Ep. 164 - The Venture Capitalist Who Wants You to Donate More to Charity
SHOW NOTES
Nick Cooney is one of the most prolific investors in food and ag tech. As the founder of Lever VC, he’s helped deploy nearly $80 million from his first fund and has now closed more than $50 million toward his second $100 million fund. He’s backed companies across the spectrum of sustainable protein—plant-based meat, cultivated meat, fermentation-derived proteins (including, in full disclosure, my own company, The Better Meat Co.), and more.
But despite his deep roots in venture capital, Nick’s latest project is about something very different: giving money away with no expectation of any financial return.
In his new book, What We Don’t Do: Inaction in the Face of Suffering and the Drive to Do More, from Simon & Schuster and Regalo Press, Nick challenges the reader with a bold moral argument: it’s not enough to simply avoid doing harm—we have a responsibility to proactively reduce suffering where we can, including suffering we didn’t cause. That includes using our time, our talents, and yes, our money, to help others—especially those we’ll never meet.
So how much should we be giving? While philosopher Peter Singer proposes 10% of your income as a moral benchmark, and Jesus went even further, telling his followers to sell everything and give to the poor, Nick stakes out a middle ground somewhere between Singer and Jesus of Nazareth: give until you feel it. Not until it hurts, necessarily—but enough that it makes a noticeable impact on your life. Because that impact could be life-changing—or even life-saving—for someone else.
In this episode, Nick and I dive into the ideas behind What We Don’t Do, and why our inactions—what we don’t do—may be among the biggest sources of preventable suffering in the world. We explore the psychology behind why it feels easier to forgive inaction than harmful action, and how we can train ourselves to think differently.
We also discuss the current state of the alt-protein industry, Nick's analysis of why venture capital has cooled off on the space in recent years, and what it’ll take to bring investors back to the table.
It’s a rich and rewarding conversation with one of the most influential thinkers in the future of food. I found What We Don’t Do to be both thought-provoking and motivating, and I think you’ll feel the same. Whether you're a founder, a funder, or just someone who wants to do a little—or a lot—more good in the world, this episode is for you.
DISCUSSED IN THIS EPISODE
Nick recommends reading Thinking Fast and Slow, The Life You Can Save, and Doing Good Better.
Nck has authored four books on social change.
Our past episode with Robert Yaman of Innovate Animal Ag.
Paul’s recent blog on how synthesizing nitrogen saved seabirds.
Paul’s dog Eddie enjoying Bond cultivated chicken dog treats.
Maple Leaf Foods’ 2017 acquisition of Field Roast and Lightlife.
Otsuka’s 2017 acquisition of Daiya.
MORE ABOUT Nick Cooney
Nick Cooney is the Founder and Managing Partner at Lever VC, an early-stage venture capital fund with $150 AUM that invests in sustainable Food, FoodTech and AgTech companies. Lever VC’s areas of interest include plant-based foods, seed and animal genetics, functional ingredients and inputs, machinery, pet, cultivated and fermentation-derived animal proteins, disease detection, software, feed inputs, service providers, and more. Lever VC is one of the most active global investors in the Food and AgTech sectors, and its work has been covered by hundreds of media outlets including CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and others. Over the past decade Nick has led or co-led investments in nearly 100 deals and currently serves on the boards of a number of portfolio companies. You can follow Nick’s investment work on his LinkedIn page and follow Lever VC’s investments on Pitchbook and Crunchbase.
In addition to his work in the investment sector Nick has been actively involved in the non-profit space for over twenty years, with a focus on advancing sustainable food and reducing animal suffering. Most recently, he founded and serves as Board Chair at the Lever Foundation, a 501(c)3 public charity that works to advance sustainable food supply chains in Asia. He previously founded and ran the animal protection charity The Humane League, and was the Co-Founder and former Board Chair of the Good Food Institute, the world’s largest non-governmental organization working to grow the alternative protein space.
Nick Cooney has also written four books on effective philanthropy and effective charity work. His most recent, What We Don’t Do: Inaction in the Face of Suffering and the Drive to Do More, is published by Regalo Press and distributed by Simon & Schuster. His previous titles include How To Be Great At Doing Good: Why Results Are What Count and How Smart Charity Can Change the World and Change Of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change. You can read more about his books on his profile pages with GoodReads and Amazon, or listen to audio samples at Audible or Soundcloud.
TRANSCRIPT
Paul Shapiro: Welcome friend to episode 164 of the Business for Good podcast. I've gotten some nice feedback from listeners about the updated website for the show. If you've not yet checked it out, I encourage you to head on over to business for good podcast.com and see the new look. You'll find all back episodes, a list of the most popular episodes, lists of all the guests.
And more. And of course I'd love to hear your feedback. I read and reply to all the messages that come in via the website, so let me know what you think, whether positive or critical. In fact, I especially love hearing constructive criticism, so if you've got it, know that I am all ears. Funny story for you on that.
I actually love critical feedback about myself. So much that I recently was inspired by my friend Molena Esic to ask Chat bt to give me its harshest criticism it could come up with for me. Now I've had a lot of conversations with chat bt so it knows me pretty well, but wow was, I surprised Its critique was not only insightful, but was.
Declared accurate both by my wife and by my business partner. If you regularly use an AI chat bot, you might want to ask it the same question. If you do, let me know how it [00:01:00] goes. Now someone who I know also welcomes constructive criticism as I've personally known him for decades. Is Nick Cooney, one of the most prolific investors in the food and ag tech space?
As the founder of Lever vc, Nick has helped deploy nearly $80 million from his first venture fund and is now closed on more than $50 million toward a second $100 million fund. He's backed companies across the spectrum of sustainable protein. Plant-based meat cultivated me fermentation derived proteins, including for full disclosure, my own company the Better Miko.
And more. But despite his deep roots in venture capital, Nick's latest project is about something very different. Giving away money with no expectation of any financial return at all. In Nick's new book, what We Don't Do In Action, in the Face of Suffering and the Drive to Do More from Simon and Schuster and Regalo Press, Nick challenges the reader with a bold moral argument.
