This is great, and the analogy with Catholicism goes very deep (not least in that certain monks and nuns were pretty much the only vegetarians in Europe before the 19th century interactions with India) and also suggests an improvement to your framing, though you might not like the suggestion.
Catholic religious (monks and nuns) take the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience: they own nothing, never have sex, and submit their lives entirely to their religious superior. These three vows are called the *counsels of perfection*, because they are the suggestions Jesus is said to have given for how to become perfect. But, critically, the counsels of perfection are absolutely *not* moral obligations that most people fail to meet. You are not allowed to intentionally fail to meet your moral obligations in Catholicism! Rather, they are extra, supererogatory. You can be a good Catholic, get to Heaven, be a (non-monk) priest, even be a saint, without “selling all you have and giving it to the poor.”
The fact that monks are doing something spiritually excellent but *not* obligatory is critical to their good relations with laity. Lay Catholics don’t resent the holiness of monks and nuns because it is not a reminder of a failure on their part. Indeed, for married Catholics, sex is extremely morally good, while no laypeople are under strict obedience, and it’s generally perfectly OK to gather wealth for good reason.
In contrast, in your proposal here, you allude a couple of times to your belief that veganism really *is* morally obligatory, but you’re just going to let the laypeople get away with, er, sin, via offsets. This isn’t ideal. It suggests continued risk of resentment by laypeople unwilling to go full vegan toward the core. An ethically healthier setup would be for the movement to declare that it’s really actually OK to use animal products, sourced as ethically as possible, and being full vegan is supererogatory. I suspect many vegans will find that unacceptable, but the Church has been doing this an awfully long time with a lot more uptake than the animal rights movement, and it’s load-bearing that they’ve found a way to avoid leaving people irreversibly stuck in, in their words, sin.
This is a helpful contribution! My own familiarity is more on the Buddhist side where “sin” plays a much smaller role. I think the metaphor starts to break down at some point and we will have to develop a unique balance for our situation. I don’t think we’ll be shy about the world we’re trying to create!
> Imagine it’s February 2027, also known as Offsetbruary.
I emailed Farmkind just two hours ago to consider “Offsetember” instead of going head to head with Veganuary. Now my suggestion sounds stupid — “Offsetbruary” is so much superior.
A form of reducitarianism that solved the “do you actually reduce?” problem for me was going vegan for personal consumption but not social eating. I’ve been doing this for the past year with great results. There’s no deluding myself because if I ever buy chicken from the grocery store, I’m breaking my rules. But it’s also easy to follow because restaurants and holidays are all explicit exceptions. Obviously this is ethically inferior to true veganism, but as someone who previously crashed out from true vegetarianism, the chances of me succeeding with true veganism were low. And maybe I’ll get there one day - I think it’s a lot more likely having done this first than having not.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t do much to solve the “I don’t feel like I fit in in the animal movement” problem, given these sorts of concessions to human weakness still feel frowned upon in most of the online vegan circles I’ve visited.
Thanks for sharing, I’ve had a number of conversations over the years about whether this would be a more accessible habit so it’s great to hear that it’s working for you! It’s on the rest of the movement to uphold its side of the bargain but if you’re involved, it’ll be that much easier for the next person opting for a similar commitment!
I think it’s significantly more accessible than normal veganism, but still a large enough lifestyle change to make it unlikely that a casual person sympathetic with the animal movement will do it. For that person, I think your points about donations and voting being more accessible hold true.
This made me think of all of the non-food aspects of veganism that nonvegans might find a more accessible entry point to the philosophy/lifestyle. Granted there are real (mostly educational) hurdles to overcome with some of these, but I've often felt that people might find the idea of gradually veganizing their wardrobe or personal care products, or committing to not patronizing zoos and other places/events where animals are exploited for entertainment a more attainable starting point. It would also presumably help correct the public understanding of veganism as a movement to abolish animal exploitation rather than just a diet.
Being neurodivergent, it's essential for me to break down large projects into small and extremely specific tasks to avoid becoming paralyzed by dread and overwhelm. I've long felt that a similar approach to adopting veganism could make it seem less daunting to nonvegans.
