(highlight:: Factory Farming May Not Be Solved 1000 Years From Now
Summary:
Some animal advocates are optimistic about fixing factory farming and ending the practice, but I hold a different view.
I believe that even if we solve all other human problems, factory farming could still exist on a larger scale in the future. However, I think it's crucial for everyone to work on this issue and prioritize interventions to make a real impact on farm animals.
It may not happen in our lifetime, but it's important that we keep working towards a solution.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
So a question you'd like to start everyone off with is what's the view you hold that most animal advocates would disagree with?
Speaker 1
Yeah, I absolutely love this question. And I guess maybe my answer would be something along the lines of like, sometimes I see like a lot of optimism that we're going to fix factory farming, we're going to completely end this Practice and that this change is just behind the corner and we're going to see it in our lifetime. And unfortunately, I also do believe that in the future, we might live in a thousand years from now. We maybe solve the issues of global health, we eliminate global poverty, we solve all problems that humans are facing and everyone is living happy and fulfilling lives. And yet we still have factory farming, maybe a larger scale than we've ever had because the population is growing as well. So it might sound like a very tragic way to start an episode, focus on helping animals. But here's the thing, I do think it's very feasible to address. And this is issue that we can solve. Not sure is going to happen within our lifetime. Maybe it will take our children or grandchildren to see that massive change globally. But I think this, why I think it's important to have a good sense of that view is that it might determine what sort of interventions we prioritize or even how we think about solving this Problem. So I do think currently every person, every new person and every new organization working on these issues, absolutely crucial and have a real chance of having a very enormous impact On farm animals like now and in the future and just basically in the light of magnitude of the problem and how I guess meaningful changing it would be, I think we need a lot of people working On the movement and a lot of organizations contributing to solving that. Because again, it might not happen by itself. It won't, most likely won't happen by itself. And I think that only gives speaks to the importance of the work that everyone is doing in the movement and that every person matters here.)
- Time 0:01:32
-

(highlight:: Considering Different Theories of Change and Preventative Approaches to Generate New Solutions
Summary:
We like to shift our thinking and perspectives to bring new ideas to the table.
This year, we focused on the preventative frame by looking at potential future problems in farm animals. We considered insect farming as a preventive measure to avoid future issues rather than fixing existing problems.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Sometimes we also shift kind of like ways of thinking, or like almost think from a different perspective or different theory of change, see whether that brings new ideas into the table. Like, for example, you know, in the past, I think the ideas have been tilted toward ideas that improve welfare of animals that are farmed on large scale, like farm fish or farm shrimp. This year we looked into more a little bit in the kind of like preventative frame, I guess. So kind of like looking at what could be the problems that will likely be developed in a factor of farm animals that are currently not large scale problems, but might become or will likely Become big problems in the future. And that's kind of when the consideration of insect farming came to mind. Insects are farmed on a very large scale, but it's likely going to, it might take up more and be larger problem in the future. So is there something that we could do right now that will prevent from this problem from growing instead of trying to shrink the big problem that already exists?)
- Time 0:40:47
- theory of change,
- [note::The ITN framework needs a "P" for "Preventable", as in "if we solve this problem, how likely is it to prevent other problems?"
I suppose this is a mix of both Importance and Tractability, but it's pecifically focused on potential future problems related to the primary problem.]

