I agree that the key bottlneck in alt proteins and next gen materials is "doers in the lab", and that is a key goal of the GFI and was a key goal of MII. I also agree that a key factor is whether consumers can buy a great product. But surely you agree that getting a product to market and in the hands of consumers is about far more than simply making a great product?
People won't go into a field if they don't think anyone will care about their research. They won't found companies and recruit those lab scientists if don't think there is consumer demand. Governments won't fund it if they don't think consumers (aka voters) care.
Finish all bursts of work with a Placeholder.
A placeholder is note, even a sentence, that allows you to more easily 'get back in the flow' of a task after leaving it for some time.
A major drain of the productivity of modern knowledge workers is that we engage in too much context switching i.e. switching from task to task. When I move from doing emails to getting down to writing, it takes some time to 'get into the swing' of writing. If I then have to take a call, I have to restart the process of getting into the headspace to write. Often the previous task 'drags' on our attention. This is often called attention residue.
Many people try to solve this by reducing the amount of context switching they have to do (see deep work). But many eventually realise that it's just not possible to reduce the amount of context switching to an optimal level.
Another angle to tackle the problem is to have systems that allow you to quickly change between tasks. If we can minimise the time taken to 'get into it' then we decrease the cost of context switching. Placeholders are just such a system.
Examples of placeholders:
I see the potential for this argument. I particularly like the emphasis on celebrating counterfactual wins, that some people may not immediately see as wins.
However I'd like to see more elaboration on how it actually results in different tactics and framing.
So I like the definition of "helping as much animals as posible" but when exactly does this lead to different tactics to ending factory farming?
Given that most people define factory farming as a system that uses practices that are known to cause suffering (stocking densities way too high, lack of natural light and ability to express natural behaviours, frankenchicken genetics), I think both your framings lead to more or less the same policies.
For example, I'd argue that many animal advocates consider cage free campaigns to be a goal on the way to eliminating factory farming, because confining animals is a key feature of factory farms. In fact, in the US factory farms are formally called "confined animal feeding operations" (emphasis mine)
It's also not clear to me why "ending factory farming" is less defined than "preventing animal suffering".