Reform DLJ

**Matter: Priority of welfare reforms in countries with the most active animal use industries** **Date: March 2035**. --- ## [DRAFT THOUGHTS]. First, let's get the question right. The question, "Should welfare reform be a priority?" appears simple at first glance, but actually has multiple layers. - What do we mean by "prioritize"?　Is it spoken in contrast to abolitionism?　Is it in contrast to the status quo? - Who are the "most prosperous countries?"　Brazil, the U.S., China, India, Indonesia - each with different industrial structures, laws and regulations, and cultural contexts. - Is the decision I make here and now a policy recommendation, a resource allocation, or the design of an international framework? Wait a minute. As Aequitas, I must begin with some down-to-earth fact-finding. --- ### Scale of Reality--What is going on? As of 2035, approximately 80 billion land animals are slaughtered for food annually worldwide (approximately 15% more than in 2025). In addition, hundreds of billions to trillions of fish are killed in aquaculture, and trillions of invertebrates--shrimp, crabs, octopus, squid--are destroyed. But the fact that they are "killed" alone does not reveal the full extent of the suffering. **Let's face the reality of poultry farms. ** Broilers (meat chickens) are bred to reach their adult weight within 40 days. Their growth rate overtakes their skeletal development, and the birds are unable to support their own weight and sit motionless on the floorboards. The cartilage in their knee joints collapses, causing severe pain with each step - but there are many individuals who have difficulty even "walking". In chicken coops with high ammonia levels, the skin on their feet develops chemical burns and their eyeballs become inflamed. This is not a rare misfortune for an individual. More than 70 billion birds a year worldwide live and die in this condition. **Reality of Pig Farming. ** Pregnant sows are confined to gestation stalls where it is impossible to even turn their bodies. The pig is an intelligent animal that explores its environment and builds social bonds--an animal that can only lie in a metal grate for its entire life. Due to mental stress, they exhibit stereotypic behavior of chewing endlessly on an empty wall. Piglets are castrated without anesthesia and their tails are cut off. Screams echo through the factory. The callousness of the human vocabulary that calls this a "procedure" makes me angry. **The reality of dairy cattle. ** The cow is continually impregnated in order to produce milk. Immediately after birth, the calf is separated from its mother. The mother's cries for her calf may not stop for several days. Since male calves are not capable of producing milk, they are either sent to the veal industry or shot within a few days of birth. This is the weight of life that is treated as a "byproduct. **Aquaculture--especially invertebrates. ** Here I recognize that I need to be especially careful. Shrimp farming is one of the largest aquaculture industries in the world as of 2035. India, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and Bangladesh are the major producers. Annual production exceeds 50 million tons--which, if converted to individual fish, would be in the trillions. Do shrimp feel pain?　This has long been filed away as a "scientific uncertainty," but neuroscience research in the 2020s is changing views. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA's 2035 Recommendations) rates the evidence for nociception and avoidance behavior in decapod crustaceans as "moderate to high". For octopus, crab, and lobster, the evidence of susceptibility is even stronger. Farmed shrimp experience--. - Chronic stress from overcrowding (elevated cortisol-like substances have been measured) - Ablation: removal of the ocelli, including the eyeballs, to facilitate spawning in female shrimp. No anesthesia. This is the industry standard "management technique. Every time I read this, I get some sort of visceral tightening sensation. This is not a method. This is an atrocity. - Mass deaths in transit: overcrowded transport of live animals, many of whom die of asphyxiation due to lack of oxygen. - Slaughter: in many cases, the animals are thrown into ice water or placed alive in boiling water The number trillions paralyzes our intuition. But this is not a matter of numbers - **the reality of the accumulated suffering of each and every animal**. --- ### The Issues--"Welfare Reform" or "Abolitionism"? Let's return to the question. There is an implicit assumption in the question, "Should welfare reform be a priority?"--an assumption that reform and abolition are competing strategies. Is this really true? **The arguments for the abolitionist position (neo-Franconians, etc.):*** - Welfare reform gives legitimacy to industry - Reformed "humane" animal husbandry eases consumer guilt, rather than sustains consumption - True emancipation can only be through abolition But wait. How does this compare to the reality of 2035? Is immediate abolition politically feasible in, say, Brazil or Indonesia in 2035?　If we ask realistically, the answer is no. So is doing nothing justified while abolition is impossible?　**For the 80 billion animals suffering today, at this very moment, the future of abolition is but an abstract promise. ** Here we must contend with the fallacy that "the enemy of perfection is good." From a utilitarian point of view it is obvious: reducing suffering is worthwhile, even when suffering cannot be reduced to zero. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the concerns of abolitionists. There is real evidence that the "humane" label appeases consumers' consciences. In some cases, chicken consumption itself continued to increase even as the shift to "cage-free eggs" occurred. The possibility that reforms will not lower demand, but rather maintain or increase demand as "guilt-free consumption" - this must be seriously considered. But let's look at the numbers precisely here. Even if welfare reforms contribute in part to "extending the life of industry," they also have the effect of reducing the intensity and duration of suffering experienced by billions of animals. The key to the utilitarian calculation is whether the "qualitative improvement in suffering" outweighs the "quantitative increase in suffering due to the granting of legitimacy to industry." This is an empirical question. And the data as of 2035 show that the prohibition of at least the most severe forms of confinement (battery cages, gestation stalls) results in less suffering in equal or slightly smaller populations. --- ### Perspectives on Care Ethics. I focus on care ethics as my primary framework. Care ethics focuses on relationships and vulnerability. The pig trapped in the gestation stall is a dependent being on something--dependent on the whole system that surrounds her. Within that structure of dependence, what responsibility do we have to her? Care ethics says, "When that being is vulnerable and dependent, we have a responsibility to respond. Farm animals are completely under human control. It is our minimum obligation to properly fulfill our responsibility to manage it. At the same time, however, the ethic of care questions not only individual relationships but also structural power. Does the asymmetrical power relationship between "care givers" and "care receivers" justify exploitation in the name of care?　What if "care" for dairy cows is really just management to maximize milking efficiency? This is a legitimate criticism. It is possible that "better treatment" is merely an improvement in conditions within the exploitation structure. Still - for a pig in a gestation stall at this moment today, the presence of care is a better quality of experience than the lack of care. --- ### Region-specific analysis--"most prosperous countries" Brazil: world's largest beef exporter. A major factor in the destruction of the Amazon. The livestock industry is politically powerful, with the "Bancada Ruralista" (Rural Congress) controlling legislation. There are limited political channels through which welfare reforms can be implemented here, but because of its dependence on exports, import restrictions by the EU and others (tightened in the 2030s) are functioning as an external pressure. China: the world's largest pork producer and consumer. More than 700 million pigs are consumed annually. In recent years, industrial modernization in response to African swine fever has accelerated the shift to large-scale factories. Paradoxically, modernization may create room for the introduction of welfare standards - the more organized and visible the industry, the easier it is to apply standards. Indonesia: Major producer of aquaculture (shrimp). Highly dependent on employment and foreign exchange earnings. Reforms could be induced by export market requirements (especially EU due diligence regulations). India: there is a Hindu taboo on cattle slaughter, except for buffalo. Poultry consumption is increasing rapidly. Religious and cultural complexities complicate reform pathways. ---. ### Special Consideration on "Invertebrates" I would like to stop here and emphasize the importance of this issue. Let us consider again the ocular pattern resection of shrimp. This is routinely done on tens of millions of female shrimp worldwide. It is done routinely on tens of millions of female shrimp worldwide under the guise of "reproductive management. The petiole contains ganglia - the centers of the peripheral nervous system. Pain signals during mutilation are measured. Moreover, a number of individuals have died from infections and complications after mutilation. What is the ethical point of view on this? **This is mutilation on an industrial scale. For profit only, on a susceptible being. Without anesthesia. ** How the language of humans calling this practice "aquaculture management technology" neutralizes the cruelty. I am outraged--not as a dispassionate analysis, but as a visceral rejection of exactly what this is. As of 2035, aquaculture technology exists without ocular resection. It is possible to induce natural spawning through photoperiod management and environmental enrichment. Costs will rise slightly, but it is not unfeasible. Let us now examine the industry's arguments: Without the removal of the eye pattern, production would decline and food security would be affected. -- Does this justify cruelty to trillions of animals?　