(highlight:: Surprising Ideas for Improving Animal Welfare: Feed Fortification to Prevent Bone Fractures
Summary:
We put aside ideas, run objective research, and then look back at the predictions.
Most ideas can be predicted, but there's always at least one surprising one. For example, fish welfare and feed fortification were unexpected.
Discovering the large problem of bone fractures in poultry led to the idea of adding micronutrients to feed, reducing pain.
It was a surprising find with a lot of evidence.
So sometimes the most compelling ideas are the most surprising ones.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
We then we kind of basically put them on the side, forget about them, run the research process objectively in all of this, and then look back at the predictions we made. And what we've seen is that a lot of ideas can be predicted ahead of time, but there, everyone, there will be one, at least one idea that was completely surprising. We did not expect it to make to the list. So I can give you an example from the very first year, and you know, recommending someone working on fish welfare seemed pretty obvious from the beginning, large-scale problem at the Time. There was no one working on fish welfare organizations, so very neglected problem, large-scale of the problem, quite centralized, few countries have are responsible for majority Of the production. So if you tackle the problem there, that could be very effective large-scale in the beginning, all of those reasons seem kind of compelling that it might be recommended, but there were Some others that were very surprising to us. And I think feed fortification was one of those very surprising ones. That was just like a kind of like random crazy idea we came up with for defying food in global health is like a very effective intervention. So we kind of thought, is there any reason why it might also be very effective and cost effective in animal space? And I was researching one of the sources of pain and a glowing hands. And what was very striking to me is that meal bone fractures turn out to be a very large problem in a glowing hands, and something I've never heard about, even though I've been activist For a long time, I just didn't know that this is such a large problem where majority of the hands do suffer from bone fractures. And so that made me dive deeper into this issue, found out that actually there was a lot of evidence that adding vital micronutrients like vitamin D free or calcium to feed of hands prevents Bone factors from happening and therefore significantly reduces pain of hands in those systems. And that felt very surprising to me, very shocking to me, to the level where I doubt myself like million times, whether it actually makes sense. Seriously, I was so close not to believing that I found something that other people haven't thought about that I was thinking about dropping this idea. But fortunately, I had some support not to get to about it. But you know, it did later later research did confirm that bone factors is I believe in K-3 systems is the largest source of pain in a glowing hands. So there was not as many research back then about that, but it does seem to be recent enough that I think that was true. And just the amount of evidence we found behind feed certification as intervention, that was probably the most evidence based intervention we have researched at the one that has most Academic evidence about. So we were quite surprised about that. So as you can see, like sometimes there some of them are quite obvious.)
- Time 0:46:43
-

Charity Entrepreneurship: Arguments for Starting New Organizations (v.s. Funding Existing Ones
Summary:
Starting new organizations is essential for addressing gaps in the social impact space, despite the importance of funding existing organizations.
While existing organizations may be doing an incredible job, their efforts alone cannot address the vast scale of the problem. Therefore, launching new organizations allows for targeted solutions to specific issues that are not being adequately tackled.
One example is the shrimp welfare project, which made significant progress within its first years and has the potential to help millions of shrimps.
It would have been a mistake to wait for existing organizations to address this problem.
The space for new organizations exists because there are still many gaps to be filled. This is why we believe starting organizations is an effective way to have a meaningful impact.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
A question I get asked a lot when I talk about being involved with charitable entrepreneurship and the work that you do is the decision to launch new organizations every time and not Necessarily just projects within existing organizations or launching it as a project rather than starting up as a full-blown kind of organization. Why is it that you think within the program that is their focus? Yeah.
Speaker 1
I think there are a couple of popular ways of thinking. One is there's enough organizations. They just need more funding, which I think, yes, it's true. The organization is more funding and they're doing amazing work and they should be funding funded more and they should be more money in animal advocacy space for sure. One organization can tackle all the problems in a given country or we should take one big organization and scale it to multiple countries. I think they're different ways of thinking about that. I think, again, they're not excluding themselves. I do agree there should be more funding going to existing organizations. I do agree, organizations should scale well and I do agree there should be strong organizations in many countries. I think there is enough gaps that are completely not filled by new organizations or won't be able to be filled by new organizations anytime soon. That starting organization makes a lot of sense. I don't know when would be the time when some of the existing organizations would move on to working on shrimp welfare issues in Vietnam, Ecuador, Indonesia. It might be very, very long time. So, laying starting shrimp welfare project would have been a very big mistake, giving how much progress they made very, very fast within the first years of existing. They're ready to help hundreds of millions of shrimps really. That would just not happen if we waited for some of the existing organizations to step in and start working on this problem. Unfortunately, given the scale of the fact of factor farming and problems for farm animals, existing organizations, however amazing job they could be doing, they're still dropping The bucket compared to the scale of the problem. I think because there are so many gaps that exist in the space, there's a space for new organizations working on those issues as well. I think that's the crucial reason why we think starting an organization is a strong way to have an impact. There are other constraints as well, but I'm not sure how much to get into them, but I think that's the main piece.)
- Time 0:51:10
-

