If you care about animals and want to alleviate their suffering, but you do not know what they can do, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) is an organization that can help. A nonprofit organization from California provides an annual guide to animal welfare organizations, and has just released this year’s list. (Disclosure: ACE funded Future Perfect funding in 2020 and 2021.)
Two of the top three assistants focus on repairing things on factory farms – which makes sense, because they are the most vulnerable areas. It is not the only death that occurs there – in the US alone, industrial agriculture kills almost 10 billion land animals every year – but the suffering that animals are forced to endure is still alive. Chickens, calves, and pigs are often trapped in very small gaps can’t move, and conditions are so bad that “ag-gag”Laws are in place to cover up violence.
When we hear about some of these things – like chickens being forced to lay eggs on a fast to their own the intestines sometimes come out slightly under stress – we might want to stop them. But it can be difficult to know which organizations will use our money best.
ACE explores and promotes the most effective, most effective animal care systems. Group uses three main methods when choosing to accept an organization, like my former colleague Kelsey Piper he explained:
- Resources must be “possible to bring significant benefits to animals”- meaning that they are doing a very good job and that they have the evidence to prove it.
- Sponsors must “monitoring and updating their programs expeditiously”- they always try to find the best way to support the animals (which may change over time) and to adapt their programs accordingly.
- Charities need to “have more funding” – they really need more money to be able to reach everyone who knows how to get there (which is not the case for any charitable organization).
With this in mind, ACE has selected the top three charities in 2021:
1) Faunalytics: This is from the US useless and just a little bit about animal communication: It conducts and publishes independent research, especially on pets, in order to make representatives of other animals more sensitive to evidence.
For example, it investigates human psychology data about how to respond to human perceptions about animals in a way that leads to behavioral change. ACE argues that humanitarian research and neglected interventions, writes, “Faunalytics programs assist animal advocacy groups by exploring motivational strategies, challenging areas, and strategies, as well as providing attorneys with a secure database of academic research.”
2) Humane League: Established in 2005, this organization currently operates in the US, Mexico, UK, and Japan. It runs a successful campaign to encourage organizations to adhere to the highest standards of animal care. It has been working to eliminate the use of closed batteries around the world and change things for domestic chickens. It also applies to underground cases. Most importantly, the Humane League has evidence-driven ideas, collecting and using data to guide its approach, and experimenting with new ways to expand its programs.
3) The Origin of Wildlife: As my friend Dylan Matthews is written, this group is doing something special: research and promoting wildlife support systems. Instead of focusing on the welfare of the animals in the factory farms, it focuses on the animal rights of free animals, from birds to bears to insects. It education Questions such as: What animals can be subjective experience? What is their life like in the wild? How can we help them safely and consistently?
The ACE also cited other well-known organizations – organizations that are said to be doing well even though they have not been in the top three – such as xiaobuVEGAN, a Chinese organization that aims to reduce the suffering of domestic animals and increase the availability of non-animal products in China, and Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations, who pursue similar goals in India. It’s interesting to see non-US groups on display, such as Marc Gunther he explained in Vox, most domestic animals are outside the US and EU.
If you donate to one of the above charities, you can be sure that your money will be well spent to reduce the suffering of animals. And if you are not sure which of them you want to give, you can give to them He sponsored the Charity Fund and leave it to ACE to allocate funds according to what their research shows to be the most effective at the moment.
Is it wrong to be concerned about animals when many people are suffering?
The American people are very concerned about animal health. The incredibly fast following a low-fat diet as Impossible Burger and Beef Beef among other things, it is due to the growing perception that we can and should irritate very few animals.
In 2015 Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans said that animals should be legally protected. Another 32 percent – about a third – expressed the animal’s courage, saying it believed animals should enjoy the same human rights. In 2008, only 25 percent he brought out those ideas.
It seems that more and more Americans are coming to see animals as part of our culture quality circle, the imaginary limits that we draw to those whom we consider to be worthy of consideration.
Some people, however, are affected by this “whataboutism”: What about the immediate problems people face such as plague and poverty? At the outset of this contradiction is the idea that we cannot “destroy” compassion for the suffering of animals, because any care we give for that reason means that we have little or no commitment to human suffering.
But if Ezra Klein wrote, research from Yon Soo Park in Harvard and Benjamin Valentino of Dartmouth showed that worrying about human suffering and suffering from animal suffering is not zero-sum – in fact, when you find one, you tend to find another:
In the first half of the study, they used the data of the General Social Survey to see if animal rights activists were willing to support a variety of human rights, to consider it as an irrational compassion and a zero-sum. He then compared how animal protection laws were effective in one country and how strong laws protected people, considering them as political incentives and zero-sum.
The answer, in both cases, is to show compassion. People who were more interested in government support for patients “were more than 80 percent more likely to support animal rights than those who strongly oppose it,” the authors wrote. write. The discovery was made even after he corrected things like political ideology. Animal rights support was also intertwined – though the magnitude of the consequences was small – with the help of LGBT people, minorities of races and ethnicities, the underprivileged, and low-income people.
In the same way, countries that have worked hard to protect animal rights have done much to protect and enhance human rights. Countries with strong LGBT residency laws, strong protection from hate crimes, and the principles of incorporating undocumented immigrants were able to have stronger animal protection.
The question of why these connections exist is controversial, but more importantly, we can expect our group to take action on animal suffering: If so, we can also see them contributing to human suffering. .