{"id":772933,"date":"2023-07-04T08:06:29","date_gmt":"2023-07-04T12:06:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=772933"},"modified":"2023-07-04T08:51:06","modified_gmt":"2023-07-04T12:51:06","slug":"animal-liberation-later-most-consumers-of-meat-know-that-animals-matter-but-they-choose-to-act-as-if-this-isnt-the-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=772933","title":{"rendered":"Animal Liberation Later: Most consumers of meat know that animals matter, but they choose to act as if this isn\u2019t the case"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

We look back on our predecessors treatment of animals with a mix of shame and anger. We can often forgive them with a few words that will inevitably be used to describe us someday: They didn\u2019t know any better. But that isn\u2019t always true. When future generations look back on our era, they will see how much we knew about the nightmare of factory farming. We don\u2019t deserve leniency for the way we\u2019re treating the other creatures with whom we share the planet, because we do know better. We just refuse to do better. <\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

MATT JOHNSON:<\/strong> One of the strange pathologies of our time is our eagerness to condemn previous generations for failing to observe contemporary ethical norms… Beyond the fact that our predecessors didn\u2019t know what we know, human beings are social animals who tend to adopt many of the dominant attitudes and behaviors of their time…<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s useful to imagine what future generations might think about ideas and practices that are commonplace today. Perhaps they will be outraged that we aren\u2019t more proactive about addressing climate change or the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Maybe they will be shocked by the extent of global income inequality. While we certainly won\u2019t receive top marks on either of these issues\u2014or countless others\u2014our treatment of nonhuman animals will likely rank at the top of our successors\u2019 list of past horrors.<\/em><\/p>\n

Billions of factory-farmed animals are slaughtered every year, and they spend most of their lives in filthy confined spaces that severely inhibit (or entirely prevent) the satisfaction of their basic instincts and needs. Egg-producing chickens are kept in battery cages that don\u2019t allow them to spread their wings. Female pigs are crammed into gestation crates that are approximately the same size as their bodies, which prevents them from being able to turn around. Dairy cows are held in tie stalls which tether them at the neck to restrict movement. Practices such as debeaking and tail-docking without anesthetic are common. Calves of dairy cows are taken from their mothers, which causes great emotional distress. Billions of male chicks are \u201cculled\u201d (killed with industrial-scale efficiency) because they aren\u2019t economically viable…<\/em><\/p>\n

In the preface to Animal Liberation Now: The Definitive Classic Renewed (2023), Peter Singer reviews the progress that has been made since the first edition of Animal Liberation was published in 1975… While anti-cruelty organizations used to limit their focus to companion animals such as dogs and cats, there are now many nonprofits dedicated to improving the lives of farm animals\u2014such as the Humane League and Mercy for Animals… Public outreach, grassroots organizing, research and advocacy training, and corporate pressure campaigns are often effective at changing laws and company policies to take animal welfare into account.<\/em><\/p>\n

Despite all these positive changes, there\u2019s clearly more human-caused animal suffering in the world today than there was 50 years ago. When Animal Liberation was published in 1975, around 15 billion animals were slaughtered for meat annually\u2014a figure that\u2019s closer to 77 billion today. Beyond population growth and the fact that meat consumption tends to rise as societies get richer (an example of one form of progress canceling out another), the rapidly rising demand for poultry has driven an explosion in the absolute number of factory-farmed animals…<\/em><\/p>\n

The animal-rights movement has secured major victories since 1975, and there are many encouraging trends, from the increasing availability of meatless products to the growing political influence of animal activists. But the shift in attitudes and laws hasn\u2019t kept pace with greater demand for animal products and the increased productive capacity of factory farms…<\/em><\/p>\n

In his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Pinker observes that previous generations thought it was fun to torture animals. \u201cIn 16th-century Paris,\u201d he writes, \u201ca popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire.\u201d Barbaric as this practice was, it doesn\u2019t even come close to the cruelty we inflict on animals today\u2014both in scale and degree, as farm animals with entire lives of relentless suffering are even worse off than cats who suffered for a minute or two before death. While there\u2019s a stark psychological difference between buying some pork at the supermarket and shrieking with laughter as a cat is burned to death in front of you, the fact of animal suffering is the same in both cases. And no matter how many cats were burned in Paris, their numbers were a tiny fraction of the 1.4 billion pigs slaughtered for meat each year…<\/em><\/p>\n

There are two major psychological distinctions between cat-burning and the consumption of factory-farmed products. First, at least there\u2019s an ostensible point to the latter (while the former was an indulgence of cruelty for its own sake). Second, there\u2019s a difference in proximity,… the idea that we are less morally responsible for reducing suffering if it isn\u2019t happening in front of us…<\/em><\/p>\n

