In this regard, Michael Greger (of Nutrition Facts) argues forcefully that anti-honey advocacy hurts the vegan movement. Many people apparently have trouble ascribing morally valuable states to cows and pigs. The idea that bees might suffer (and that we should care about their suffering) strikes these people as crazy. If an average person thinks that a small part of vegan ‘ideology’ is crazy, motivated reasoning will easily allow this thought to infect their perception of the rest of the vegan worldview. Hence, the knowledge that vegans care about bees may lead many people to show less compassion toward cows and pigs than they otherwise would[5].
Is there evidence that this is a significant effect? There are many lines of motivated reasoning, and if you avoid this one, perhaps people will just find another. My impression is that people who reject an idea or ideology because of some association with something ‘crazy’ are actually often just opposed to the idea/ideology in general, and would still be opposed if the ‘crazy’ thing wasn’t around.
In sum, even if invertebrate welfare is a worthwhile cause, several factors may prevent us from considering this issue properly. Additionally, there is the worry that rushing into a direct advocacy campaign may create hard-to-reverse lock-in effects. If the initial message is suboptimal, these lock-in effects can impose substantial costs. Hence, directly advocating for invertebrate welfare at this time might be actively counterproductive, both to the invertebrate welfare cause area and effective altruism more generally[11].
While I agree that we should be very careful about publicity at this point, I feel like there might still be opportunities for thoughtful advocacy. It seems not implausible that we could find angles that are mainstream-compatible and begin to normalise concern for invertebrates—e.g. extending welfare laws to lobsters.
Thanks for your interest and your stimulating feedback. In general, I think that people do not have an elaborated position about these issues. But we are typically resistant to ideas that conflict with our beliefs, and, as you say, if one rationalization does not work, in all probability, we will make up a new excuse in order to dismiss a “troubling” or “crazy” position.
Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence about this specific effect in how we morally think about invertebrates. In fact, the psychological barriers here described are, in several cases, mere hypotheses based on existing knowledge. Thus, to what extent these psychological barriers operate, and the role of the radical flank effect and other mechanisms are issues that should be empirically addressed.
I also share your impression that, in some contexts, we may have the chance to promote welfare measures for some invertebrates, like octopuses, crabs, or lobsters. Crustacean Compassion’s work in the UK is a good example in this regard. Surprisingly, some of their demands are shared by the Labour Party, and an animal welfare organization linked to the Conservative Party. I still wonder under what circumstances this is possible –(i) on behalf of which species and why (i.e., what factors make us more likely to consider some invertebrates rather than others), and (ii) what makes a society more suitable for such demands. Do you have any other suggestions in this regard?
Thanks for writing this up!
Is there evidence that this is a significant effect? There are many lines of motivated reasoning, and if you avoid this one, perhaps people will just find another. My impression is that people who reject an idea or ideology because of some association with something ‘crazy’ are actually often just opposed to the idea/ideology in general, and would still be opposed if the ‘crazy’ thing wasn’t around.
Also, there is an effect in the opposite direction from moving the Overton window, or making others look more moderate. (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect )
While I agree that we should be very careful about publicity at this point, I feel like there might still be opportunities for thoughtful advocacy. It seems not implausible that we could find angles that are mainstream-compatible and begin to normalise concern for invertebrates—e.g. extending welfare laws to lobsters.
Hi Tobias!
Thanks for your interest and your stimulating feedback. In general, I think that people do not have an elaborated position about these issues. But we are typically resistant to ideas that conflict with our beliefs, and, as you say, if one rationalization does not work, in all probability, we will make up a new excuse in order to dismiss a “troubling” or “crazy” position.
Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence about this specific effect in how we morally think about invertebrates. In fact, the psychological barriers here described are, in several cases, mere hypotheses based on existing knowledge. Thus, to what extent these psychological barriers operate, and the role of the radical flank effect and other mechanisms are issues that should be empirically addressed.
I also share your impression that, in some contexts, we may have the chance to promote welfare measures for some invertebrates, like octopuses, crabs, or lobsters. Crustacean Compassion’s work in the UK is a good example in this regard. Surprisingly, some of their demands are shared by the Labour Party, and an animal welfare organization linked to the Conservative Party. I still wonder under what circumstances this is possible –(i) on behalf of which species and why (i.e., what factors make us more likely to consider some invertebrates rather than others), and (ii) what makes a society more suitable for such demands. Do you have any other suggestions in this regard?