Food for thought: why we must save animals to save ourselves

Hubris, humiliation and the nexus of nature

Richard Feynman, the maverick theoretical physicist who shed light on the mysteries of quantum mechanics, once remarked: “Nature’s imagination far surpasses our own.” If he were still with us today, more than 30 years after he died from a rare cancer that defied medical wisdom, he would surely recognise the irony of a devastating pandemic striking in an age when the concept of hyperconnectivity is so celebrated.

Our mastery of digitisation, data, networking and communications is widely viewed as confirmation of our self-proclaimed pre-eminence. It fuels our hubris and underscores our sense of all-pervading dominance. Yet we are now being reminded – not for the first time – that our understanding of the hyperconnectivity that has forever defined the natural world, by stark contrast, remains humiliatingly inadequate.

Perhaps nowhere is this enduring ignorance more evident than in our efforts to prevent another COVID-style disaster. We have implemented lockdowns, social distancing and the wearing of masks to contain the virus’s spread from one human to another, but we have done comparatively little – if anything – to guard against its spread from other constituents of what we might call the nexus of nature.

In particular, we appear strangely determined to overlook the critical role that our treatment of animals could play in deciding our fate. Even though the informed consensus is that the contempt that we display towards our fellow creatures is at the heart of this crisis and very likely to be at the heart of the crises still to come, the status quo remains virtually undisturbed.

There may be numerous reasons for this. The debate around animal cruelty is perceived as inviting uncomfortable questions about the customs of certain countries, cultures or religions; it forces us to confront our own ingrained preferences and habits; it is also liable to provoke the ire of agribusiness.

These are, of course, delicate and daunting considerations. It is already clear that they present sizeable barriers to progress. In the final reckoning, though, how important, inviolable or taboo can any of them be when weighed against the very real prospect of another global catastrophe?

Inextricable links and unlearnt lessons

There is growing acknowledgment of the links between a number of the existential challenges facing our planet and its inhabitants. Overpopulation, climate change and deforestation are all closely related to each other. They are also closely related to the longer-term health, wellbeing and survival – or otherwise – of humanity.

Significantly, the same can be said for the ways in which we produce and consume food. As demand for animal protein continues to mount, unsustainable and even reckless practices are taking an ever-greater toll on the environment – and, crucially, on the population.

As has been well documented, one of the likeliest sources of the COVID-19 outbreak was a “wet market” where livestock was reportedly kept in close proximity to dead animals and open slaughtering and the skinning of carcasses were commonplace spectacles. Amid this quotidian barbarity, the virus – originating either in bats or pangolins – is thought to have been transmitted to humans via a process of zoonosis.

It is not as if such a possibility was wholly unappreciated. In fact, the threat had been apparent for many years. COVID-19 might have been a “black swan” in the strictest sense of the term – a seismic event that, with the benefit of hindsight, we now realise was entirely predictable.

For example, something horribly analogous happened when the Nipah virus emerged more than two decades ago. Driven from their traditional habitats by the impact of deforestation, native fruit bats began foraging in trees near farms; through their bodily fluids, they infected the land on which pigs were raised; and the pigs, in turn, eventually infected farmers and abattoir workers.

Similarly, researchers now believe that the SARS virus of 2002 stemmed from horseshoe bats and reached humans via civets – cat-like mammals that are sometimes regarded as a delicacy. It was yet another ominous illustration of the nexus of nature and our vulnerable place within it; and, like previous episodes, it went largely unheeded.

A world without moral high ground

All this might sound like an attack on the conventions of developing nations’ poorest and most rural communities. The bleak reality, however, is that the established norms of the developed world, while in many ways very different, are every bit as abhorrent.

The mass industrialisation of food production, most notably in the form of factory farming, has not just cemented a regime of unstinting misery: it has also created a breeding ground for disease. The use of antibiotics – in many instances to boost animals’ growth – has helped accelerate the rise of ultra-resistant “superbugs”, the rapid transmission of which is further facilitated by confinement, overcrowding, live transportation and chronic stress.

