Abstract
Research in economics is anthropocentric. It only cares about the welfare of humans, and usually does not concern itself with animals. When it does, animals are treated as resources, biodiversity, or food. That is, animals only have instrumental value for humans. Yet unlike water, trees or vegetables, and like humans, most animals have a brain and a nervous system. They can feel pain and pleasure, and many argue that their welfare should matter. Some economic studies value animal welfare, but only indirectly through humans’ altruistic valuation. This overall position of economics is inconsistent with the utilitarian tradition and can be qualified as speciesist. We suggest that economics should directly value the welfare of sentient animals, at least sometimes. We briefly discuss some possible implications and challenges for (environmental) economics.
Generated Summary
This research article explores the integration of animal welfare into environmental economics, advocating for a shift from anthropocentric approaches to one that directly values the welfare of sentient animals. The study delves into the philosophical underpinnings of animal welfare, examining historical and contemporary perspectives on the moral consideration of animals. It then provides an overview of animal populations, sentience, and the complex relationship between humans and animals in the context of the Anthropocene era. The core argument centers on the need to reconsider traditional economic models that primarily focus on human welfare and to incorporate the intrinsic value of animals into social welfare functions. The methodology involves a review of existing literature across various disciplines, including philosophy, animal science, and economics, to highlight the current state of research and propose potential avenues for future exploration. The study examines the challenges and possibilities of valuing animal welfare, with a focus on the implications for environmental economics and policy making. The article also touches on the limitations of current economic approaches, the role of property rights, and the potential for intervention in nature to improve animal welfare, touching upon the role of the ‘veil of ignorance’ to address impartiality.
Key Findings & Statistics
- There are about 300 million pets in the U.S., with the most common being fish (105 million), cats (86 million) and dogs (78 million) (Green 2016).
- 48% of U.S. households own a dog, and 38 % own a cat (APPA 2018).
- At the EU-28 level, in 2016, 18% of households own a dog, 26% own a cat, and around 35% own any kind of pet (FEDIAF 2017).
- In 2005, there were around 115.3 million vertebrate lab animals used per year (Taylor et al. 2005).
- The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations estimates the total population of livestock to be over 30 billion.
- The total global population of chickens is 22,847 million.
- The total global population of cattle is 1,492 million.
- The total global population of sheep is 1,202 million.
- The total global population of ducks is 1,151 million.
- The total global population of goats is 1,034 million.
- The total global population of pigs is 967 million.
- The total global population of turkeys is 459 million.
- The total global population of geese and guinea fowls is 371 million.
- The total global population of rabbits and hares is 309 million.
- Estimates of bird populations range from 200 billion to 400 billion.
- Estimates of mammal populations range from 450 billion to 900 billion.
- Reptile populations are estimated to be between 100 billion and 10 trillion.
- Amphibian populations are estimated to be between 100 billion and 10 trillion.
- Worldwide fish biomass is estimated to be in the vicinity of 1 to 2 billion tonnes (wet mass).
- Estimates of the total number of fish range from 125.3 trillion to 354 trillion individuals.
- The study cites that about 15% of conference participants order vegetarian meals.
- The study cites that the rate of species extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years.
- About 1 million species are at risk of extinction nowadays, half of those are plants or animals and half are insects.
- Plants account for over 80% of all living biomass.
- Animals account for only 0.37% of biomass.
- Fish represent more than 100 times the biomass of humans, and humans represent almost 100 times the biomass of wild (terrestrial) mammals.
- The biomass of livestock is almost twice that of humans.
- The study references 32 recorded papers in the top 50 economic journals related to animal welfare (Microsoft Academic’s database).
- The study notes that in the WEB OF SCIENCE™ in July 2019, there are 290 hits for “meat” versus 32 for the study of animals’ interests.
- The study indicates that a human life year is worth about 344 mammal life years, and about 10,700 fish life years.
Other Important Findings
- The study highlights that most animals, unlike plants, have brains and nervous systems, capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.
- Economists often treat animals as resources or inputs to human endeavors, such as food or biodiversity, rather than considering their intrinsic value.
- The concept of sentience, or the capacity to feel and experience, is crucial in discussions about animal welfare.
- The authors point out that current economic models often fail to account for the intrinsic value of animals, relying instead on human preferences.
- Some economists argue that animals have instrumental value, while others indirectly incorporate animal welfare through human altruism.
- The study suggests that incorporating animal interests directly into the social objective is a plausible improvement to normative analysis.
- Various philosophical perspectives on animal welfare, including utilitarianism, rights-based approaches, and the concept of speciesism, are discussed.
- The paper emphasizes the need to reconsider our anthropocentric approach in (environmental) economics.
- The study of animal welfare using rigorous scientific methods is relatively recent, and a lot remains to be learned.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study acknowledges that population numbers for wild animals are particularly uncertain, and estimates often provide rough orders of magnitude.
- The definition and characterization of sentience are complex and subject to ongoing scientific discussions, with no universally agreed-upon definition.
- The study points out the lack of a global definition, scientific uncertainty, and methodological limitations regarding sentience.
- The study is limited by the scarcity of research on animal welfare in leading economics journals.
- The study indicates that it is difficult, if not taboo, to compare the utility of different human beings, and the comparison between humans and animals is obviously a daunting ethical task but also complicated practical one.
- The paper notes that many journals in the top 50 list are not considered to be important in standard economics.
- The Microsoft Academic database is not exhaustive.
- The authors note that “the question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”
Conclusion
The core argument of the paper is that mainstream economics, which is largely anthropocentric, should reconsider its approach to include the direct valuation of animal welfare. The authors advocate for a shift in how economics views animals, moving beyond the treatment of animals as mere resources or commodities. One of the key takeaways is that animals, particularly those capable of sentience, deserve moral consideration, which should influence environmental economics and policy decisions. The authors suggest that while challenging, incorporating animal welfare into social welfare functions could lead to a more comprehensive and ethically sound approach. The authors refer to Yew-Kwang Ng’s work that identifies “welfare biology” as a valid field of scientific study, yet it has not taken off as a field of research. The paper highlights the need for more research on animal welfare and sentience, including how to define and measure sentience, and how to incorporate it into a social objective. The authors suggest that it would be useful to compute the costs and benefits of improving animal welfare. It is argued that the effective altruism movement prioritizes altruistic actions based on their cost-effectiveness, as a great illustration of how economics can be used in practice to contribute to animal-related issues. The article concludes by emphasizing the potential for future (environmental) economists to more conscientiously value the welfare of animals. This shift is seen as a necessary step towards addressing the complex issues at the intersection of animal welfare and environmental economics. The authors stress that the research agenda is not limited to normative issues such as welfare measurement or social choice and point to a few: meat production, climate change, biodiversity loss, and endangered species legislation.