I found your takeaways on abolitionist ballot initiatives quite disappointing. A few points:
1. You say the results largely bear out Rethink’s study with 8-20% support from survey respondents—in contrast to the previous study that said banning slaughterhouses had 39-43% support. But the slaughterhouse ban in Denver got 36% yes votes, which is just 3 points below the original more promising survey, and at least 16 points above the followup survey results. That means around 6 out of 7 of the 100,000 people who voted for the most radical proposal (banning slaughter) were meat eaters. This in spite of the fact that it was the first campaign of its kind, the first pilot campaign from the sponsoring organization, and as you mentioned getting outspent 6-to-1. How is this not a vindication of the idea that people are open to radical change if it’s a society-wide shift rather than a matter of isolated lifestyle choice? The campaign shifted the Overton window, helped establish animal rights as a civic/political issue, had the entire population of a major city grapple with the reality of animal slaughter, forced the animal ag industry to spend $2M opposing it, and got the support of 7x the number of vegetarians in the city. For a first attempt at a truly transformational proposal, these results mostly move my priors in favor of such campaigns.
2. While crediting the massive funding disparity, in part, for the loss, you are personally sitting on the biggest pile of animal-advocacy cash on the planet (or close to it). Is it not a self-fulfilling prophecy to decide not to fund a campaign because your priors suggest it will fail, then blame the loss on their lack of funding? I know it’s more complex and not solely at your discretion, but I think Open Phil’s agency in this situation deserves to be acknowledged.
3. You failed to mention Berkeley’s successful ballot initiative to ban factory farms. None currently exist in the city, so it’s largely a symbolic victory that would only stop future factory farms from being built. But it passed 60⁄40, which is a resounding win for a pretty radical proposal. The same general ask was behind Sonoma’s measure that failed by an even larger margin, so it’s certainly not all good news. But it seems clear that our conclusions need to be more nuanced than just “people aren’t ready for abolition.” Obviously the specifics of each proposal, the size and nature of the jurisdiction, and strategic successes and failures of each campaign have a lot to do with whether a measure flies through with 60% of the vote, or crashes and burns with only 15%.
4. History is full of radical shifts that took ages to enact. Women’s suffrage in Oregon took 6 times on the ballot over nearly 30 years. Slavery in the US took 12 generations and a civil war to abolish. Why do we look back at those who were fighting for full equality and justice with admiration, but for animals, in the present day, we insist is it only counter-productive to ask for anything other than modest reform? For every argument that radical asks alienate people and make reforms more difficult, I can think of arguments that propping up animal ag with “certified humane” labels only reinforces the worldview that sees nonhumans as fundamentally commodities to be profited from and used for our enjoyment. I celebrate any kind of meaningful reform or harm reduction. But where is the theory of change that starts with corporate pressure campaigns and the promotion of “high welfare” animal products, and ends with the world that animals actually deserve? For a movement that focuses so much on longtermism, I see a huge blind spot for the long term future of our nonhuman kin. A future without animal exploitation is only possible if we’re willing to advocate for it before it’s popular.
I found your takeaways on abolitionist ballot initiatives quite disappointing. A few points:
1. You say the results largely bear out Rethink’s study with 8-20% support from survey respondents—in contrast to the previous study that said banning slaughterhouses had 39-43% support. But the slaughterhouse ban in Denver got 36% yes votes, which is just 3 points below the original more promising survey, and at least 16 points above the followup survey results. That means around 6 out of 7 of the 100,000 people who voted for the most radical proposal (banning slaughter) were meat eaters. This in spite of the fact that it was the first campaign of its kind, the first pilot campaign from the sponsoring organization, and as you mentioned getting outspent 6-to-1. How is this not a vindication of the idea that people are open to radical change if it’s a society-wide shift rather than a matter of isolated lifestyle choice? The campaign shifted the Overton window, helped establish animal rights as a civic/political issue, had the entire population of a major city grapple with the reality of animal slaughter, forced the animal ag industry to spend $2M opposing it, and got the support of 7x the number of vegetarians in the city. For a first attempt at a truly transformational proposal, these results mostly move my priors in favor of such campaigns.
2. While crediting the massive funding disparity, in part, for the loss, you are personally sitting on the biggest pile of animal-advocacy cash on the planet (or close to it). Is it not a self-fulfilling prophecy to decide not to fund a campaign because your priors suggest it will fail, then blame the loss on their lack of funding? I know it’s more complex and not solely at your discretion, but I think Open Phil’s agency in this situation deserves to be acknowledged.
3. You failed to mention Berkeley’s successful ballot initiative to ban factory farms. None currently exist in the city, so it’s largely a symbolic victory that would only stop future factory farms from being built. But it passed 60⁄40, which is a resounding win for a pretty radical proposal. The same general ask was behind Sonoma’s measure that failed by an even larger margin, so it’s certainly not all good news. But it seems clear that our conclusions need to be more nuanced than just “people aren’t ready for abolition.” Obviously the specifics of each proposal, the size and nature of the jurisdiction, and strategic successes and failures of each campaign have a lot to do with whether a measure flies through with 60% of the vote, or crashes and burns with only 15%.
4. History is full of radical shifts that took ages to enact. Women’s suffrage in Oregon took 6 times on the ballot over nearly 30 years. Slavery in the US took 12 generations and a civil war to abolish. Why do we look back at those who were fighting for full equality and justice with admiration, but for animals, in the present day, we insist is it only counter-productive to ask for anything other than modest reform? For every argument that radical asks alienate people and make reforms more difficult, I can think of arguments that propping up animal ag with “certified humane” labels only reinforces the worldview that sees nonhumans as fundamentally commodities to be profited from and used for our enjoyment. I celebrate any kind of meaningful reform or harm reduction. But where is the theory of change that starts with corporate pressure campaigns and the promotion of “high welfare” animal products, and ends with the world that animals actually deserve? For a movement that focuses so much on longtermism, I see a huge blind spot for the long term future of our nonhuman kin. A future without animal exploitation is only possible if we’re willing to advocate for it before it’s popular.