Hence, holding the “temporary setback” view necessitates explicitly arguing that the benefit of these strategies outweighs this cost.
I agree, and would say the nearterm effects on wild animals are the driver of the overall impact.
E.g., the wild animal replacement problem (see Tomasik 2019; Shulman 2013)-- which is also alluded to in my descriptions of Sentientia and Reversomelas—and backfire risks from moral circle expansion (see, e.g., Vinding 2018).
I estimated broiler welfare (cage-free) reforms increase or decrease the welfare of wild arthropods 47.7 (4.66) times as much as they increase the welfare of broilers (hens). My results suggest it is unclear whether chicken welfare reforms are beneficial or harmful. The effects on arthropods may well be larger than those on chickens, which would imply chicken welfare reforms being beneficial/harmful if they benefit/harm arthropods. I think these conclusions apply to any intervention targeting vertebrates which change the consumption of feed or food, especially if it mainly aims to increase/decrease positive/negative vertebrate-years.
As I expected, my analysis indicates the impact of chicken welfare reforms is driven by effects on wild animals. I estimate broiler welfare and cage-free corporate campaigns benefit soil animals 444 and 28.2 times as much as they benefit chickens. I think the same applies to any intervention targeting vertebrates which changes the consumption of feed or food, especially if it mainly aims to increase/decrease positive/negative vertebrate-years.
My best guess is that decreasing the consumption of animal-based foods is harmful. I estimate School Plates in 2023, and Veganuary in 2024 harmed soil animals 5.42 k and 3.58 k times as much as they benefited farmed animals. Moreover, I guess arguments for decreasing the consumption of animal-based foods based on environmental considerations, and animal rights harm wild animals longterm due to encouraging wilderness preservation. In any case, I expect the nearterm effects to be the driver of the overall impact. So I would still consider decreasing the consumption of animal-based foods harmful even if it helped wild animals longterm.
Thanks for the post, Jim!
I agree, and would say the nearterm effects on wild animals are the driver of the overall impact.
I estimated broiler welfare (cage-free) reforms increase or decrease the welfare of wild arthropods 47.7 (4.66) times as much as they increase the welfare of broilers (hens). My results suggest it is unclear whether chicken welfare reforms are beneficial or harmful. The effects on arthropods may well be larger than those on chickens, which would imply chicken welfare reforms being beneficial/harmful if they benefit/harm arthropods. I think these conclusions apply to any intervention targeting vertebrates which change the consumption of feed or food, especially if it mainly aims to increase/decrease positive/negative vertebrate-years.
Here is a related post I have just published.