Cons: The store might not actually gather one less lobster than usual
This... seems like a pretty big deal, actually. The store still needs the same number of lobsters to serve to customers who order lobster to eat it, so... how exactly would they gather one less lobster than usual? What's the actual plan, here?
That's a good point, and applies to all of them. I think it would be that it encourages people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might just drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good. Should I delete this post or edit it to mention to not do this for this reason?
Buying a lobster from a store and setting it free could do more harm than good. This is because you might increase demand to the extent that the supply goes up by more than 1, and it wastes your time.
On a small scale:
Do buy a lobster & save it
Don't buy a lobster & not save it
1 Lobster saved per person
1 Lobster not saved per person
∼1 Lobster captured due to increased demand per person
∼1 Lobster not captured due to increased demand per person
Lobster store gets money
Lobster store doesn't get money
You and other participants lose some time from your days
You and other participants don't lose some time from your days
Also, doing it on a large scale adds another component. It might encourage people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might also drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good.
On a large scale:
Do buy a lobster & save it
Don't buy a lobster & not save it
1 Lobster saved per person
1 Lobster not saved per person
∼1 Lobster captured due to increased demand per person
∼1 Lobster not captured due to increased demand per person
Lobster store gets money
Lobster store doesn't get money
You and other participants lose some time from your days
You and other participants don't lose some time from your days
It might produce a higher view of non-human animals in the public eye
Won't produce a higher view of non-human animals in the public eye
It might build publicity for lobster stores, increasing demand.
It won't build publicity for lobster stores, increasing demand.
Impressions from the 21st Annual U.S. Cluster Headache Patient Conference, organized by Clusterbusters.
On the morning of the last day of the conference, E. was hanging out with other “clusterheads” outside the conference hotel when he started having a cluster headache attack. Before he could go back to his hotel room, J. offered E. his DMT v...
TL;DR:
The movement has an evidence problem. To solve it, for each intervention we need to know:
* What types of evidence that intervention needs
* What types of evidence different sources can give us
In this post, we outline a framework for evidencing an intervention through five stages:
...
This... seems like a pretty big deal, actually. The store still needs the same number of lobsters to serve to customers who order lobster to eat it, so... how exactly would they gather one less lobster than usual? What's the actual plan, here?
That's a good point, and applies to all of them. I think it would be that it encourages people to recognize the rights of non-human animals, but it might just drive demand and increase the popularity of lobster stores, meaning it might do more harm than good. Should I delete this post or edit it to mention to not do this for this reason?
Maybe edit your post? I don't know, it's really up to you.