This logic also applies to the other forms of suffering we ignore at a distance, especially if we actively contribute to that suffering. The average American consumes roughly 280 pounds of meat, almost 500 pounds of dairy products (excluding butter), and 35 pounds of eggs each year. The vast majority of the animal products we consume are produced on factory farms, which means we\u2019re willing to countenance a staggering amount of suffering to get the products we want. This arguably makes our complicity in animal suffering even worse than our indifference about global poverty\u2014we\u2019re reaffirming that complicity every time we walk through a supermarket and vote with our dollars…<\/em><\/p>\n

In March, an ASPCA\/Ipsos survey found that 79 percent of American adults are \u201csomewhat or very concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture on animal welfare.\u201d Eighty-nine percent are in favor of factory farms transitioning to \u201chumane systems of agriculture,\u201d while 82 percent would support government funding for these transitions. Eighty-six percent endorsed the addition of chickens and turkeys to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Perhaps most remarkably, almost three-quarters said they would support a \u201cban on new industrial animal agriculture facilities\u201d\u2014a 20 percent increase since 2020. It\u2019s difficult to reconcile these figures with the demand for factory-farmed animal products in the United States, as they reveal a general awareness that there are urgent problems with current methods of industrial food production. There\u2019s a wide gulf between what Americans will say in a survey and what they\u2019ll put on the dinner table… Even when consumers recognize that human-caused animal suffering is a grave ethical failure, they continue contributing to it…<\/em><\/p>\n

In a recent article on his Substack, Richard Hanania captures the contradictory attitudes many Americans appear to have toward factory farming and its alternatives… He cites an essay by Matthew Adelstein which argues that factory farming is the \u201cworst crime in history,\u201d adding that he \u201ccan\u2019t find much to argue against in his essay.\u201d \u201cOur species,\u201d Hanania concludes, \u201chas an ethical obligation to move beyond factory farming.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Then Hanania explains why he continues to eat meat: \u201cI\u2019m not a vegan. Why? Well, I like the way animals taste, and I want to be in good physical condition.\u201d He says \u201cI want to be thin and have broad shoulders.\u201d He explains that \u201cEating meat doesn\u2019t feel as bad because most other people in the world also do it.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Throughout his article, Hanania demonstrates that he\u2019s well-acquainted with the evidence and arguments against factory farming. He acknowledges that vegans have \u201cwon the argument,\u201d and that they\u2019re \u201cmorally superior from a utilitarian perspective.\u201d But his central claim is that his clear-eyed acceptance of this moral failure is preferable to rationalization…<\/em><\/p>\n

Hanania thinks it\u2019s \u201creasonable\u201d to continue eating factory-farmed meat until the arrival of a cheap and tasty lab-grown alternative. He demands that readers \u201chonestly confront what we do to animals,\u201d but doesn\u2019t allow his own confrontation of these \u201ccrimes\u201d to affect his consumer habits. Like so many people around the world, Hanania is willing to put his concerns about animal welfare aside because he enjoys the taste of meat and believes it helps him stay fit. Meanwhile, the global production and consumption of animal products is accelerating, and the demand for ever-greater efficiency seems to be outstripping concerns about animal welfare…<\/em><\/p>\n

In one sense, a recognition of the moral impermissibility of factory farming is a step toward a more humane world\u2014if people don\u2019t regard animal suffering as an issue in the first place, they won\u2019t even begin to think about alleviating it. However, there\u2019s another sense in which informed consumers are more culpable than those who are ignorant about what they eat, or who hold the antiquated view that animals don\u2019t suffer in any meaningful way. Consumers like Hanania know that animals matter, but choose to act as if this isn\u2019t the case. They have access to ample data about the cruelty and extent of factory farming, the ethical arguments in favor of animal welfare, scientific facts about animals\u2019 subjective experiences, and all the other information they need to make responsible decisions about what they eat. Yet they continue to purchase factory-farmed products, which sends a message to the companies that run these operations: keep doing what you\u2019re doing…<\/em><\/p>\n

When future generations look back on our era, they will see how much we knew about the nightmare of factory farming… When we look back on our predecessors with a mix of shame and anger, we can often forgive them with a few words that will inevitably be used to describe us someday: They didn\u2019t know any better. But that isn\u2019t always true. We don\u2019t deserve leniency for the way we\u2019re treating the other creatures with whom we share the planet, because we do know better. We just refuse to do better. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEOS:<\/strong><\/p>\n