Great article, Aidan! It reminded me of Dr. Melanie Joy's concept of vegan allies, which to me was very inspiring: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEqhXA2xF8
It was a huge relief for me to realize that encouraging people around me to become friendlier towards veganism and animal advocacy is already a lot. They don't have to become vegan themselves. Inviting them to become vegan allies helps the movement a lot, too (and I can be the resident vegan monk, haha).
Very interesting & insightful. I, too, and constantly perplexed by the "vegan puzzle." I'm often torn between HIDING my veganism to relate to omnivores, and SHOWCASING my veganism to demonstrate that it is possible.
Your blog post is a big contribution to solving this vegan puzzle. If omnivores respected vegans like churchgoers respected priests, then I would no longer have to hide my veganism. Rather than reducing my credibility, my commitment to veganism would increase it.
The hard part is, how do we create a world where laypeople respect vegans? Some already do, of course (and I was shocked that vegans scored around 4.5 on the U.S. like-o-meter). But for laypeople to truly respect us, we probably have to persuade our fellow vegans to stop making the "Go Vegan!" ask that alienates omnivores in the first place. That's possible, of course, but that in of itself would be asking the grassroots vegan movement to betray its core tactic of converting other vegans.
I swear this topic is so confusing... I never know where to land.
I think if the vegan movement focused more on creating vegan allies (as opposed to trying to make people vegan) that might go a long way towards laypeople respecting vegans. Dr. Melanie Joy talks about the idea of vegan allies here, which I really liked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEqhXA2xF8
Excellent post and except for a few quibbles, thorough analysis! With respect to Farmkind's radical experiment, I believe it should be judged ultimately by the actual impact it has (this is more or less your point too I guess).
Even if I am not entirely comfortable with their approach, I am more than happy to set that aside if there is empirical data demonstrating that this type of an offset leads to overall better outcomes and/or a more promising trajectory in the long run for the movement.
Fantastic post, AK. Love to see thoughtful people thinking strategically, rather than coming up with arguments for promoting themselves (their personal views). You made my day.
I do think that Ginny Messina is right that we can't "welfare reform" our way to a vegan world. Welfare reforms are the most important work being done right now, but some groups (e.g. One Step for Animals) are trying to figure out how to get people on board with being personally anti-factory-farming with a meaningful but not "too hard" personal step.
I don’t know anyone who does think we can welfare reform our way to a vegan world. But I think welfare reforms are an important part of the multi-pillar approach we need to get to a vegan world (see my rough movement level theory of change here: https://surl.li/tjaqey). This is why FarmKind’s recommended charities don’t just work on welfare reforms — they also work on institutional meat reduction (see Danish Vegetarian Foundation and Sinergia Animal), alt proteins funding/regulation/R&D (see DVF again, and GFI) and policy work (e.g. THL’s defense of Prop 12).
This was a very interesting read and has opened my mind. I have been vegan for 10 years (and will continue with this lifestyle for the rest of my days.) For most of my time as an activist, I would latch on to the idea ‘if one vegan were to inspire one person to go vegan each year, and each new vegan would do the same, the entire world would be vegan in seven years.’ That quote has been empowering for me to continue to spread the vegan message. However, it’s been over 7 years since I first heard that quote. I really appreciate your thoughts regarding the stagnancy of veganism and a different perspective that veganism is very unlikely to be the path to animal liberation. It may take me a little time to shift my thinking- but the shift has begun.
Going vegan cold turkey always seemed like an extreme step and a bit unsustainable to me (personally). I think vegetarianism as a alternate option should’ve accepted and celebrated by vegans instead. On a side note, even though I am vegetarian I have massive respect for vegans.
This is especially unfortunate because most vegans had a multi-year vegetarian transition phase but it’s hard to see from the inside how important that was behaviorally because we believe our transition was more about increased understanding.
But just to be clear, it’s also good for people to be vegetarian even not on the way to vegan, and to take other actions for animals!
Really enjoyed this, and found myself making lots of comparisons to this article I read recently, making the case that all major religions have a 'brainy' version and a 'folksy' version, and you need both - with their different applications - to be successful. Worth a read perhaps: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/secrets-of-the-ancient-memelords
"The brainy version appeals to evangelists, explainers, and institution-builders—people who make their religion respectable and robust. The folksy version keeps a religion relevant and accessible to the 99.9% of humanity who can’t do faith full-time—people who might not be able to name all the commandments, but who will still show up on Sunday and put their dollars in the basket. The brainy version fills the pulpits; the folksy version fills the pews."
