We are excited to announce that the Animal Ethics website is now available in Arabic. This marks an important milestone in our mission to spread ideas that can help all animals. With Arabic being the 5th most spoken language in the world, this effectively opens it up to over 300 million more people who can have access to this important information.

 

The suffering of animals is a global issue, so it is crucial that resources like ours can be accessed by diverse audiences worldwide.

Animal Ethics provides realistic perspectives on the lives animals lead, especially wild animals, and how we can help them. Covering topics from speciesism to wild animal suffering, our website curates scientific and philosophical information to further the animal protection movement. Our aim is to inspire academics, students, and concerned citizens to join us in reducing animal suffering, through their careers or outside of them.

Making content accessible across languages is key to this goal. Because of this,  our website is available in 12 languages, including English, Spanish, Portuguese, Hindi, Telugu, Chinese, German, French, Italian, Polish, Romanian and now Arabic.  If we add up the pages and posts in all languages, we now have more than 1900 publications online!

We encourage everyone to learn as much as possible about issues related to wild animal suffering, so we’ll be able to discuss important future issues and support public and private initiatives to make wild animals’ lives better. With a long-term perspective, we hope to gradually shift attitudes on how animals are viewed and treated so that societies and institutions will include the wellbeing of all sentient beings in their plans and priorities. This includes crucial global priorities.

Every language added gives more momentum to the animal advocacy movement. We aim to reduce suffering not just for animals alive today, but also the many generations to come. More translations mean these ideas will continue spreading across cultures, borders, and generations.

Achieving this milestone would not be possible without dedicated volunteers generously offering translation support. We are deeply grateful for their efforts in helping expand our message.

Every contribution brings us closer to a more livable world for all animals.

If you are able to volunteer translating content into any of the languages our in which our website is available, or into  Korean, Russian, Turkish, please contact us at translations@animal-ethics.org.

32

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Awesome! Would love for more of the Arabic world to be exposed to these ideas. Do you have data on website views segmented by language?

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal