2018 was Utility Farm’s busiest year to date, and established the groundwork for an even more productive 2019.
Utility Farm’s outreach yielded some results, but they did not justify the time spent working on the project. We reached out to 92 scientists, had extended conversations about welfare biology with 26, but were only able to leave this process with 3 strong relationships, and with only one relationship with someone who we felt had become value-aligned.
We need your help to collect as much information as possible on effective messaging strategies on wild animal welfare!
Humane insecticide advocacy is a proposed approach that potentially avoids these pitfalls. In its simplest form, an insecticide currently in use is replaced with another one with a similar rate of effectiveness at killing, but that kills less painfully.
As part of its stewardship program, Utility Farm will be pursuing significant research into the viability and cost-effectiveness of humane insecticide advocacy in 2018 and 2019.
While reducing wild animal suffering is immensely complicated, Utility Farm believes it has identified one promising opportunity that meets this cost-effectiveness criterion and significantly reduces the harms caused by outdoor domestic cats—advocating for indoor cats.
We aren’t always the best at telling the world what we are doing, so we thought we’d provide an update on a few of the ongoing research projects that we have in the works
Due to the small size of the movement to create a research field of welfare biology, and to raise interest in reducing wild animal suffering, it is critical that proponents of reducing wild animal suffering use language carefully and effectively.
As 2017 comes to a close, we have spent the last few months asking ourselves some basic questions—where can we currently have the greatest impact for wild animals, and how do we increase that impact?
Utility Farm's research found that using language like "participation in," or "stewardship of" nature was much more effective at increasing agreeability with controversial methods of reducing wild animal suffering than "intervention in nature."
More than 80 million U.S. households include one or more companion animal, defined as a service animal or pet. This amounts to a huge set of human-animal interactions. A lot of worthwhile advocacy focused on these interactions centers the experiences of companion animals themselves, such as efforts to combat abuse and neglect. But keeping companion animals also has important effects on an enormous number of other creatures. This post explores some of these effects and ways for caretakers to account for them when deciding how to care for their animal companions. Posts on additional species will be added periodically.
Why addressing suffering on Earth requires a hiatus on space exploration and colonization.
There is a species on Earth with the capacity to significantly reduce that suffering. Because of that capacity, that species has an obligation to intervene in nature. An obligation to steward it to reduce the suffering of animals, wild and farmed. An obligation to analyze nature’s systems and ecologies, and to take the steps which make nature better for its inhabitants. To not do so is not only a misstep. It is wrong. We must intervene.