In Defence Of (effective) Animal Advocacy: Beyond Vegetarianism

In Defence of (Effective) Animal AdvocacyBeyond vegetarianismtw/c: discussion of animal violence. This article assumes some commitment on the part of the reader to the case for AL.

Image courtesy of One Step for Animals. Returning from work, Peter discerns the distressed cries of a kitten trapped among several bags of rubbish. Should he intervene? If so, at what cost?*If you are acquainted with the ideas of effective altruism, Peter s namesake and the scenario considered above are likely already familiar to you.

But unlike rescuing a drowning child, rescuing a kitten does not require the sacrifice of an expensive pair of shoes. In fact, it requires very little.

Of course Peter should intervene.

And yet each year billions of other animals suffer fates far worse, the vast majority in factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations.

Many whose lives we could save. But at what cost?

Thankfully, and in spite of global trends, we have reasons to be hopeful. The declining sales of red meat, pork, and poultry in the most affluent nations, where affordable meat substitutes are readily available, competitively priced, suggests a receptiveness to the plight of nonhuman animals unimaginable forty years ago. Indeed in Britain one in ten reported enjoying a wholly or partly vegetarian diet in 2014, and in the US per capita consumption of red meat, pork, and poultry fell between 2007 and 2012 from 145.2 lbs. to 131.98 lbs. and continues to decline. Resources such as the Vegetarian Calculator*estimate* on a month by month basis the net impact of a vegetarian diet across several variables: no. of animals saved, lbs. of meat (not) consumed, and lbs. of CO2 (not) released, further incentivising animal advocacy.

The low-cost high-benefit ratio of a vegetarian or vegan diet, then, makes it one of the most effective ways to save lives: the Effective Altruism Hub lists adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet among its top small things which an effective altruist (EA) might do. Its benefits, both for the animals and for the planet are well documented indeed agribusiness is responsible for 91% of deforestation in South America and 15% of global CO2 emissions, as the UN s 2006 Livestock s long shadow revealed. Many EAs acknowledge this. Of 813 EAs surveyed by .impact and Charity Science in 2013, just under a third (31.3%) reported adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet. That EAs are three times more likely to do so than non-EAs is certainly encouraging. Yet among EAs sampled, only 59 (8% of) respondents of the 764 surveyed reporting their donations indicated giving to (effective) animal-related charities.

I described above how Peter ought to intervene to save the life of a trapped kitten. Imagine now that Peter, returning home with a proverbial warm glow, discovers that his own kitten, Jasper, has a tapeworm infection. Left untreated, Jasper s body will struggle to absorb the nutrients from his food and he may, eventually, die. Although treatment is inexpensive, Peter will have to reschedule tonight s restaurant reservation. Should Peter provide treatment for Jasper? Not doing so would have terrible consequences for Jasper, and Peter can certainly reschedule his restaurant reservation without much inconvenience. But if we allow this, we must also allow that Peter ought to sacrifice, in similar circumstances, other items of similar value where he might significantly improve, and indeed save, the lives of animals other than his own. Let us consider some common objections:

Peter and Jasper have a unique relationship, one of companionship.While Peter might justifiably fund the treatment of Jasper, he cannot do so for other animals to the disadvantage of other human persons.It is more cost-effective on balance to adopt a vegetarian diet and only donate resources to tackle, less costly, human diseases.The first objection that we consider is often brought more widely against proponents of effective altruism. Although Peter ought to save Jasper, so goes the argument, his obligation toward Jasper arises only because they stand together in close proximity as members of a particular (moral) community. The implication is that Peter ought not to donate to members of a community other than his own (e.g., those living far away).

This argument, however, fails on two accounts. Firstly, it is susceptible to the same charge that we might bring against opponents of anthropocentric charitable giving. Namely, relative proximity ought not to matter morally. Secondly, if we concede this objection we may struggle to explain why Peter ought to save the trapped kitten, since this kitten is not a member of the same community, to the same degree, if at all, as he and Jasper are. And yet few of us, I suspect, thinks that Peter ought not to intervene.

Just as this argument privileged the interests of a particular community, so too does our second objection: While Peter might justifiably fund the treatment of Jasper, he cannot do so for other animals to the disadvantage of other human persons . Similarly specious, it disregards the most basicinterests of a species other than our own: interests in not suffering, in pursuing healthful relationships, and so on interests which deserve equal consideration. Having rightly dismissed the earlier objection, we will struggle to explain on this account why Peter ought to help Jasper at all especially when he might just as well assist his family and friends. Indeed we will struggle to account for Peter s helping the trapped kitten, regardless of his circumstances. He could just as well, so the argument goes, allocate his time and resources elsewhere. Few of us thinks like this (thankfully), although a more comprehensive discussion of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows can be found here. To concede this argument is to maintain that in some significant sense the lives of other animals do not matter.

Our third objection is, however, more serious

It is more cost-effective on balance to adopt a vegetarian diet and only donate resources to tackle, less costly, human diseases. Number of animals vs. amount of donations. Image courtesy of Animal Charity Evaluators.In my last piece I wrote how for the cost of that cup of coffee, you could save the life of a child. Unfortunately, similarly compelling advertisements for effective animal-related charities recur much less frequently among EAs. Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) lists its top three animal charities as: Animal Equality, Mercy for Animals, and The Humane League, each of which, as ACE report, focuses on a blend of local and online grassroots outreach. Given these considerations that is, grassroots outreach, an advocacy requiring resources, otherwise scarce, that might be distributed elsewhere more effectively, it is perhaps unsurprising that the majority of EAs choose anthropocentric charitable giving as their primary recipient of monetary donations. Simply refusing one s custom is, it seems, the most cost-effective means of saving animal lives. And yet, many EAs choose to donate in areas as diverse as Education, Empowerment and Opportunity, and Research, where benefits, abstract, are calculated in the long term.

How, if at all, might we reconcile these two trends?

As the above infographic illustrates, donors of animal-related charities give so ineffectively that while eighty major US animal shelters each claim a budget greater than $3.5 million (£2.3 million), collectively $835 million (£554 million), nine US farm-animal outreach organisations control by comparison just $16 million (£10.6 million). For every one dog or cat euthanized in a shelter, ACE reports, about 2600 farm animals are confined and slaughtered. We might envisage therefore the role of EAs in (effective) animal advocacy as guiding and shaping donor-consciousness among donors who give principally or exclusively to animal charities. Further, if we are prepared to invest in long term solutions to global problems, particularly anthropogenic climate change, we must also be willing to give across species. To refuse to do so is to fail to take seriously the interests of the billions of animals of future generations who will suffer as demand for red meat, pork, and poultry rises in developing nations.

My response to this discrepancy in the giving habits of EAs is, of course, only partial. In writing this piece, I cannot offer the solution to the universal suffering of animals used in factory farms and laboratories. Like most advocates for animals, I become frustrated with our progress. I am, however, gladdened by the prominence of animal liberation within the EA movement. To coax EAs into embracing an (effective) animal advocacy that reaches beyond vegetarianism is the next objective. If the most often given criticism of EA is its focus on short-term solutions, then donating is to animal advocacy as long-term environmentalism and political lobbying are to EA.

A necessity.

*This thought experiment was inspired by Todd May s 2014 article, Moral Individualism, Moral Relationalism, and Obligations to Non-human Animals