1. My somewhat limited background is in theoretical biology (which includes evolutionary and ecological field biology) and consersation biology, as well as environmental activism.
From a glance at some papers on the web site all of this looks to be fairly standard academic research, with a very few differences in emphasis—eg discussing topics like ‘suffering’ and ‘animal’s needs’, and distinguishing ‘welfare biology’ from other fields. My view is most scientists and activists do care about these things though just don’t usually use that terminology. (Some don’t—they are really just interested in science or activism rather than ecology.)
I would say the same is true ‘effective envonmentalism’ ---which discusses things like climate change ; i dont see it as very new apart from the term ‘effective’—people have been doing this for years, and have implicitly or explcitly done some sort of cost/benefit calculations to be ‘the most bang for the buck’.
So in a sense I I have nothing against this any more than the areas I worked in—I did them becuse I supported them.
The one issue I do have is that of ‘tractability’. Science in general can be seen as a kind of altruistic activity—eg may benefit future or current living things; as can activism. But one cannot do or fund all science and activism. So the issue is ‘how much’. I’d add most other scientists and activists . I dont see welfare biologists any better placed to deal with uncertainty—eg by doing long term studies. They already do that. Sure they do not have enough funds to collect as much data as they like either. (only thing welfare biologists might be able to do better iof they somehow had more money.) As is said in OP ecological systems are not understood with 100% certainty—no system is.
There is also no certainty that conducting research which generates knowledge even if it shows what doesnt alleviate suffering will better ‘effectively’ inform us what may work. Thats a cost benefit calculation.
Studying ant consiousness of pain i view as neuroscience whuich may have some benefit, though less likely on millions of ants-----using some calculations one could argue spendig the entire 770 billiobn $ defense budget studying ants for this purpose would reasonable because there are so many and likely will be in the future. I’m not a longtermism thinker except for fun—trips to mars, etc. I put my bets that life on earth is my lot. Because of this and my ecological views in also am not much favor of current disciplinary boundaries—activists know that reducing animl suffering as we know it may mean reducing human suffering as well (eg some people advocate big game hunting by tourists as a way to permit some big game to survive so poor don’t eliminate all of them for food or to sell for things like ivory.
Comments:
1. My somewhat limited background is in theoretical biology (which includes evolutionary and ecological field biology) and consersation biology, as well as environmental activism.
From a glance at some papers on the web site all of this looks to be fairly standard academic research, with a very few differences in emphasis—eg discussing topics like ‘suffering’ and ‘animal’s needs’, and distinguishing ‘welfare biology’ from other fields. My view is most scientists and activists do care about these things though just don’t usually use that terminology. (Some don’t—they are really just interested in science or activism rather than ecology.)
I would say the same is true ‘effective envonmentalism’ ---which discusses things like climate change ; i dont see it as very new apart from the term ‘effective’—people have been doing this for years, and have implicitly or explcitly done some sort of cost/benefit calculations to be ‘the most bang for the buck’.
So in a sense I I have nothing against this any more than the areas I worked in—I did them becuse I supported them.
The one issue I do have is that of ‘tractability’. Science in general can be seen as a kind of altruistic activity—eg may benefit future or current living things; as can activism. But one cannot do or fund all science and activism. So the issue is ‘how much’. I’d add most other scientists and activists . I dont see welfare biologists any better placed to deal with uncertainty—eg by doing long term studies. They already do that. Sure they do not have enough funds to collect as much data as they like either. (only thing welfare biologists might be able to do better iof they somehow had more money.) As is said in OP ecological systems are not understood with 100% certainty—no system is.
There is also no certainty that conducting research which generates knowledge even if it shows what doesnt alleviate suffering will better ‘effectively’ inform us what may work. Thats a cost benefit calculation.
Studying ant consiousness of pain i view as neuroscience whuich may have some benefit, though less likely on millions of ants-----using some calculations one could argue spendig the entire 770 billiobn $ defense budget studying ants for this purpose would reasonable because there are so many and likely will be in the future. I’m not a longtermism thinker except for fun—trips to mars, etc. I put my bets that life on earth is my lot. Because of this and my ecological views in also am not much favor of current disciplinary boundaries—activists know that reducing animl suffering as we know it may mean reducing human suffering as well (eg some people advocate big game hunting by tourists as a way to permit some big game to survive so poor don’t eliminate all of them for food or to sell for things like ivory.