This week, Utility Farm has launched Nature Ethics, a platform for social research and change on wild animal suffering.
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.