InTheSky
Posts 5
Comments13
FarmKind is openly hostile towards veganism, which makes no sense. See this stunt here: https://www.gbnews.com/news/veganuary-actvist-meat-eating-campaign and this social media video in which they refer to people being "tricked into going vegan": https://www.instagram.com/p/DQuPg0VjMJf/
Obviously discouraging veganism is completely antithetical to reducing animal suffering, because: the vegan movement is the best pool we have for effective animal advocates; opposing veganism while ostensing to advocate for animals sends a weak moral message that reduces moral pressure on industrial farming; being non-vegan = funding industrial farming.
What is the point of this?
I mean spending money and energy on animal welfare or some other positive cause rather than on alleviating poverty.
Doesn't that sound more like "direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility" than does the "absurd and impractical" contention that "further development will [not] ever be justified"?
That's not really an argument at all. How do we prevent future suffering? Is enriching the global poor in line with that ambition? I can think of ways that it isn't—that it will lead to increased suffering. A counterargument would evide that global development will not lead to increased suffering. That we like having undergone development ourselves is not a counterargument and does not imply that funding global development is of positive utility.
Yes, I'm joking, but keeping a payload, any payload, at the cost of the actual principles of your supposed cause, is pointless. Like, they could adjust their message to appeal to people who are alienated by appeals to animal welfare at all, and just advocate for meatless mondays in the name of reducing methane emissions. But that would be pretty ineffective, just like sending this bizarre, conflicted message and discouraging pro-animal advocacy is ineffective.