I. It's not enough to simply avoid doing harm. We have a responsibility to proactively reduce suffering where we can, including suffering that we had no part in causing. That includes [00:02:00] using our time, our talents, and yes, obviously our money to help others, especially those who we will never meet. So how much does Nick think that we should be giving?
While philosopher Peter Singer proposes 10% of your income as a moral benchmark, and Jesus went even further in the gospels, telling his followers to sell everything and give it to the poor. Nick stake out a middle ground somewhere between Peter Singer and Jesus of Nazareth. Give until you feel it, not until it hurts necessarily, but enough that it makes a noticeable impact on your life because that impact could be life changing or even lifesaving for somebody else.
In this episode, Nick and I dive into the ideas behind his book, what we don't do, and what our inactions, what we don't do may among the biggest sources of preventable suffering in the world. We explore the psychology behind why it feels easier to forgive inaction than harmful action, and we train ourselves to think differently about it.
We also discussed the current state of the alt protein industry. Nick's analysis of why venture capital has cooled off in the space in recent years, and what it'll [00:03:00] take to bring investors back to the table. It's a rich and rewarding conversation with one of the most influential thinkers in the future of food.
I found what we don't do to be both thought provoking and motivating, and I think you'll feel the same whether you're a founder, a funder, or someone who just wants to do a little or maybe even a lot more good in the world. This episode is for you.
Paul Shapiro: Nick, what a pleasure to welcome you to the Business for Good podcast.
Nick Cooney: Thanks so much, Paul. Pleasure to be on.
Paul Shapiro: I was talking with my mom, Jolene, who you know about your new book 'cause I was with her and my father during the days that I was reading it. And she told me that she had already pre-ordered and that she's so excited because some of your past books were among her favorite books that have been written relating to advocacy.
So you have a big fan in Julian Shapiro, but you have a fan of Me Too. 'cause I really like this book and I want to talk. Briefly. About what the premise of the book is and then what some of the implications are. So lemme just set this up by asking you like, you know, most people are just thinking about the good that they can do in terms of you know, not causing harm, right?
That people are thinking, oh, well I don't want to buy this product, or I don't want to hit somebody or blow up at somebody. And they think that's enough, right? That they're not causing harm. You're arguing that that's actually the smaller portion. Of what we should be thinking about that the by averting harm is really the first step, but not the biggest step.
What do you think is bigger? [00:01:00]
Nick Cooney: Yeah, ab absolutely. And that definitely is the main focus of the book. So the premise and the thesis on what and what the book explores the, the why and hows behind and the implications of is indeed that exact point. That when we think about good and bad, am I living a good life, a bad life?
Is this person good or bad? We typically think about actions. It's like good actions, bad actions, and like the, I think the very basic rubric that most people have in mind or in their back or their mind. If they take five seconds to, to think about this sort of question is am I doing bad things or am I generally avoiding doing bad things?
Am I doing some good things in my life? Right? And if the answer is yes, I'm generally avoiding bad things. And yes, I'm doing a couple good things, then I'm a good person living a good life. But inaction. Failing to take action to help others who are suffering significantly, where if we do take action, we can make a dramatic difference in their lives.
That's something that we don't usually think about. We don't think about inactions and today, [00:02:00] quite different than hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. My view is that the vast majority of of harms that happen in the world because of choices we make are the harms that happen because of our inactions, our choosing not to help, not to intervene, not to use our time, money, and energy, or use more of those things than we have the ability to do to help those who are really suffering.
Paul Shapiro: So this is like totally counterintuitive, right? As you concede in the book, right? So, you know, everybody would say that if somebody has a child who they're starving in their basement, that they're a moral monster and they would be charged with a crime. But if there's a homeless child living literally on their block who is starving and you do nothing to help that child.
Nobody thinks anything negatively of you. Nobody thinks, oh, you should go to prison, or you have any responsibility whatsoever. Yet the outcome is the same. There's a starving child and you're arguing that actually, no, this is something morally reprehensible to let a child starve if you have the capacity to do something about it.
And of course, pretty much anybody [00:03:00] listening to this podcast could. Feed somebody, right? They're not gonna go a meal. They're not gonna lose a meal themselves if they feed somebody else. So it's very counterintuitive to think this way. Yet you're arguing that we should overcome millions of years of evolutionary pressure to think this way, what we would consider common sense, and instead think, no, we should think about the inaction of proactively doing good.
That most people would say, we don't have a moral obligation to you to do. You're saying, no, we do have an obligation.
Nick Cooney: Yeah, the example you gave is a great one, and that I use in the book exactly as you said. If we had a child at home that we did not give food to and that child was starving to death, we would go to jail.
We would be vilified if that child literally is 50 feet away on the streets in front of us or next door, and we did nothing, no punishment whatsoever. No one would think negatively of, of us, more or less. And so very, very different view of responsibility, but the outcome for this child is identical.
And so I think to your question, I mean, there's different ways we could think about this, right? And I, I definitely understand, and I [00:04:00] would agree with the notion that there's some difference in ethical, culpability, responsibility, et cetera in those two situations. But I think the more important thing is not that reflection of internal goodness or badness or like personal morality.
It's really the outcome, right? I mean, what is the outcome for this other person, if that's what we care about? And, and I think when we're thinking about suffering of others and we're trying to make good life decisions and trying to help them, what really matters is the impact for others. And in those two scenarios, child in my basement, child on my front step, or just down the street from me.
The outcome in those two scenarios is the same. And so I think if, if we think about that and we keep in mind and we keep in mind exact exactly as you were noting that. Physically, almost none of us are gonna walk out the door and see that. But we know that if we go to countless other countries around the world, places around the world, we would see literally not metaphorically, but literally exactly that, that's there.
And we have the [00:05:00] ability to help help at least a few of those children. Like that is the, the existential reality of the world that we live in. And so the book is looking not so much at, how should we think about ourselves and where, whether we're good or bad, but rather given this is the reality of the world that we live in.
