Guaranteeing Animals a Life Worth Living: Pursuing the Animals' Best Interests
For generations, humankind has been exploiting animals. The consumption of meat, fur, dairy products etc., has been increasing over the years. As a result, there are far more animals of certain species living on the Earth today than was intended by nature. If people concerned with animal rights stop exploiting animals now, their population will dramatically decrease. Depriving these animals an opportunity to live at all – is it a solution we seek? This project introduces an alternative approach.
Cross-border/international
Sweden
Germany
{Empty}
Since the project is aimed at amending or substituting the Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998, it can be implemented in all European Union Member States.
It addresses urban-rural linkages
It refers to other types of transformations (soft investment)
Animal rights activists often claim that people must stop eating meat, fish and dairy products, stop killing animals to make clothes from their furs and skin and stop exploiting them in any other harmful way. This project argues that fulfilling this claim would be against the best interests of the animals.
Only because of people’s needs – and thanks to centuries-long exploitation – there are much more animals of certain species living on the Earth nowadays. It is unnatural to have so many cows, pigs and chickens – they exist in current numbers only because people use them for their purposes. If one prohibits to use products made from these and many other species, already living ones will be killed and new ones will never be born. Animals activists should consider that this will be the tradeoff – to live being exploited or not having a chance to live at all.
I argue that it is better to live – which means to be born, to feel a mother’s love and care, to play with others from a brood, to graze, to lie on the ground sunbathing and, in the end, be fed, treated and helped by a farmer – but only since these things are legally guaranteed. Then even further death for the purpose of fulfilling various human demands is better than the only alternative – non-existence.
In today’s world, a farmer who decides to treat his livestock in such a way will immediately go bankrupt. The reason for it is that all his competitors create massive externalities – suffering and harm to innocent animals. Their current lives are probably not worth living – it is hard to find a single positive moment from their birth all the way to slaughterhouses. These externalities remain uninternalized no incentives are created for that. Uninternalized externalities are valid reasons for the state’s intervention in the market economy. I claim that the 5 freedoms of animal welfare should be further developed to provide animals with lives worth living. My project presents the ethical justification for it.
Sustainable consumption and production
Animal rights protection
Environmental ethics
Environmental law and policy
Environmental economics
Firstly, it is almost impossible to imagine that any other incentives rather than “exploitative” ones will make people have the same amount of farm animals. Farmers bear the high costs of raising animals, which means feeding, treating, and caring for them. The only incentive for most farmers to keep doing it is to profit from selling goods taken from animals or produced from them. Even those farmers who honestly enjoy interacting with animals could not do it only for this pleasure of interaction because their costs are not reimbursed then. Therefore, one can be sure about the decrease in the number of farm animals worldwide if we stop exploiting animals at all.
Secondly, I argue that it will constitute a deadweight loss of living creatures – in terms that the missing number of farm animals will not be “compensated” by the increase in the population of other species. The more people consume plant-based products instead of animal ones, the more territories previously used for livestock breeding are used for growing plants. Humankind already lacks agricultural land – there are no good reasons to believe that much already adapted land will be left to wild animals. I assume it is a change for the worst for living creatures if they are prevented from living a life they would otherwise enjoy.
Many animal rights activists and interests groups ("green", vegetarians) push into the public discurs the idea of preventing any exploitation of animals. Basically, they propose not to use this resource at all. However, the mere idea of sustainability assumes the rational usage of resources rather than full refusal or thoughtless and uncontrolled use of such a resource. That is why this project reaches sustainability better than alternatives - in particular, such goals of sustainable development as Responsible Consumption and Production; Life on Land; Peace, Jusice and Strong Institutions. In turn, it does not complicate reaching goals like Zero Hunger and No Poverty.
This project favours ethical and virtuous behaviour toward animals. It is aimed at reaching the following objectives in terms of aesthetics and quality of experience for people:
Firstly, studies show that animal cruelty is a predictor of current and future violence, including crimes of assault, rape, murder, arson, domestic violence, and sexual abuse of children. (Hovel; and Amber R. Macias-Mayo, “The Link Between Animal Abuse and Child Abuse”). Thus, it could improve interhuman relationships. The great example of such effects is presented in the movie “My Octopus Teacher” - it shows how devilishly we need nature to be empathic towards each other. The main character - Craig Foster - became closer to his son after interacting with the octopus, who taught him how to be considerate, sensitive, open to new things.
Secondly, it could shift the people's paradigm of thinking about the nature and it’s inhabitants as of means. In the same movie Craig Foster was happy by the same fact he interacted with octopus and other marines. He opened this new world and find new friends, who gave him something noone else could give. That is why he returned back again and again and shown this incredible world to his son. For the same reason the death of octopus made him cry – despite he did not cry in the beginning of the movie telling about his life problems. Thus, the experience he had is valuable itself and there is no need to bring any added value to it – even if it was helpful in the future. Thus, the mere fact that my project pushes people to guarantee animals the life worth living can positively affect their well-being. Buying meat, leather clothes etc. people should no longer feel guilty or ashamed for contributing to the death of living creatures - as vegeterians and animal activists are claiming nowadays - but feel contributing to letting these animals living life worth living, because the price of animal-produced goods covers they living expenses.
