Hide table of contents

A report by Animal Ask authored by Ren Ryba.

This report is also available on Animal Ask website.

Downloadable version in pdf 

From the Summary

At Animal Ask, we spent most of 2023 conducting prioritisation research to identify the most promising goals and strategies for the animal advocacy movement. The aim of that project was to identify goals and strategies that could be more impactful than the current leading campaigns (e.g. cage-free campaigns). If we succeed, we can unlock new opportunities for the movement to help even more animals.

 

This article outlines one component of the methodology we used for that research. Specifically, to guide our research on new interventions for the animal advocacy movement, we needed a framework that allows us to quantify the subjective experiences of animals. For example, if we were comparing two campaigns—say, a) phasing out fast-growing breeds to reduce suffering in broiler chickens and b) implementing more humane pesticides to reduce suffering in wild insects killed on agricultural land—we would need to produce a quantitative estimate of the potential impact of these two campaigns.

 

In essence, our framework allows us to systematically compare different campaign opportunities in how good they are for animals—and these comparisons can be made across different species, across different intensities of experience (e.g. mild vs extreme suffering), and across both positive and negative experiences. The framework allows us to be clear and transparent about the worldviews, philosophical positions, and/or empirical assumptions that are used in drawing conclusions about particular campaigns.

 

Acknowledgments

Our framework is heavily based on the existing Cumulative Pain framework, which was developed by the researchers Wladimir J. Alonso and Cynthia Schuck-Paim, from the Welfare Footprint Project

To make comparisons of subjective experiences across species, the most comprehensive and relevant evidence comes from the Moral Weight Project conducted by Rethink Priorities

 

Feel free to let us know your thoughts, suggestions and critiques.

5

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 · 6d ago · 1m read
 · 
Hello FAST members   Two months ago we submitted to the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria  (Senasa), an agency attached to the  Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego  (Midagri), a regulatory proposal aimed at incorporating specific provisions of Animal welfare in the land transport of farm animals. Currently, national legislation only addresses health and hygiene requirements, without establishing criteria to guarantee minimum welfare conditions during transport. This regulatory gap has negative consequences, as it increases animal suffering and the incidence of injuries and mortality, particularly in situations of stress or accidents during transport. Our proposal seeks to align Peruvian regulations with the regional and international standardsIn this sense, we highlight the positive openness of Midagri and Senasa to evaluate the initiative and the relevance of the interest expressed by the Comunidad Andina, which has been promoting regulatory harmonization in this area among member countries.  In this regard, we have already held a meeting with the group of lawyers from both institutions, as well as with the Andean Community, advancing discussions toward the creation of a joint guide to animal welfare in the Peruvian land transportation system. We trust that the incorporation of animal welfare criteria in transport will represent a significant advance in both animal protection and welfare in the country. Great day, Iselda Livoni Arba Peru