Talk:Animal–industrial complex

Difference from other industries

According to Twine's "definition", the animal–industrial complex is "a partly opaque and multiple set of networks and relationships between the corporate (agricultural) sector, governments, and public and private science. With economic, cultural, social and affective dimensions it encompasses an extensive range of practices, technologies, images, identities and markets". (He adds: "I place agricultural in brackets only to highlight my personal interest in this paper. As I have already indicated, a working definition of the AIC must not to be confined to this domain.") Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1, p 23

Of course, this is so broad and vague that it's true for virtually any sector of industry. For example, take the production of computers and other electronics. There are many deep and varied connections between the companies that make these products, science, and politics. Some of them, e.g. lobbying, are often trying to keep a low profile. One could say that the "electronics–industrial complex" is "a partly opaque and multiple set of networks and relationships between the corporate sector, governments, and public and private science. With economic, cultural, social and affective dimensions it encompasses an extensive range of practices, technologies, images, identities and markets". All of these relationships, practices etc. certainly exist. But the scientific value of such a term would be very low, so nobody uses it.

We could improve the article by finding reliable sources showing that the relationships between industry, government and science are so significantly different in the "animal–industrial complex" than in other industries, e.g. the "electronics–industrial complex", to warrant having such a specific term. -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Quoting Sinclair and Patterson

Dear User:Chrisahn. Regarding your recent reverts of my edits, the Sinclair and Patterson claims are very much there on Page 300 (both appearing in the very first para). Wonder why you revert them. And regarding the previous edit, the AIC traces it origin since domestication. While Stallwood (sorry for incorrectly mentioning him as Sorenson) says it something like beyond the present era, Nibert traces it to the establishment of farming societies (in the ancient era). Maybe it can be paraphrased appropriately instead of deleting the info altogether. Just to avoid edit warring, am not reverting these now but waiting for your response. Can you please explain your changes? Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much time today, but I'll get back to you tomorrow. Sorry! In the meantime, maybe have a look at #Removal of sourced contents again. I think we've been through this before. Talk to you tomorrow! — Chrisahn (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Please take your time. And you've pasted your reply in a different section, and so I'm moving your reply here. And, sure, will go through that again. :) Rasnaboy (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Chrisahn. The deleted statements are very much present in the source, so am retaining these info. Am pasting the whole para as it appears on said page in the source for your reference:

"... and its stockyards and slaughterhouses, which operated from 1865 for some 100 years; they are explicitly described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, originally published in 1906. The novel chronicles the way in which animals raised for food went from traditional, rural extensive farms and localized slaughter, to intensive feedlots and long-distance transportation to urban areas for slaughter. He describes the cruel mistreatment of animals and the dangerous conditions slaughterhouse workers endured. In Eternal Treblinka, Charles Patterson explains how the disassembly of animals in slaughterhouses inspired Henry Ford to assemble cars in factories. Patterson also documents Ford's anti-Semitism, and his influence on the Third Reich in Nazi Germany, including their creation of concentration camps and gas chambers (Patterson, 2002, pp. 71–79; see also Sax, 2000; Shukin, 2009)." (page 300, "Animal Rights: Moral Crusade or Social Movement?" by Kim Stallwood, in Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, ed. John Sorenson, 2014)

Please discuss before reverting. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

AIC includes all human uses of animals

AIC involves all human–animal interactions, chiefly economical but also for other reasons (such as entertainment, which can be economical too), the reason why it is part of the global capital, as Stallwood claims, growing under contemporary capitalism. It is also referred to as the triple helix of which the corporate sphere is a part. However, this claim was deleted some time ago citing only Richard Twine's "very vague" definition ([1]). The editor's rationale for the removal was that it was "probably wrong" (though he/she probably wasn't sure why it was wrong). The sources in the recent additions, however, claim otherwise. They elaborate each one (animal agriculture, animal research, commodification, breeding, medicine and pathology, and so forth) in detail (see "Impact of the Complex" section). Now that we have sources for these in the article, I’m adding these back to the lede. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Experts say that sustenance hunting comes under general animal cruelty and not always part of the AIC. Trophy hunting on the other hand is very much part of the AIC. The other examples are fine. Rasnaboy (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

In the impact of AIC, should there also be a section on how the exploitation of animals often involves the exploitation of humans too? Recent reportage on the fishing industry, think Seaspiracy, and meat industry, have exemplified terrible worker conditions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The greater environmental impact of intensive animal exploitation could also fall within the scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@User:Iskandar323. Thanks for the idea. Indeed. I came across some of these while reading the sources. Nibert (or so I think) says regarding the plight of the slaughterhouse workers in his book. Think we need exclusive sections on environmental, health and other impacts, too. Maybe these can be expanded as we get more sources. There are several things yet to be added and will do it in the coming weeks. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Just added and expanded a bit on @Iskandar323 and Bhagya sri113:'s suggestions on human exploitation by the AIC. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Components of the AIC

I feel this section is missing in the article save for a brief mention in the lead, leaving a gap as of now. The components of the AIC is scattered across several sources. Will it be okay to cite them with the most inclusive of all the sources, or would it be better to cite each one of them with individual sources to avoid confusion? Also would tabulating them be a good idea? Bhagya sri113 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

AIC is basically animal agribusiness or agro-industrial complex (where animals are produced) interplaying with every other industrial complexes where animals are involved or exploited. This is why I guess they appear scattered. I think we can either list each one of them citing sources individually or in groups (if the same source covers more than one). With what I've seen so far, these appear in various sources, each one mentioning a few as examples. Tabulating them is not a bad idea especially if the content is more data laden and appears long-winded in normal text. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV - this article needs a NPOV flag

There is no part of this article that is neutral. 207.229.178.241 (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

This issue has already been flagged and sorted out after several discussions. All the claims in the article are well sourced. See previous discussions (including archives). Rasnaboy (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The article largely allows scholars, journalists and others who write on the subject to do the talking (with proper attribution throughout the body), and relatively little is written in Wikipedia's voice. Secondly, there is no editorializing present in the article that I can see. Given the nature of the topic, I'd say the article does a pretty good job at maintaining a neutral stance while presenting this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is extremely NPOV. It takes the concept as fact with absolutely no critical thought. Compare this article's lede to that of, say, prison-industrial complex. The latter makes it clear that it is dealing with a concept, not objective reality. Just compare the first sentences of each:

"The term animal–industrial complex (AIC) refers to the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals. It includes every economic activity involving animals..."

"The prison-industrial complex (PIC) is a term, coined after the "military-industrial complex" of the 1950s, used by scholars and activists to describe the many relationships between institutions of imprisonment (such as prisons, jails, detention facilities, and psychiatric hospitals) and the various businesses that benefit from them."

The latter is a much more balanced intro, avoiding using such heavily charged terms as "exploitation" as though they were objective facts. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We've been down this road before as you can see directly above, but nevertheless I have altered the language a bit to read: "Animal–industrial complex (AIC) is a concept used by activists and scholars to describe the systematic and institutionalized exploitation of animals", which brings it closer to the lead sentence in the article Prison-industrial complex. Given that the academic literature routinely emphasizes that the relationship between humans and animals is clearly exploitative in this context, I don't see it being an NPOV issue, especially now that the language reads this is "a concept used by activists and scholars". I have included citations for verification.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

No, your changes do not improve matters. They treat it as a concept that just gives a name to the "objective fact" of "exploitation". Again, the prison-industrial complex article - a topic that has received far more research - does not do this. Just because an academic article says something does not mean we have to treat it as true. Academics do not have to abide by NPOV.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I have provided attribution to the activists and scholars who write on this subject. I believe this shouid resolve the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)