A really out of the AR paradigm approach to thinking about how to encourage the movement forward in a way that disentangles us from the trope of "angry vegans pushing their agenda." As a practitioner steeped in Buddhist, Jain, and yoga studies, I can see this framework as a viable possibility. Thank you for opening up a new pathway for how to get more people aligned with their values without alienating, but rather, including.
This post does really well at steelmanning both sides while still having a strong conclusion - basically the one text you need to read to get up to speed on the diet change debate (though that doesn't mean your conclusion is inevitably true).
While many aspects are covered, I have one nitpick: you gloss over the fact that discussions about veganism between vegans are often very offputting, involving extreme contempt and frequent insults. This isn't enough to mean that we should throw veganism off the boat, but it could mean:
- It makes sense for people like Lewis to push that side of animal advocacy under the bus
- We may have to "do something" about the vegan focus, and questioning whether veganism is the ethical peak (like the "anti-vegan vegans" do) is a way of opening that difficult debate
(Note: I don't buy the story according to which vegan assholery has been a major factor in animal advocacy not growing, though I think it can be harmful on the margin. A recent case was a non-vegan influencer making a post in support of an animal welfare campaign and getting comment-bombed due to not going vegan, though of course, there are many such cases.)
If your point is that I didn’t spend enough time on the case that “vegans need to accept veganism isn’t for everyone” or describe how we’d actually cause that belief to become widely held by vegan activists, then yeah that’s fair. Basically I think the vegan influencers would need to be on board
To draw out some literal historical cases of this: The priestly classes of the Manichean "elect" and the Cathar "perfecti" were vegetarian and pesco-vegan, respectively. In both cases the motivation was genuinely ethical; they shared a belief that nonhuman animals, like humans, are souls trapped in suffering-prone material bodies. The Cathars allowed fish consumption but forbade milk and eggs on the basis that at the time fish were not thought to reproduce sexually, the means by which Cathars presumed souls become trapped in a body.
Both religions ended up being very influential, probably in large part due to the fact that such dietary requirements were not imposed on the laity.
Both religions are also extinct now, so I don't know how much transfer that really promises to support your case here, but it does seem in line with the general idea that there is no contradiction in setting a low bar for entry to a movement whose goals are too lofty for the average person's asceticism tolerance.
I’m really hoping we don’t need to build a movement that lasts two millennia haha. Two centuries should be more than enough. So I think these examples (which I did not know about) are great! Most Buddhist monastic traditions historically fit this mold as well, other than some accepting meat alms.
here is my opinion - i think that factory farming is atrocity/ i donate to EA animal charities. i buy humanly raised animal products when i can ( and i check they are actually fine). i consider myself agreeing with vegans on 90% of things.
and i perceive vegans as deeply hostile. they react basically the same to me and to person that think it's fine to torture animals.
and this is the important thing about the purity thing. and it's very important one. vegans actively push away those who should be your allies. and it's really important to stop doing that.
(points for future if people proved interested in that:
that "mean" thing that didn't read mean at all to me, and what it means.
you deeply underestimate the ways vegans alienating people and the long term bad consequences of that.
the ways vegans are not truth seeking and why it's really bad on at least two different ways.
no, actually, change diet is diet problem, and learning from people who already was vegans is ridiculously biased sample that filter out everyone who failed to become one, and why lack of slack in diet is important. )
Im keen on concisely aggregating the pragmatic non-vegan approaches and their perceived pros and cons (in pragmatic terms).
Could anyone help add to this or signpost me please?
-2-tier social classes:
imo the analogy with widespread harms of failed celibacy and priest sexual abuse renders idea of an elevated priesthood with their own more demanding rules undesirable/unattainable for anyone.
-Offsetting:
maybe the term helps the idea spread, but offsetting in animal ethics assumes too much about any alleged hedonic calculus. so im more comfortable to just say Donate.
-Reducetarian:
"psychological laziness. People don’t track the amount of meat they eat throughout the week, making it all too easy to convince yourself you’ve made a bigger reduction than you have." -fair, but do you know where in that cited document this comes from please? couldnt find it. Keen to hear more critiques of reducetarianism.
