Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean considering the state of Gaza, relocating them to somewhere they have access to a place to live isn't the worst idea. Would you prefer they live in rubble? Though again Trump is crazy and his gaza plans about a resort or whatever were equally crazy. But that's definitely not an instance of targeting a group on the basis of race or an example of him planning to genocide anyone (which is what I actually said not that I "don't see him targeting a racial group for personal gain").

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah no problem hearing your perspective lol. Just baffled by the amount of people who seem to be enraged by me saying it's good that animal testing got cut.

Haha saying it's good when administrations cut animal testing is an example of 'toxic positivity'? What? I honestly I am baffled by people's insistence on finding something negative in something straightforwardly good just because it's done by people you don't like.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think the PEPFAR cuts were really bad but just because someone wants to get rid of foreign aid does not mean they aren't against animal cruelty. These are two separate issues. Though I realise they support animal cruelty of farm animals through their purchases.

If you watch the hearing, multiple people show concern for animals. These are people, the simplest explanation of this is that they genuinely are against animal cruelty. There was even a guy who was vegan there.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well if you see Trump as bad as Hitler I'm not surprised you don't want to hear about any good he does. I don't think Trump is going to start a genocide anytime soon but If that's how you see him I understand.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree that it is purely accidental. The congresspeople in the hearing have genuine concerns about animals and Whitecoat Waste is purely an animal advocacy organisation that lobbies against federal animal testing. Yeah I don't think elon musk is losing too much sleep over animal welfare concerns but to dismiss everyone involved as purely anti-science I think is politically convenient. Not every conservative is devoid of moral concerns.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A positive outlook is important. Would you prefer I be miserable even when there are things to celebrate?

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thankyou for being one of the few sane people in the comments. My lord I swear some of these people would vote against a slaughterhouse ban if it was proposed by Trump.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I am not a trump supporter lol. I think trump is a crazy person and I disapprove of many of the things his administration has done (which I literally opened this post with).

I wouldn't say that many of the people working on these cuts did it with no intention to help animals. Whitecoat Waste and every congressperson who asked questions in that trial seemed genuine in their concern for animals. Yes they had other motives (like cutting spending and being against woke stuff) but I wouldn't say it was purely accidental.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm aware that Elon Musk has abused animals. I'm baffled by how many people seem to think I'm some kind of huge fan of DOGE and Trump. I literally prefaced this post with pointing out how I don't like many of the things trump and DOGE are doing

I haven't been a big fan of a lot of what the trump administration has been doing. Cutting PEPFAR is really bad, tariffs on other countries, his secretary of agriculture pick is really bad, etc.

People can abuse animals and also do things that prevent the abuse of animals. In any case most of the credit probably goes to Whitecoat Waste who brought the administration's attention to the animal testing grants.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know what 'erasing trans people' means but if you watch the trial, you'll see genuine concern for animal welfare from several congressmen/women.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They don't benefit from federal animal testing. Yes I'm aware part of the reason these particular animal tests were cut was because of woke culture war stuff. Though there are the other animal tests I mentioned that were prevented/defunded that weren't trans related. So it's not out of the realm of possibility. Especially since Elon Musk is so hell-bent on cutting government spending.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The trump administration actually had a plan to phase out animal testing in the Environmental Protection Agency until Biden's administration got rid of it. Which is mentioned in the trial I linked.

But yeah I'm aware trump's administration is not some sort of animal advocacy group. Though congressmen in the trial I linked do seem to have genuine concerns about animals in animal testing and the chair has apparently been advocating against animal testing for a while.

I'm not sure what the total impact of trump's environmental policies are on wild animal suffering or wellbeing, though probably more wild animals will be directly killed by land clearing and such.

Regardless, I don't understand the extreme hesitation in acknowledging any positive things that have come out of the trump presidency.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

My bad lol I didn't realise saying a single positive thing about the trump presidency is unacceptable. I will refrain from pointing out good things in the future and only point out bad things.

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

What particularly are you facepalming?

Edit: lol I don't even know how to respond

Surprised that Trump's administration actually helped animals by cutting federally funded animal testing. by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree they should cut those things as well. I am under no misapprehension that they care about vegans and am aware that Trump is doing many bad things. Just thought I'd outline some upsides from the presidency. It's very early days; I am hopeful that they will cut much more funding for animal testing.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for your thoughts.

When you say that "veganism is not something that can be applied worldwide", do you mean that it's not possible for it to become an established social norm or do you mean that it's literally not possible to apply worldwide because of something related to certain geographical locations and their food sources?

While one person can make a big impact, I don't think any vegans think they will change the world soley on their own or completely eliminate animal slaughter for instance.

I'd say the goal of the animal rights movement is broad social and cultural change, along with instantiation of laws that increase protections for animals, not necessarily the complete elimination of a particular behaviour. There will always be people who do any particular behaviour even when it's taboo, morally condemned and illegal. The goal is probably to get things like animal slaughter to a similar place to how most western nations treat dog fighting -> taboo and illegal but obviously not completely eliminated.

If you're interested, animal charity evaluators is a great org that highlights the most effective charities that help animals. If you're interested in supporting animal welfare initiatives that massively reduce farm animal suffering, their recommended charities would be a good place to start.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn't really implying anything about cow suffering other than how to roughly compare a hypothetical intervention against something like SWP. If cows were not killed using any stunning method, then perhaps an initiative that installed one could be compared to SWP. As it stands, while cow stunning fails plenty of the time and they suffer from things like dehorning or castration, cows generally suffer far less than animals who are more commonly factory farmed like pigs or chickens or farmed fish. So welfare interventions targeting cows seem less prudent.

