Remove an Omnivore's Statue? Debate Ensues over the Legacy of Factory Farming
forum.effectivealtruism.org
forum.effectivealtruism.org
No one ever thought it was great to be a slave, or to have family members enslaved. No one ever thought it was acceptable to have members of their own race/country/identity-group enslaved.
Meat eating isn’t the slavery of today. The slavery of today is the slave labour camps that still operate in some countries, the human trafficking that still happens in many places. No one thinks it’s right, just many think it’s not their problem.
As a way to show how terrible factory farming is and the status quo is the only reason we are accepting that.
As a critique of the "cancel culture" where we can't praise someone who saved 5 million lives because he did things that aren't socially acceptable today.
In a way, this feels like a derivative of Roko's Basilisk: https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rokos-basilisk, Pascal's wager or (my favorite) Pascal's mugging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging. My view on that is that I'm always impressed by how smart people manage to trap themselves by thinking too much about the future.
The problem isn’t in the future. The problem is here with us today. You just need to see that.
Instead, we can accept that there are many issues worth addressing, and we can make a dent in any number of them. If you want to stop supporting unfathomable violence against innocent sentient being, just stop paying people to kill them. That doesn’t mean you can’t also advocate for issues like clean water for all, or ending malaria, or donating to a homeless shelter in your town.
We rarely actually need to make compromises on the amount of good we can contribute to the world.
It’s not that it’s “the” thing but rather “a” thing worth focusing on. We can improve in more than one area at a time.
> since they can easily be replicated to defend other positions
That’s the point of the article: it replicated a current argument (against honouring slaveholders) to highlight a different but morally similar situation. The logic is simply to extend compassion and consideration to groups of beings that the majority does not currently believe warrant that. So yes, you could easily replicate this article’s argument to advocate defense of other vulnerable creatures, whether human or not. But that’s not a critique, that’s the intention.
I think this is creating a false choice by making arbitrary definitions and using them as the reason to write off an issue. Another form could be "why should I focus on violence against women when that would mean ignoring violence against men" or a given race or whatever.
For a deeper dive into this fallacy, read “A Plea for the Animals”. There are a couple chapters which dissect some of the points your making in more depth than I’ve done.
There is no one right way to advocate. This article is merely one piece of the puzzle.
Here’s to changing that, one day at a time.
Yes, some people can be wrong.
1. Veganism isn't a diet, it's a moral belief system. Diet is merely one manifestation of that belief system.
2. "Proteinless garbage"? What is this, the 90s? We've moved beyond the silly misconceptions that protein = meat. Do your research, please. Hitting daily protein goals is absolutely trivial on a vegan diet. Seriously, it's stupidly easy.
3. Animal agriculture is an astounding contributor to global emissions. Kurzgesagt just did a great video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Hq8eVOMHs
We invite you into the 21st century, when you're ready. You'll have to leave the macho "I don't eat rabbit food" delusions behind, though.
“We built a shelter for homeless people and are feeding and clothing them.”
“You know, the Nazis thought they were doing good things too.”
I mean…seriously?
I'm sorry your friends suffer from eating disorders (seriously, I am. I know some people are as well and it's painful), but don't blame veganism. The millions of healthy, strong, active vegans around the world are proof enough. Some basic research on the subject should cover the rest of your doubts.
The piece was submitted as part of a creative writing competition to "inspire someone to find out more about effective altruism, whether that means the whole movement or a single idea/cause area/intervention."
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JFiHewypFB2niuy2G/...
https://www.zitadelle-berlin.de/en/museums/unveiled/
It houses at least three era of statues which have been removed by past generations -
- Figures of the history of Brandenburg, erected during the German imperial era and removed by the National-socialist regime,
- National-socialist statues, removed during the process of de-nazification,
- Communist statues from the DDR era, removed post re-unification.
profound lack of empathy and indifference have been a major obstacle for the human civilization progress. The earlier it gets addressed the better.
edit - corrected some punctuation
I don’t know which.
Full marks! Science fiction done right.
This whole talking point about 'history erasure' is just really strange, because monuments have never been about history. That's why you can have a statue of liberty, a fourth plinth, the kryptos, etc.
What I do mind is the removal of monuments of persons celebrated for specific civilian accomplishments because of some political ideologies, typical of their times, that they may have held (and even, depending perhaps on circumstances untypical of their times).
A brilliant physicist who also happened to write a letter to a journal in support of phrenology? I can let that pass.
A prolific philanthropist who made his fortune on the backs of the enslaved? Yeah, that can go.
I do applaud every effort to do green or ethical investing and such, I am by no means apathetic to these issues. I just think they need to be addressed systematically and productively.
* To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice?
* The degree that were they aware of the unethical practice
* What level of control did they exercise in relation to the unethical practice?
* Even if unaware, were they negligent in relation to the unethical practice?
* What practical steps did they take to mitigate the damage they did upon becoming aware of the unethical nature of their venture?
I agree a systematic approach is the only way to actually solve problems. However, I think the debate around icons isn't about solving problems, but rather one of justice. Is it just for a person who imparted misery upon others to be commemorated, whilst their victims are forgotten?
It's also about making a statement about our values as a society. These things matter because they help set societal expectations about acceptable behaviour. Nobody complains about the the destruction of history when Nazi iconography is destroyed despite Nazism being one of the most influential ideologies in world history.
There's an interesting debate going on in the post-Soviet-Union countries right now about removing soviet iconography from the public square. Some Russians see it as destroying history, whilst many Ukrainians see it as breaking with a past that brought colonisation, starvation, servitude, and general misery.
As for the more nuanced cases, I think I'd probably go for an explanatory plaque. People are complex. One example that comes to mind is Josiah Wedgewood. On the one hand, he was an prominent slavery abolitionist. On the other hand, he employed child labourers to work with poisonous glazes, many of whom died before reaching adulthood.
The problem is, many statues are more or less obnoxious attempts by dominant groups to impose their ideology on public spaces, then the present-day sympathists tend to try and muddy the water by talking about heritage and history, when it's really nothing to do with the monuments in question.
1) Being an omnivore doesn't mean you participate in factory farming. It blurs these together and doesnt make a distinction between the two.
2) Eating meat of any kind - including factory farming - isnt genocide. this is solely an emotionally charged statement.
3) The petition to take down the statue came from college kids. Not a groundswell of issue-centric political support or sweeping national changes, but "a group of students". 21-year olds. The people most likely to be emotionally engaged and least likely to know what theyre talking about.
Don't take my post as a defense of factory farming. I havent participated in years, and look forward to caring for my own chickens on my own land. My point is simply that this article doesnt seem to be some dualistic thinkpiece that reveals the readers biases.