The pursuit of economic growth has been disastrous for nonhuman animals. Wild animal species have lost their natural habitat and even driven to extinction. Even animals that we claim to love suffer from relentless economic drives as designer dogs and cats are bred while hundreds of thousands of animals in shelters are killed each year. Perhaps no others have suffered more than animals raised for food. The pursuit of increased growth has led to animals being grown quickly in confined and cruel spaces, and consumed at levels never before seen. With clear links between economic growth and animal suffering, there is a clear need for degrowth. How degrowth for animal welfare can be achieved is a challenging question.
Working Time Reduction and Degrowth
Pathways to degrowth are difficult because the concept of growth is so deeply embedded in social, political, and economic structures. Some advocates of degrowth call for radical change to these systems. While this might be necessary to truly address the issues presented by these systems, such changes are much more difficult to achieve. Multiple degrowth pathways will likely need to be followed to achieve broad change.
One potential pathway for degrowth with lower resistance than other more radical proposals is a reduction in working time. Working time reduction has gained popularity in recent years as mounting evidence demonstrates its benefits for both humans and the environment. Some companies have voluntarily implemented working time reduction policies like a four day work week, while governments have proposed and even implemented working time reduction policies. For example, in 2022, Belgium passed legislation allowing a 4-day workweek. Despite some growing acceptance of a reduction in working time, major changes have yet to be enacted at a broad scale, especially in the United States where proposals for a four day workweek have stalled after being introduced in congress. Even in Belgium, the new labor law does not necessarily translate to a reduction in working time, but rather that the hours typically worked in a 5-day workweek can now be done in 4 days.
Garnering support for these policies will require building coalitions across interest groups. This effort is aided by a growing body of research that shows the benefits of a reduction in working time.
Research has found that a reduction in working time benefits both humans and the environment. For humans, working time is associated with job strain, which in turn is associated with negative health outcomes, including mental health outcomes. In terms of the environment, longer working hours is associated with a wide range of environmental harms and impacts including energy consumption, ecological footprint, carbon emissions, and more. Based on this research, Jared Fitzgerald has called a reduction in working time a “multi-dividend sustainability policy”. These dividends also extend beyond humans and the environment.
Working Time Reduction and Animal Welfare
A reduction in working time can help save animal lives. In forthcoming research, I analyze the relationship between working hours and shelter animal save rates and find that shorter working hours are associated with higher shelter save rates. In other words, a reduction in working time is associated with more animals being adopted or saved from animal shelters rather than dying. The logic behind this relationship is that as people work fewer hours they have more time to adopt shelter animals, as well as to take care of the animals they already have, whether from a shelter or not, meaning there is a lower intake at shelters that then pushes them to euthanize animals as shelters fill beyond capacity. Empirical evidence shows that this association between working time and save rate exists.
There is also reason to suspect that a reduction in working time may have benefits for farmed animals as well. Research shows that the workplace itself has a large influence over what people eat - and those food options are usually heavily animal-based. Similarly, as people work longer hours they have less time to cook at home and eat out instead. Again, restaurant fare tends to be meat-centric, and people eating at restaurants are more likely to eat meat than those cooking at home. A reduction in working time would give people more time to prepare their own meals at home, and while this may not directly translate into more people going vegetarian or vegan, it likely would lead to a reduction in meat consumption and therefore less animals being killed or raised for food in inhumane conditions.
Economic growth has been a disaster for animal welfare, and shows no signs of slowing as countries around the world increase their meat intake as their economies expand. This will also have devastating impacts on humans (as high consumption of red and processed meat is associated with increased rates of cancer and cardiovascular disease). The expansion of animal agriculture is also one of the main drivers of climate change and other environmental problems. Recognizing these connections between humans, animals, and the environment backed by existing and ongoing empirical research, coalitions can form to help push degrowth policies forward. One such promising policy is a reduction in working time. Working with a diverse range of groups and interests, policies promoting a reduction in working time are achievable.
Degrowth is needed for animals, for people, and for the environment.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael D. Briscoe is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University Pueblo. His research focuses on the intersection of human, environmental, and animal well-being and has been published in journals including Environmental Sociology, Society & Animals, and Sociology of Development. He also teaches courses on a broad range of sociological topics, including courses as part of the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program.
|
