Cost-Effectiveness Estimations in Animal Advocacy are Very Contingent on Future Expectations

Although most EAs try to make cost-effectiveness estimations based on "number of animals impacted" or "amount of suffering spared", overwhelming majority of the expected value of animal advocacy efforts depends on their long term effect. 

I will try to show how these estimations have a lot of variance based on different assumptions - which explains the multiple viewpoints in animal advocacy.

I will also try to provide some pros and cons for each approach and try to reveal their assumptions that support their cost-effectiveness claims for the future. 

Preliminary outline (draft):

Intro
 a. Cost-effectiveness estimates between different interventions differ by a lot based on different assumptions. Some interventions can be claimed to be x100000000 more cost-effective than others (I don't agree with Brian Tomasik here). So making the right choices matter a lot. 
 b.  They heavily depend on expectations about the future. (For example: will there be a vegan awakening or will there be a wave of (moral) animal welfare reforms or will there be technological progress that will provide price-, taste-, convenience- competitive PBMs? etc.)
c. Cost-effectiveness estimates in animal advocacy are different from global health and development.
d. Cost-effectiveness claims of different interventions in animal advocacy are typically in conflict with  the cost-effectiveness claims of other interventions since they depend on conflicting assumptions - which partly explain the infighting and debates within the movement.  And since these cost-effectiveness estimates involve expectations about the future, these debates are hard to resolve.   

Then I will try to describe some of the assumptions behind the cost-effectiveness claims of different interventions and provide some pros and cons that support or refute these assumptions. 

1. Radical change
      1.1. Radical moral change by "the commons": (Examples: Mass media and education campaigns - New Roots Institute, Netflix documentaries, mass veg*n leafleting campaigns, best-seller books, Ted Talks, Veganuary...)
      1.2. Radical moral change by "the elites": (Examples: Community building in leading universities, Animal Law programs in law schools, "academic" publications, lobby groups...)      
       1.3. Radical change via technological progress (Good Food Institute, New Harvest, Material Innovation Initiative, Impossible, Beyond..., considerations related to the rise of AI)
      1.4. Radical change due to environmental necessity  

2. Reforms
    2.1. Moral reforms (Chicken welfare campaigns, The Humane League - Open Wing Alliance: Mercy for Animals, L214, OBA, Essere Animali, Animal Equality, Sinergia Animal, Kafessiz Türkiye...)
    2.2. Efficiency reforms (Fish Welfare Initiative, Shrimp Welfare Project, Future For Fish)
    2.3. Technological reforms (Innovation Animal Ag)
    2.4. Reforms as a path to radical change? (Or radical change efforts as a way to cash in reforms)

3. Should we expect the radical change or reforms to make significant progress in a single country or region at first and have a "spreading effect" afterwards? 
     3.1. Are small yet socially favorable countries really important if they will become the first examples of animal liberation?(Switzerland - Sentience für Tiere, Germany - Albert Schweitzer Stiftung, Singapore, Israel - GFI)
      3.2. Are certain regions really important if they will become the first examples of animal liberation that will move other countries towards its vision? (EU policy - Compassion in World Farming, as well as THL and MFA in the US)
    3.3. If these are not going to happen, then should we just simply look at where most animals live and where organisations can run cheaper than in developed countries?  (Developing countries: Sinergia Animal , Kafessiz Türkiye, Fish Welfare Initiative...)

3. Wild animal welfare
    3.1.  Moral change (Animal Ethics)
     3.2. "Management reforms"(Wild Animal Initiative welfare science research)

4. Contingency due to individual advocates and advocacy groups 

5. Diversified portfolios or worldview diversification as sub-optimal and unrealistic solutions --> the need for concentration and making some bets in favor of some viewpoints