Thanks as always, Lewis. Adding to the evidence you cite in the final section, 95% of Australians are concerned about farmed animal welfare too, with 91% stating that at least some reforms are needed. (n = 1,521).
Great article. I'm wondering if there's a way to turn that Bryant Research study into ballot initiatives and policy. If 70–90% of Brits think common farming practices are unacceptable, could someone put those questions on the ballot and get big policy wins?
I think ignorance and apathy are very significant aspects of the issue.
Here is how I have been modeling the problem.
I think most people implicitly use status implications as a proximal measure for the moral value of most of their actions and decisions. The extent to which a decision exacts a status penalty roughly tracks the extent to which a decision is morally wrong. That's at least the sort of calculas people tend towards, especially when they're reflecting on the moral value of actions/habits they feel would be very costly to abate.
So on the individual level, even when people are confronted by the realities of industrial animal agriculture, they find a way to rationalize the behaviour to assuage cognitive dissonance, and since consuming animal products doesn't result in status penalties amongst their in-group, their rationalization is essentially morally valid according to the in-group.
I think it's a bit more complicated on the macro/political level but I think similar dynamics still apply.
It is true, cruelty towards animals is a no-go for most people. Then, why is it still so hard to translate this passive attitude into a massive shift in food production so far based on factory farming? What is the sticking point we still oversee, after all these campaigns against the industrial use of animals, after all these campaigns advocating better animal welfare or reducing the consumption of animal products?
What could be done: I think we can tell an overwhelming number of good and beautiful stories about the normal natural life of the animals we are used to using. Especially in the case of aquatic animals because still every second seafood plate comes form the wild and aquaculture history is still very young, so the way of how this animals live in nature is easy to tell, and thousands of unique stories can be told. Once we succeed in bringing natural life—including needs and behaviour—of food animals home to the eaters, they will more or less draw conclusions for their daily life by themselves.
(This positive approach has its parallel in a paradigm shift in animal welfare science, which has long focused on reducing pain and suffering and only recently began to study positive emotions in animals as well.)=
Great piece, as always! Reminds me of Melanie Joy's "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows" -- she uses a concept she calls "carnism" to describe the ideology that legitimizes meat-eating. She's trying to grapple with exactly the seeming paradox you describe, and ultimately concludes that much of it boils down to industry successfully concealing the horrible truths of animal ag + the human capacity for denial and internal contradiction.
Thanks as always, Lewis. Adding to the evidence you cite in the final section, 95% of Australians are concerned about farmed animal welfare too, with 91% stating that at least some reforms are needed. (n = 1,521).
Ref: Futureye, 2018. Australia’s Shifting Mindset on Farm Animal Welfare. https://web.archive.org/web/20200419073948/https://www.outbreak.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/farm-animal-welfare.pdf
Great article. I'm wondering if there's a way to turn that Bryant Research study into ballot initiatives and policy. If 70–90% of Brits think common farming practices are unacceptable, could someone put those questions on the ballot and get big policy wins?
Superb article! Lewis. Bollard is a treasure to animals! Long may he continue
I think ignorance and apathy are very significant aspects of the issue.
Here is how I have been modeling the problem.
I think most people implicitly use status implications as a proximal measure for the moral value of most of their actions and decisions. The extent to which a decision exacts a status penalty roughly tracks the extent to which a decision is morally wrong. That's at least the sort of calculas people tend towards, especially when they're reflecting on the moral value of actions/habits they feel would be very costly to abate.
So on the individual level, even when people are confronted by the realities of industrial animal agriculture, they find a way to rationalize the behaviour to assuage cognitive dissonance, and since consuming animal products doesn't result in status penalties amongst their in-group, their rationalization is essentially morally valid according to the in-group.
I think it's a bit more complicated on the macro/political level but I think similar dynamics still apply.
Very interesting point, Lewis, thank you!
It is true, cruelty towards animals is a no-go for most people. Then, why is it still so hard to translate this passive attitude into a massive shift in food production so far based on factory farming? What is the sticking point we still oversee, after all these campaigns against the industrial use of animals, after all these campaigns advocating better animal welfare or reducing the consumption of animal products?
What could be done: I think we can tell an overwhelming number of good and beautiful stories about the normal natural life of the animals we are used to using. Especially in the case of aquatic animals because still every second seafood plate comes form the wild and aquaculture history is still very young, so the way of how this animals live in nature is easy to tell, and thousands of unique stories can be told. Once we succeed in bringing natural life—including needs and behaviour—of food animals home to the eaters, they will more or less draw conclusions for their daily life by themselves.
(This positive approach has its parallel in a paradigm shift in animal welfare science, which has long focused on reducing pain and suffering and only recently began to study positive emotions in animals as well.)=
Great piece, as always! Reminds me of Melanie Joy's "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows" -- she uses a concept she calls "carnism" to describe the ideology that legitimizes meat-eating. She's trying to grapple with exactly the seeming paradox you describe, and ultimately concludes that much of it boils down to industry successfully concealing the horrible truths of animal ag + the human capacity for denial and internal contradiction.