Hey, thanks for engaging! I won’t reply line by line but it seems like you’re understanding my comments well in at least the first half of your response. (I do think that the indirect effects on momentum or complacency for further change are probably more important than the more direct effects on short-run animal welfare.) I think your comments and replies make sense even if I don’t have time right now to dive into all the weeds of them.
I was saying that if a company actively seeks us out for collaboration, then that suggests we can help them do something that they can’t do on their own, i.e. we’re providing counterfactual value.
I appreciate the logic here. I was talking about something slightly different. Apologies for the possibly incoherent comment. I’ll try to clarify:
If a company seems interested in a service/product without much pressure, then that seems like an indication that its in their own (for-profit) interest to use that service/product
A more profitable animal agriculture industry seems bad—it might lead to more or more durable/resilient (factory) farming
Therefore if a company seems interested in a service/product without much pressure, then this also seems like an indication that providing that service might lead to more (factory) farming
Hence my guess is that actions that help animals most will tend to be those that are hard-fought and only reluctantly accepted by the industry.
Of course, there might be some win-win situations, but generally I’d interpret high demand for a service/product/technology at least as an initial red flag from the perspective of having coutnerfactual positive impact for animals. Like—‘we should think about the effects here carefully’
Hey, thanks for engaging! I won’t reply line by line but it seems like you’re understanding my comments well in at least the first half of your response. (I do think that the indirect effects on momentum or complacency for further change are probably more important than the more direct effects on short-run animal welfare.) I think your comments and replies make sense even if I don’t have time right now to dive into all the weeds of them.
I appreciate the logic here. I was talking about something slightly different. Apologies for the possibly incoherent comment. I’ll try to clarify:
If a company seems interested in a service/product without much pressure, then that seems like an indication that its in their own (for-profit) interest to use that service/product
A more profitable animal agriculture industry seems bad—it might lead to more or more durable/resilient (factory) farming
Therefore if a company seems interested in a service/product without much pressure, then this also seems like an indication that providing that service might lead to more (factory) farming
Hence my guess is that actions that help animals most will tend to be those that are hard-fought and only reluctantly accepted by the industry.
Of course, there might be some win-win situations, but generally I’d interpret high demand for a service/product/technology at least as an initial red flag from the perspective of having coutnerfactual positive impact for animals. Like—‘we should think about the effects here carefully’