It is the reality that when we have, we choose to spend time and money and energy in one direction, we're choosing not to spend it in another. There's this question of, okay, do I value just if I'm asking myself, do I value putting food in that child's mouth? Keeping somebody safe. When it comes to animals removing an animal from a situation of harm.
Do I care about these sort of things? Are these goods I want to bring about in the world? Relative to my desire for other things, like a, a bigger TV or a nicer vacation or anything else I might spend my money on.
Paul Shapiro: Right. So, you know, you're saying this and I think many people, including myself, would be able to say, this seems logical, yet it is still very, very counterintuitive.
And one of the more [00:06:00] interesting parts of the book I found is that. You know, you might think that this is a utilitarian or a secular argument that you're making, but you actually have a lot of a lot of references, not just to utilitarianism and key guard, but you, you quote Jesus and you, you look at the Islamic mandate for charity and so on, which is a positive mandate, not just a negative mandate, not just a thou shalt not, but in Islam, one of the five pillars is that you must donate to charity.
And it, it's pretty interesting. I mean, if you, as you point out, if you think about Jesus'. Teachings, he says explicitly to his followers that they need to sell everything they have and distribute it to the poor. He says It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Yet most of the time today, if we saw somebody actually trying to follow Jesus's teachings, if you knew somebody who said, I'm gonna sell everything and give it to the poor because I wanna follow Jesus. At a minimum, we might think that person is naively eccentric, and probably we would view [00:07:00] them as some type of derision and think that they were a crazy person.
Why, why is it that something that's so explicit that Jesus says, do you think that, you know, obviously Christianity's the most popular religion in the world, and yet not even a fraction of 1% of Christians would follow this. So why, why, why can't we seem to say inaction is also a serious moral harm as opposed to just refraining from bad action?
Nick Cooney: Yeah, it, it's a great question. Because indeed, if you think about the global wealthy, right, those that are even lower middle class to middle class or upper class by US standards or European standards, that's say 10% of the popula, the global population that's wealthiest, the majority of them are Christian.
As you note in Christianity, if you, if you believe and follow Christianity as religion there is literally this explicit directive from the, the Lord and Savior Jesus to do exactly as you noted, give to the poor, tend to the sick comfort, the, the imprisoned et cetera, et
Paul Shapiro: cetera. And, [00:08:00] sorry, sorry to interrupt you.
It's not just give to the poor, it's give everything to the poor. Yeah. Like Jesus is not mincing words. He's not saying, it's not like the Islamic pillar, which says you must give to charity and then you know, you might wanna give five or 10%. He's saying give everything to the poor. Yes. And, and yet I, I mean, it's hard for me.
Maybe I could count the people in one hand who I know who would be willing to do that.
Nick Cooney: Yes, indeed, indeed. So like to, to have that a, a world where you have Christianity being the dominant religion of the world's, the global wealthy, where there is such explicit directive to give all you have and to do all these things to help others.
This. Proactive requirement to help others. And literally Jesus, literally saying, in according to the Bible, you will not get, essentially, you will not get into heaven if you don't do this. Or it's gonna be nearly impossible to get into heaven if you don't do these things. Yet. Also, living in a world where, as you noted, virtually no one does this, you have Christian or otherwise, why would that be the case?
I mean, I think there's, the big reason is just evolution, right? I mean, we are. We are the way our [00:09:00] brains work, the way our psychologies work, and also the way our cultures have been shaped cultures more broadly as opposed to just, just religious teaching. All of those things are of course, the product of evolution, and so our minds are the sort of minds that were more effective for surviving in hun the tens to hundreds of thousands of years past as, as we evolved into in homo sap sapiens.
And there's a lot of. Great things that come with that, a lot of good things that come with that. But there's certainly obviously some evolutionary baggage we could call it, where our minds are inclined to think in certain ways, and we're inclined to act in certain ways that may have served us really well for survival a hundred thousand years ago.
Today have essentially no benefit. There's no need to, to, to live those ways for survival, and yet they can have negative impacts for us and negative impacts for many, many other people. And certainly this is one of those areas, this inclination to hoard resources even when we have way, way, way, way more.
Then we need for our own survival, comfort, and [00:10:00] happiness.
Paul Shapiro: Right. And, and just to put a finer point on that, if you think about the way that humans evolved for 99% of, of the history of human beings to try to help somebody who wasn't in your tribe, I. Was at, you know, at, at best, not even possible. You might not even interact with them, and at worst it could be detrimental for you, right?
Like you might actually get killed or harmed in your way, or your ENT tribe might be upset. And so it's not surprising that we today are far less interested in helping strangers and helping people on the other side of the globe who were never gonna meet. And there'd be no benefit to us to helping personally.
And, and rather than trying to help our own family or our own friends or people who can have some reciprocity with us in some, in some respect.
Nick Cooney: Yes, indeed, indeed. So we're, we're, we're not used to it. Our brains are wired in a different direction, and we see a lot, a lot of examples of this, and we can see it across different areas.
So one that we've been chatting about right at this moment is that inclination to, to not give even when our religion, our religious leader might tell us [00:11:00] to, or certain messages from society might tell us to, to care for others. But we also see it in, in other areas, such as this more broader question of inaction versus action.
So there's actually multiple studies that have been done that show that we seem to be hardwired to view harms caused by inaction, far less negatively than harms caused by actions. There's some quite interesting studies on that from sports to, to, to everyday life. And yes, I mean, the reality is just as we have some of these ingrained biases, these psychological biases in other areas, we also have them when we come to ethics, we as a species, we're just not hardwired.
To make the most ethically logical decisions. Or to make the decisions about how we use our lot life and our resources in the way that is best for others in the world around us. So there is some overcoming of those biases we need to do to, to have a bigger impact than than we might be having now.
Paul Shapiro: Yeah, I, I, I agree with you and I, I, I do think there are some areas that are commonsensical for us where we don't act in the right way, but [00:12:00] it. In that it, it actually does seem ethically logical. So I'll give you an example. Right now, if you have a baby and that baby has a, a really terrible illness that is gonna cause the baby to die, it's totally legal for the parents while the baby is even in the hospital to not feed the baby until the baby dies because the baby is not gonna live anyway, right?