(highlight:: Starting an Organization for Shrimp Welfare in Vietnam, Ecuador, and Indonesia
Transcript:
Speaker 1
That starting organization makes a lot of sense. I don't know when would be the time when some of the existing organizations would move on to working on shrimp welfare issues in Vietnam, Ecuador, Indonesia. It might be very, very long time. So, laying starting shrimp welfare project would have been a very big mistake, giving how much progress they made very, very fast within the first years of existing. They're ready to help hundreds of millions of shrimps really. That would just not happen if we waited for some of the existing organizations to step in and start working on this problem. Unfortunately, given the scale of the fact of factor farming and problems for farm animals, existing organizations, however amazing job they could be doing, they're still dropping The bucket compared to the scale of the problem. I think because there are so many gaps that exist in the space, there's a space for new organizations working on those issues as well. I think that's the crucial reason why we think starting an organization is a strong way to have an impact. There are other constraints as well, but I'm not sure how much to get into them, but I think that's the main piece.
Speaker 3
Yeah, no, that makes sense. What are your main concerns with launching new organizations?)
- Time 0:52:32
-

(highlight:: Barriers and Concerns in Launching a Charity: Funding and Competition
Summary:
One common worry when starting a charity is funding.
People often wonder if it will take away funding from other organizations or create competition. However, funding may not be a limiting factor and can actually increase overall funding.
Having more impact-focused organizations can have a positive effect on the ecosystem.
It's important to consider how funding will impact the organization and other organizations in the field.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think the common one is funding, whether this organization will be able to either raise enough funding to operate themselves, or would it take away funding from more effective organizations Or kind of creating this competitive field to some extent? I think that's a common worry, or like one of the first questions people ask us about, and I guess that's why we also look into something that I already mentioned, which is like a limiting Factor. Is funding likely to be a limiting factor for disorganization in the field overall or not? Because sometimes people think about funding as like a zero-sum game, if you gain funding, someone else loses it, but sometimes I just don't think that that's how it works. Sometimes it might increase the pie instead of just dividing it differently. Like for example, maybe a funder who is interested in funding shrimp project is not going to be funded that will be interested in funding, I don't know, organizations focusing on different, Not as non-convention animals, I guess. So sometimes it might be that the organization will increase the funding overall, especially with the organizations we recommended this year. I'm going to speak about it a little bit later, but I think that's a kind of common concern people have, and whenever we decide to start a charity, we also ask ourselves a question whether This will, this funding will be a limitation for disorganization or whether that will impact funding in negative way for other organizations as well. I also sometimes think that just more organizations is better in a way that puts a really healthy kind of like healthy dynamic where we are all striving to have the highest impact possible. Of course, you can get wrong, get wrong, like some organizations are better at fundraising, but are actually not bringing results, and there's sort of things, of course those dynamics Exist, we should become a commissioner of them, but in general, I think having more impact-focused organizations, driving those more impact just generally have like a good effect On the ecosystem as well.)
- Time 0:54:53
-

(highlight:: Taking into account confactual cost of founders and funding in cost-effective charity analysis
Summary:
Whenever we run cost-effective analysis, we consider the confactual cost of a co-founder, accounting for the impact of their other potential job.
We discount the effect of starting new organizations and recommend launching a new charity only after passing rigorous effectiveness tests.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Something we also do is whenever we run our cost-effective analysis, so this is how much, how many animals will this organization help per dollar spend, we take into account the so-called Confactual cost of a co-founder, what I mean by that is every person that goes to a problem program most likely will have some impact on animals, even if they, with their different alternative Career path, so we try to discount the effect of starting new organizations by the value of their other potential job. So we try to take into account those effects and only after passing those kind of rigorous bar for effectiveness, we decide to launch a new charity, so we take into account confactuals Of funding or confactuals of talent, all sort of things, and only after passing that bar we recommend something, so we do try to take it into account.)
- Time 0:57:33
- cost-effectiveness analysis, opportunity cost, counterfactual cost of a founder,