As it was already stated above, this project favours ethical and virtuous behaviour toward animals. In this regard, the key objectives of the concept in terms of inclusion are the following:
Firstly, those are the crime prevention and the denormalization of harm done to people by the denormalization of harm done to animals. Studies show that animal cruelty is a predictor of current and future violence, including crimes of assault, rape, murder, arson, domestic violence, and sexual abuse of children. (Hovel; and Amber R. Macias-Mayo, “The Link Between Animal Abuse and Child Abuse”). In particular, it could decrease violence against minorities of all kinds. Being use to abuse animals - creatures that are so different from humans - abusers are likely to transfer this experience to all who are unlike others. The issue is that there are psychological constraints for one to scathe those, whose feeling are like their - people can easily predict how badly will victims feel. In turn, it is not the case for those who differ from others - the harm towards them becomes more likely to occur.
Sacondly, my project can increase empathy towards different people. As it was written before, there is a great example of such effects presented in the movie “My Octopus Teacher” - it shows how devilishly we need nature to be empathic towards each other. The main character - Craig Foster - became closer to his son after interacting with the octopus, who taught him how to be considerate, sensitive, open to new things. A fortiori, it is true to attitude towards alien people.
First of all, this project favours ethical and virtuous behaviour toward animals. Studies show that animal cruelty is a predictor of current and future violence, including crimes of assault, rape, murder, arson, domestic violence, and sexual abuse of children. (Hovel; and Amber R. Macias-Mayo, “The Link Between Animal Abuse and Child Abuse”). Thus, it could also improve interhuman relationships.
Secondly, one could oppose that implementation of such a project would cause an exorbitant increase in the prices of all animal-produced goods. Therefore, consumers will be worse off. And she would be right – the same exorbitance of the increase will clearly show how much suffering was not paid. As was mentioned above, pain in the form of externalities remains uninternalized - no incentives are created for that. Those who abuse animals the most minimize their costs the most. Overall, it is hard to imagine how one could internalize this harm to animals - they can not receive monetary compensation for caused harm. Thus, the solution is to prevent this harm from happening.
Thirdly, this project will also change people’s preferences - consumers will not be able to spend so much money on flotsam and jetsam anymore. On the one hand, modern society became Baudrillard's consumer society in its worst meaning. We behave precisely as Bradbury predicted in his book Fahrenheit 451 – consuming more and more but getting only a sour aftertaste rather than saturation. On the other hand, nowadays we are creating weapons and starting wars, supporting authoritarian regimes in reaching unclear objectives only because we have money for it – the money saved on unpaid harm, abuse and exploitation, not only of animals. However, the more externalities are internalized, the more we will become awake. States will stop spending people's taxes just to show their muscles in the international arena because voters will no longer let them do it. People will become much more responsible in their choices.
I created this project by myself. Nobody else was engaged in the design and development of the concept.
I created this project by myself. Nobody else was engaged in the design and development of the concept.
This project came about as a result of my studies of economic analysis of law, environmental economics and ethics, and environmental law and policy.
On the one hand, one can see that more and more activists and interest groups are pushing the EU authorities to fully give up meat consumption. The reasons are different. However, the moral ones are definitely among the most powerful of them. They have already pushed the EU to support plant-based diets, which, in turn, has been welcomed by animal welfare campaigners, for example, at Humane Society International, who urge Europe’s farmers to get behind the strategy by farming for the future of meat-reduced diets (http://bit.ly/3RyIN0c). Recently the European Commission also decided to register a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) entitled ‘European citizens' initiative for vegan meal' (http://bit.ly/3DDqalZ). Finally, a substantial number of EU Parlament Members officially supported "The Million Dollar Vegan" campaign, which wants to 'highlight the devastating impact of animal agriculture' including deforestation and biodiversity loss as well the suffering it causes to billions of farmed animals (http://bit.ly/3DE3bHw).
On the other hand, there is news that the three-year campaign, entitled ‘Become a Beefatarian’ will receive €3.6 million from the EU. It claims that the aim is to enable consumers to feel ‘confident’ about eating red meat again. According to the campaign website, “the scope of the project is not only to highlight the benefits of the product but to make the consumer feel identified and supported in its choice regarding it.”(http://bit.ly/3YEp29R).
Thus, one can see that the current EU policy on the issue is self-inconsistent. My project proposes a logical and compromise solution that could significantly improve the EU policy. Since the EU supports vegetarian initiatives not only because of concerns with animals rights, but because of climate change risks, it is important to mention that my approach will make people used to pay for the externalities caused by their consumption and harm not only to animals, but to the environment will be also paid.
As it is a principal ethical concept, it could be replicated anywhere else where authorities are bold enough to enact it.
Firstly, it helps to reach such goals of sustainable development as Responsible Consumption and Production; Life on Land; Peace, Jusice and Strong Institutions. In turn, it does not complicate reaching goals like Zero Hunger and No Poverty.
Secondly, as this project favours ethical and virtuous behaviour toward animals, it could help with the denormalization of harm done to people (and, subsequently, with the crime prevention) by the denormalization of harm done to animals.
Thirdly, it makes people more used to pay for the externalities they cause by their activity (in particular, consumption).
Forthly, it changes consumers preferences and make them more responsible in their choices.
Fifthly, it helps in shifting people's paradigm of thinking about the nature and it’s inhabitants as of means. It favours the opposite view and can make people more accustomed to better off interacting with the nature rather than simply using and abusing it.
Sixthly, my project can increase empathy towards different people.