The baby's gonna die within weeks. So they just say, okay, withhold food, but nobody says that you can painlessly euthanize the baby, right? Like, if this were a dog, we would all say, yeah, of course euthanize the dog. But the, the, the so-called harm, the action of euthanizing the baby would be a crime and would be viewed by some as reprehensible.
But I think most people would say, Hey, listen, it would be better to put the baby out of its misery than let it starve to death over days or, or even longer. Right. And so this is like an area where I think that some people might actually have the proper moral intuition from a common sense point of view.
Nick Cooney: I, I think you're right. I think you're right. And I think there's. Many examples of, of these sort of ingrained psychological biases or intuitions [00:13:00] being useful in, in other areas as well. Like when we think about the different in psychological biases that we all have, which one of the best books on this is Daniel Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, where he talks through the.
52 biases that time and again, have been documented in the research that nearly all human beings across cultures, across religions, across different wealth levels, et cetera, seem to essentially universally have. And there's an many of these biases. In fact, nearly all of these biases have real value.
They have real value from an evolutionary perspective, but they also have real value. Day to day is like, so for example, there's endless stimulation around us at all times. We can't pay attention to everything, so we're. Ingrained to pay more attention to things that are sudden, unexpected, et cetera, you know, behind us and set in front of us and so forth.
And so I think the, these sort of biases make sense and the intuitions that come from them, which can include ethical intuitions. Certainly there's many, many cases where there's intuitions do make sense. I think that the challenge, if we want to have the best impact we [00:14:00] can on the world. For each of us is to think through which of those intuitions do line up with the best outcome for others around us, and which intuitions don't, maybe even lead in leading us in a different direction, a subpar set of outcomes for others in the world around us.
Paul Shapiro: Yeah, well, we'll link to Kahneman's book in the show notes for this episode at Business for Good podcast.com. But it's actually quite coincidental you mention him because he did recently die. But I read that he did not merely die. He actually traveled to Scandinavia to engage in physician assisted suicide.
So e even he thought like, you know, taking the action to end his life was a good idea. Now, you know, he was terminally at the end of his life. He was in his nineties. But even he thought. There was not harm in, in in ending in somebody actively ending his life. Nick, let me ask you just like the provocative question here, because this is what I kept wondering when I was reading the book.
Like you're talking about all these moral dilemmas that people face, like how much money they spend on personal things, how much time they spend on personal things compared to the good that we could be doing in the world. And you set up what you call the impossible standard. [00:15:00] And I, I thought like there's no end to it, right?
If you do this, you're gonna end up, if you take this. Seriously to its logical end, you will be homeless yourself. 'cause you'll say there's always gonna be somebody else who's worse off. Whether an animal in a factory farm or somebody in Bangladesh, or you know, there'll be somebody worse off than you.
You're not arguing though, that people should literally give everything away and become homeless because that would make them far less effective. But how do you address this? Where do you actually draw the line in the book? You're saying you don't think you should take it to that logical end, but where do you think people should take it to, if it's an impossible standard, what's the possible standard that gets the Cooney seal of approval for ethical living?
Nick Cooney: Yeah, so I think we all want something that's black and white. And I think. We see this certainly in, in some other, in, in general religious codas as well as other parts of our life. Like we want clear answers, like, like, do this and things will be okay or do in this, in this sort of case we're talking about ethics, do this and, and, and you'll be a good person.
And I think I. [00:16:00] There's, there's clear reasons why we would be inclined to want that, but I think we should try to avoid it. So I don't have any sort of clear answer to the question that you stated about what sort of lifestyle we get. Would I feel happy with myself other than this kind of general point of, I should try to do as much good as I can to reduce suffering in the world. And that's always gonna be varying over time based on our circumstances, based on what we know, based on how much, how, how much, how many resources we have at our disposal and so forth. So, I, I don't have like a, a clear, easy answer.
Paul Shapiro: Okay. Well, let me press you further on this then. Yeah. So Peter Singer espouses a version of the argument that you are writing about in your new book. And people have asked him this like, well, what, you know, what is the right amount? And he thinks that for people who are living, you know, relative, relatively, relatively affluently, which means middle to upper class in, in the United States, let's say.
He says, look, try to give away 10% of your wealth annually. Right? And. He's not saying it's hard and fast, but he is saying 10% is a good [00:17:00] general rule to live by. Some people may want to do more, some people may do less, but that's what he says you should aspire to. What do you do E even if you're not willing to come out and give a number, like a singer?
10%? Yeah. What do you do like in your own life? You like, you must think about how much you think that you should give away versus, as you call it, hoard.
Nick Cooney: Yeah. Yeah. It's a great question. And I do wanna, I, I do wanna speak a little bit more length to some of the points you raised earlier. But to, in terms of.
Would giving way all of your resources be helpful or harmful and so forth, but to, to directly answer this question. Yeah, I think, I mean, one, one question around the, the 10% figure is, is that if, which I don't know the answer to, is, is that a figure encouraged by, by Peter Singer? Because it's something that many people can accept.
So it's sort of a persuasive point made publicly to maximize impact in the world, which my, my guess is that probably it is. It's a, a different question of like what one might choose to do themselves. One, one other interesting take on this that he shared a number of times publicly in the last couple months is Sam Harris's take on this, which is, or at [00:18:00] least what he's posited publicly in writing in his podcast over the past few months, is that this idea that.
To, to give until you feel it. So for any number you could take out of your bank account or you're not really gonna feel it, like you're not gonna notice a, a negative change in your life, that's the amount that you probably should which I think is. Think is a interesting and quite sensible approach as well, but to now, you know, very directly answer it from my own life.
And again, like this is just a personal answer. So this isn't something that if I was writing a book I would, I would put in a book or would really advocate because again, there's a difference between what one does oneself and what message might create the most, the most positive change in others. But for me I mean, I give away the large majority of what I make in income.