(highlight:: Just Because One Organizations Is Working on a Cause Doesn't Mean More Aren't Needed
Summary:
Having multiple organizations working on the same issue can be beneficial rather than redundant.
It's not enough to assume that because one organization exists, the problem is solved. There are still many gaps to be filled and different angles to approach the problem.
Researching and analyzing the impact of additional groups has shown that they can be cost-effective and bring about positive change.
Different tactics and approaches can complement each other and lead to better outcomes.
Therefore, it's important to consider the nuances and avoid relying solely on our intuitions.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
It's interesting you mentioned about the new organizations I was talking to Haven at the AVA conference who says his concern is that people go, oh, Fishwell Furnished to exist, like No one else needs to work on Fish now, because their organization exists, it actually of course, like we could benefit from like 100 Fishwell for initiatives, and it still wouldn't Be enough like working on the topic of Fish, so yeah, I think just thinking about it in that sense that people are concerned and would back off, because they got Fish under control, it's Like when you think about the numbers, it's actually, yeah, it's not obviously like an effective route to helping them really.
Speaker 1
Yeah, exactly, or just even thinking, oh, there are two organizations, I'm not saying this through, but there are two organizations working in ex-country on farming welfare, clearly They have the whole country covered, even in countries India that is as large as the whole Europe, obviously saying, oh, there's two organizations in Europe, don't worry about farming Welfare there, it would be something to say, and often we might say about something about this, about the big encounters as well, so again, there's just so many gaps to be filled, and Yeah, and I see the sentiment among CE and QBT's that, often we might ask organizations, hey, I want to work on this thing, what do you think, if they're, scratch, I'm not going to say this, Scratch that.
Speaker 2
Okay, okay, okay, yeah, because maybe like one idea is, I think it was like, what you're actually interested in is like, kind of like, what impact will this additional group have on the Margin, and like, even if a group has, you know, a space is groups in already, it doesn't mean there's like no more avenues to do good work in that field, so like it's clearly, yeah, certain Niches that you might be well placed there.
Speaker 1
Exactly, and sometimes, sometimes you've been having more organizations working on the same issues seems effective as well, and remember, we ran like an analysis on corporate campaigns, Where we try to analyze whether additional group working on corporate campaign actually adds, have like a significant impact on the margin, as you're saying, and because our priors, Or like our prior view was that, you know, if there's already organization working on corporate campaigns in country X, that probably doesn't make sense to have another one working On corporate campaigns in the same country, and we ran analysis and actually the number of commitments correlates with number of organizations that are in the country, in a way that Still makes them cost effective, which was kind of surprising to us. So it even shows that it is worth often having more than one organizations, especially if you can, you know, have different tactics, one will be like the good cop, the other one will be The bad cop and all of this, so there's so much more nuance in the space, and I think that just shows in prevalence, like of researching the ideas very well, instead of just going about Our intuitions here.)
- Time 0:58:21
-

(highlight:: Factory Farming May Not Be Solved 1000 Years From Now
Summary:
Some animal advocates are optimistic about fixing factory farming and ending the practice, but I hold a different view.
I believe that even if we solve all other human problems, factory farming could still exist on a larger scale in the future. However, I think it's crucial for everyone to work on this issue and prioritize interventions to make a real impact on farm animals.
It may not happen in our lifetime, but it's important that we keep working towards a solution.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
So a question you'd like to start everyone off with is what's the view you hold that most animal advocates would disagree with?
Speaker 1
Yeah, I absolutely love this question. And I guess maybe my answer would be something along the lines of like, sometimes I see like a lot of optimism that we're going to fix factory farming, we're going to completely end this Practice and that this change is just behind the corner and we're going to see it in our lifetime. And unfortunately, I also do believe that in the future, we might live in a thousand years from now. We maybe solve the issues of global health, we eliminate global poverty, we solve all problems that humans are facing and everyone is living happy and fulfilling lives. And yet we still have factory farming, maybe a larger scale than we've ever had because the population is growing as well. So it might sound like a very tragic way to start an episode, focus on helping animals. But here's the thing, I do think it's very feasible to address. And this is issue that we can solve. Not sure is going to happen within our lifetime. Maybe it will take our children or grandchildren to see that massive change globally. But I think this, why I think it's important to have a good sense of that view is that it might determine what sort of interventions we prioritize or even how we think about solving this Problem. So I do think currently every person, every new person and every new organization working on these issues, absolutely crucial and have a real chance of having a very enormous impact On farm animals like now and in the future and just basically in the light of magnitude of the problem and how I guess meaningful changing it would be, I think we need a lot of people working On the movement and a lot of organizations contributing to solving that. Because again, it might not happen by itself. It won't, most likely won't happen by itself. And I think that only gives speaks to the importance of the work that everyone is doing in the movement and that every person matters here.)
- Time 0:01:32
-