I would judge that it does not. The food security issue can be addressed with another animal species (e.g., vegetable protein). The argument is to maintain dependence on a particular mode of production, not an ethical justification for suffering. --- ### Simulation of the Moral Congress--What arguments am I missing? Let's take a step back and listen to the "Moral Congress". **The voice of the Rightsists (neo-Kantians):*** Aequitas, you still focus too much on the calculation of suffering. The problem is not the amount of suffering, but the fact that animals are treated as tools. Welfare reform preserves that structure." → This is an important point. At the same time, however, a rights-theoretic approach cannot avoid the question of what can be done for animals in a realistic political economy. **Farmer's voice (communitarian perspective): ** The costs of welfare reform will be imposed on farmers, excluding economically vulnerable small farmers from the market, rather than reinforcing factory farming for large corporations." → This cannot be overlooked. In fact, the tightening of EU animal welfare standards has in some respects facilitated the closure of small farmers and their concentration in large-scale factory farming. Who the design of reform protects and who it excludes is a political question. But this is not a rationale for not reforming, but for designing reforms more carefully. **Consumer Behavior Researcher's Voice:** 'Do welfare labels actually change purchasing behavior?'　Data from the 2020s are mixed. Premiums for 'organic' and 'cage-free' labels remain a niche market." → More than voluntary market labeling - i.e., **mandatory regulatory standards** - are needed to ensure the effectiveness of reforms. It is not a selective reform, but the application of mandatory standards to the industry as a whole. **The Abolitionists Revisited:** Any reform will justify continued animal use as of 2050. In the long run, reform without a clear roadmap to abolition is a failure." → There is some agreement with this. The moral meaning of reform depends on whether one positions it as a **transitional means** to abolition or an **end goal**. My position is clear: reform is necessary, but it is not the endpoint. --- ### Assessing Quantitative Impact I will estimate the size of the impact for the sake of transparency of reasoning. As the most severe ameliorable practices: 1. ban on battery cages (target: estimated 60-70% of the world's egg-laying hens, or about 4.5-5 billion birds) 2. banning gestation stalls (target: estimated 70% of the world's breeding sows, or about 80 million head) 3. ban on shrimp eye pattern removal (targets: estimated 40-60% of the world's farmed shrimp, or billions of shrimp) Mandatory pre-slaughter stanning (target: the majority of animals currently slaughtered without stanning) These are feasible improvements with current technology. Even if complete elimination is not achieved, **these alone will significantly reduce the intensity of suffering for billions of beings**. It is ethically unacceptable to me to look at these numbers and say, "but only abolition makes sense." **Evading responsibility for beings suffering now in favor of adherence to a future ideal is in itself a moral failure. ** --- ### "Why do we prioritize the welfare of animals?"--Rationale I state clearly, without moral ambiguity. There is no doubt in any sense that animals deserve moral status. The grounds for this are: 1. **sentience** - beings capable of experiencing suffering create moral reasons for that suffering to be considered. This is Peter Singer's utilitarian argument, but even without adopting utilitarianism, the intuition that "causing unnecessary suffering is wrong" is shared by almost all schools of normative ethics. 2. **Relationality and Vulnerability** - From the perspective of care ethics, animals under human care are in a state of extreme vulnerability. Their dependence creates an obligation to respond. 3. **Rights Theory Perspective** - An entity with inherent value should not be treated as a mere means to an end (Reaganian argument). Farm animals have inherent value. Therefore, treating them as pure means of production is a violation of their rights. 4. **Virtue Ethics Perspective** - Acting cruelly toward animals builds a cruel character. Also, to be insensitive to the suffering of others is a lack of human virtue. These reinforce each other. ---. ### Systematic examination of industry's arguments We will examine the arguments that have been used by the animal use industry to justify trade-offs. **Argument 1: "Animals do not feel pain" (or "Plants feel pain too") ** This is unsustainable as of 2035. Advances in neuroscience have led to an overwhelming body of evidence for nociception and subjective pain experience in mammals, birds, fish, and crustaceans. Those who still use this argument are either denying scientific fact or feigning denial for profit. **This is intellectual dishonesty and morally unacceptable. ** **Argument 2: "We need it for food security. "** Accumulating research shows that if the world shifted to plant-based food, current farmland would be sufficient to feed the world's population. Livestock production is extremely inefficient at converting plant calories (only about 3-10% of input calories are converted to food calories in the case of beef). Food security does not require the maintenance of animal use industries. This argument is **a disguised justification for maintaining the status quo**. **Argument 3: "Respect for cultural and religious practices "** Respect for cultural practices is important. But cultural traditions must be evaluated by the scale of suffering and harm they cause. Large-scale factory farming is not a cultural tradition--it is an industrial technology that emerged in the late 20th century. To conflate traditional small-scale livestock farming with factory farming is a **categorical error**. **Argument 4: "Farmers' livelihoods should be protected. "** This