Another problem is judging/determining the counterfactual. Anyone can say they "try" to eat less meat :S
Another problem is substituting chicken for cow
-Paris exception or variant (vegan; veggie sometimes when travelling or doing X):
similar to reducetarianism
[A moral criticism of all of them would be that non-expoitation is a categorical imperative. Praise would be it eliminates opportunity cost of veganism-only advocacy]
Ive seen a few claims that Chickens, Fish, and Decapods are a priority to stop eating. What's the best citation for this claim please? I presume it's based on suffering/kilogram
This is great, and the analogy with Catholicism goes very deep (not least in that certain monks and nuns were pretty much the only vegetarians in Europe before the 19th century interactions with India) and also suggests an improvement to your framing, though you might not like the suggestion.
Catholic religious (monks and nuns) take the simple vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience: they own nothing, never have sex, and submit their lives entirely to their religious superior. These three vows are called the *counsels of perfection*, because they are the suggestions Jesus is said to have given for how to become perfect. But, critically, the counsels of perfection are absolutely *not* moral obligations that most people fail to meet. You are not allowed to intentionally fail to meet your moral obligations in Catholicism! Rather, they are extra, supererogatory. You can be a good Catholic, get to Heaven, be a (non-monk) priest, even be a saint, without “selling all you have and giving it to the poor.”
The fact that monks are doing something spiritually excellent but *not* obligatory is critical to their good relations with laity. Lay Catholics don’t resent the holiness of monks and nuns because it is not a reminder of a failure on their part. Indeed, for married Catholics, sex is extremely morally good, while no laypeople are under strict obedience, and it’s generally perfectly OK to gather wealth for good reason.
In contrast, in your proposal here, you allude a couple of times to your belief that veganism really *is* morally obligatory, but you’re just going to let the laypeople get away with, er, sin, via offsets. This isn’t ideal. It suggests continued risk of resentment by laypeople unwilling to go full vegan toward the core. An ethically healthier setup would be for the movement to declare that it’s really actually OK to use animal products, sourced as ethically as possible, and being full vegan is supererogatory. I suspect many vegans will find that unacceptable, but the Church has been doing this an awfully long time with a lot more uptake than the animal rights movement, and it’s load-bearing that they’ve found a way to avoid leaving people irreversibly stuck in, in their words, sin.
This is a helpful contribution! My own familiarity is more on the Buddhist side where “sin” plays a much smaller role. I think the metaphor starts to break down at some point and we will have to develop a unique balance for our situation. I don’t think we’ll be shy about the world we’re trying to create!
> Imagine it’s February 2027, also known as Offsetbruary.
I emailed Farmkind just two hours ago to consider “Offsetember” instead of going head to head with Veganuary. Now my suggestion sounds stupid — “Offsetbruary” is so much superior.
Brilliant post as always!
🤣🤣 you definitely take the W this time
A form of reducitarianism that solved the “do you actually reduce?” problem for me was going vegan for personal consumption but not social eating. I’ve been doing this for the past year with great results. There’s no deluding myself because if I ever buy chicken from the grocery store, I’m breaking my rules. But it’s also easy to follow because restaurants and holidays are all explicit exceptions. Obviously this is ethically inferior to true veganism, but as someone who previously crashed out from true vegetarianism, the chances of me succeeding with true veganism were low. And maybe I’ll get there one day - I think it’s a lot more likely having done this first than having not.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t do much to solve the “I don’t feel like I fit in in the animal movement” problem, given these sorts of concessions to human weakness still feel frowned upon in most of the online vegan circles I’ve visited.
Thanks for sharing, I’ve had a number of conversations over the years about whether this would be a more accessible habit so it’s great to hear that it’s working for you! It’s on the rest of the movement to uphold its side of the bargain but if you’re involved, it’ll be that much easier for the next person opting for a similar commitment!
I think it’s significantly more accessible than normal veganism, but still a large enough lifestyle change to make it unlikely that a casual person sympathetic with the animal movement will do it. For that person, I think your points about donations and voting being more accessible hold true.