When I was in years past, when I worked for a nonprofit and drew my salary from that and was making 30, 40 thousand, I gave away like half at that time. These days I'm fortunate to make more, and so I'm able to give the large, large majority of what I make, like 90% plus [00:19:00] to, to charity.
Paul Shapiro: Boom. But so you, you're, you're, you're inverting the singer standard, not 10%, but 90%.
Nick Cooney: For me, but yes, but again, like it certainly depends on what one is making, like what one is able to give away. Yeah. But, but generally speaking, I do feel that for most people in the us, like what does it take to live a life where you're eating healthy food, you are safe, you can have a, like a high, like high quality life where you're really enjoying life, you're able to participate in the social things you wanna participate in, et cetera, et cetera.
All the things that actually make for happiness. What does that cost? Certainly the very low tens of thousands. Like is it 15,000? Is it 25,000? Is it 40,000? I don't know. Sure. It varies. But I think low tens of thousands, one can live like a extremely happy life. And as you go up from there, I think you can add happiness, but the gains are quite marginal.
And of course the, the goods you're giving up for others by doing that are quite, quite high. So that, that's, that, that's what I do in my own life personally.
Paul Shapiro: No, that's helpful. I, [00:20:00] I, I could see that depending on where you're living and whether you have children also I think could highly impact that, that number.
But let's shift then less into the argument that you're making, which is that by not doing more good, that we are causing harm directly and saying what is the good that we should be doing? So you have your hand in, in two things, right? You've got. Lever vc, which is investing in startups that are looking to do good in the world, but you also run a nonprofit organization which is the, I think, called Lever Philanthropy.
Is that, is that what it's called?
Nick Cooney: Lever Foundation.
Paul Shapiro: Foundation. Thank you. So Lever Foundation that's interesting. Is it lever or Lever? I hear you're saying Lever. I'm saying lever. I don't know, which is is there one that's considered accurate in English?
Nick Cooney: I use Lever, but either one's just fine.
Paul Shapiro: Okay. Well, thank, thank you. So anyway, o obviously you're. Hedging your bet as to what, whether you think charity versus entrepreneurialism is going to do more to advance the interests that you're trying to advance, which are animal welfare and reducing the suffering and misery [00:21:00] of animals who are raised for food.
So let's start on the for, let's start on the former on Lever vc. It's a terrible time. In food tech, especially in alternative protein right now, companies are going out of business, they're contracting, they're laying off, they're getting acquired for pennies on the dollar. Overall, you know, people are writing the obituaries for especially cultivated meat.
What do you think? Is this just a hype cycle and it's gonna go back up? Is it cyclical? Is it the gardener cycle? Like what do you think is happening and is it going to get better? Or are we in the doldrums perpetually here for, for farm animal welfare? In the venture capital sense?
Nick Cooney: I, I think it is likely going to get better.
I wouldn't have a hundred percent confidence in that, but I do think it's likely going to get better. I think the bigger que from an investment perspective, the answer to that question matters a lot, right? 'cause it, the future, the future outcome of companies one might invest in is gonna be in part determined by how much additional capital is there at the table in the years to come.
And therefore, can companies that need a lot of [00:22:00] capital, have the capital they need to survive? You know, what will acquisition, will it be a good acquisition environment, et cetera. If we were looking at this question from the simple, the perhaps a different vantage point, which is the, the question of I. Is this, are these technologies gonna ultimately succeed and be part of the food system that I feel a very strong yes to.
So if we talk about something like cultivated me, which is at the kind of far end of the high technology, somewhat high cost to develop, long timeframe, et cetera, perspective relative to fermentation solutions, plant-based solutions, et cetera. Cultivated meats, you know, probably the, at the, again, at the far end of that, the technology spectrum.
Even though it is there, I feel very, very high level of confidence that that technology and products produced by cell cultivation are going to be a very big part of the food system in the future. I think there's a few reasons for that. One of them is the one nice benefit of of being at a venture capital fund where we do invest in these companies is [00:23:00] we get to speak with a large number of companies in these categories, be it cultivated or otherwise, and we see the advancements in price reduction and technology improvement being made.
Some of them are really, really phenomenal and most people do not know it. I mean, you don't see it in the media, you don't see it in in general public spheres. But there's a number of companies that have made really phenomenal advancements in bringing the cost down of these technologies. And again, I'm using cultivated meat as kind of that highest tech example, but of course the same can be said in fermentation as you know very well, and plant-based in other areas.
So I do feel like this current winter of funding is, is. In part cyclical, not, not a hundred percent, but I think it's in part cyclical. I think further evidence is, you can see the same thing in other categories, right? Like VC funding as a whole is down even today, 50 ish percent from where it was 2, 2, 3 years ago.
Not, not just for, for food nag tech or alternative protein, and within that VC capital at least, that was deployed last year. Almost [00:24:00] half of it that was deployed went to ai. So non ai, non-AI VC categories are down something like 70, maybe 75, maybe 80% still from when they were a couple years ago. I don't think that's permanent.
I think that's gonna change, and I think that's also gonna change for the the alternative protein category as well to some extent.
Paul Shapiro: What do you think it'll take to make that happen? Right. So you can point to all the bad things beyond meat. It has lost over 90 per 95% of its share value. Oly is done very poorly in the public markets as well.
Those are really the only two publicly traded companies in the alt protein space. You've seen some of the cultivated meat companies who have been able to raise or doing it at maybe like a 75% down round compared to their last round. E even in fermentation. Meaty, which is one of the biggest, most well funded of these companies, appears to be on the rocks.
Now. Hopefully something good will happen for them, but so far it's a very challenging time for them. That's a list of just a small portion of the bad things that have happened in this space, but what do you think it'll take for [00:25:00] good things to happen? What are those good things that will signify to you, Hey, maybe winter is ending and spring is starting to thaw?
Nick Cooney: Yeah, so I think the biggest thing of all is the nons sector specific macroeconomic dynamics. So when the, the general investment environment in VC and private equity as a whole. Moves further back to, to growth mode. I mean it's, it's a little bit in growth mode now from where it was a year and a half ago, but as it moves further back to where it was a couple years ago, I think that's gonna be the biggest thing that moves it.
