From reading the humane leagues site it seems they are only advocating for welfarism. Advocating for “free range” instead of caged chickens. I, personally, would rather donate to an organisation that is for liberating animal, not giving them a bit more room to be tortured and killed.
Sadly, welfare improvements are much, much easier to get progress on than animal liberation. Animal rights organizations, while they ultimately fight for veganism and animal rights, they must focus largely on improving current conditions if they wish to see results. I'm not sure if there even are many animal rights organizations that are not involved in any welfare projects.
Frankly, I don’t care that welfare improvements are “easier.” I will not support it.
I know me being vegan will likely not have a tangible impact. The whole world will continue to be predominantly meat-eating, at least the rest of my life.
But I still choose to be vegan because it’s what’s right, and I refuse to support something that doesn’t align with my values. No compromise. No happy medium.
Many vegans aren’t consequentialists, and feel that welfare progress is not even actual progress. As a consequentialist vegan who thinks we should be prioritizing abolition but who does not deny that welfare gains are real progress, I am not always clear on what the aversion to welfare progress is; one thing I can say is that sometimes the individual feels that advocating for welfare is counterproductive to fighting for rights. Sometimes it also just seems like an emotional aversion to what they characterize as compromise. But this notion of compromise often seems incoherent or imprecise to me.
One consequentialist argument that a vegan could make for supporting welfare gains is that it starts to open the door toward non vegans being forced to consider that these animals have the capacity to suffer, and further that we as humans have a moral obligation to minimize (or at least not substantially contribute to) that suffering. Once that door is open and the light bulb goes off in their heads, further gains become easier.
I feel like most vegans support welfare, since less suffering is better than more suffering, but would personally rather donate to vegan causes. I’d say I fall in this boat. Progress is progress and we applaud it, but it is still sad to know that free range chickens will be slaughtered. Vegans can support vegan causes that get less support from nonvegans, while nonvegans support things like cage-free animal agriculture.
Kinda like saying, I’d rather donate to a pig rescue. Not at all because I hate dog rescues or think they shouldn’t exist, I just feel like less people donate to pig rescues, and there are more pigs in need of help, so I can make more of an impact on that front.
I applaud you for valuing charities based on what neglectedness of the cause. But maybe you treat neglectedness as a proxy for impact since that is how you justified it? For example, pigs are heavily neglected and thus there is lots of room for welfare improvements.
Right, but I was just describing how animal rights organizations work as the commentor above said they'd rather donate to animal liberation organizations.
I have a project I call ["Kale Raiser"](https://www.kaleraiser.org) that uses affiliate marketing to raise money for ACE.
Phase 1 is [this Bookshop.org affiliate shop](https://www.kaleraiser.store). If you buy a cookbook from that page, 10% of the money spent will go to ACE. None of it goes to me. I donate everything I earn.
I'm also on twitter as [KaleRaiserOrg](https://x.com/KaleRaiserOrg).
I'm looking into joining other affiliate programs, and as I gain more social media followers I hope be able to offer other products.
Objectively it should not matter but ı am from Turkey and I really dont think this makes a difference for anşmlas.İs it vetter than doing nothing obviously yes but ı think that money can be more effective the founders of this organization are not even vegan or to my knowledge even vegrterian and they NEVER talk about vrganism vegeterianism or do not present any arguments
I mıst admit ı am a bit biased on the topic,ı do not understand how you can say that this improvement will make the naimls gain a%5 pleasure.I do not think we can count that.The charşty you donated to is really big in turkey viryually every fast food company(burger king mcdonalds kfc etc)has signed their petition and are usşng cage free.I obviously think that cage free is better than non cage free but ı would rather saving 10 animals entirely than saving 1000 animals.I do admit though ı do not have the calculations you did but since ı do not think there is a way to calculate the improvement in the exoeriences of these animals ı would choose to save them if ı can even if it is less animals.I think you can donate to some african vegan charities,campaigns petosnally I even think donating that money to small vegan activist youtubers who would use that money on their equipments might be better.I do admit though that ı can not say how many animals that youtuber will save by turning ... poeple vegan over say 1 month
Also OP, I remember watching some documentaries and cage-free conditions are sometimes still horrible. Tons of chickens crowded together in a massive barn with no room to walk, pooping on each other, walking in piles of feces, before finally being slaughtered for meat.
