LIFE NOT WORTH LIVING: Calculating the social costs of animal agriculture
The researchers argue that, on balance, the experience of being a farmed animal is probably worse than not existing. That is, it’s not a worthwhile life.
NICK SOUTER: When evaluating industries, economists sometimes think in terms of “externalities.” This refers to costs or benefits to groups that aren’t themselves producing for or consuming from that industry. In the case of modern animal agriculture, these unrepresented groups include farmed animals who suffer as a result of farming, and future humans who will experience the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from farming. By thinking about the consequences of externalities for unrepresented groups, it’s possible to put a number, in dollars, on the “social cost” (the total cost to society) of an industry.
In this paper, researchers attempted to calculate the social cost of animal agriculture… The researchers assume that, if a life is more good than it is bad, it adds to social welfare (the overall welfare of society)… the researchers argue that, on balance, the experience of being a farmed animal is probably worse than not existing. That is, it’s not a worthwhile life. This is based partly on a previous study of experts including philosophers, activists, and farmers, who largely stated that the life of a broiler chicken was not worth living.
If we decide that the life of one farmed animal is a bad thing, this has huge implications for the industry as a whole. Tens of billions of animals are raised and slaughtered each year, largely made up of chickens. The researchers state that the experience of living as a farmed animal is the equivalent to a human living on $1 a day. This number may seem arbitrary, but it’s based on the idea that the life of an average farmed animal is worse than a neutral human life…
When calculating the social cost of animal agriculture, the researchers used a model which considers the greenhouse gas emissions caused by the industry, the damage that occurs as a result, and its effects on animal welfare. From there, they found that the annual social cost of an individual eating meat is around $122,837. Of this, only $47 is caused by environmental damage, while the rest is attributed to animal welfare.
Over the entire population, $47 each a year is still a large impact. However, the negative impacts on animal welfare are clearly much larger, even if we assume that the quality of life for a farmed animal is only slightly worse than neutral. Of course, these numbers don’t reflect an actual amount of money that would be saved by switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet. This is just a way of putting a number on the negative impacts of animal agriculture…
Driven by the lower environmental impact, a consumer might decide to eat less beef, but more chicken. While cow consumption might be more climate-intensive, eating chickens requires a larger number of animals to be raised and slaughtered… This means more lives in existence that are not worth living, which drives up the social costs of a diet that includes meat. From both a social welfare and a general animal welfare perspective, it might not be effective to encourage people to eat less beef if they are substituting it for chicken. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEOS: