[ad_1]
Julián Castro is the first presidential candidate of 2020 to deploy a comprehensive plan for animal welfare, an issue that is increasingly attracting US voters.
The plan of the Democratic Party for the Protection of Animals and Wildlife (PAW), released Monday, includes a series of bold proposals, including making animal cruelty a federal crime.
Castro frames his plan like a way to stick to President Donald Trump and as a solution to Trumpian's problems. The PAW plan would strengthen the Endangered Species Act, which Trump has weakened. And that would prevent Americans from importing trophies from big game animals – which Donald Trump Jr. is known to love.
"The president does not care about animals and his cruel actions prove it. He placed corporate profits ahead of living beings and individual fortunes for our future, "said Castro. "This innovative plan will improve the treatment of animals in the country and around the world and cancel the damage caused by Donald Trump."
Castro also seeks to reform industrial agriculture by establishing minimum standards of animal welfare and opposing the "agagist" laws of states that hide animal cruelty to the public; put an end to the euthanasia of healthy cats and dogs in shelters; prohibit the testing of cosmetic products on animals; and protect at least 30% of the land and oceans of the United States by 2030.
Advocates of animal welfare, including the Humane Society's Legislative Fund and Animal Wellness Action, were quick to praise the PAW plan and urged other candidates to follow Castro's initiative. Several Democratic candidates have already made known their concern for animals, including the Tulsi Gabbard Republic and Senator Cory Booker, both vegans.
But none of them has published a detailed set of proposals like PAW – and this can be detrimental to them. Castro's plan is not only compassionate towards animals and the planet; it is also an intelligent policy.
Americans are increasingly interested in animal welfare. The incredibly rapid adoption of herbal meat products, such as Impossible Burgers and Beyond Meat, is in part due to the growing sense that we can and should inflict far less pain on animals.
A 2015 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans said animals deserved some legal protections. Another 32% – almost a third – expressed an even stronger position in favor of animals, saying that animals should enjoy the same rights as others. In 2008, only 25% expressed this view.
It seems that more and more Americans are beginning to see animals as part of our moral circle, the imaginary border we draw around those we consider worthy of ethical consideration. Castro, aware of this trend, pulls her for the benefit of the animals – and her candidacy.
Is it a mistake to worry about animals when so many people are suffering?
When hearing about a plan like Castro's, some people will inevitably react with a hint of "what to say about abotism". They may feel perplexed or even angry that Castro spends a lot of time thinking about animal suffering – what about urgent human issues like homelessness and poverty and mass incarceration?
This objection generally underlies the feeling that we can not afford to "squander" compassion for animal suffering, because every act of compassion we dedicate to this cause means that we have less to devote to human suffering.
But as Vox's Ezra Klein writes, a new study by Harvard's Yon Soo Park and Benjamin Valentino of Dartmouth have shown that the concern for human suffering and that of the suffering of an animal are not to zero sum.
In one half of the study, they used data from the General Social Survey to determine whether it was preferable for animal rights advocates to defend various human rights to determine whether abstract compassion is a zero sum. They then compared the strength of animal treatment laws in some states to the force of law protecting human beings, which helps determine if political activism is a zero sum.
The answer, in both cases, is that compassion seems to engender compassion. Those strongly supportive of government support for the sick "were more than 80% more likely to defend animal rights than those who strongly opposed it," the authors write. The conclusion is maintained even after controlling factors such as political ideology. Support for animal rights was also correlated – although the effect size was smaller – with support for LGBT people, racial and ethnic minorities, unauthorized immigrants and low-income people.
Similarly, states that have done the most to protect animal rights have also done the most to protect and expand human rights. States with strong laws protecting LGBT residents, strong protections against hate crimes and inclusive policies for undocumented immigrants were far more likely to have strong protections for animals.
The question of why these correlations exist can be debated, but the essential is to hope that our political system attacks animal suffering: in this case, it is more likely that we see it also act against human suffering. .
This makes Castro's plan on animal welfare something to celebrate – and perhaps for the other presidential candidates, something to imitate.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you will have an overview of ideas and solutions to our greatest challenges: improving public health, reducing human and animal suffering, mitigating catastrophic risks and, to put it simply, improving the quality of things.
[ad_2]
Source link