And then you get into all the broader economic reasons that. The broader economic factors that would be needed to bring that about. But I think as that comes about, that's gonna be by far the biggest thing. But in terms of more sector specific things, specific to the alternative protein category and similar food nag technologies that, that improve the world one way or another I think successful exits.
We'll be part of it. And there's definitely companies in the, this broad set of categories that are en route to a very successful exit that are doing great from a profitability perspective, revenue growth [00:26:00] perspective, et cetera. Some of the ones that are in that great growth, great growth path are not public names.
They're not in the media the way that beyond me or impossible Foods are ugly. Was in the past, but they're gonna be very good exits. And I think as we get a couple of those in the next couple of years, that will help. Right. Secondly, I think as there are more products on the high tech end of the spectrum that enter the market more robustly, I think that will help.
And then lastly, I would say that if there are to the extent and when there are either regulatory pressures or other external pressures that increase the need for solutions that improve sustainability. I think to the extent those things build up in certain countries, in certain regions, that will contribute as well.
Paul Shapiro: The last, what I would consider successful exits in alternative protein were field roast. And light life, like both acquired by Maple Leaf which feels to me like maybe seven or [00:27:00] eight years ago. A aside from obviously beyond an newly, were successful IPOs at first, but I, you know, they haven't done well in the public market since then.
There are other exits that were, they prevented the companies from going out of business, but their investors did not do that well. Are there others that I'm missing? Are there some exits that I think where investors did really well that I'm, I'm not thinking about right now.
Nick Cooney: I think there's a good number, and I think some of them are probably from categories that, that you might not have in mind in thinking about this.
Like one that isn't a category that I would probably point to would be via life. I, I think that's one that it's done very well. I mean, this last year has been more challenging for the plant-based cheese sector, but in general, that company has grown sales very nicely since acquisition. So I think that would be one.
Paul Shapiro: I think, yeah. You know, you mentioned Deia also had a pretty successful exit boat by a Japanese pharmaceutical company.
Nick Cooney: Indeed. Indeed, right. I think if we think more broadly about these categories, that's when we see a lot more. So we think about things like plant-based protein powders or bars, a lot of exits in those categories, and those are [00:28:00] categories where.
To the extent they're displacing whey based protein powders and bars, which is the, the main incumbent in those categories. It does have meaningful environmental value and some value for animal welfare. And from this financial returns perspective has done very well for, for a number of investors in those categories.
So I think those would be some examples. You, if we look further afield into other things in sustainable. Food and ag technology. Then the pool of those things broadens right there. There's other technologies for, on the agriculture side, there's other ingredients or companies producing novel ingredients that have also had successful exits.
So yeah, I think it really depends on what how we're defining that pool of types of companies we're looking at.
Paul Shapiro: Okay. Interesting. Alright. The other half of where you think that people should be spending their money, right, it's not just in venture capital to create companies that will hopefully displace bad practices.
Like in, in your case of what you were just saying, protein powders that are an, that aren't animal based but it's also [00:29:00] philanthropy to charities. So what do you think is the most impactful. Thing that charities are doing right now, whether the, whether it's Low Weber Foundation or any others that are, that are happening right now that you would say, yeah, that's a good use of money.
Nick Cooney: Yes. I mean I have Al always remained of the belief and of the belief today that very well carried out philanthropic efforts are one of pro probably the best, and if not, certainly along with technology innovation, one of the two best two things that most moves the needle moving things forward. And so in terms of what that is, you know, of course.
What one is gonna find exciting? Depends on what one values for me. As you yourself know, I care a lot about suffering in general, including animal suffering as part of that. And there is so much animal suffering in the world, and it's so intense that for me, I focus most of my philanthropic giving and efforts in those areas.
And certainly for the Lever Foundation, where sit as a board director, it is focused on. Advancing progress [00:30:00] for farm animals. So within that general world of not, not just doing good, but doing good in the food system, and more specifically doing good in ways that reduce the suffering of animals, just given, again, that's, that's my focus and what I pay attention to.
I do think there's a number of things going on there that are really valuable and can help huge number of numbers of animals reduce huge amounts of animal suffering for very relatively low cost. I think improved corporate policies is certainly one of those, and with Lever Foundation, that's the majority, the, the large majority of where the foundation's focus and time and energy and use of resources is spent.
I, I also think that I. Working on these sort of issues, things that reduce animal suffering in Asia particularly is incredibly important. And so Lever Foundation was set up to focus on farm animal welfare issues and, and farm animal protection and plant-based foods issues in Asia because it is where two out of every two out of every three farm animals alive today lives in East Asia and, and one out of every two lives in, in [00:31:00] the greater China region.
So it's just an incredibly important part of the world. So I do think effective work. In these areas where there's a huge number of animals where it's relatively, relatively neglected. I think in those, those circumstances, smart interventions, especially on shifting corporate policy can and demonstrably have spared tens, hundreds of millions of animals from, from every very intense, everyday suffering for a relatively modest cost.
And so for me personally, I do find that as, as one of the most interesting and exciting areas in terms of, suffering reduced out, you know, dollars in, on the front end, suffering reduced out on the backend.
Paul Shapiro: So let's say there's somebody listening to you right now and he or she is, let's say, you know, bringing whom a, a pretty re a pretty high amount of income, let's say half a million dollars a year post-tax.
And so she or he is thinking, I'm, I'm not gonna do the cooney vast majority of what I make, but they wanna do the singer 10%. So they're gonna give away $50,000 a year should this person. Invest in [00:32:00] technology and innovation. Either maybe, you know, becoming an LP in, in a VC that invests in these companies or donate to a charity that you think, presuming that the, that they both are effective, the VC and the charity are both effective.
What do you think is preferable? It sounds to me like you're thinking that charities are doing more good than, than the technological innovations are
Nick Cooney: in this, in this scenario. Like we take the, I, I think the specifics matter, but if we take like this set of specifics you presented. I would donate the money.
