Most people report they support this goal, because they are generally not aware that this would require an orders of magnitude reduction in their personal meat consumption, mix of social desirability bias, general economic illiteracy, and many people being ignorant these are even common practices. I suspect surveys which are open about this, would see the supposedly silent supermajority vanish. There is, I think, no other examples where the stated preferences contradict the revealed preferences so much, and if I could choose only one situation to listen to the reality of the latter, this would be it. Even the cage-free eggs see significant contractions, and that's just one of many abusive practices. This is why vegans are suspicious of folks who only nominally support it. I of course support outreach and minmaxxing, but it's obvious that, like in almost every other previous social movement, a determined minority elite will need to change the laws itself, because there will always be substantial majorities in certain regions continuing to support.
But I do view these practices as immoral, and I do want the industry to end. I would waffle on whether I see them as "fundamentally evil", but same difference, sure, since I cannot personally guarantee any near-term happy ending for everyone involved. Well, the goal isn't friendliness. Are you saying noone can want any industry to be ended out of ethical concerns? Some causes cannot go with zero friction, and zero conflict, that's just the reality. Like there's simply no way to be much friendlier in this regard, and there can be some instrumental win-wins, but the division does remain. In reality, big animal ag is trying to undo all progress with things like the attempted Save Our Bacon part of the Farm Bill, or constantly propagandizing against the entire animal rights movement- this is because in such a big industry, the primary motivator is systemic, not personalistic. The friendliness level of the movement is secondary. Sure, a little more can be done on the poultry-industry veterinarian example (although even there, not too much, because of the effect of cognitive dissonance), but the main object level issues still chug along. Maybe you're saying this from some welfarist perspective where the animal slaughtering and use/exploitation is viewed as okay, the only issue is chronic pain, so you can truly say that you do not want the industries to come to an end, however broadly construed? I view this as the most important goal right now, but it would be a lie if I said that's where my problems end.
It's hard to compromise with an administration which is against even traditional, barebones foreign aid, no? What is the EA movement supposed to do? And that's not necessarily half of the American political spectrum
Most people report they support this goal, because they are generally not aware that this would require an orders of magnitude reduction in their personal meat consumption, mix of social desirability bias, general economic illiteracy, and many people being ignorant these are even common practices. I suspect surveys which are open about this, would see the supposedly silent supermajority vanish. There is, I think, no other examples where the stated preferences contradict the revealed preferences so much, and if I could choose only one situation to listen to the reality of the latter, this would be it. Even the cage-free eggs see significant contractions, and that's just one of many abusive practices. This is why vegans are suspicious of folks who only nominally support it. I of course support outreach and minmaxxing, but it's obvious that, like in almost every other previous social movement, a determined minority elite will need to change the laws itself, because there will always be substantial majorities in certain regions continuing to support.
But I do view these practices as immoral, and I do want the industry to end. I would waffle on whether I see them as "fundamentally evil", but same difference, sure, since I cannot personally guarantee any near-term happy ending for everyone involved. Well, the goal isn't friendliness. Are you saying noone can want any industry to be ended out of ethical concerns? Some causes cannot go with zero friction, and zero conflict, that's just the reality. Like there's simply no way to be much friendlier in this regard, and there can be some instrumental win-wins, but the division does remain. In reality, big animal ag is trying to undo all progress with things like the attempted Save Our Bacon part of the Farm Bill, or constantly propagandizing against the entire animal rights movement- this is because in such a big industry, the primary motivator is systemic, not personalistic. The friendliness level of the movement is secondary. Sure, a little more can be done on the poultry-industry veterinarian example (although even there, not too much, because of the effect of cognitive dissonance), but the main object level issues still chug along. Maybe you're saying this from some welfarist perspective where the animal slaughtering and use/exploitation is viewed as okay, the only issue is chronic pain, so you can truly say that you do not want the industries to come to an end, however broadly construed? I view this as the most important goal right now, but it would be a lie if I said that's where my problems end.
It's hard to compromise with an administration which is against even traditional, barebones foreign aid, no? What is the EA movement supposed to do?
And that's not necessarily half of the American political spectrum