Why are animal advocates reluctant to acknowledge the divergence?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume V, p. 41 of the PDF edition · English translation

In the previous chapters we saw that many people who care about animals accept environmentalist programs because they mistakenly think the goal of environmentalism is to benefit animals. That is, environmentalism is often confused with animal advocacy. In chapter 7 we investigated several possible explanations for why this confusion exists and is so prevalent. In this chapter we will investigate something related, but different. We will investigate some possible reasons why, even after understanding the (theoretical and practical) opposition between consideration for animals and environmentalism, many animal advocates are reluctant to acknowledge this divergence and continue to act as if it did not exist.

11.1. The fear of going against environmentalism

One of the main factors behind animal advocates' reluctance to acknowledge the divergence is the belief that, if someone criticizes environmentalism, then that person is arguing that we should not care about the effects of human practices on the environment, and that it is therefore fine to pollute, deplete natural resources, increase environmental degradation, set fires, and so on. This is one of the main reasons why any criticism of environmentalism tends to be viewed with suspicion at first.

As we saw in chapter 1, this is a confusion that exists because the word environmentalism is used in several different senses. Sometimes it is used to refer to the view that advocates concern for the environment as a resource for sentient beings. At other times it is used to refer to the view holding that certain nonsentient entities have intrinsic value (and not as a resource for sentient beings). As made explicit in chapter 1, it is in this second sense that we have used the term in this work, since it is this view that is confused with consideration for animals. Rejecting environmentalism in this second sense does not imply saying that we should not care about issues affecting the environment. We can care just as much, but because we are concerned with the way sentient beings will be affected.

However, most people do not see this point, and so the fear that rejecting environmentalism implies not caring about the way our actions affect the environment is one of the factors underlying animal advocates' reluctance to acknowledge the divergence between environmentalism and consideration for animals.

Moreover, this terminological confusion is sometimes exploited deliberately. For example, suppose that someone dishonest wants to distort sentience-centered ethics and falsely claims that, because it rejects environmentalism, it implies not caring about the way we affect the environment. As we have seen, this claim is false. However, when a false statement is repeated countless times, the number of people who may come to believe it can be surprisingly large.

There is a bias related to this phenomenon, the availability cascade, which occurs when an idea gains more and more acceptance the more it is repeated in public discourse, even if it is implausible. This happens mainly because most people do not check whether the information they receive is true and also because of the bandwagon effect (the habit of adopting certain behaviors or beliefs just because many other people do the same). Another related effect is the illusory truth effect: when we hear a piece of false information repeated many times, we commonly come to believe that it is true even if we know it is not.

These biases seem to explain much not only of the fear of going against environmentalism, but also of the mass adherence to environmentalism itself

11.2. The difficulty of revising beliefs and practices

Most animal advocates have believed for years that environmentalism and animal advocacy go hand in hand. This association goes beyond beliefs: it also involves practices. Many of these activists have supported environmentalist programs, actively participated in environmental campaigns, donated to environmental organizations, and so on. There are several biases that incline us to be reluctant to abandon the beliefs and practices we hold. This reluctance is greater the longer we have held these beliefs and practices. Thus, this may be another of the factors that explain animal advocates' reluctance to acknowledge the divergences between animal advocacy and environmentalism.

There are a great many biases that can incline us in this direction. These biases can make someone insist that environmentalism and animal advocacy do not conflict, even when presented with all the evidence that they do. Examples of biases of this sort are belief perseverance (the tendency to cling to the beliefs we already hold in the face of contrary evidence) and anchoring bias (the tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information we receive about a subject).

Moreover, discovering that environmentalism and animal advocacy diverge can produce cognitive dissonance, that is, a discomfort that arises from holding beliefs that conflict with one another. One way of dealing with this dissonance is to assess which of the beliefs we should reject and then act accordingly. However, the conflict is usually "resolved" by discrediting or avoiding the information that would reveal the inconsistency.

There are also biases that can make someone act as if there were no divergence even after acknowledging that there is one (simply because they acted for a long time believing there was none). One example is the continued influence effect, which occurs when a mistaken belief continues to influence memory and reasoning even though it has already been corrected and we agree with the correction.

Moreover, certain biases can incline people to think that whoever points out the divergence is ill-intentioned, not because there is any evidence of this, but simply because that person is asking them to revise their beliefs and attitudes. One example is the hostile attribution bias, which inclines us to see an interlocutor who questions our beliefs not as someone who wants to inform us of something, but as someone who has a hidden malicious intent

Finally, there are certain biases that influence resistance to change depending on how much someone has already invested in practice in what would have to be changed. One example is commitment bias (the tendency to remain committed to our past behaviors, especially when they were displayed publicly).

11.3. Conclusion

We have seen that there are at least two factors underlying animal advocates' reluctance to acknowledge the divergences between animal advocacy and environmentalism. One of them is the mistaken belief that, if we reject environmentalism, we will not care about the impact of our practices on the environment. The other is the set of biases that produce a tendency to be reluctant to revise beliefs, attitudes, and practices, especially if they have been held for a long time.

Animal advocates, when they advocate the abolition of animal exploitation, rightly point out that we all need to overcome these biases and do what is just. However, what we have seen above shows that animal advocates, like anyone else, are not immune to being strongly influenced by the same biases when it comes to revising other beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Therefore, if our goal is really to benefit animals, we must also strive to abandon the idea that animal advocacy and environmentalism do not conflict, since the practical consequences of this idea have led many people, including animal advocates, to approve of practices that seriously harm an enormous number of animals.