Yes. But again, like so much on both sides of the ledger matter on to who and for what, right? So you could throw your money away in both of those areas. You could do fantastic, you could do a lot of good in both areas, but on average, yeah, donate,
Paul Shapiro: right? You, you're gonna say Lever vc, or Lever Foundation, right?
So to you, they're both effective. So now raise it by tenfold. And so, you know, instead of 50,000, now they're looking to do 500,000. Does that alter your calculation?
Nick Cooney: No.
Paul Shapiro: No. And, and 5 million does it alter it?
Nick Cooney: So more, more money allows for prob, I mean, [00:33:00] in theory allows for more sophistication of what one is doing, right?
So I think that there certainly could be uses of 5 million or part of that 5 million, where if you have that amount of resources, it gives you the. If you choose to take it, sort of the, the time bandwidth to bring in specialists that can work with you in these sort of decisions to do certain things that others cannot do.
So like with, with a $5 million for example, you might be able to help bring new companies into existence that are really high value and otherwise would not exist. Right? A zero to one, which still would be you could put on that. Investment side or the impact investment side if the money's ultimately going to startups, but is qualitatively different than just a check going into a fund that's, you know, moves its, its total a up, up or down slightly, depending on whether you do or do not invest.
So I think those sort of things are what would make the big difference. If you're talking about, again, like very generally, 5 million, invest in a fund, 5 million donate to charity, donate to charity.
Paul Shapiro: Interesting. So let me press you on this because you know, I've thought about this so [00:34:00] much as somebody who has worked in the nonprofit sector and in now in the startup world for the last seven years, and who has written about this as well?
It's very obvious to me. I. That the only thing that has ever ended whole categories of animal exploitation has been technology. It's true that philanthropic efforts have ameliorated some of the suffering of animals for sure. But if you look at why horses after thousands of years of being whipped no longer are.
Are used for transportation. If you look at why whales largely are not harpooned for whale oil anymore, if you look at why geese are no longer live plucked for their feathers even, I was just I just wrote a piece that I'll link to in the show notes for this episode about seabirds and how they were many seabird species were going stay from guano mining in the 19th century.
And the only reason it stopped was because nitrogen was synthesized and we had a way to get human, like lab grown nitrogen basically to fertilize our fields that we didn't need. Seabird manure anymore. And you know, the whisk goes on and on, like I'm only naming a few of them, but it was metal fountain pens with [00:35:00] geese.
It was kerosene with whale oil. It was cars with horses, synthetic nitrogen with seabirds, like the whisk goes on and on and on. And yet, I can't think of one area where humane campaigns have ended, a whole category of animal exploitation. Now maybe you'll say. Ending the category is not necessarily the most important thing.
Reducing suffering is, and so that could be the, the rebuttal to this point, but it, it is very compelling to me to see what technology has done. Tell me why you think I'm wrong.
Nick Cooney: I. Yeah, so I think that I, I would very much agree with the point that you, you just imagined. I would say that, yeah, if we're looking at total displacement and removal of a category, probably that is gonna come from either technology or some sort of regulatory step and, and more often in technology.
So I think you've kind of defined progress in a way that makes technology, you define progress in a way where that progress is often. Brought about by technology. I think if we ask this question more generally of what is reducing, what can reduce animal [00:36:00] suffering in the world? Indeed, I think it is a bit DA bit different.
I think that, so there's, there's plenty of examples on the animal side, right? You can look at the hundreds of millions of animals not living day-to-day and small cramped cages because of work done on the nonprofit side for which there was no technology component that was important enabling factor of that to come about.
You could do the same in other areas. I think if we look at outside the animal protection world and look at advancements for hu reductions in human suffering, certainly many of those are technology driven, others are not. There learn, learning and bringing good best practices to new areas and, and getting the money to do that.
So I think there's a mixture of those things out there. The other thing I would say is that I think it, it really does to my mind so much come down to the specifics in the sense of like, even like I. When it comes to creating new technologies, is putting a chunk of money into a fund the way that most advances those technologies.
No. [00:37:00] D does it C can it? Yes. I mean, in the fund that's investing in these technologies, yes, it does, it does have, does have a good impact. But there's huge gradations of how one could use, say, $5 million to advance technologies. And some uses of that to advance technologies have a real but modest benefit.
Others could have a much bigger benefit just as that say 5 million put into a charity could have modest impact to one charity. Huge impact at another. And so I think for me the question is not so much a question of nonprofit versus for-profit investment into new technologies if one wants to advance things, I think that, I do think that both of those can have, have a lot of value.
The speci very specifics of what one is doing matter more than the choice of which bucket I. If that makes sense. It's,
Paul Shapiro: yeah, I, I'm certainly aligned with you that both can do great things for reducing suffering in the world. I, I'm just thinking if somebody has a finite amount to part ways with, do you know, is it better to donate it to a charity or to, let's just say you got $5 million and you wanna see 10 companies with half million dollar [00:38:00] investments to get them started, you know, you got 10 shots on goal to create a company that could be.
The thing that renders, I don't know, egg production or broiler production or whatever the case obsolete one day, right? It could be the metal fountain pen to goose quill feathers. Or you could donate the money to work on corporate campaigns to get chickens out of cages. So they, we better lives in cage three.
Of course. I think both of those are quite good. Like I'd be thrilled for either one of those outcomes. But I, I do think. You know, there, there's just different goals that these have you know, whether it's ending animal exploitation or ameliorating the suffering of animals in those particular cases.
Okay, so. I do wanna ask you, Nick, you mentioned Daniel Kahneman. I said we're gonna link to that in the show notes for this episode at Business for Good podcast.com. But are there other resources in addition to your past books, which are also quite good and highly recommended? And I will include those in the show notes of this episode as well, but of other resources that you would recommend that somebody read?
Or [00:39:00] any other resources that you think they should listen to or anything else that you think is a good idea for people who are interested in taking seriously your argument that their inactions are where they should be focused? Not, not just refraining from bad action.
Nick Cooney: Yeah, there's certainly a couple other, a couple classic books in that category by folks with much more reach and readership that by far by far than myself.
