Thank you for writing this. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about short-term wins vs ultimate goal in the animal movement (I might actually write a short post about this later). I think you’ve touched on something really important. I will certainly reread later when I have more time.
My initial thought is in response to things like this: “If you and another advocate are actually aiming towards different things — for example, maybe you want to end all animal farming, and your conversation partner actually only cares about abolishing the worst practices in chicken farming — then you can still build understanding, share knowledge and identify ways to work together. ” To me, this comes back to abolitionism vs welfarism and I’m not sure how they can work together. If one individual wants to end all animal exploitation, then improving conditions for chickens may actually be counter-productive. It seems likely that better welfare conditions for animals are, for an abolitionist at least, a short-term win that threatens a bigger, long-term goal (by easing consumer guilt or concern). I’d love to hear your thoughts on that. I wish that welfare wins were moving us towards the end of abolishing animal exploitation, but I am not convinced that that’s the case.
Just out of interest, do you believe that animal welfare wins are moving us AWAY from abolition? I agree with you that it’s possible but I haven’t ever seen any evidence that there is this effect. It also seems very possible to have incremental improvements and then eventually abolition, as people become more empathetic and aware.
I did suspect that animal welfare wins were moving us away from abolition by easing people’s guilt about consuming animal products (guilt that might otherwise have pushed them to give them up entirely). But more recently, I have done some more research on this and I think my instinct was probably wrong. It doesn’t seem to play out that way as far as we can tell, and people who support welfare reforms tend to be more amenable to ultimately giving up animal products. So I suspect your position might be right!
Thank you for writing this. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about short-term wins vs ultimate goal in the animal movement (I might actually write a short post about this later). I think you’ve touched on something really important. I will certainly reread later when I have more time.
My initial thought is in response to things like this: “If you and another advocate are actually aiming towards different things — for example, maybe you want to end all animal farming, and your conversation partner actually only cares about abolishing the worst practices in chicken farming — then you can still build understanding, share knowledge and identify ways to work together. ” To me, this comes back to abolitionism vs welfarism and I’m not sure how they can work together. If one individual wants to end all animal exploitation, then improving conditions for chickens may actually be counter-productive. It seems likely that better welfare conditions for animals are, for an abolitionist at least, a short-term win that threatens a bigger, long-term goal (by easing consumer guilt or concern). I’d love to hear your thoughts on that. I wish that welfare wins were moving us towards the end of abolishing animal exploitation, but I am not convinced that that’s the case.
Just out of interest, do you believe that animal welfare wins are moving us AWAY from abolition? I agree with you that it’s possible but I haven’t ever seen any evidence that there is this effect. It also seems very possible to have incremental improvements and then eventually abolition, as people become more empathetic and aware.
I did suspect that animal welfare wins were moving us away from abolition by easing people’s guilt about consuming animal products (guilt that might otherwise have pushed them to give them up entirely). But more recently, I have done some more research on this and I think my instinct was probably wrong. It doesn’t seem to play out that way as far as we can tell, and people who support welfare reforms tend to be more amenable to ultimately giving up animal products. So I suspect your position might be right!