But really, what we are funding is more protests, or boycotts, or negotiations with the companies or government agencies involved in factory farming.
Can you perhaps explain how this is different from say, AMF where what we are actually funding is pyrethroid production, manufacturing plants that create polyethylene nets people to hand out the nets?
In these campaigns the meat producing companies could engage in similar advertising that would lead to a negative sum game. More generally, in malaria thereās no human adversary. Perhaps I donāt like playing bad cop, even when I know itās necessary.
Let me clarify that I totally get why this is important and necessary, and I take parts in THL campaigns, but itās not something that I feel attracted to.
In these campaigns the meat producing companies could engage in similar advertising that would lead to a negative sum game.
I donāt think they could and I donāt think that is what is happening. I donāt think any meat producing companies couldā¦ engage in some kind of similar advertising.
Random datapoint from Italy, when I started googling things on animal welfare/āveganism years ago, this website was often one of the top Google results, and it seems itās still going strong
And here is an article from last year specifically against the European Chicken Commitment, which is a major focus of a lot of EA-funded campaigns, and has been a massive win in France and other countries.
That project seems to be supported by the āNational Association of Meat and Livestock Industry and Tradeā, āAssociation of Meat and Cured Meat Industryā, and a āNational Union of Meat and Egg Agri-Food Supply Chains.ā
I would be surprised if there wouldnāt be similar initiatives in other countries with a stronger animal rights movement, and if there werenāt social media influencers running similar campaigns at much greater scale.
In general I think itās fairly easy make campaigns supporting all sorts of things, from factory farms, to tobacco, to datacenters[1]
e.g. I found this recent Asterisk article against a datacenter moratorium similar to the meat-industry articles above. Hereās a section on environmental concerns: āData centers arenāt the only new loads coming onto the grid ā electric vehicles and electrified manufacturing are also driving demand that requires more generation, more transmission, and long-overdue grid modernization. Many data centers are leaning on gas for near-term power, but data centers could serve as anchor tenants for new clean generation, fiber, battery storage, and transmission. Many companies are moving in that direction.
Industrial projects like these are also prompting pragmatic shifts on decarbonization from environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for instance, just supported its first nuclear project ever, to power a data center.
A moratorium forecloses exactly the kind of creative thinking these projects are beginning to generate.ā
Itās always possible to describe things in a very unflattering way, where you talk about some inputs as opposed to your goal or just describe it in a pessimistic light (eg, cheap/āstingy vs. frugal). The OP describes āprotests, or boycotts, or negotiationsā as not something he wants to fund, but I think if you talked about funding pyrethroid production, that would also not be something he wants to fund, though thatās another way of describing insecticide-treated bednets. You could also go even worse and talk about āmass genocide of insectsā or something.
To put it another way, I think global health people (who I have deep respect for) would be pretty upset and rightly call out someone writing a post where someone said they didnāt donate to global health charities since they donāt want to fund the chemical manufacturing industry, which is what we are actually purchasing.
I think I did not do a good job of framing this post. My goal was not to criticise the people working in animal welfare organisations, quite the contrary! I think they are doing very necessary work, and I am really grateful to them, especially given how weird this looks to most people. In other words, I am not claiming that these feelings are right, only that they exist.
The goal of the post was instead to reflect on something I feel (and presumably others feel too), which may be dragging donations to those organisations. In my case, this applies to politics too.
Understood. I was responding to what I assumed OP was getting at, regardless of how poorly framed, and your specific naming of chemicals threw me off. Thanks for clarifying.
Can you perhaps explain how this is different from say, AMF where what we are actually funding is pyrethroid production, manufacturing plants that create polyethylene nets people to hand out the nets?
In these campaigns the meat producing companies could engage in similar advertising that would lead to a negative sum game. More generally, in malaria thereās no human adversary. Perhaps I donāt like playing bad cop, even when I know itās necessary.
Let me clarify that I totally get why this is important and necessary, and I take parts in THL campaigns, but itās not something that I feel attracted to.
I donāt think they could and I donāt think that is what is happening. I donāt think any meat producing companies couldā¦ engage in some kind of similar advertising.
I think they already do it, under the premise of supporting local and rural farmers.
Random datapoint from Italy, when I started googling things on animal welfare/āveganism years ago, this website was often one of the top Google results, and it seems itās still going strong
Here are some recent articles:
Meat may protect against cancer: a new study strengthens the evidence.
Broiler chickens and transport: more space does not improve animal welfare.
Beyond the āCarbon Tunnel Visionā: The meat and sustainability debate deserves more. (some quotes: āCutting down on meat doesnāt lower your personal carbon footprint.ā , āāAlternativeā proteins are not betterā)
And here is an article from last year specifically against the European Chicken Commitment, which is a major focus of a lot of EA-funded campaigns, and has been a massive win in France and other countries.
That project seems to be supported by the āNational Association of Meat and Livestock Industry and Tradeā, āAssociation of Meat and Cured Meat Industryā, and a āNational Union of Meat and Egg Agri-Food Supply Chains.ā
I would be surprised if there wouldnāt be similar initiatives in other countries with a stronger animal rights movement, and if there werenāt social media influencers running similar campaigns at much greater scale.
In general I think itās fairly easy make campaigns supporting all sorts of things, from factory farms, to tobacco, to datacenters[1]
e.g. I found this recent Asterisk article against a datacenter moratorium similar to the meat-industry articles above. Hereās a section on environmental concerns: āData centers arenāt the only new loads coming onto the grid ā electric vehicles and electrified manufacturing are also driving demand that requires more generation, more transmission, and long-overdue grid modernization. Many data centers are leaning on gas for near-term power, but data centers could serve as anchor tenants for new clean generation, fiber, battery storage, and transmission. Many companies are moving in that direction.
Industrial projects like these are also prompting pragmatic shifts on decarbonization from environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for instance, just supported its first nuclear project ever, to power a data center.
A moratorium forecloses exactly the kind of creative thinking these projects are beginning to generate.ā
Can you explain how theyāre the same?
Itās always possible to describe things in a very unflattering way, where you talk about some inputs as opposed to your goal or just describe it in a pessimistic light (eg, cheap/āstingy vs. frugal). The OP describes āprotests, or boycotts, or negotiationsā as not something he wants to fund, but I think if you talked about funding pyrethroid production, that would also not be something he wants to fund, though thatās another way of describing insecticide-treated bednets. You could also go even worse and talk about āmass genocide of insectsā or something.
To put it another way, I think global health people (who I have deep respect for) would be pretty upset and rightly call out someone writing a post where someone said they didnāt donate to global health charities since they donāt want to fund the chemical manufacturing industry, which is what we are actually purchasing.
I think I did not do a good job of framing this post. My goal was not to criticise the people working in animal welfare organisations, quite the contrary! I think they are doing very necessary work, and I am really grateful to them, especially given how weird this looks to most people. In other words, I am not claiming that these feelings are right, only that they exist.
The goal of the post was instead to reflect on something I feel (and presumably others feel too), which may be dragging donations to those organisations. In my case, this applies to politics too.
I think thatās fair. I appreciate that you engage with this problem that I think most people ignore.
Understood. I was responding to what I assumed OP was getting at, regardless of how poorly framed, and your specific naming of chemicals threw me off. Thanks for clarifying.