so if you're trying to reduce suffering you probably want people not to live in poverty, but at the same time not to eat intensively farmed animals, or perhaps animals at all, at the same time theres population growth and climate change,

what do you guys see as a complete solution? a world of vegans where the population is controlled and we live in environmentally sustainable way?

how do we go about getting to this goal?

Invitro meat would seem like a solution to many of those problems (or at least parts of them). Population seems, by current estimations, to be approaching a maximum of at least 10 billion, without any additional control. However, if we get effective life-extension some population control will be needed.

The complete solution is the universe being converted into computronium, which simulates an astronomically large number of astronomically happy people for an astronomical amount of time.

I accept the doomsday argument, which makes this goal doomed to failure. As such, I go with an easier partial solution.

I'm wary about the idea of a complete solution. Rather than trying to create a sudden revolution, I think we should improve the world gradually. My vision is that people slowly become more utilitarian. If we want to achieve this, we ought to focucs on topics that
1. Are on the edge of public consciousness: they are not such far-flung ideas that they turn people away from utilitarianism
2. Are high-yield: they don't just make a difference, they're super-effective.

I suggest that:
1. We ackowledge speciesism (it's wrong to value a different being differently because of its species. What matters is whether a being can suffer). Then, we reduce our intake of animal meat and animal products. Hopefully, we'll stop altogether.
2. We donate money to alleviate poverty, as suggested by Peter Singer's shallow pond analogy.

There are other issues worth considering that do not quite fulfil my criteria:
3. Climate change. It's real, but what is its effect on wild-animals? Could it decrease the number of wild-animals suffering in the wild?
4. Technological Singularity / Transhumanism / Futurism: It's possible that some technology is invented that greatly contributes to or detracts immensely from happiness. But can we do anything useful about that now? I don't think there's any point trying to have a public discussion about these topics because noone's listening. The best way, it seems to me, to ensure we manage future technology well, is to spread the idea of utilitarianism itself. Utilitarianism will be a powerful mental tool no matter what technology arises.
5. Reducing existential risk. Wild Animal Suffering: Likewise, these projects are far from public consciousness. They're not close to acceptable ideas.
6. Abortions. Euthanasia. Medical ethics. Although medical ethics is a really emotional topic, it probably doesn't include as much worldwide suffering as something like poverty or speciesism.

so you guys would say its better to be more socially acceptable so that you are more listened to and make some change right now rather than to be really really idealistic and perhaps not be listened to?