Assuming the case made in the essay is sound, where would as individuals go from here? Is there an argument to be made that effective altruism should go out of it’s way to advocate against the support and spread of animals-as-livestock as a poverty-alleviating intervention?
Even as a non-speciesist, from a utilitarian standpoint, I could still see the ‘possibility’ of animals as investment being a good option in that humans tend to have more flow on effects than animals. Increase the well-being of a human and bring them out of poverty and they might go on to develop their nations economy, reduce population growth (through the relationship between child mortality and pop. growth), and develop new technology. Increase the well-being of an animal and nothing really happens beyond that. Having said that, there are also negative flow on effects of reducing poverty, such as the poor meat eater problem and, I suspect, increased environmental damage.
It seems to me teasing out the effects of reducing the use of animals-as-livestock by the very poorest in developing economies is difficult, and Michael Dello has pointed out. This still seems to fall into the broader class of issues associated with the (poor) meat eater problem, which to me is starting to seem more and more like a swathe of multiple problems and considerations which are both normatively and empirically difficult to tease the causal impact of our or anyone’s actions on.
It seems the case is that if one prioritizes animal welfare or liberation over poverty alleviation, and/or other (exclusively) human well-being considerations, simply finding the most effective ways to spread anti-speciesist values, or reduce/eliminate the need or want of people anywhere and everywhere to depend on animals-as-livestock, are upstream of direct actions on the meat-eater problem. I still think it’s worth producing reports and research looking into this are for good measure, though.
One of the most vital questions of the twenty-first century may be whether developing countries develop the hellish animal death camps that exist in the U.S., Europe, and parts of Asia. Let’s not play a role in making that happen.
Preventing this from happening, reducing speciesism and the abuse of animals in developed countries, and also preventing the increase of animal abuse in economies currently undergoing demographic shifts towards much larger middle classes, such as China, seems most important, re: animal liberation.
I think advocating strongly against animal use in development is unlikely to be fruitful, but I think those of us involved in global poverty work should resist it insofar as we encounter it and should insist on considering the animals’ interests when people discuss these sorts of programs. But yes, I agree it’s a cluster of difficult problems.
Assuming the case made in the essay is sound, where would as individuals go from here? Is there an argument to be made that effective altruism should go out of it’s way to advocate against the support and spread of animals-as-livestock as a poverty-alleviating intervention?
It seems to me teasing out the effects of reducing the use of animals-as-livestock by the very poorest in developing economies is difficult, and Michael Dello has pointed out. This still seems to fall into the broader class of issues associated with the (poor) meat eater problem, which to me is starting to seem more and more like a swathe of multiple problems and considerations which are both normatively and empirically difficult to tease the causal impact of our or anyone’s actions on.
It seems the case is that if one prioritizes animal welfare or liberation over poverty alleviation, and/or other (exclusively) human well-being considerations, simply finding the most effective ways to spread anti-speciesist values, or reduce/eliminate the need or want of people anywhere and everywhere to depend on animals-as-livestock, are upstream of direct actions on the meat-eater problem. I still think it’s worth producing reports and research looking into this are for good measure, though.
Preventing this from happening, reducing speciesism and the abuse of animals in developed countries, and also preventing the increase of animal abuse in economies currently undergoing demographic shifts towards much larger middle classes, such as China, seems most important, re: animal liberation.
I think advocating strongly against animal use in development is unlikely to be fruitful, but I think those of us involved in global poverty work should resist it insofar as we encounter it and should insist on considering the animals’ interests when people discuss these sorts of programs. But yes, I agree it’s a cluster of difficult problems.