I think itâs quite important to remember the difference between a charity focusing on something because of gut level vibes and a charity using gut level vibes to inspire action. Most people are not EAs. If only EAs were inspired by my careful analytical report of which things cause the most suffering in farmed shrimp, my report would not achieve anything. But if I know that X is the most important thing, and Y gets people to care, I can use Y to get people in the door in order to solve X.
Also, because most people are not EAs, I actually think youâre wrong that most people will feel duped if they find out itâs not many shrimp. My parents, for example, are not vegan but were horrified by the eyestalk ablation thing. I told them honestly that it didnât involve many shrimp, but they arenât utilitarians: the number of individuals affected doesnât have as much of a visceral impact to them as that it is happening at all. Despite my father knowing full well how many chickens die in horrible conditions, he still eats chicken, and yet the eyestalk ablation thing got him to stop eating shrimp. Remembering that people are broadly motivated by different things, and being able to speak to different kinds of motivation, seems to me to be a critical aspect of effective advocacy.
My vibe is that you arenât genuinely interested in exploring the right messaging strategy for animal advocacy; if Iâm wrong feel free to message me.
A separate nitpick of your post: it doesnât seem fair to say that âShrimp Welfare Project focuses onâ ablation, if by that you meant âprimarily works on.â Perhaps thatâs not what you meant, but since other people might interpret it the same way I did, Iâll just share a few points in the interest of spreading an accurate impression of what the shrimp welfare movement is up to:
SWP primarily works on changing how shrimp are killed, not ablation. Their Humane Slaughter Initiative is listed first on their list of interventions.
In fact, they donât list anything related to eyestalk ablation on their interventions list at all; it appears they just write up a profile when a company reports phasing out eyestalk ablation, but it doesnât seem like they are actively campaigning on it.
In support of that theory, SWPâs guesstimate model on their impact doesnât include eyestalk ablation reforms; it only counts their shrimp stunning work.
Recent campaign wins in the UK were for eyestalk ablation and stunning (e.g., item 4 on the Tesco welfare policy), not just ablation, and that the Mercy For Animals announcement on it is clear that ablation only happens to breeding females. As far as I am aware, all shrimp welfare campaigning that includes eyestalk ablation also includes other higher-impact reforms in their ask.
The right messaging strategy long-term is to be transparent, honest and rational. Shortcutting this is risky, through the three mechanisms I mentioned in last comment.
SWP doesnât primarily focus on ablation. Where they do, they should keep in mind and make it clear that theyâre talking about <0.1% of farmed shrimp.
I think itâs quite important to remember the difference between a charity focusing on something because of gut level vibes and a charity using gut level vibes to inspire action. Most people are not EAs. If only EAs were inspired by my careful analytical report of which things cause the most suffering in farmed shrimp, my report would not achieve anything. But if I know that X is the most important thing, and Y gets people to care, I can use Y to get people in the door in order to solve X.
Also, because most people are not EAs, I actually think youâre wrong that most people will feel duped if they find out itâs not many shrimp. My parents, for example, are not vegan but were horrified by the eyestalk ablation thing. I told them honestly that it didnât involve many shrimp, but they arenât utilitarians: the number of individuals affected doesnât have as much of a visceral impact to them as that it is happening at all. Despite my father knowing full well how many chickens die in horrible conditions, he still eats chicken, and yet the eyestalk ablation thing got him to stop eating shrimp. Remembering that people are broadly motivated by different things, and being able to speak to different kinds of motivation, seems to me to be a critical aspect of effective advocacy.
Sounds like a recipe for:
Reinforcing the stereotype of vegans/âvegetarians as âbleeding heartsâ who donât think about practicalities.
Misguided regulations/âlegislation in the style of bee bricks that contribute to societyâs red tape fatigue without having positive impact.
Reduced trust in the effective animal welfare movement (Iâll now be more skeptical, less trusting that Iâm being told all relevant info)
My vibe is that you arenât genuinely interested in exploring the right messaging strategy for animal advocacy; if Iâm wrong feel free to message me.
A separate nitpick of your post: it doesnât seem fair to say that âShrimp Welfare Project focuses onâ ablation, if by that you meant âprimarily works on.â Perhaps thatâs not what you meant, but since other people might interpret it the same way I did, Iâll just share a few points in the interest of spreading an accurate impression of what the shrimp welfare movement is up to:
SWP primarily works on changing how shrimp are killed, not ablation. Their Humane Slaughter Initiative is listed first on their list of interventions.
In fact, they donât list anything related to eyestalk ablation on their interventions list at all; it appears they just write up a profile when a company reports phasing out eyestalk ablation, but it doesnât seem like they are actively campaigning on it.
In support of that theory, SWPâs guesstimate model on their impact doesnât include eyestalk ablation reforms; it only counts their shrimp stunning work.
Recent campaign wins in the UK were for eyestalk ablation and stunning (e.g., item 4 on the Tesco welfare policy), not just ablation, and that the Mercy For Animals announcement on it is clear that ablation only happens to breeding females. As far as I am aware, all shrimp welfare campaigning that includes eyestalk ablation also includes other higher-impact reforms in their ask.
The right messaging strategy long-term is to be transparent, honest and rational. Shortcutting this is risky, through the three mechanisms I mentioned in last comment.
SWP doesnât primarily focus on ablation. Where they do, they should keep in mind and make it clear that theyâre talking about <0.1% of farmed shrimp.