All good points, thanks. With the prohibitions on fur and cosmetic testing, do you know if they were preceded by welfare reforms in those respective industries or just in other industries? That could also be evidence for welfare reform leading to abolition but I don’t know that it was the case. It seems likely to me that the effect of welfare reforms on abolition is likely zero, neither positive nor negative based on this evidence.
Those are all good points about potential biases. Though note that incrementalism and welfarist are not the same. Abolitionists achieved geographical increments in city and state abolition and personal increments in manumission.
I haven’t seen much on welfare reforms in these industries in particular. In the 90s Sweden required that foxes on fur farms be able to express their natural behaviors, but this made fur farming economically unviable and it ended altogether...so I’m not sure what that tells us. Other than that, animals used in fur farming and cosmetics testing are/were subject to general EU animal welfare laws, and laws concerning farm and experimental animals, respectively.
I think welfare having no effect on abolition is a reasonable conclusion. I just want to argue that it isn’t obviously counterproductive on the basis of this historical evidence.
All good points, thanks. With the prohibitions on fur and cosmetic testing, do you know if they were preceded by welfare reforms in those respective industries or just in other industries? That could also be evidence for welfare reform leading to abolition but I don’t know that it was the case. It seems likely to me that the effect of welfare reforms on abolition is likely zero, neither positive nor negative based on this evidence.
Those are all good points about potential biases. Though note that incrementalism and welfarist are not the same. Abolitionists achieved geographical increments in city and state abolition and personal increments in manumission.
I haven’t seen much on welfare reforms in these industries in particular. In the 90s Sweden required that foxes on fur farms be able to express their natural behaviors, but this made fur farming economically unviable and it ended altogether...so I’m not sure what that tells us. Other than that, animals used in fur farming and cosmetics testing are/were subject to general EU animal welfare laws, and laws concerning farm and experimental animals, respectively.
I think welfare having no effect on abolition is a reasonable conclusion. I just want to argue that it isn’t obviously counterproductive on the basis of this historical evidence.