I think there’s a pretty good argument that animal protectionism demands the nonuse of animals in all cases when that use necessarily involves a significant amount of suffering, which represent almost all cases, and makes the remaining cases prohibitively expensive. I describe his pathway in the piece.
You could argue that this stronger animal protection view is not implied by current rhetoric, but the idea is that you build momentum and work up to stronger asks.
Thank you for encouraging me to go back and re-read. I had missed several of your points when skimming yesterday.
I recall Erik Marcus making the case for what I believe he called “dismantlement theory” in his book “Meat Market” (2005). He essentially says that animal protectionists should engage in welfare campaigns that incrementally make animal use more expensive until it’s discontinued.
To restate your description of the reform pathway, I believe you’re saying that welfare campaigning could continue up to a point and then transition to asking for outright bans or rights recognition.
The abolitionist will argue that that the transition is not morally implied by animal protectionism. But I think you’d say that it is, provided that the continued animal use still involves a “significant amount of suffering”? I guess the thought is that there’s a point where further welfare improvement (via cage size, enrichment, etc.) is no longer possible and that at this point animal protectionism will advocate for non-use, rather than continuing to advocate for further welfare improvements? I’m curious if there’s any precedent for this. Assuming not, I’m curious what a concrete example of a transition would look like—what do we imagine the pathway actually looking like for egg laying hens for example.
Further the abolitionist will argue that animal protectionism is not practically conducive to the transition. So long as animal protectionism has reinforced the practice of animal use (morally, legally, institutionally), the paradigm of sufficiently humane animal use will persist. Animal protectionism will have to become something entirely other than the animal protectionism as it exists today to make the transition. In terms of precedent for this, I’m thinking of anti-abortionists who had advocated for incremental changes to abortion practices (waiting periods, different practices, clinic requirements) switching to advocacy for bans. While in such a case, at least some activists seem capable of the transition, it’s less clear that a recognizable segment of the public is willing to follow suit (looking at polling).
This leaves me less optimistic about the reform/ask strategy and much more optimistic about a strategy which involves technological changes (i.e., substituting animal use) and moral persuasion around non-use to reinforce the switch.
One way to go is for animal protection to start advocating for a right bans at some point, yes. Another possibility is that the industry is simply run into the ground through costly welfare reforms and competition through alternatives. Maybe this wouldn’t remove all animal exploitation, and some animal products would still be demanded as a luxury good, but it would seem pretty significant if the reform path way could bring us that far, would you agree? A agree there is more of a natural flow towards ending all animal exploitation through abolitionist messaging.
I’m not too sure about historical parallels of social movements that for welfare reforms. That’s an important question, think about that.
By and large, I think a lot of animal protectionism probably doesn’t overall reinforce continued animal use (though some parts of it might do so to some extent). It seems like the evidence that I describe points to momentum rather than complacency here. I guess if mental picture of animal protectionism is someone like Temple Grandin or other people working in animal welfare science, this is less clear, but I’m including groups that are working on and asking for welfare reforms, even if they ultimately have abolitionist goals.
Ultimately, I’m not arguing against running some abolitionist campaigns, but I am arguing against views that this is the only way to go, and that other approaches are harmful.
> Another possibility is that the industry is simply run into the ground through costly welfare reforms and competition through alternatives. Maybe this wouldn’t remove all animal exploitation, and some animal products would still be demanded as a luxury good, but it would seem pretty significant if the reform path way could bring us that far, would you agree?
I agree that would be significant. I suppose I remain skeptical that costly welfare reforms are realistic and will go very far.
Thanks for explaining your points further. I appreciate the exchange!
Thanks for your thoughts on this!
I think there’s a pretty good argument that animal protectionism demands the nonuse of animals in all cases when that use necessarily involves a significant amount of suffering, which represent almost all cases, and makes the remaining cases prohibitively expensive. I describe his pathway in the piece.
You could argue that this stronger animal protection view is not implied by current rhetoric, but the idea is that you build momentum and work up to stronger asks.
Thank you for encouraging me to go back and re-read. I had missed several of your points when skimming yesterday.
I recall Erik Marcus making the case for what I believe he called “dismantlement theory” in his book “Meat Market” (2005). He essentially says that animal protectionists should engage in welfare campaigns that incrementally make animal use more expensive until it’s discontinued.
To restate your description of the reform pathway, I believe you’re saying that welfare campaigning could continue up to a point and then transition to asking for outright bans or rights recognition.
The abolitionist will argue that that the transition is not morally implied by animal protectionism. But I think you’d say that it is, provided that the continued animal use still involves a “significant amount of suffering”? I guess the thought is that there’s a point where further welfare improvement (via cage size, enrichment, etc.) is no longer possible and that at this point animal protectionism will advocate for non-use, rather than continuing to advocate for further welfare improvements? I’m curious if there’s any precedent for this. Assuming not, I’m curious what a concrete example of a transition would look like—what do we imagine the pathway actually looking like for egg laying hens for example.
Further the abolitionist will argue that animal protectionism is not practically conducive to the transition. So long as animal protectionism has reinforced the practice of animal use (morally, legally, institutionally), the paradigm of sufficiently humane animal use will persist. Animal protectionism will have to become something entirely other than the animal protectionism as it exists today to make the transition. In terms of precedent for this, I’m thinking of anti-abortionists who had advocated for incremental changes to abortion practices (waiting periods, different practices, clinic requirements) switching to advocacy for bans. While in such a case, at least some activists seem capable of the transition, it’s less clear that a recognizable segment of the public is willing to follow suit (looking at polling).
This leaves me less optimistic about the reform/ask strategy and much more optimistic about a strategy which involves technological changes (i.e., substituting animal use) and moral persuasion around non-use to reinforce the switch.
Thanks for your engagement with the report!
One way to go is for animal protection to start advocating for a right bans at some point, yes. Another possibility is that the industry is simply run into the ground through costly welfare reforms and competition through alternatives. Maybe this wouldn’t remove all animal exploitation, and some animal products would still be demanded as a luxury good, but it would seem pretty significant if the reform path way could bring us that far, would you agree? A agree there is more of a natural flow towards ending all animal exploitation through abolitionist messaging.
I’m not too sure about historical parallels of social movements that for welfare reforms. That’s an important question, think about that.
By and large, I think a lot of animal protectionism probably doesn’t overall reinforce continued animal use (though some parts of it might do so to some extent). It seems like the evidence that I describe points to momentum rather than complacency here. I guess if mental picture of animal protectionism is someone like Temple Grandin or other people working in animal welfare science, this is less clear, but I’m including groups that are working on and asking for welfare reforms, even if they ultimately have abolitionist goals.
Ultimately, I’m not arguing against running some abolitionist campaigns, but I am arguing against views that this is the only way to go, and that other approaches are harmful.
> Another possibility is that the industry is simply run into the ground through costly welfare reforms and competition through alternatives. Maybe this wouldn’t remove all animal exploitation, and some animal products would still be demanded as a luxury good, but it would seem pretty significant if the reform path way could bring us that far, would you agree?
I agree that would be significant. I suppose I remain skeptical that costly welfare reforms are realistic and will go very far.
Thanks for explaining your points further. I appreciate the exchange!