I’ve intentionally chosen not to name individuals or organizations here, not because I haven’t seen support for PLF (I’ve seen it from across the movement: academics, NGOs, individual advocates, funders), but because I think the conversation is more productive when it stays focused on ideas rather than people.
Within the animal advocacy movement, I have a lot of respect for those exploring or supporting PLF and I believe that in most cases, their motivations come from a sincere desire to reduce suffering and make tangible progress for animals.
By keeping the focus on strategy and system-level impacts, I’m hoping to avoid unnecessary division and instead invite reflection on how different interventions interact, align, or conflict with broader movement goals. I think we do our best work when we interrogate ideas rigorously, assume good intentions and stay anchored in our shared values.
That’s why I’ve chosen not to single out individuals for engaging with this area of work. I also believe in movement ecology, the idea that strong movements benefit from diverse approaches. Disagreements about strategy are both inevitable and healthy, as long as they’re grounded in mutual respect and shared goals.
For anyone reading this who’s involved in PLF-related work, I want to emphasize that I’m always open to dialogue, collaboration and shared learning. Differing views on how to achieve change should never be a barrier to working together. We can disagree on strategy whilst still recognising that we are on the same side.
I’ve intentionally chosen not to name individuals or organizations here, not because I haven’t seen support for PLF (I’ve seen it from across the movement: academics, NGOs, individual advocates, funders), but because I think the conversation is more productive when it stays focused on ideas rather than people.
Within the animal advocacy movement, I have a lot of respect for those exploring or supporting PLF and I believe that in most cases, their motivations come from a sincere desire to reduce suffering and make tangible progress for animals.
By keeping the focus on strategy and system-level impacts, I’m hoping to avoid unnecessary division and instead invite reflection on how different interventions interact, align, or conflict with broader movement goals. I think we do our best work when we interrogate ideas rigorously, assume good intentions and stay anchored in our shared values.
That’s why I’ve chosen not to single out individuals for engaging with this area of work. I also believe in movement ecology, the idea that strong movements benefit from diverse approaches. Disagreements about strategy are both inevitable and healthy, as long as they’re grounded in mutual respect and shared goals.
For anyone reading this who’s involved in PLF-related work, I want to emphasize that I’m always open to dialogue, collaboration and shared learning. Differing views on how to achieve change should never be a barrier to working together. We can disagree on strategy whilst still recognising that we are on the same side.