(highlight:: Considering Different Theories of Change and Preventative Approaches to Generate New Solutions
Summary:
We like to shift our thinking and perspectives to bring new ideas to the table.
This year, we focused on the preventative frame by looking at potential future problems in farm animals. We considered insect farming as a preventive measure to avoid future issues rather than fixing existing problems.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Sometimes we also shift kind of like ways of thinking, or like almost think from a different perspective or different theory of change, see whether that brings new ideas into the table. Like, for example, you know, in the past, I think the ideas have been tilted toward ideas that improve welfare of animals that are farmed on large scale, like farm fish or farm shrimp. This year we looked into more a little bit in the kind of like preventative frame, I guess. So kind of like looking at what could be the problems that will likely be developed in a factor of farm animals that are currently not large scale problems, but might become or will likely Become big problems in the future. And that's kind of when the consideration of insect farming came to mind. Insects are farmed on a very large scale, but it's likely going to, it might take up more and be larger problem in the future. So is there something that we could do right now that will prevent from this problem from growing instead of trying to shrink the big problem that already exists?)
- Time 0:40:47
- theory of change,
- [note::The ITN framework needs a "P" for "Preventable", as in "if we solve this problem, how likely is it to prevent other problems?"
I suppose this is a mix of both Importance and Tractability, but it's pecifically focused on potential future problems related to the primary problem.]

(highlight:: Surprising Ideas for Improving Animal Welfare: Feed Fortification to Prevent Bone Fractures
Summary:
We put aside ideas, run objective research, and then look back at the predictions.
Most ideas can be predicted, but there's always at least one surprising one. For example, fish welfare and feed fortification were unexpected.
Discovering the large problem of bone fractures in poultry led to the idea of adding micronutrients to feed, reducing pain.
It was a surprising find with a lot of evidence.
So sometimes the most compelling ideas are the most surprising ones.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
We then we kind of basically put them on the side, forget about them, run the research process objectively in all of this, and then look back at the predictions we made. And what we've seen is that a lot of ideas can be predicted ahead of time, but there, everyone, there will be one, at least one idea that was completely surprising. We did not expect it to make to the list. So I can give you an example from the very first year, and you know, recommending someone working on fish welfare seemed pretty obvious from the beginning, large-scale problem at the Time. There was no one working on fish welfare organizations, so very neglected problem, large-scale of the problem, quite centralized, few countries have are responsible for majority Of the production. So if you tackle the problem there, that could be very effective large-scale in the beginning, all of those reasons seem kind of compelling that it might be recommended, but there were Some others that were very surprising to us. And I think feed fortification was one of those very surprising ones. That was just like a kind of like random crazy idea we came up with for defying food in global health is like a very effective intervention. So we kind of thought, is there any reason why it might also be very effective and cost effective in animal space? And I was researching one of the sources of pain and a glowing hands. And what was very striking to me is that meal bone fractures turn out to be a very large problem in a glowing hands, and something I've never heard about, even though I've been activist For a long time, I just didn't know that this is such a large problem where majority of the hands do suffer from bone fractures. And so that made me dive deeper into this issue, found out that actually there was a lot of evidence that adding vital micronutrients like vitamin D free or calcium to feed of hands prevents Bone factors from happening and therefore significantly reduces pain of hands in those systems. And that felt very surprising to me, very shocking to me, to the level where I doubt myself like million times, whether it actually makes sense. Seriously, I was so close not to believing that I found something that other people haven't thought about that I was thinking about dropping this idea. But fortunately, I had some support not to get to about it. But you know, it did later later research did confirm that bone factors is I believe in K-3 systems is the largest source of pain in a glowing hands. So there was not as many research back then about that, but it does seem to be recent enough that I think that was true. And just the amount of evidence we found behind feed certification as intervention, that was probably the most evidence based intervention we have researched at the one that has most Academic evidence about. So we were quite surprised about that. So as you can see, like sometimes there some of them are quite obvious.)
- Time 0:46:43
-

