Fur, circuses, and the low-hanging fruit
Janet M. Davis wrote an interesting article for the PBS website about the Jack London Club, which was an early-20th-century group opposed to animal performances. I haven’t read her history of the humane movement of that era, The Gospel of Kindness, so I’m not sure to what degree she focuses on this organization, but I don’t believe there is a full-length book dedicated solely to it. That seems overdue.
Anyway, in her article, Davis mentions John Ringling, apparently in response to Jack London Club activity, banned big cat acts from his circus in 1925. This was a temporary win, however, as Ringling reincorporated these performances into his show in 1929. It’s something I was previously aware of and would like to learn more about, because it troubles me. It goes to show how temporary progress can be, especially if it isn’t enshrined in law.
My current activism focuses on increasing federal funding for cultivated-meat research. For those who don’t know, cultivated meat is grown from animal cells, without slaughter. The revolutionary product is currently sold in a few high-end restaurants, but it’s prohibitively expensive for regular people to adopt. My hope is that further research will help the protein achieve price parity with slaughtered meat.
After getting Representative John Larson and Senator Chris Murphy to commit to support increased funding, I’ve been unable to convince Senator Richard Blumenthal to do the same. I tell myself even if, for the moment, I’m just raising awareness — amongst the general public and Blumenthal’s staff — I’m doing something worthwhile. But there are times when I question whether my efforts would be better spent elsewhere.
One of the biggest temptations for me is shifting my focus to passing laws restricting fur sales and animal circuses. We are living through a period in which achieving such bans are very much within the realm of possibility. You see them passing in countries around the world and cities and states across America. We have the chance to outlaw whole categories of animal exploitation. Who knows how long that window of change will remain open?
However, I keep coming back to the knowledge these categories of animal exploitation which could be eliminated are actually minuscule compared to the largest category, the use of nonhumans as food. For instance, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals estimates 100 million creatures are killed every year for their fur. In comparison, estimates for how many aquatic and land animals we kill annually for food are more than a trillion.
Obviously, I’m not opposed to banning fur sales or animal circuses. I very much hope this happens and I think questions about these issues should appear on a long list we ask prospective politicians. But I can’t justify shifting focus away from accelerating the development of cultivated meat, despite roadblocks and doubts about what I can achieve individually. The potential of the technology to save animals is just too great. I have to trust other activists will recognize this.
Think about what even relative failure might look like for cultivated meat. My hope is that eventually, the product is cheaper and indistinguishable in taste from slaughtered options, paving the way for animal liberation. But imagine that doesn’t happen. Say cultivated meat only ever captures one percent of the current global meat market. Scratch that. Say it only ever captures .1 percent of the current market.
My math skills are pretty bad. But if we assume the current meat market kills 1 trillion creatures every year, Google tells me this hypothetical low-adoption rate of cultivated meat would save a billion animals annually. Advancing cellular agriculture seems far more productive to me than any other form of activism, even if you’re not optimistic about its prospects to upend the food industry.