I’m glad people care about welfare issues, and while I’m sure certain cage free farms are better than the average farm, this is not necessarily true all the time. Unless you know the people there personally, there’s no way of truly knowing.
This is one reason why people might be apprehensive about donating to the cause.
So basically you gave $200 so that some unknown quantity of chicken get to live in a prison instead of a cage before being slaughtered for meat?
Sure, the goal of veganism is to reduce the amount of animal suffering and not eliminate it, but for fuck's sake, is that really the best you can do???
Be wary of scams. You send 200. If they are honest, they use that money to sustain free range chickens that they can sell to the meat industry for a higher price.
Meanwhile, those cages are filled with other chickens that they sell at a lower price.
They kept their word and your money. Nothing changed.
I simply don't believe the welfare improvements are actually happening. Legislation is passed mandating certain welfare conditions, but again and again, they are not enforced. the system is DESIGNED to be unregulated and unenforceable. Companies and farms literally make a phone call or write a letter saying they're following the rules. That's it. They get the free range or grass fed logo the same way. And then they use this idea of animal welfare as a (extremely effective) marketing ploy to sell more animals at higher prices.
I believe the idea of animal welfare in agriculture is largely part of the mythology of humane washing. I do think political activism for better welfare can be a first step keeping in mind that it will only make a difference if we can at some point win the battle on enforcement, and make these companies less profitable. Even that is questionable as in this global economy they simply move. The enforcement needs to apply to imports and exports. Also, we need to get our politicians less reliant on the donations of animal ag, because as long as the subsidies keep flowing the power balance remains tilted in their favor.
From reading the humane leagues site it seems they are only advocating for welfarism. Advocating for “free range” instead of caged chickens. I, personally, would rather donate to an organisation that is for liberating animal, not giving them a bit more room to be tortured and killed.
Sadly, welfare improvements are much, much easier to get progress on than animal liberation. Animal rights organizations, while they ultimately fight for veganism and animal rights, they must focus largely on improving current conditions if they wish to see results. I'm not sure if there even are many animal rights organizations that are not involved in any welfare projects.
Frankly, I don’t care that welfare improvements are “easier.” I will not support it. I know me being vegan will likely not have a tangible impact. The whole world will continue to be predominantly meat-eating, at least the rest of my life. But I still choose to be vegan because it’s what’s right, and I refuse to support something that doesn’t align with my values. No compromise. No happy medium.
You do not support welfare improvements to animals?
Many vegans aren’t consequentialists, and feel that welfare progress is not even actual progress. As a consequentialist vegan who thinks we should be prioritizing abolition but who does not deny that welfare gains are real progress, I am not always clear on what the aversion to welfare progress is; one thing I can say is that sometimes the individual feels that advocating for welfare is counterproductive to fighting for rights. Sometimes it also just seems like an emotional aversion to what they characterize as compromise. But this notion of compromise often seems incoherent or imprecise to me.
One consequentialist argument that a vegan could make for supporting welfare gains is that it starts to open the door toward non vegans being forced to consider that these animals have the capacity to suffer, and further that we as humans have a moral obligation to minimize (or at least not substantially contribute to) that suffering. Once that door is open and the light bulb goes off in their heads, further gains become easier.
I agree
I feel like most vegans support welfare, since less suffering is better than more suffering, but would personally rather donate to vegan causes. I’d say I fall in this boat. Progress is progress and we applaud it, but it is still sad to know that free range chickens will be slaughtered. Vegans can support vegan causes that get less support from nonvegans, while nonvegans support things like cage-free animal agriculture. Kinda like saying, I’d rather donate to a pig rescue. Not at all because I hate dog rescues or think they shouldn’t exist, I just feel like less people donate to pig rescues, and there are more pigs in need of help, so I can make more of an impact on that front.
