Do you think that promoting alternative proteins is (by far) the most tractable way to make conventional animal agriculture obsolete?
Do you think increasing public funding and support for alternative proteins is the most pressing challenge facing the industry?
Do you think there is expert consensus on these questions?
I liked your comment a lot, but I'm pretty sure you misunderstood a big part of the argument because there's a pretty big typo in this post.
In the original recording(4:07) Fredrich argues that advancing alternative proteins should be a significant part of longtermist thinking, but not that they're "one of the best ways at making the long-term future go well" or even "on par with AI risk or bioengineered pandemics".
But this transcript makes it seem like he is saying the opposite in the intro:
"They [alternative proteins] should be the priority..."
I think you still bring up a lot of good points though.
I want to donate as much as I can, but how much is too much/ ultimately counterproductive?
For example
Good question, I'm looking forward to the replies.
I'm cautiously optimistic because I think the field has a lot of untapped potential but won't reach it without way more public support. For example:
The public R&D for alt proteins is a fraction of just the US's annual budget for conventional agriculture agriculture research (about $3.7 billion - Lewis Bollard 2021) and although that bums me out, it also provides an opportunity to turn the tide.
So I think it's too soon to give up on alternative proteins, but way too soon to be complacent.
Thanks so much for your insight!
I learned a lot although I wish i would have been more clear and asked about the tractability of alternative proteins to price parity (instead of just the tractability of "promoting" them). Because:
I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong (although I'm sure you're very busy) and also wanted to say thanks again.