Charity Entrepreneurship: Arguments for Starting New Organizations (v.s. Funding Existing Ones
Summary:
Starting new organizations is essential for addressing gaps in the social impact space, despite the importance of funding existing organizations.
While existing organizations may be doing an incredible job, their efforts alone cannot address the vast scale of the problem. Therefore, launching new organizations allows for targeted solutions to specific issues that are not being adequately tackled.
One example is the shrimp welfare project, which made significant progress within its first years and has the potential to help millions of shrimps.
It would have been a mistake to wait for existing organizations to address this problem.
The space for new organizations exists because there are still many gaps to be filled. This is why we believe starting organizations is an effective way to have a meaningful impact.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
A question I get asked a lot when I talk about being involved with charitable entrepreneurship and the work that you do is the decision to launch new organizations every time and not Necessarily just projects within existing organizations or launching it as a project rather than starting up as a full-blown kind of organization. Why is it that you think within the program that is their focus? Yeah.
Speaker 1
I think there are a couple of popular ways of thinking. One is there's enough organizations. They just need more funding, which I think, yes, it's true. The organization is more funding and they're doing amazing work and they should be funding funded more and they should be more money in animal advocacy space for sure. One organization can tackle all the problems in a given country or we should take one big organization and scale it to multiple countries. I think they're different ways of thinking about that. I think, again, they're not excluding themselves. I do agree there should be more funding going to existing organizations. I do agree, organizations should scale well and I do agree there should be strong organizations in many countries. I think there is enough gaps that are completely not filled by new organizations or won't be able to be filled by new organizations anytime soon. That starting organization makes a lot of sense. I don't know when would be the time when some of the existing organizations would move on to working on shrimp welfare issues in Vietnam, Ecuador, Indonesia. It might be very, very long time. So, laying starting shrimp welfare project would have been a very big mistake, giving how much progress they made very, very fast within the first years of existing. They're ready to help hundreds of millions of shrimps really. That would just not happen if we waited for some of the existing organizations to step in and start working on this problem. Unfortunately, given the scale of the fact of factor farming and problems for farm animals, existing organizations, however amazing job they could be doing, they're still dropping The bucket compared to the scale of the problem. I think because there are so many gaps that exist in the space, there's a space for new organizations working on those issues as well. I think that's the crucial reason why we think starting an organization is a strong way to have an impact. There are other constraints as well, but I'm not sure how much to get into them, but I think that's the main piece.)
- Time 0:51:10
-

(highlight:: Starting an Organization for Shrimp Welfare in Vietnam, Ecuador, and Indonesia
Transcript:
Speaker 1
That starting organization makes a lot of sense. I don't know when would be the time when some of the existing organizations would move on to working on shrimp welfare issues in Vietnam, Ecuador, Indonesia. It might be very, very long time. So, laying starting shrimp welfare project would have been a very big mistake, giving how much progress they made very, very fast within the first years of existing. They're ready to help hundreds of millions of shrimps really. That would just not happen if we waited for some of the existing organizations to step in and start working on this problem. Unfortunately, given the scale of the fact of factor farming and problems for farm animals, existing organizations, however amazing job they could be doing, they're still dropping The bucket compared to the scale of the problem. I think because there are so many gaps that exist in the space, there's a space for new organizations working on those issues as well. I think that's the crucial reason why we think starting an organization is a strong way to have an impact. There are other constraints as well, but I'm not sure how much to get into them, but I think that's the main piece.
Speaker 3
Yeah, no, that makes sense. What are your main concerns with launching new organizations?)
- Time 0:52:32
-

(highlight:: Barriers and Concerns in Launching a Charity: Funding and Competition
Summary:
One common worry when starting a charity is funding.
People often wonder if it will take away funding from other organizations or create competition. However, funding may not be a limiting factor and can actually increase overall funding.
Having more impact-focused organizations can have a positive effect on the ecosystem.
It's important to consider how funding will impact the organization and other organizations in the field.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think the common one is funding, whether this organization will be able to either raise enough funding to operate themselves, or would it take away funding from more effective organizations Or kind of creating this competitive field to some extent? I think that's a common worry, or like one of the first questions people ask us about, and I guess that's why we also look into something that I already mentioned, which is like a limiting Factor. Is funding likely to be a limiting factor for disorganization in the field overall or not? Because sometimes people think about funding as like a zero-sum game, if you gain funding, someone else loses it, but sometimes I just don't think that that's how it works. Sometimes it might increase the pie instead of just dividing it differently. Like for example, maybe a funder who is interested in funding shrimp project is not going to be funded that will be interested in funding, I don't know, organizations focusing on different, Not as non-convention animals, I guess. So sometimes it might be that the organization will increase the funding overall, especially with the organizations we recommended this year. I'm going to speak about it a little bit later, but I think that's a kind of common concern people have, and whenever we decide to start a charity, we also ask ourselves a question whether This will, this funding will be a limitation for disorganization or whether that will impact funding in negative way for other organizations as well. I also sometimes think that just more organizations is better in a way that puts a really healthy kind of like healthy dynamic where we are all striving to have the highest impact possible. Of course, you can get wrong, get wrong, like some organizations are better at fundraising, but are actually not bringing results, and there's sort of things, of course those dynamics Exist, we should become a commissioner of them, but in general, I think having more impact-focused organizations, driving those more impact just generally have like a good effect On the ecosystem as well.)
- Time 0:54:53
-

