← Home

Summary: “Sandcastles - The Tsunami is Coming”

Why the future of animal welfare belongs to the AI-literate

aiea

Read the full post on Substack →

Quick intro from Joey:

“AI doesn’t really affect animal welfare—these are separate issues.” I had this (subconscious?) way of thinking until recently. Then I fell on this article by Aidan K which added some new perspective for me.

Substack suggested it might take me two hours to read, so after scanning some key points, I’ve made this nice Claude summary. I’ve tailored it to extract the bits that moved me most and left out things that didn’t.

Key takeaway: Animal welfare will massively change with AI. By becoming AI superusers, we can do more and be more competitive. See below for how.

The Economic Transformation Argument (What Moved Me)

Two Possible Futures:

Scenario 1: Last Factory Farm Closes

Scenario 2: Superfarm in Space

The Industrial Revolution Parallel:

The Stakes:

Why This Matters: The side that becomes AI-native first will shape which future we get. If we don’t match the industry’s AI capabilities, we’ll be “bringing a knife to a gunfight.”

Three Tiers of Harnessing AI for Animal Welfare

Tier 1: Become AI Superusers ⚡

Use AI to accelerate everything you’re already doing

Immediate Actions:

Real Examples:

Key Principle: Provide maximum context in prompts. Treat AI like hiring a brilliant assistant who needs thorough briefing.

Tier 2: Unlock New Strategies 🚀

Do things that were previously impossible

Game-Changing Applications:

1. Cultivated Meat R&D Acceleration

2. Hyperscale Impact Litigation

3. Custom Content at Scale

4. Autonomous Organisations

Tier 3: Future-Proof Strategy 🎯

Position for transformative change

Core Insight: Animal advocates and factory farming are in a “tug of war, and AI is the rope.”

Strategic Goals:

  1. Strengthen our grip: Build relationships with tech companies and AI regulators

  2. Weaken their grip: Create stigma against AI collaboration with factory farms (e.g., CS student pledges)

  3. Tilt the field: Push for animal welfare provisions in AI regulations (even minimal rules create friction)

Critical Window: If AI can “lock in” moral values, we need to establish a clear trend that humanity was moving away from factory farming. This means:

Resources for Animal Advocates

Getting Started:

Tools:

Learning More:

Some Arguments I’m Still Wrestling With

After reading this, there are a few economic and strategic questions I’m still thinking through. I’m presenting both sides here because I genuinely don’t know which view is correct:

The Thermodynamics vs Economies of Scale Question

Optimistic case for cultivated meat: When you’re optimising purely for muscle tissue growth (no bones, organs, immune system, reproduction), the thermodynamic efficiency seems fundamentally better than raising whole animals. Demand for meat is somewhat bounded—it can only increase with population growth or rising incomes. Surely we’ll crack cultivated meat eventually, even if it takes 50 years? At that point, how can factory farming possibly compete on pure economics?

Pessimistic counter: But factory farming also gets AI superpowers. They could breed even larger, faster-growing animals, fully automate facilities (removing labour costs), achieve unprecedented economies of scale, and leverage their massive funding advantage and head start. They’re already deploying “precision livestock farming.”

AI-optimised factory farming might actually widen the cost gap rather than close it. Which economic fundamentals win—the thermodynamic efficiency of cultivated meat, or the economies of scale + head start of factory farming?

The Scale and Inertia Problem

Right now, roughly 70-80 billion land animals are killed annually in factory farms globally. This number could grow substantially as Africa and South Asia develop economically over the next 50 years.

Even if cultivated meat becomes cheaper in 2035, doesn’t the sheer scale of existing infrastructure, supply chains, and consumer habits create enormous inertia? This seems more like the transition from fossil fuels (where we know renewables are better but change is painfully slow) rather than the kerosene-replacing-whale-oil example cited in the article.

The Dangerous Middle Period

The article argues we have 5-10 years before transformative AI reshapes everything—potentially “locking in” moral values or fundamentally changing economics. If cultivated meat is 20+ years away, we’re definitely in that dangerous middle period where factory farming gets massively more efficient before alternatives can compete.

This seems to be the article’s central point: AI will likely make things worse for animals in the short-term unless animal advocates match the industry’s AI capabilities NOW. The urgency isn’t “AI might be bad”—it’s “AI is coming either way, and whichever side harnesses it first will win.”

The Resource Asymmetry Question

The meat industry has:

Animal advocates have:

Given this asymmetry, is “become AI superusers and we can win” realistic? Or is this a bit like telling climate activists in 2010 “you need to out-innovate the fossil fuel industry on clean energy R&D”—inspiring, but perhaps not viable?

Alternatively, do animal advocates have advantages in the AI race that offset these disadvantages? (Better access to tech talent? Moral urgency that attracts volunteers? Different strategic goals that require less capital?)

Bottom Line

The meat industry is already becoming AI-native. Economic forces will determine the future of factory farming—and economics is moving faster than it ever has.

The good news: You don’t need to be technical. AI tools are becoming easier to use whilst simultaneously becoming more powerful. The learning curve is measured in hours and weeks, not years.

Start today: Pick one repetitive task in your work. Ask Claude how to automate it. See what happens.

The future belongs to the AI-literate. 🌊