VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
evana.org

Quote:
Their findings were that:

[M]edia coverage of animal well-being and welfare has (i) reduced US pork and poultry demand and (ii) largely reallocated expenditure to non-meat food rather than across competing meats. . . . Therefore, . . . the beef, pork and poultry industries all stand to lose as meat expenditure is reallocated to non-meat food expenditure. (Tonsor and Olnyk, pg. 5)

Nor is this negative impact merely a short-term blip: Results . . . suggest that long-run demand for both pork and poultry is hampered by increasing media press on animal welfare issues. Moreover, this lost demand is found to exit the meat complex rather than spillover and enhance demand of competing meats. (Tonsor and Olnyk, pg. 6)

In short, the study demonstrates that welfarist reformsor at least the media attention generated by the campaigns leading up to themdo, in fact, cause consumers to buy less meat.
Quote:
For the sake of the animals whose only advocates we are, we have to put aside the sectarian squabbling that diverts critical time and energy away from the real adversary: animal exploiters.

The vegan advocacy espoused by the abolitionists is essential to the success of the animals movement. I support it. And my own advocacy is almost entirely vegan. But I also support reform campaigns. Achieving a vegan society will be a slow, incremental process. Each step forward must become the starting point for the next step forward. We must patiently pursue each individual step, while impatiently fixing our gaze on the goal of a world that is vegan.

Professor Francione is a brilliant, dedicated, and eloquent pioneer for animal rights. And he is certainly sincere in his advocacy. But his condemnation of new welfarism and his insistence that animal rights advocates abstain from supporting reform campaigns are distracting and divisive. Each of us should concentrate on the form of advocacy with which we feel most comfortable and in which we believe we can do the most good for animals. And we must respect one anothers choices. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must all hang together or the animals will all suffer and die separately.
Another heavy thud against the opinions espoused by the strident and uncompromising abolitionists. It would appear that time and again, actual science and philosophy don't bear out the opinions of Gary Francione and others who think like him.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,664 Posts
That was a great read, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
the article talked about poultry and pork products demand being down but did not discuss how they could link this to animal welfare campaigns. this could easily be for a number of reasons not related such as health movement or because of the economy or because of taste changes. notice how beef was still in demand. i think there are some good animal welfare campaigns, particularly those that show how animals are treated but i think incremental laws are a waste of time and money that would better be spent giving out pamphlets and making individual appeals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by bronzebed View Post

the article talked about poultry and pork products demand being down but did not discuss how they could link this to animal welfare campaigns. this could easily be for a number of reasons not related such as health movement or because of the economy or because of taste changes. notice how beef was still in demand. i think there are some good animal welfare campaigns, particularly those that show how animals are treated but i think incremental laws are a waste of time and money that would better be spent giving out pamphlets and making individual appeals.
I choose to spend my time handing out well researched, well cited pamphlets which is a form of individual appeal.

However, the hardcore "veganists" I know consider them welfarist because they advocate a reduction in consumption rather than total veganism.

However, the application of the field of psychology shows this approach to work much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Seems to me that there shouldn't even be a distinction between welfarists and rightists. It only seems right that those working for animal rights should be concern with improving animal welfare and until some miracle happens and there is enough public momentum to get rid of animal agriculture altogether, the rightists are shouting into the wind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,995 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotoshave View Post

Seems to me that there shouldn't even be a distinction between welfarists and rightists. It only seems right that those working for animal rights should be concern with improving animal welfare and until some miracle happens and there is enough public momentum to get rid of animal agriculture altogether, the rightists are shouting into the wind.
This.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotoshave View Post

Seems to me that there shouldn't even be a distinction between welfarists and rightists. It only seems right that those working for animal rights should be concern with improving animal welfare and until some miracle happens and there is enough public momentum to get rid of animal agriculture altogether, the rightists are shouting into the wind.
I'm not sure what you're saying but if you're saying that there should be no distinction between people who support animal rights and people who merely support "humane" exploitation, then I think that is just as misguided a position as the tendency of some abolitionists to see new welfarists (= welfare reform as a means to abolition) as indistinguishable from old welfarists (= welfare reform as the full extent of what non-humans are morally owed).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,229 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotoshave View Post

Seems to me that there shouldn't even be a distinction between welfarists and rightists. It only seems right that those working for animal rights should be concern with improving animal welfare and until some miracle happens and there is enough public momentum to get rid of animal agriculture altogether, the rightists are shouting into the wind.
As I understand it, some animal advocates worry that animal "welfare" measures serve to make people more content to exploit animals- witness the "happy meat" rationales given by omnivores who don't want to hurt animals, but don't want to give up that nice, juicy steak either. I've often thought those pessimistic animal advocates are correct, but the article this thread links to indicates that may not be the case. If so, I'm glad, because "welfare" measures are almost always more easily attainable short-term than a more solid "rights" approach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,577 Posts
This is no surprise to me because I've always argued on VB and elsewhere, that I thought Francione was wrong about his beliefs about welfare reform.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post

As I understand it, some animal advocates worry that animal "welfare" measures serve to make people more content to exploit animals- witness the "happy meat" rationales given by omnivores who don't want to hurt animals, but don't want to give up that nice, juicy steak either. I've often thought those pessimistic animal advocates are correct, but the article this thread links to indicates that may not be the case. If so, I'm glad, because "welfare" measures are almost always more easily attainable short-term than a more solid "rights" approach.
One of the questions still remaining, however, is:

which strategy is preferable for reducing animal cruelty and exploitation,
a) engaging in vegan, vegetarian and AR advocacy, while also using resources on campaigning for modest welfare reforms, or
b) using all the resources on vegan and AR advocacy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

One of the questions still remaining, however, is:

which strategy is preferable for reducing animal cruelty and exploitation,
a) engaging in vegan, vegetarian and AR advocacy, while also using resources on campaigning for modest welfare reforms, or
b) using all the resources on vegan and AR advocacy?
The welfare reforms are more likely to get reported in the mainstream media, so they're likely to be noticed by a much larger number of people than just individual advocacy. Add in the fact that some of those welfare reforms might actually get passed as laws and reduce the suffering of the animals that are currently being exploited, and will continue to be exploited for at least a couple more (human) generations, and it seems to me that the first choice really is better.