(highlight:: Taking into account confactual cost of founders and funding in cost-effective charity analysis
Summary:
Whenever we run cost-effective analysis, we consider the confactual cost of a co-founder, accounting for the impact of their other potential job.
We discount the effect of starting new organizations and recommend launching a new charity only after passing rigorous effectiveness tests.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Something we also do is whenever we run our cost-effective analysis, so this is how much, how many animals will this organization help per dollar spend, we take into account the so-called Confactual cost of a co-founder, what I mean by that is every person that goes to a problem program most likely will have some impact on animals, even if they, with their different alternative Career path, so we try to discount the effect of starting new organizations by the value of their other potential job. So we try to take into account those effects and only after passing those kind of rigorous bar for effectiveness, we decide to launch a new charity, so we take into account confactuals Of funding or confactuals of talent, all sort of things, and only after passing that bar we recommend something, so we do try to take it into account.)
- Time 0:57:33
- cost-effectiveness analysis, opportunity cost, counterfactual cost of a founder,

(highlight:: Just Because One Organizations Is Working on a Cause Doesn't Mean More Aren't Needed
Summary:
Having multiple organizations working on the same issue can be beneficial rather than redundant.
It's not enough to assume that because one organization exists, the problem is solved. There are still many gaps to be filled and different angles to approach the problem.
Researching and analyzing the impact of additional groups has shown that they can be cost-effective and bring about positive change.
Different tactics and approaches can complement each other and lead to better outcomes.
Therefore, it's important to consider the nuances and avoid relying solely on our intuitions.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
It's interesting you mentioned about the new organizations I was talking to Haven at the AVA conference who says his concern is that people go, oh, Fishwell Furnished to exist, like No one else needs to work on Fish now, because their organization exists, it actually of course, like we could benefit from like 100 Fishwell for initiatives, and it still wouldn't Be enough like working on the topic of Fish, so yeah, I think just thinking about it in that sense that people are concerned and would back off, because they got Fish under control, it's Like when you think about the numbers, it's actually, yeah, it's not obviously like an effective route to helping them really.
Speaker 1
Yeah, exactly, or just even thinking, oh, there are two organizations, I'm not saying this through, but there are two organizations working in ex-country on farming welfare, clearly They have the whole country covered, even in countries India that is as large as the whole Europe, obviously saying, oh, there's two organizations in Europe, don't worry about farming Welfare there, it would be something to say, and often we might say about something about this, about the big encounters as well, so again, there's just so many gaps to be filled, and Yeah, and I see the sentiment among CE and QBT's that, often we might ask organizations, hey, I want to work on this thing, what do you think, if they're, scratch, I'm not going to say this, Scratch that.
Speaker 2
Okay, okay, okay, yeah, because maybe like one idea is, I think it was like, what you're actually interested in is like, kind of like, what impact will this additional group have on the Margin, and like, even if a group has, you know, a space is groups in already, it doesn't mean there's like no more avenues to do good work in that field, so like it's clearly, yeah, certain Niches that you might be well placed there.
Speaker 1
Exactly, and sometimes, sometimes you've been having more organizations working on the same issues seems effective as well, and remember, we ran like an analysis on corporate campaigns, Where we try to analyze whether additional group working on corporate campaign actually adds, have like a significant impact on the margin, as you're saying, and because our priors, Or like our prior view was that, you know, if there's already organization working on corporate campaigns in country X, that probably doesn't make sense to have another one working On corporate campaigns in the same country, and we ran analysis and actually the number of commitments correlates with number of organizations that are in the country, in a way that Still makes them cost effective, which was kind of surprising to us. So it even shows that it is worth often having more than one organizations, especially if you can, you know, have different tactics, one will be like the good cop, the other one will be The bad cop and all of this, so there's so much more nuance in the space, and I think that just shows in prevalence, like of researching the ideas very well, instead of just going about Our intuitions here.)
- Time 0:58:21
-