Document type: article published in Nature 618:667-668. DOI:
Author : Jonathan Birch
Preview: Book review Animal Liberation Now Peter Singer Bodley Head (2023)
[...] We know as much as we do about the welfare implications of intensive farming because of the work of scientists and campaigners. Many of them were inspired to enter these areas by Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation, first published in 1975. It was one of the first books to document the suffering caused to animals in detail, and present it together with strident ethical arguments calling for action. Almost 50 years later, Singer has produced a massively revised and updated edition, Animal Liberation Now. The new material is not all bad news. The book showcases signature achievements of the animal-welfare movement [...]. But it is mostly bad news. Many problems have worsened. In a long chapter on intensive farming, Singer lets loose a barrage of unconscionable facts. [...] In this part of the book, ethical commentary takes a back seat to the dispassionate communication of facts. That is a wise choice, because the facts speak for themselves.
Facing the facts
But what can we, as individuals, do about it? [...] In a few places, notably Sweden and Germany, meat consumption has begun to fall in recent years; but in most, demand has only risen in the decades since Animal Liberation, and it is projected to grow further. Singer is acutely aware of the objection that, from a producer's point of view, a consumer's behaviour is just noise in the data against a clear trend of rising demand. An individual changing their habits does not send a signal that would force companies to cut supply. So, what is the point?
Singer has always struggled to reply to this convincingly because he is committed to a way of thinking about ethics that centers on individual actions. I think the right reply is to shift the focus from individual to collective actions. Pushing for systemic change is something we must do together. Our individual contributions will be negligible, but our coordinated action has the power to shift industry norms. [...]The goals of such actions should include policy changes, including a reduction in the government subsidies that flow to intensive animal agriculture, not just dietary adjustments.
The climate connection
Later in the book, Singer makes valuable connections between animal welfare and the fight against climate change, an issue that was (by his own admission) not on his radar in 1975. [...] Shifting away from meat is highly recommended on environmental grounds. Yet there are genuine points of conflict, which Singer underplays. Environmental campaigners tend to see reducing beef consumption as their top priority, because the emissions associated with beef production are so great. But they sometimes recommend replacing beef with chicken, potentially further increasing demand for one of the lowest-welfare kinds of farming.
Moreover, there are some rhetorical and philosophical choices that will always limit the book's appeal. In both editions, Singer rests his arguments on the rejection of 'speciesism': a type of discrimination that Singer likens to sexism or racism, but on grounds of species. For Singer, we might differ in how we treat an animal on the grounds of cognitive capacity, but never just because it is a different species. For example, he argues, if you would be willing to kill a pig and harvest its organs to benefit people (if they were human-compatible), you should be willing to do the same to a human infant born without parts of its brain and skull, which has less mental capacity than the pig.
Singer is a committed utilitarian, advocating solutions that maximize overall well-being: the greatest happiness for the highest number. He thus favours taking organs from both the pig and the infant if the benefits are large enough, relative to any suffering caused. This is a Singer litmus test: some readers will welcome the comparison, most will seethe. Disability-rights campaigners have long found this style of argument exasperating and offensive. The tragedy of Singer's approach is that two progressive movements that should be allied end up seemingly opposed. [...] Animal welfare in research
A second questionable choice is to put animal experimentation in the same bracket as intensive farming, portraying it as another manifestation of egregious speciesism. In the case of animal research, the harms and benefits are often balanced much more finely, and Singer's trenchant style seems less appropriate. Although he is not an absolutist abolitionist [...] the vast majority of animal research is in his crosshairs. Yet an awkward truth is that protecting animal welfare requires an understanding of animal minds and behaviour, and the understanding we have rests substantially on animal research. [...]The book is a reminder that plain, well-sourced facts, starkly presented, often speak louder than philosophical arguments.