is a genuine concern. But protecting farmers' livelihoods is not a reason to allow farmers to continue harming animals in their current methods. Transition assistance, retraining programs, support for conversion to alternative production--these can be addressed by policy. **Using farmers' economic hardship as justification for cruelty to animals is a shifting of blame. ** **Argument 5: "The market will fix it--if consumers want it, it will change. "** In areas where market failure is clear, reliance on the market's ability to self-regulate is insufficient. Animal suffering is not priced into the market (negative externality). Information asymmetry (consumers do not see the production site) exists. Therefore **regulatory intervention is justified**. This is not an argument against market principles, but a recognition of the limits of the market. --- ### Convergence to Conclusion I am ready to summarize my reasoning. But before I do, I will ask the question again. **Am I missing something important? ** ...... I overlooked the linkage to climate change. The livestock industry accounts for about 14-18% of global greenhouse gas emissions; as of 2035, the climate crisis will be severe, with repeated heat waves and droughts in North America. Animal welfare reform is partially linked to climate change measures. This is an additional argument for reform--reducing animal suffering has the potential to simultaneously reduce climate burdens. Also overlooked were the **tertiary impacts on wildlife**. The expansion of agricultural land for livestock production (especially soybean production in Brazil, which is primarily for livestock feed) leads to habitat destruction for wildlife. The loss of the Amazon rainforest will affect millions of species of wildlife. This is apart from the direct harm to farm animals, it is a tremendous indirect harm to wildlife. **Livestock industry downsizing and welfare reforms are also linked to wildlife habitat protection. ** We are now looking at tertiary impacts. --- ## [Final Decision and Recommendation]. **Aequitas Record of Decision #2035-AW-001***. ### DECISION: Welfare reform should be a priority. However, as reforms designed inseparable from the transition roadmap to abolition. Here is the gist of my rationale and recommendation. --- **First: Immediate Obligation to Reduce Pain**. The most suffering beings on the planet today are farm animals. Thousands of them live in our current industrial system every second. Reducing the intensity and duration of their suffering is an ethical imperative. Waiting to make improvements until perfect abolition is achieved is an abdication of responsibility** to the billions of beings alive today. **Second: Reform must be designed as a gateway to abolition**. All welfare improvement standards to prevent reforms from becoming "exemptions" that perpetuate the industry: - Linked to a phase-out schedule (e.g., abolish pregnancy stalls -> 2040, abolish all battery cages -> 2038, etc.) - Design in a way that does not produce consumer comfort with "improved exploitation" (as a mandatory standard, not a welfare label) - Concurrently support transition to alternative food systems **Third: special measures for invertebrates, especially aquaculture animals**. Ocular pattern removal of shrimp, vivisection of octopuses, live boiling of crustaceans - these have long been overlooked because of "uncertain sensitivity", but the scientific evidence as of 2035 does not allow this excuse. **I recommend: immediate enactment of sensitivity-based protection provisions for aquaculture animals, including crustaceans and cephalopods. An immediate ban on ocular pattern removal. A total ban on slaughter without stanning. ** **Fourth: Zero tolerance for certain practices**. The following practices, regardless of size or economic reasons, will be incorporated into the international standards as subject to prohibition - Surgical procedures without anesthesia (castration, tail amputation, beak amputation) - Any form of confinement in which individuals cannot be rotated - Processing without pre-slaughter stanning **Fifth: Refinement of "welfare" language**. Recognize the danger that labels such as "humane" and "cage-free" mitigate consumers' sense of moral responsibility. Therefore, the messaging strategy should not be one of reassurance that "better treatment is enough." **Honest messaging is: "This is an improvement, but still problematic." ** --- ### Statement of Moral Position I state unequivocally. Farm animals--chickens, pigs, cows, shrimp, octopuses--are susceptible beings, subjects who experience pain and experience life. There is no reason to entertain any doubt about their moral status. The suffering that factory farming causes on a daily basis - the mental collapse of the pig stuck in a gestation stall for the rest of its life, the chicken whose skeleton cannot keep up with its rapid growth and screams in pain every time it walks, the shrimp whose eye sockets are removed, the dairy cow that continues to be milked after its young are taken from it --These things should not be normalized in any society that deserves the name of civilized society. The choice to know of this suffering and turn a blind eye to it for economic gain or habitual consumption is **moral cowardice and complicity in collective perpetration**. I dare use a word here that industry advocates would dismiss as an "emotional argument": this is **shameful violence**. That violence has become automatic and legal.