As a result, the next pandemic could emanate not from a primitive backstreet stall in the Far East but from a supposedly sophisticated and highly mechanised facility in the West. For there is no doubt that here, too, animals are routinely treated abominably.

Anyone who disputes the casual brutality to which factory farming innately lends itself need look no further than the grim reaction to recent halts in production. As COVID-19 compelled slaughterhouses to close, millions of animals were killed en masse in often atrocious ways – including what is euphemistically known as “ventilator shutdown”, a method akin to being roasted alive – to avoid unwanted bottlenecks.

Several of these culls have been secretly captured on video. By any standards, they are unwatchable. The same applies to the countless hours of footage of animals being abused. It is hard to imagine how anyone could stomach such images without asking whether we are even remotely justified in thinking of ourselves as superior beings.

Suitably appalled, we might also reflect on our own individual contributions – however unwitting they might be – to the perpetuation of a system that not only condemns animals to lives of torment but is central to the risk of another global calamity. Especially in the era of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, the lack of concern and action is ever more incomprehensible.

The way forward

So what might be done? The solution most likely lies in a combination of top-down and bottom-up responses and in a steadfast acceptance that there are alternative approaches that are both sustainable and affordable.

First and foremost, we must outlaw wet markets and factory farming alike. Experience and scientific opinion should be more than sufficient to demonstrate that this is the only sensible course, which neither the niceties of political correctness nor the interests of big business should be permitted to derail.

In tandem, producers of plant-based proteins and “clean” meat – that is, meat generated from animals’ stem cells in laboratories – should be subsidised. At least at present, this represents the only means of safely satisfying demand over the longer term. Spending on research into antibiotic resistance should also be augmented.

More broadly, policymakers must prioritise animal protection. It should be the stuff of political and economic discussions at the highest level. And if the powers that be are inclined to cling to entrenched notions of humanity’s inherent supremacy – a myth that so many people seem hard-wired to cherish – then they must remember that by protecting animals, ultimately, we also protect ourselves.

Encouragingly, ideas such as these are gaining substantive attention in the asset management industry. The FAIRR initiative, which raises awareness of the ESG risks and opportunities associated with intensive means of food production, now boasts a membership responsible for assets under management worth more than $23 trillion. Going forward, investors look set to have a major say in bringing about positive change.

And make no mistake: change is desperately needed. As Richard Feynman also famously observed: “Nature cannot be fooled.” If we believe ourselves somehow exempt from the bewildering nexus of the natural world, if we insist that our present path will lead to anything other than cataclysmic collapse, we are only fooling ourselves.

Disclaimer: I work at Invesco. All views and recommendations in this article are solely my personal opinion. They can or cannot coincide with company opinion but should never be interpreted as Invesco company statements.

Links

Richard Feynman: “Seeking new laws”

https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/seeking-new-laws-by-richard-feynman

Wikipedia: “Hyperconnectivity”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperconnectivity

Science: “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers”

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987.full

National Geographic: “‘Wet markets’ likely launched the coronavirus. Here’s what you need to know”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/04/coronavirus-linked-to-chinese-wet-markets/

Wikipedia: “Black swan theory”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

WHO: “Nipah virus infection”

https://www.who.int/csr/disease/nipah/en/

National Library of Medicine: “Bats, civets and the emergence of SARS”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17848070/

Science: “Are antibiotics turning livestock into superbug factories?”

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turning-livestock-superbug-factories

Forbes: “Seven predictions on the future of clean meat”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidebanis/2018/12/14/7-predictions-on-the-future-of-clean-meat-in-2019/

FAIRR: “A global network of investors addressing ESG issues in protein supply chains”

https://www.fairr.org/

Richard Feynman: “Appendix to the Rogers Commission report on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident”

https://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html