IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3674-d524310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ethics of Farm Animal Biotechnology from an Anthropological Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Aerni

    (Center for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (CCRS) at the University of Zurich, Zähringerstrasse 24, CH-8001 Zürich, Switzerland)

Abstract

Over the past 11,000 years, humans have domesticated a wide range of animals for different purposes designed to serve the human economy, society, and religious activities. The resulting mutual dependence between humans and their domestic partners created anthropogenic landscapes designed to sustain and protect their members. In this paper, we review the literature on the latest insights in interdisciplinary anthropological research on the evolution of animal domestication and breeding and put them in the context of the contemporary ethical debate on animal welfare and the application of modern biotechnology to animal breeding. Opponents of the use of animal biotechnology tend to see breeders often as enablers of industrial farming that would seek selective business advantage at the expense of the environment and animal welfare. Many applications of animal biotechnology may, however, also help to address environmental and animal welfare concerns in an effective way. Moreover, recent archeological and genetic research findings on the history of animal domestication reveal a distinctive kind of mutualism in the human–animal relationship based on a gradual co-evolutionary process with clear benefits for both parties in the relationship. These insights challenge the popular Neo-Darwinian account of unilateral adaptation only benefiting the more powerful party. Instead, they support the hypothesis that humans do not just adapt, but actively shape the environment through cultural niche construction (CNC) that also involves care and protection for domesticated animals. These empirical findings should also be taken into account in the contemporary ethical debate on animal welfare, which has become increasingly detached from the real-world efforts to improve animal welfare through best practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Aerni, 2021. "The Ethics of Farm Animal Biotechnology from an Anthropological Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3674-:d:524310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3674/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3674/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Calestous Juma, 2013. "Development: Starved for solutions," Nature, Nature, vol. 500(7461), pages 148-149, August.
    2. Juma, Calestous, 2016. "Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190467036.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O'Brien, Patrick, 2018. "Cosmographies for the discovery, development and diffusion of useful and reliable knowledge in pre-industrial Europe and Late imperial China: a survey and speculation," Economic History Working Papers 90534, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    2. Philipp Aerni, 2016. "Coping with Migration-Induced Urban Growth: Addressing the Blind Spot of UN Habitat," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-21, August.
    3. Junzhao Ma & Dewi Tojib & Yelena Tsarenko, 2022. "Sex Robots: Are We Ready for Them? An Exploration of the Psychological Mechanisms Underlying People’s Receptiveness of Sex Robots," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(4), pages 1091-1107, July.
    4. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269.
    5. Gagnon, Mark A. & Broad, Garrett & Grandison, Kelia & Chiles, Robert M., 2022. "AgriTech investor and informant perspectives about cellular agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 26(1), September.
    6. Eriksson, Klas & Ernkvist, Mirko & Laurell, Christofer & Moodysson, Jerker & Nykvist, Rasmus & Sandström, Christian, 2019. "A revised perspective on innovation policy for renewal of mature economies – Historical evidence from finance and telecommunications in Sweden 1980–1990," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 152-162.
    7. Darcy W.E. Allen, 2019. "Entrepreneurial Exit: Developing the Cryptoeconomy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Melanie Swan & Jason Potts & Soichiro Takagi & Frank Witte & Paolo Tasca (ed.), Blockchain Economics: Implications of Distributed Ledgers Markets, Communications Networks, and Algorithmic Reality, chapter 10, pages 197-214, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Robert M. Chiles & Garrett Broad & Mark Gagnon & Nicole Negowetti & Leland Glenna & Megan A. M. Griffin & Lina Tami-Barrera & Siena Baker & Kelly Beck, 2021. "Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 943-961, December.
    9. Kärnä, Anders & Karlsson, Johan & Engberg, Erik & Svensson, Peter, 2020. "Political Failure: A Missing Piece in Innovation Policy Analysis," Working Paper Series 1334, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 21 Apr 2022.
    10. Ian Miles, 2020. "A Disrupted Future?," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(1), pages 6-27.
    11. Mugwagwa, Julius & Banda, Geoffrey & Ozor, Nicholas & Bolo, Maurice & Oriama, Ruth, 2022. "Optimising governance capabilities for science, research and innovation in Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Jeffry Frieden & Arthur Silve, 2023. "The political reception of innovations," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 595-628, July.
    13. V. Shestak P. & E. Moreva I. & I. Tyutyunnik G. & В. Шестак П. & Е. Морева Л. & И. Тютюнник Г., 2019. "Финансовое управление инновационной активностью // Financial Management of Innovative Activity," Финансы: теория и практика/Finance: Theory and Practice // Finance: Theory and Practice, ФГОБУВО Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации // Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation, vol. 23(6), pages 63-75.
    14. Steve J. Bickley & Alison Macintyre & Benno Torgler, 2021. "Safety in Smart, Livable Cities: Acknowledging the Human Factor," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-17, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    15. Henry Etzkowitz & Alex Mack & Thomas Schaffer & Jim Scopa & Lei Guo & Tatiana Pospelova, 2020. "Innovation by design: SPARK and the Overcoming of Stanford University's Translational “Valley of Death” in Bio‐Medicine," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 1113-1125, September.
    16. Theo Papaioannou, 2021. "The Idea of Justice in Innovation: Applying Non-Ideal Political Theory to Address Questions of Sustainable Public Policy in Emerging Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Scott Kaplan & Ben Gordon & Feras El Zarwi & Joan L. Walker & David Zilberman, 2019. "The Future of Autonomous Vehicles: Lessons from the Literature on Technology Adoption," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(4), pages 583-597, December.
    18. SAKA Rahmon Olawale & OSADEME Gloria Chinagozi & ONONOKPONO Nyong Joe, 2023. "Technopreneurship and Business Performance of Ride-Hailing Firms in Lagos State," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(4), pages 1367-1383, April.
    19. Chunyan Zhou & Henry Etzkowitz, 2021. "Triple Helix Twins: A Framework for Achieving Innovation and UN Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Adu-Baffour, Ferdinand & Daum, Thomas & Birner, Regina, 2018. "Can Big Companies’ Initiatives to Promote Mechanization Benefit Small Farms in Africa? A Case Study from Zambia," Discussion Papers 273521, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3674-:d:524310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.