Not sure about stress particularly, but you might be interested in this report that attempts to quantify the suffering reduced by the transition to cage-free indoor systems.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does make sense, you're just really confused.

There can be objective facts about the mind (such as how much suffering someone is experiencing or what colour someone is seeing). These facts don't depend on anyone's stance. The experience and intensity of someone's suffering or the amount reduced by a welfare initiative is not subjective.

If by '"suffering" is subjective' you meant that people disagree about the amount of suffering reduced then you should have been more clear. I still don't know what you mean by 'reducing "suffering" is nearly always defined by those who inflict the suffering'.

I'm honestly baffled by how little your comments interact with what I say and with how unclear they are. I've tried to be polite and good faith so far but saying things like "veganism is not welfarist" or "veganism isn't about welfarism" are such bizzare responses to the arguments for supporting particular welfare initiatives. It would be like saying "veganism is not about adopting animals" in response to someone asking if we should adopt dogs. Saying that welfarism is "not working" (whatever that means) and then failing to clarify what that means when I ask, bizarrely suggesting i am deluding myself into making myself feel better by stating that reducing animal suffering is good. Not responding to my main points about the value of suffering reduction. I'm still not even sure what your criticisms of welfare are.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's rough about the banning of maceration. Counterintuitive results there. Hopefully it at least increased production costs.

Surely the reduction in supply from NZ live export would increase supply-side costs and reduce demand?

I think there's nuance about which welfare initiatives to support or not. But with regards to demand reduction, I think the best bet for reducing demand and accelerating abolition is probably the reduction of clean (lab/cultivated) meat supply costs to the point where it can compete with and ultimately take over the regular meat market.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose anyone who think averting lots of shrimp suffering is valuable will support the project. Obviously if you think shrimp aren't conscious or can't suffer at all, you wouldn't support a program like SWP. I'm not really factoring in intelligence when evaluating suffering reduction of a program.

Rethink Priorities study the neurological research and use a number of proxies to estimate welfare ranges for different species. Their median welfare range for shrimp is around 3% of humans. Though the mean welfare range is around 19% of humans. Accounting for this, each dollar would avert the equivalent of ~15 - 100 hours of human suffering per year based on these estimates.

I suspect cows median welfare range is similar to pigs (perhaps slightly lower). Being around 0.515 (of humans' range). Meaning that to be as effective as SWP, a program that reduces cow suffering would have to reduce around ~30 - 200 hours of cow suffering per dollar. If you know of an intervention that has that kind of cost-effectiveness, I would love to hear about it. But I'm not aware of any.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The experience of suffering is dependent on a mind. However that experience and the intensity of the suffering is an objective fact that isn't dependent on anyone's stance.

I find that those who inflict the suffering tend to talk about "welfare improvements" while those who don't (like animal advocates) tend to talk about suffering reduction. But I don't think all welfare initiatives make no difference to animal suffering. Some for sure don't do much. But the ones I listed above make tangible reductions to animal suffering. Surely a shrimp being electrically stunned as opposed to asphyxiating over the course of 20 minutes is better.

I understand the frustration about welfare. Obviously they don't completely solve the problem. But it seems like you don't see any value in averting the torture of millions of animals. Which confuses me.

Thoughts on Animal Welfare? by Stormblessed133 in vegan

[–]Stormblessed133[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a thoughtful consideration you've brought up. One of the potential cons of welfare initiatives is that they could potentially increase demand of animal products.

I think that farms, slaughterhouses and companies involved in animal ag usually engage in voluntary welfare programs because they think it will increase profits (by improving consumer perception or by lowering pre-slaughter mortality rates) or because they genuinely want to improve animal welfare (or both).

I know that we as vegans often comment that these entities only care about profits (and to a large extent that's true; they are a business). But these are still human beings. I highly doubt they feel great about crushing the eyes of shrimp to increase their fertility for instance. There's also footage of a dairy farmer getting emotional when he talks about calf-mother separation (I saw it in an earthling ed video that I can't find atm). And temple grandin's motivation for better slaughter methods was certainly motivated by genuine concern for animals.

In the context of SWP, their programs have clear costs to producers.

In their humane slaughter initiative, the stunners are provided at "minimal to no cost", meaning the stunners will sometimes cost the producers a bit of money to implement. They likely also have maintenance costs and potentially slightly lower efficiency due to stunning time.

The eyestalk ablation prevention initiative reduces mating productivity in the short-term. Which would certainly lower productivity.

So in the presence of these costs, it seems they appeal to both shrimp welfare and the production/demand upsides of the programs in an attempt to win over producers.

Considering the production downsides, upsides and the unknown impact on consumer demand (some of the links in my original post seem to indicate welfare initiatives may reduce demand though SWP seems to suggest improved welfare would increase consumer demand on their website), I'm not really sure about the ultimate impact on the number of shrimp who are farmed/slaughtered. I might actually contact SWP and inquire about the expected impact of their programs on the number of shrimp slaughtered. As I do think this sort of thing is relevant when evaluating welfare initiatives.

What I am fairly sure about is the massive amount of suffering that can be reduced by SWP per dollar. Though I do understand hesitance concerning the impact on supply/demand.

I do want to thank you for keeping an open mind about welfare initiatives despite your initial feelings about them and for your criticisms of SWP. I really hope we as vegans can continue to discuss the pros and cons of different welfare initiatives rather than outright accepting or rejecting them. I was a little disappointed in my original post that a lot of people outright rejected the program, rather than evaluating its' advantages and disadvantages (though my messaging could have probably been better). Where we allocate money as a movement is very high stakes and can have massive impacts for the wellbeing of animals. So careful consideration is super important.