Yes, YOU — no, not the guy in front of you — YOU, the person with the furrowed brow, pointing at yourself and mouthing “me?” — YOU can fundraise for shrimps!
It's crazy that the Daily Show read a Bentham's Bulldog post. Ross Douthat also reads his blog, it's nuts. He should try to write an article for a newspaper or something, seems like there's enough interest.
In an earlier Substack post made by Glenn, commenter Sol Hando wrote the following. There was no substantial reply to Hando's objection, and I wonder if anyone who is "in the know" can comment.
==========
Being cold sucks for sure, but for humans used to it it’s really more of an inconvenience (I.E. Whim Hoff and my personal experience). Considering shrimps are cold blooded, they absolutely don’t feel the same sort of pain warm blooded animals do from the cold. For us any temperature below normal basically means you’re on a timer for how long you have to live. For cold blooded animals this isn’t so, and many apparently comfortably live at body temperatures approaching freezing.
Considering shrimp are in abundance in Antarctica, where the water is quite cold, and they seemingly don’t mind living there, I’d wager death by hypothermia for a shrimp is probably one of the most humane and least painful methods we have available. Considering a shrimp has about the heat capacity of a quarter, they would also go from normal to hypothermic/unconscious in a very short period of time.
Is the Shrimp Welfare Project going to bring us closer to a vegan world, or will it simply make consumers feel better about eating shrimp? I realize that the abolitionist approach has perhaps fallen out of fashion among activists, but it still makes intuitive sense to me.
I actually do think shrimp welfare brings us closer to a vegan world, yes.
In the status quo, people don't even know what ice slurry and eyestalk ablation are, and when you try to inform them while asking them to go vegan, they just take it as an attack against themselves and ignore you.
When you run corporate campaigns against retailers that source low-welfare shrimps — which SWP doesn't do directly, but enables other groups like Mercy for Animals to do while it plays Good Cop — you raise awareness and cast corporations rather than consumers as the actors at fault, which avoids a defensive reaction from most people.
If anything, we should expect people to feel *more* guilty and be *less* likely to eat shrimps after they learn about welfare reforms. This is what the research consistently shows when you tell people about welfare reforms in a laboratory setting and then ask their opinions about eating animals.
> you raise awareness and cast corporations rather than consumers as the actors at fault
Maybe the effectiveness of campaigns is ultimately more of an empirical question than a philosophical one. But speaking for myself, I went vegan when I accepted the fact that I was the actor at fault. As philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson put it,
"Do I want to participate in an institution that uses animals as resources -- that confines them, deprives them of social lives, frustrates their urges, alters their diets and bodies, and eventually kills them in the prime of their lives? It’s a matter of not getting one’s hands dirty, of not collaborating with evil. Perhaps other people can do these things, I say, but _I_ can’t. I want no part of such a cruel institution. There will be no blood on _my_ hands."
I think this is a false dichotomy: it probably won’t make any consumers more likely to be vegan, and will make sone consumers feel better about their choices. Also, it will vastly reduce the suffering of prawns!
I'm a bit out of the loop with this stuff. As I understand it, the stunners are expensive but render the shrimp unconscious before they're killed. And the stunners are not traditionally used. How do we know that the shrimp farmers (or catchers or harvesters, or whatever they're called) are actually using the stunners that they're given? Wouldn't we need some kind of surprise inspections? Seems like they could just put the thing in a warehouse (or sell it), and no one would be the wiser.
So it sounds like there are checkups. I suppose you could not use the stunner, and then pretend to use it during checkups. But I don't see the incentive for doing that. Also you can't sell it:
"SWP grants the producer indefinite usage, but retains ownership of the equipment and can reclaim if agreed terms are not being met - for instance minimum volumes, welfare standards, equipment cleaning/maintenance, etc. Current funding allows for one unit per producer only; further units would need to be analysed and negotiated in good faith after a minimum period of 12 months of successful utilisation."
Im so grateful for what you are doing 🙏🏽. BTW, I’m actually a friend of this blog too ☺️🦐💪🏾
Sounds good, I'll try to think of something novel to say in defence of our crustacean friends and share. Thanks for organising Glenn!
I’ll join of course
It's crazy that the Daily Show read a Bentham's Bulldog post. Ross Douthat also reads his blog, it's nuts. He should try to write an article for a newspaper or something, seems like there's enough interest.
Yeah maybe
In an earlier Substack post made by Glenn, commenter Sol Hando wrote the following. There was no substantial reply to Hando's objection, and I wonder if anyone who is "in the know" can comment.
==========
Being cold sucks for sure, but for humans used to it it’s really more of an inconvenience (I.E. Whim Hoff and my personal experience). Considering shrimps are cold blooded, they absolutely don’t feel the same sort of pain warm blooded animals do from the cold. For us any temperature below normal basically means you’re on a timer for how long you have to live. For cold blooded animals this isn’t so, and many apparently comfortably live at body temperatures approaching freezing.
Considering shrimp are in abundance in Antarctica, where the water is quite cold, and they seemingly don’t mind living there, I’d wager death by hypothermia for a shrimp is probably one of the most humane and least painful methods we have available. Considering a shrimp has about the heat capacity of a quarter, they would also go from normal to hypothermic/unconscious in a very short period of time.
I don't see why we would think cold blooded animals don't feel pain from being too cold. What's the logic there?
As for the Antarctica point, basically all of the most commonly farmed shrimp species, including P. vannamei and P. monodon, are warm water species. Research suggests it takes at least 20 minutes in ice slurry before they're rendered unconscious (https://www.humaneworld.org/sites/default/files/docs/hsus-report-animal-welfare-crustaceans-slaughter.pdf).
Peak satire manifest
Is the Shrimp Welfare Project going to bring us closer to a vegan world, or will it simply make consumers feel better about eating shrimp? I realize that the abolitionist approach has perhaps fallen out of fashion among activists, but it still makes intuitive sense to me.
I actually do think shrimp welfare brings us closer to a vegan world, yes.
In the status quo, people don't even know what ice slurry and eyestalk ablation are, and when you try to inform them while asking them to go vegan, they just take it as an attack against themselves and ignore you.
When you run corporate campaigns against retailers that source low-welfare shrimps — which SWP doesn't do directly, but enables other groups like Mercy for Animals to do while it plays Good Cop — you raise awareness and cast corporations rather than consumers as the actors at fault, which avoids a defensive reaction from most people.
If anything, we should expect people to feel *more* guilty and be *less* likely to eat shrimps after they learn about welfare reforms. This is what the research consistently shows when you tell people about welfare reforms in a laboratory setting and then ask their opinions about eating animals.
See: https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/welfare-reforms-survey/
Also: https://reducing-suffering.org/a-small-mechanical-turk-survey-on-ethics-and-animal-welfare/#Eating_fish
> you raise awareness and cast corporations rather than consumers as the actors at fault
Maybe the effectiveness of campaigns is ultimately more of an empirical question than a philosophical one. But speaking for myself, I went vegan when I accepted the fact that I was the actor at fault. As philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson put it,
"Do I want to participate in an institution that uses animals as resources -- that confines them, deprives them of social lives, frustrates their urges, alters their diets and bodies, and eventually kills them in the prime of their lives? It’s a matter of not getting one’s hands dirty, of not collaborating with evil. Perhaps other people can do these things, I say, but _I_ can’t. I want no part of such a cruel institution. There will be no blood on _my_ hands."
I think this is a false dichotomy: it probably won’t make any consumers more likely to be vegan, and will make sone consumers feel better about their choices. Also, it will vastly reduce the suffering of prawns!
I'm a bit out of the loop with this stuff. As I understand it, the stunners are expensive but render the shrimp unconscious before they're killed. And the stunners are not traditionally used. How do we know that the shrimp farmers (or catchers or harvesters, or whatever they're called) are actually using the stunners that they're given? Wouldn't we need some kind of surprise inspections? Seems like they could just put the thing in a warehouse (or sell it), and no one would be the wiser.
From the SWP website:
"SWP welcomes applications and referrals for any producers meeting the following criteria:
- Min stunned volume of 1,800-2,000 MT/year (depending on the stunner model).
- ‘Good’ (or improving) welfare practices in other areas, e.g. no eyestalk ablation, water quality, stocking density.
- Ability to safely integrate stunner (transport, power, usage) directly at each pond/harvesting site.
- Agreement to support occasional and pre-agreed visits by other parties considering stunner adoption."
(https://www.shrimpwelfareproject.org/humane-slaughter-initiative)
So it sounds like there are checkups. I suppose you could not use the stunner, and then pretend to use it during checkups. But I don't see the incentive for doing that. Also you can't sell it:
"SWP grants the producer indefinite usage, but retains ownership of the equipment and can reclaim if agreed terms are not being met - for instance minimum volumes, welfare standards, equipment cleaning/maintenance, etc. Current funding allows for one unit per producer only; further units would need to be analysed and negotiated in good faith after a minimum period of 12 months of successful utilisation."