It seems important to distinguish between a) the abolition of factory farming and b) a long-term change in human attitudes towards animals (i.e. establishing antispeciesism).
I agree. I think all too often when longtermists hear about animals and longtermism, they reject the idea by pointing to their speculation that factory farming will soon be eliminated, while forgetting other animals, or speciesism at large.
b) is arguably more important from a long-term perspective, and it is a legitimate concern cultivated meat (and similar technologies) would only achieve a).
I agree, and if I understand you correctly that’s part of my point. In the post, I wrote about other types of factory farming that are not for the purpose of food. So I think we might be making a similar point here.
I don’t really understand why you seem to think that abolishing factory farming through non-moral means would cause lock-in.
The lock-in I am pointing at is missing the opportunity to eliminate FFFF for moral reasons. In other words, we cancelled our option to do it for moral reasons. My arguments about why this lock-in is bad can easily be wrong, but I think this being a lock-in seems uncontroversial.
Why can’t attitude change / moral progress still happen later?
It can, my worries are that:
It might not happen in the same probability (i.e. advocates might be relieved to have solved a problem and moved onto other problems)
It might not happen with the same quality (very speculative here, just my intuitive worry that changes due to economic pressure just won’t produce the same social changes.)
Thank you, Tobias, for your comment!
I agree. I think all too often when longtermists hear about animals and longtermism, they reject the idea by pointing to their speculation that factory farming will soon be eliminated, while forgetting other animals, or speciesism at large.
I agree, and if I understand you correctly that’s part of my point. In the post, I wrote about other types of factory farming that are not for the purpose of food. So I think we might be making a similar point here.
The lock-in I am pointing at is missing the opportunity to eliminate FFFF for moral reasons. In other words, we cancelled our option to do it for moral reasons. My arguments about why this lock-in is bad can easily be wrong, but I think this being a lock-in seems uncontroversial.
It can, my worries are that:
It might not happen in the same probability (i.e. advocates might be relieved to have solved a problem and moved onto other problems)
It might not happen with the same quality (very speculative here, just my intuitive worry that changes due to economic pressure just won’t produce the same social changes.)