I agree that there is opposition from companies, but I think that this aspect is already included in the cost-effectiveness estimates given to animal welfare work?
Regarding reducing suffering by gene editing, it sounds promising on paper, but is it actually available, or close to be? I havenât followed the topic closely, so Iâm wondering.
Thatâs an interesting thought. But how exactly do you price that opposition in, since it presumably depends on the psychology of the people who run those companies? The degree to which companies are willing to fight various projects would make a huge difference, and they ultimately have more financial resources at their disposal than the EA movement. On a more optimistic note, maybe cases like the passage of Proposition 12 in California show that even these companies lack the power to stop certain well-targeted approaches. (fingers crossed that the new Farm Bill in the U.S. does not roll back this progress).
Is gene editing to reduce suffering available? There has been a good amount of research that shows knockouts of different aspects of pain and other negatively valenced states in laboratory animals. How close it is to being actually available would depend on what would be needed to get regulatory approval and what additional tests would be required in order to feel confident that the modifications are actually improving welfare (since we run into the epistemic questions about knowing what non-verbal animals are actually feeling).
When I say the opposition by companies is included in the cost effectiveness analysis, I mean that most of the cost of dedicated for, say, cage free campaigns, is dedicated to convince companies (through different tactics, from nĂŠgociation to pressure campaigns).
When someone says âcage free campaigns are cost effectiveâ they mean âpaying people to influence large companies brings out enough positive effects to be effective, despite oppositionâ
I see what youâre saying. It might be worth noting that the companies that are hopefully being convinced by these campaigns (such as companies like McDonalds or Walmart that sell food directly to consumers) are not the companies I have in mind as being both politically powerful and vehemently opposed to change (meat âproducersâ like JBS, Tyson, Smithfield).
I agree that there is opposition from companies, but I think that this aspect is already included in the cost-effectiveness estimates given to animal welfare work?
Regarding reducing suffering by gene editing, it sounds promising on paper, but is it actually available, or close to be? I havenât followed the topic closely, so Iâm wondering.
Thatâs an interesting thought. But how exactly do you price that opposition in, since it presumably depends on the psychology of the people who run those companies? The degree to which companies are willing to fight various projects would make a huge difference, and they ultimately have more financial resources at their disposal than the EA movement. On a more optimistic note, maybe cases like the passage of Proposition 12 in California show that even these companies lack the power to stop certain well-targeted approaches. (fingers crossed that the new Farm Bill in the U.S. does not roll back this progress).
Is gene editing to reduce suffering available? There has been a good amount of research that shows knockouts of different aspects of pain and other negatively valenced states in laboratory animals. How close it is to being actually available would depend on what would be needed to get regulatory approval and what additional tests would be required in order to feel confident that the modifications are actually improving welfare (since we run into the epistemic questions about knowing what non-verbal animals are actually feeling).
When I say the opposition by companies is included in the cost effectiveness analysis, I mean that most of the cost of dedicated for, say, cage free campaigns, is dedicated to convince companies (through different tactics, from nĂŠgociation to pressure campaigns).
When someone says âcage free campaigns are cost effectiveâ they mean âpaying people to influence large companies brings out enough positive effects to be effective, despite oppositionâ
I see what youâre saying. It might be worth noting that the companies that are hopefully being convinced by these campaigns (such as companies like McDonalds or Walmart that sell food directly to consumers) are not the companies I have in mind as being both politically powerful and vehemently opposed to change (meat âproducersâ like JBS, Tyson, Smithfield).