fund a project, people think it's because it's just bad that we think, you know, this is a terrible thing. You shouldn't be doing it. It's not worth any funding whatsoever. And that's not really the case at all. Although tens of millions of dollars feels like a lot of money when you compare it to the scope of the problem, it quickly feels like not that much money at all. And so we are having to make trade offs every dollar we give to one project as a dollar. We can't give to another project. And so unfortunately, we do often have to decline to fund projects that probably could do quite a lot of good for animals in the world.)
- Time 0:07:44
-

(highlight:: The symbiotic relationship between corporate work and policy work in animal welfare
Summary:
Corporate work has a symbiotic relationship with policy work, especially in Europe where successful corporate campaigning organizations have weakened industry resistance.
This has led to the possibility of enacting EU-wide legislation to improve the lives of animals. Corporates sometimes support such measures to prevent low welfare imports and raise their own standards, making them allies in the fight.
Taking businesses out of resistance and involving them in policy work is a powerful tool.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
The other thing that I quite like about corporate work is that it has this symbiotic relationship with policy work. So you see, for example, in Europe where there's this real possibility that EU-wide legislation will be enacted to improve the lives of armed animals. I personally think part of the reason we have that possibility is because there was such a successful group of corporate campaigning organizations in Europe to kind of weaken industry Resistance. And we can the resistance of some individual countries where already a large number of the products sold in that country were cage-free or were other less poor welfare products.
Speaker 2
Yeah, I always find that really interesting when it comes to things like imports as well. Sometimes there's angles where the corporate's actually want this as much as we do because they don't want them to push low welfare imports coming in when they're having to lift their Standards. So I definitely agree. I feel like this angle of taking the businesses out of that resistance and actually sometimes having them on-site, especially when it gets to more serious, sometimes wider policy Work. Seems like a really good tool.)
- Time 0:15:33
- corporate campaigning, policy advocacy, low-welfare imports,

(highlight:: Risks of taking a systemic v.s. targeted approach to improving animal welfare
Summary:
The movement is losing focus as organizations shift to a food systems approach instead of corporate advocacy.
The food systems approach aims to tackle multiple issues like antibiotic resistance and climate change, but there is a concern that it may not work. Instead, the focus should be on tangible change that can be achieved in the meantime.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And then I guess the last thing I worry about is that the movement is losing focus a little bit. People like new things, new things are fun and interesting and exciting. And so you see some organizations moving to like a food systems approach to their work overall and downplaying their corporate advocacy. And I think that's a shame. So that's, yeah, those are some of the big challenges I see. Yeah.
Speaker 3
When you say a food systems focus, what does that potentially look like and how is that different to the corporate campaigns?
Speaker 1
I think that's a very good question. I think that is a question that I would ask of those organizations. I guess like the less cheeky answer is that the food systems approach tends to want to take a more holistic view of animal welfare. And so it's like, let's work on antibiotic resistance. And let's work on climate change and let's work on, we know all of these important issues, but try to like reform the entire industry across the board rather than working on one targeted Problem. And you know, I think reasonable people can disagree about what the right strategy is. There are plenty of very smart, thoughtful people I know who share that perspective. My fear is that when you try to change an entire system, it could very easily never work. And so I would hate for all of our energy to go into this thing that, you know, if it works, it's amazing. But if it doesn't, we're going to be 100 years from now and things are going to look the same or worse. So in the meantime, I'd also like to see people focusing on this again, like really tangible change that we know can happen if we focus on it.)
- Time 0:18:44
-

(highlight:: Excitement About European Policy Work and Global Advocacy for Animal Welfare
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think I can speak for the team when I say that I'm at this moment in time, particularly excited about European policy work. It feels like such a rare moment to have lasting change that will last, you know, will last a generation. Yeah. So quite, quite excited about that kind of advocacy at the moment. And then speaking for myself personally, I'm also excited about the work being done to help groups around the globe and to develop the animal welfare movement around the globe. So for example, we've recently funded a group, EA Singapore, to run a fellowship and regranting project in Southeast Asia. I'm quite excited about that. I think that the Open Wing Alliance was really successful at helping to elevate the profile and expand the size of groups around the globe. And I'm hopeful that others can do that in the areas where the Open Wing Alliance hasn't had as much influence or impact.
Speaker 3
And in terms of that broad movement building approach, how do you guys think about actually, you know, increasing the effectiveness or size of a given movement in a country? What do you think is that the best approach is to actually do that?
Speaker 1
Well, it's interesting that you asked that. We actually have two of our team members, Emma Buckland and Martin Gould are right now doing a deep dive into movement building, because that's a very big question. Yeah, I expect that to be helpful.)
- Time 0:23:29
-