Wow, thank you for this. You're far more across this topic than I am, haha. 

As for the effects of family planning on population levels, it's interesting that there's such wide disagreement, although maybe it's just that the Collins' are mistaken (wouldn't shock me). I'd have to dig into the underlying research. 

I distrust self-reports as a reliable guide in this case due to various biases (discussed by Kahneman), and my thoughts on that have been much better expressed in chapter 4 of the human predicament. I'll need to revisit chapter 9 of WWOTF and see how their arguments and evidence compare. I would agree that an absence of positive lives (wherever the right line is) is somewhat bad, and should be a factor in decision making, although I am not a totalist or even a consequentialist (for example, I think the threshold for a live worth starting is quite above a life worth continuing). I agree that for totalists, this issue matters a lot, and for anyone uncertain about population ethics, it matters somewhat. 

To clarify for certain readers, I think that the right of the woman to family planning comes first and shouldn't be restricted. I think that foregone positive lives only has implications for prioritising among our positive obligations, not negative rights or liberties. I'm sure you agree. 

I remember the Collins’ being emphatically pro abortion and contraception to increase the cultural prestige and frequency of having children - so the poster couple of population=good seems to think contraception and abortion access does not reduce the population, all things considered. I’m not sure if the lives of unwanted children are worth starting, but I should flag that I’m generally pessimistic about which lives are worth starting.

Edit: I’m not familiar with the culture of Nigeria. My intuitions about this developed in a western context and maybe there are relevant differences in Nigeria.

I've heard positive things about how to be perfect from friends. Schur wrote the foreword to the life you can save, but the way he used the most good you can do in the good place was pretty annoying. The character apparently inspired by it lives in the woods off grid drinking rainwater doing the least good you can do. 

Anyway, I think that justice by michael sandel is a brilliant introduction to ethics (I studied ethics in my philosophy undergrad). It's focused on many real-world applied cases to explore principles, arguments, theories, thinkers, etc. The thesis of the book is that we cannot avoid engaging in value theory when discussing real world dilemmas or politics, but this engagement can be done well or poorly. 

I love that you shared this. I've just finished reading it, you've done a fantastic job. Thank you for so clearly distilling the problems with such widespread objections. My highlights were the revolutionary's dilemma, EA as the minimisation of abandonment, the reputational threat that EA poses to traditional altruists, and the political critique.

Francione did this in his 2007 article "We're all Michael Vick". He calls it moral schizophrenia. Singer calls it secondary speciesism: prioritising some non-human animals over others. I don't know if anyone has made a habit of it, I think it's a good idea. I'd be interested to see someone try to measure the effects this kind of argument has on the audience.

I am a pretty committed vegan advocate, and have been for over six years ever since I started engaging with animal ethics. 

I wanted to say that I share your frustrations exactly, and that solider veganism has been driving me up the wall ever since I joined the vegan community. Seeking truth and justice is what led me to veganism in the first place. It disgusts me when solider vegans seem to believe that veganism cannot survive truth-seeking. There are very obvious trade-offs, compromises, constraints, inconveniences, annoyances, costs, learning curves and sacrifices involved in veganism. An infinite number of ideological assurances and hand waving won't stop a new vegan from confronting them in the real world. As for persuasion... the truth is enough. People will either hear about these trade-offs from vegans or from anti-vegans, who could seem more truth-seeking by contrast. 

I go back and forth between thinking that this problem is especially bad in vegan advocacy, and thinking it's just sturgeon's law - where 90% of everything is crap, including communities such as vegan advocates, with no exception for EAs. I'd like to know others thoughts about this.

I can see that you've been getting a lot of flak for your posts on veganism, including that they might have negative consequences. My best guess is that they would have overwhelmingly positive consequences for farmed animals. You've presented pro-vegan arguments in their most informed and defensible version. To the extent that people identify the dominant naive arguments as being 'the case for veganism', they will be less persuaded to adopt veganism, their veganism will be at high risk of being unsustainable, and their views on veganism will be vulnerable to basic factual challenges. This naive culture will also pollute the data on the epidemiology of veganism, making veganism look worse than it should be. 

If you think it would be beneficial to how vegan advocates receive your work, I would be happy for you to add to your posts that you've received support from extremely grateful vegan advocates, who are absolutely fed up with naive/soldier veganism. 

Thank you for writing this book, I'm looking forward to reading it. How does it contrast with jacy reese's the end of animal farming? I notice that it's focused on america, but would you still recommend it for advocates in other countries?