--Fromper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromper View Post

The welfare reforms are more likely to get reported in the mainstream media, so they're likely to be noticed by a much larger number of people than just individual advocacy. Add in the fact that some of those welfare reforms might actually get passed as laws and reduce the suffering of the animals that are currently being exploited, and will continue to be exploited for at least a couple more (human) generations, and it seems to me that the first choice really is better.
With the same resources used on implementing welfare reforms that will then (possibly) be mentioned in the media, one could simply run radio or television ads, and thus bring the message into the media directly.

One of Francione's arguments I forgot to mention in these two threads is that many of the welfare reforms, assuming that they are sometimes beneficial to the industry (as the animal organizations themselves claim), will be implemented by the industry anyway. But by agreeing to the reforms as a response to animal welfare campaigns, rather than based on economic logic alone, the animal exploiters can reap more PR benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

b) using all the resources on vegan and AR advocacy?
Speaking for myself, I have to be true to my beliefs in order to find motivation to continue to participate in advocacy. I know abolition won't be realized in my lifetime. I suspect human beings will have to become extinct before they will ever stop being the vile brutes they are. I can't find the motivation to advocate for anything less though.

That doesn't mean I fight against welfare reforms, as I think Francione urges people to do. I am already pretty burned out and bitter though, and the last thing I want after another twenty years is to find my efforts in actively supporting humane animal exploitation, should I be persuaded to advocate for that instead of veganism, is to find my efforts have just made people feel less guilty about eating animals who are kept and killed in kinder ways, and led to even more animal consumption, rather than less.

I've seen enough to know that when the guilt surrounding the consumption of a food, no matter the source of that guilt, be it fat, sugar, calories, or cruelty, is reduced by half, all people do is say "Wow, now I can have twice as much!" Net result being no change. I'll feel less like I've wasted a lifetime of activism if I stick to my beliefs, no matter how futile they may seem to others. Otherwise I just won't bother at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
^I know what you mean. The positive is that abolitionists and reformists alike agree that vegan/AR advocacy is a good thing (given that the big organizations themselves engage in it sometimes, as I've said earlier), so putting all your focus into that shouldn't be seen as useless or a bad decision by anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

I'm not sure what you're saying but if you're saying that there should be no distinction between people who support animal rights and people who merely support "humane" exploitation, then I think that is just as misguided a position as the tendency of some abolitionists to see new welfarists (= welfare reform as a means to abolition) as indistinguishable from old welfarists (= welfare reform as the full extent of what non-humans are morally owed).
I meant there should be no distinction in methodology. Obviously a welfarist approach is much more doable in the current social and cultural climate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotoshave View Post

I meant there should be no distinction in methodology. Obviously a welfarist approach is much more doable in the current social and cultural climate.
So why do you think big organizations like PETA and HSUS engage in a non-welfarist strategy (i.e. vegan and AR advocacy) too? Are they wasting their time and money by doing so; should they devote 100% of their resources into getting better slaughtering methods?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

So why do you think big organizations like PETA and HSUS engage in a non-welfarist strategy (i.e. vegan and AR advocacy) too? Are they wasting their time and money by doing so; should they devote 100% of their resources into getting better slaughtering methods?
I'm not saying that we should limit ourselves to welfarist strategies, just that I see welfarism and abolitionism as being on the same spectrum, not mutually exclusive, mutually dependable actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,229 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

Speaking for myself, I have to be true to my beliefs in order to find motivation to continue to participate in advocacy. I know abolition won't be realized in my lifetime. I suspect human beings will have to become extinct before they will ever stop being the vile brutes they are. I can't find the motivation to advocate for anything less though.

That doesn't mean I fight against welfare reforms....

I've seen enough to know that when the guilt surrounding the consumption of a food, no matter the source of that guilt, be it fat, sugar, calories, or cruelty, is reduced by half, all people do is say "Wow, now I can have twice as much!" Net result being no change. I'll feel less like I've wasted a lifetime of activism if I stick to my beliefs, no matter how futile they may seem to others. Otherwise I just won't bother at all.
(bold emphasis mine) I hadn't read the article Josh James linked to at the beginning of this thread until just now. I have to agree. My interpretation of the article was that people were (rightly) disturbed by revelations of how animals raised for food suffer- meaning that if welfare measures were reported to make animals' lives more pleasant, maybe people would go back to eating meat, etc. again, as I originally anticipated.

I'd rather work for animal rights and not set my sights too low.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Years ago, Francione admitted there was no emperical evidence for his claims. His entire philosophy rests on his intuition. He's never even bothered to sit down and study the issue scientifically. He just continues to pump out books full of untested, unproven theories.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top