Anthropologically, our value lock-in towards justifying animal farming is that a) ‘animals’ are exclusively unequal to humans through a difference in intelligence (although moral equality is distinct from a factual one) and b) that consequently, we think of ‘nonhumans’ as means rather than ends in themselves: the ‘factory farm’ is nothing more than the application of technology to this concept. Therefore, looking at the projected increase in farming technology (AI), can we go beyond our value lock-in and change the trajectory of how animal farming ends on the long-term or will it still rely on social aspects?
Advocates of technological change postulate that replacing animal farming through technology may have an effect on people’s attitudes towards animals, reducing cognitive dissonance and making it easier to include animals in one’s moral circle. It seems essential to encompass artificial sentience on the long term (statistically digital minds are likely to outnumber biological minds through self-modification and longevity)- but again- can our scope of compassion as sentient beings really be extended to AI and animal farming? Currently, AFFT (Animal Free Food Technology) for consumers constitutes a positive lock-in, but paradoxically it may have a negative impact on the long term as AI can potentially introduce the end of animal farming as we know of , resulting in humans incorrectly reasoning that their agency in acting against animal suffering is weaker than a technological one. With the limited scope of assessment of AI’s potential in transforming agricultural farming, how can we truly be aware of its long term impact ?
Nonetheless, generally speaking, it can be expected that social change will have better spillover effects (for instance on wild animal suffering, outnumbering farmed animals and suffering from both human and natural resources). Indeed, as mentionned, socially driven trajectories seem to have better outcomes as they set historical precedent for human morality—but that will strictly be relevant in the future to animal activism for ethical rights ( excluding environmentalism or poverty allievance).
Anthropologically, our value lock-in towards justifying animal farming is that a) ‘animals’ are exclusively unequal to humans through a difference in intelligence (although moral equality is distinct from a factual one) and b) that consequently, we think of ‘nonhumans’ as means rather than ends in themselves: the ‘factory farm’ is nothing more than the application of technology to this concept. Therefore, looking at the projected increase in farming technology (AI), can we go beyond our value lock-in and change the trajectory of how animal farming ends on the long-term or will it still rely on social aspects?
Advocates of technological change postulate that replacing animal farming through technology may have an effect on people’s attitudes towards animals, reducing cognitive dissonance and making it easier to include animals in one’s moral circle. It seems essential to encompass artificial sentience on the long term (statistically digital minds are likely to outnumber biological minds through self-modification and longevity)- but again- can our scope of compassion as sentient beings really be extended to AI and animal farming? Currently, AFFT (Animal Free Food Technology) for consumers constitutes a positive lock-in, but paradoxically it may have a negative impact on the long term as AI can potentially introduce the end of animal farming as we know of , resulting in humans incorrectly reasoning that their agency in acting against animal suffering is weaker than a technological one. With the limited scope of assessment of AI’s potential in transforming agricultural farming, how can we truly be aware of its long term impact ?
Nonetheless, generally speaking, it can be expected that social change will have better spillover effects (for instance on wild animal suffering, outnumbering farmed animals and suffering from both human and natural resources). Indeed, as mentionned, socially driven trajectories seem to have better outcomes as they set historical precedent for human morality—but that will strictly be relevant in the future to animal activism for ethical rights ( excluding environmentalism or poverty allievance).