So you mentioned Peter Singer earlier. His book, the Life You Can Save would be a great example of that. Will McCaskill in his book doing good, better would be another good example of that. I think those would be two that if one wants to get a, just a more fulsome sense of, okay, if I do wanna create more good, do more good with the money that I have, with the time that I have if I wanna think through that more fully those are good books to read.
I think those are probably the two. Most, most similar. And, and worth, well worth the, the read. Yeah.
Paul Shapiro: And are there other resources, podcasts, speeches, anything else that's been influential for you?
Nick Cooney: You know, for, for me, I, I, I've really, so it's like in terms of what's influenced [00:40:00] me, I would say there's not a specific.
Podcast, podcasts, blogs, sort of books, et cetera, that really focus on this area. For me, what's most influenced me and hopefully helped me make smarter decisions and what I do think is very important, is trying to pull from other areas and apply those to apply learnings from those areas to this area of wanting to reduce suffering in the world.
And so in terms of lighting, that the adding fuel to that fire lighting that fire of wanting to reduce suffering in the world. Certainly there's lots of materials from lots of different advocacy areas, be it and advocacy or others that give an up close look at the cruelty, the suffering that's going on, ability to reduce that suffering, et cetera.
That I think can light the fire. But for those that already have the fire, and now it's just thinking about, okay, what do I do with it? How can I have the biggest impact? For me, what's been most valuable is really learn paying attention to and learning from other sectors sectors that have no very direct overlap with these sort of areas, but where the lessons, the ways of thinking, the ways of working, [00:41:00] the ways of building and creating and navigating and finding solutions could be approaches that would work really effectively if brought into this area of reducing suffering.
That most who are focused on that area of reducing suffering are not, not paying attention to. Mm-hmm. So yeah, for me, that, that's certainly where I've, I've learned the most pulling from other areas.
Paul Shapiro: Okay. And finally then you fund companies, you've seeded many companies. What are you looking for?
What do you wish that somebody would come to you and say, Hey, Nick? Here's my idea for a company. I need Lever VC to put in the first dollar so that I can start, go as you said, from zero to one. What are you hoping people will start?
Nick Cooney: Yeah, so gen in terms of areas where I would love there for there to be more companies because I think the technologies could have huge value for the world and could have real financial value.
I think there'd be a couple of those. One of those would be. [00:42:00] Technol on-farm technologies that significantly reduce the number of animals that are raised and killed for food, even when demand is what it is right now. Right? So in whatever, to whatever extent, there's x demand for animal protein in the world.
Technologies in seafood production and chicken production, egg production, et cetera, that can still meet that same demand since it's gonna be met one way or another. But with far fewer animals in the supply chain and or with far less suffering of animals in the supply chain, I do feel like we could have a world where I.
Again, whatever the demand in the world is for those things, it takes way fewer animals to get that and way less animal suffering to get that. And technologies can be a, a key part of that solution. And it's an area where there hasn't been an explosion of startups, there has not been an explosion of people trying technologies in this area.
And so I do think that's both a very high impact area. And also one with, with where there could be some significant financial upside as well.
Paul Shapiro: Yeah, you know, we had, we had Robert Yeaman from Innovate [00:43:00] Animal Ag on this podcast, so we'll include a link to that. But where he is basically working to advance technologies that would, for example, and.
The live hatching of mail chicks. So you could subtract hundreds of millions of animals who are being slaughtered annually if you could prevent live hatching. Now he, he's running a charity, but he's working to advance these technologies. So that's one example of what you're talking about. Alternatively, I was thinking, well, if you made broiler chickens.
Grow even bigger. That would also reduce the number of them who are needed. But I, I, it would also increase their suffering. So I don't know whe whether that would be in the end be a net good or not. But yeah, I, I, I think there's a lot of interesting technologies that you could imagine that would reduce the need for so many animals, including fantastic ingredients that you can blend into meat so that you can reduce the number of animals who are needed as, as some great companies do. You said there was something else though, so that's one, but what's, what's a, what's another thing that you're looking forward to, to fund as an investor?
Nick Cooney: Yeah, so I, I think [00:44:00] the second would be alternative protein ingredients. Things that are replacing animal protein that are in the more, that are on the more technology driven side to the spectrum, be it cultivated fermentation or molecular farming are similar.
Where the approach, the combination of what is being produced and the categories being produced for allow for a much lower cost of production. So I'll give one example from our portfolio, but there's lots of other ways this could be done. We invested in a company called Bond Producing Meat Protein via precision fermentation as a B2B ingredient for the pet food sector.
It is using yeast as its host organism and. Yeast is already a common ingredient in pet food, and so what Bond is able to do is just take the yeast with a meat protein that's part of it, a chicken protein or whatnot, and all they need to do is spray dry it and sell it as an ingredient. They don't have to go through the very expensive purification process.
Then most precision fermentation companies need to go through by virtue of the category they're targeting. I think that's a very elegant example of [00:45:00] combining a. A specific technology with a specific market where the ultimate costs are lower. And I think doing that across mutation, across cultivation, across plant-based ingredients, across molecular farming, I think there's more of those out there and few companies taking that path.
So we'd love to see more such approaches.
Paul Shapiro: Yeah, it's essentially a biomass approach as opposed to some more specialty purified protein that you're or, or enzyme or fat that you're trying to get. And I, I, I'm always wondering why more people aren't doing biomass. So I, I love that. And my own dog, Eddie has eaten the bond chicken protein.
He loved it. I'll, I'll. Quote, a video of him consuming it in the show notes for this episode at Business for good podcast.com. But Nick, thanks so much. The book is called What We Don't Do In Action, in the Face of Suffering and The Drive to Do More. It's published by Simon Schuster. The book is now out.
You can get it anywhere Books are sold, and so go check it out. I liked the book and I think you'll get some out of it too as well. So thanks so much, Nick, for all that you're doing through both your actions and your lack of [00:46:00] inaction as well.
Nick Cooney: Thank you, Paul. Appreciate it.