Dear Sue & Will,
It was good to see you again at Fauna yesterday.
I just wanted to summarize the observations I made during the question session.
(1) I think you’re absolutely right that although consciousness seems to be increasing, the absolute number of animals beings needlessly hurt and killed is growing even faster (as is the human population).
(2) You are also right that the average half-life of vegan diets is about 3 months. Nevertheless, across the years, and even if we count only those who have been vegans for over a year, or even over 5 years, both their relative and their absolute numbers are growing. This does not negate (1), above, but I think it is some (slim) evidence that the animal rights movement is not a complete failure.
(3) But it is (1) that matters, and you are right that more strategies are needed so the problem stops growing and instead begins actually shrinking.
(4) On the citizenship strategy, which I certainly hope works, I have four thoughts:
(4a) I cannot see how the “sovereign nations” metaphor for wildlife living on their (shrinking) ancestral territory is likely to be more effective than the (unsuccessful) appeals against encroachment and on behalf of the protection of wildlife, either natural or endangered.
(4b) I also cannot see how the “denizen” metaphor for urban wildlife is likely to be more effective than the (unsuccessful) appeals for citizens to be kind to urban wildlife.
(4c) That leaves the “co-citizen” model for animals selectively bred and used by humans for meat, dairy, eggs, fish, fur, wool, service, pets and entertainment. Your proposal is to integrate them into human society as citizens with complementary rights and responsibilities. But the only species for which that model seems to have some potential is dogs, who have been selectively bred for a social dependency on humans. For all other domesticated species, the humane solution is surely to stop breeding them. And in view of the enormous risk of “collateral damage” to subsequent generations, I think that’s the humane solution for dogs too. Local humane solutions don’t scale, any more than humane dairy or oviulture scales. And I think the natural breeding “rights” of human-bred species pale beside the risks and suffering that indulging them would entail.
You suggested that the minimal success of the animal-rights strategy was because of its focus on diminishing and abolishing animal suffering, rather than a more positive incentive. But diminishing and abolishing animal suffering is not just a strategy: it is the goal. I son’t think we have gone anywhere near as far as it would be possible to go to sensitize the human population to animal suffering That appeal to human empathy is still, I think, by far the most promising path toward putting an end to the unspeakable horrors, about most of which most people are still not even faintly aware.
If Peter Singer did not succeed in solving the problem, he certainly helped increase awareness of it. I think you, Sue and Will, are also doing so; history will remember you for it, and the escape of future victims from the monstrous annual fate of today’s trillions of sentient creatures, once it comes, will also be due in part to your influential efforts.
Best wishes,
Stevan