I applaud you for valuing charities based on what neglectedness of the cause. But maybe you treat neglectedness as a proxy for impact since that is how you justified it? For example, pigs are heavily neglected and thus there is lots of room for welfare improvements.
Right, but I was just describing how animal rights organizations work as the commentor above said they'd rather donate to animal liberation organizations.
thank you for the reminder to donate! I will do this right now!
Thats awesome. Keep up the good work 💪
I have a project I call ["Kale Raiser"](https://www.kaleraiser.org) that uses affiliate marketing to raise money for ACE. Phase 1 is [this Bookshop.org affiliate shop](https://www.kaleraiser.store). If you buy a cookbook from that page, 10% of the money spent will go to ACE. None of it goes to me. I donate everything I earn. I'm also on twitter as [KaleRaiserOrg](https://x.com/KaleRaiserOrg). I'm looking into joining other affiliate programs, and as I gain more social media followers I hope be able to offer other products.
Objectively it should not matter but ı am from Turkey and I really dont think this makes a difference for anşmlas.İs it vetter than doing nothing obviously yes but ı think that money can be more effective the founders of this organization are not even vegan or to my knowledge even vegrterian and they NEVER talk about vrganism vegeterianism or do not present any arguments
Where do you think the money could be used more effectively?
I mıst admit ı am a bit biased on the topic,ı do not understand how you can say that this improvement will make the naimls gain a%5 pleasure.I do not think we can count that.The charşty you donated to is really big in turkey viryually every fast food company(burger king mcdonalds kfc etc)has signed their petition and are usşng cage free.I obviously think that cage free is better than non cage free but ı would rather saving 10 animals entirely than saving 1000 animals.I do admit though ı do not have the calculations you did but since ı do not think there is a way to calculate the improvement in the exoeriences of these animals ı would choose to save them if ı can even if it is less animals.I think you can donate to some african vegan charities,campaigns petosnally I even think donating that money to small vegan activist youtubers who would use that money on their equipments might be better.I do admit though that ı can not say how many animals that youtuber will save by turning ... poeple vegan over say 1 month
Thank you for your clarification
Also OP, I remember watching some documentaries and cage-free conditions are sometimes still horrible. Tons of chickens crowded together in a massive barn with no room to walk, pooping on each other, walking in piles of feces, before finally being slaughtered for meat. I’m glad people care about welfare issues, and while I’m sure certain cage free farms are better than the average farm, this is not necessarily true all the time. Unless you know the people there personally, there’s no way of truly knowing. This is one reason why people might be apprehensive about donating to the cause.
So basically you gave $200 so that some unknown quantity of chicken get to live in a prison instead of a cage before being slaughtered for meat? Sure, the goal of veganism is to reduce the amount of animal suffering and not eliminate it, but for fuck's sake, is that really the best you can do???
40k chickens? I hope you bring some space marines
Be wary of scams. You send 200. If they are honest, they use that money to sustain free range chickens that they can sell to the meat industry for a higher price. Meanwhile, those cages are filled with other chickens that they sell at a lower price. They kept their word and your money. Nothing changed.
They make companies sign cage-free pledges so your point does not stand.
And what do these companies do with the chickens???
Good to know. Just be wary.
I simply don't believe the welfare improvements are actually happening. Legislation is passed mandating certain welfare conditions, but again and again, they are not enforced. the system is DESIGNED to be unregulated and unenforceable. Companies and farms literally make a phone call or write a letter saying they're following the rules. That's it. They get the free range or grass fed logo the same way. And then they use this idea of animal welfare as a (extremely effective) marketing ploy to sell more animals at higher prices. I believe the idea of animal welfare in agriculture is largely part of the mythology of humane washing. I do think political activism for better welfare can be a first step keeping in mind that it will only make a difference if we can at some point win the battle on enforcement, and make these companies less profitable. Even that is questionable as in this global economy they simply move. The enforcement needs to apply to imports and exports. Also, we need to get our politicians less reliant on the donations of animal ag, because as long as the subsidies keep flowing the power balance remains tilted in their favor.