This made me think of all of the non-food aspects of veganism that nonvegans might find a more accessible entry point to the philosophy/lifestyle. Granted there are real (mostly educational) hurdles to overcome with some of these, but I've often felt that people might find the idea of gradually veganizing their wardrobe or personal care products, or committing to not patronizing zoos and other places/events where animals are exploited for entertainment a more attainable starting point. It would also presumably help correct the public understanding of veganism as a movement to abolish animal exploitation rather than just a diet.
Being neurodivergent, it's essential for me to break down large projects into small and extremely specific tasks to avoid becoming paralyzed by dread and overwhelm. I've long felt that a similar approach to adopting veganism could make it seem less daunting to nonvegans.
I think this is a great idea, and something to suggest to people who find fulltime veganism hard!
Great article, Aidan! It reminded me of Dr. Melanie Joy's concept of vegan allies, which to me was very inspiring: www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEqhXA2xF8
It was a huge relief for me to realize that encouraging people around me to become friendlier towards veganism and animal advocacy is already a lot. They don't have to become vegan themselves. Inviting them to become vegan allies helps the movement a lot, too (and I can be the resident vegan monk, haha).
Melanie definitely influenced my thinking here!
Very interesting & insightful. I, too, and constantly perplexed by the "vegan puzzle." I'm often torn between HIDING my veganism to relate to omnivores, and SHOWCASING my veganism to demonstrate that it is possible.
Your blog post is a big contribution to solving this vegan puzzle. If omnivores respected vegans like churchgoers respected priests, then I would no longer have to hide my veganism. Rather than reducing my credibility, my commitment to veganism would increase it.
The hard part is, how do we create a world where laypeople respect vegans? Some already do, of course (and I was shocked that vegans scored around 4.5 on the U.S. like-o-meter). But for laypeople to truly respect us, we probably have to persuade our fellow vegans to stop making the "Go Vegan!" ask that alienates omnivores in the first place. That's possible, of course, but that in of itself would be asking the grassroots vegan movement to betray its core tactic of converting other vegans.
I swear this topic is so confusing... I never know where to land.
I think if the vegan movement focused more on creating vegan allies (as opposed to trying to make people vegan) that might go a long way towards laypeople respecting vegans. Dr. Melanie Joy talks about the idea of vegan allies here, which I really liked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZEqhXA2xF8
Excellent post and except for a few quibbles, thorough analysis! With respect to Farmkind's radical experiment, I believe it should be judged ultimately by the actual impact it has (this is more or less your point too I guess).
Even if I am not entirely comfortable with their approach, I am more than happy to set that aside if there is empirical data demonstrating that this type of an offset leads to overall better outcomes and/or a more promising trajectory in the long run for the movement.
Love love LOVE the summary at the top of your post. Keep it up!
Thinking I'll make that a standard going forward!
Fantastic post, AK. Love to see thoughtful people thinking strategically, rather than coming up with arguments for promoting themselves (their personal views). You made my day.
I do think that Ginny Messina is right that we can't "welfare reform" our way to a vegan world. Welfare reforms are the most important work being done right now, but some groups (e.g. One Step for Animals) are trying to figure out how to get people on board with being personally anti-factory-farming with a meaningful but not "too hard" personal step.
I don’t know anyone who does think we can welfare reform our way to a vegan world. But I think welfare reforms are an important part of the multi-pillar approach we need to get to a vegan world (see my rough movement level theory of change here: https://surl.li/tjaqey). This is why FarmKind’s recommended charities don’t just work on welfare reforms — they also work on institutional meat reduction (see Danish Vegetarian Foundation and Sinergia Animal), alt proteins funding/regulation/R&D (see DVF again, and GFI) and policy work (e.g. THL’s defense of Prop 12).
This was a very interesting read and has opened my mind. I have been vegan for 10 years (and will continue with this lifestyle for the rest of my days.) For most of my time as an activist, I would latch on to the idea ‘if one vegan were to inspire one person to go vegan each year, and each new vegan would do the same, the entire world would be vegan in seven years.’ That quote has been empowering for me to continue to spread the vegan message. However, it’s been over 7 years since I first heard that quote. I really appreciate your thoughts regarding the stagnancy of veganism and a different perspective that veganism is very unlikely to be the path to animal liberation. It may take me a little time to shift my thinking- but the shift has begun.
Thank you!!
Victoria
Going vegan cold turkey always seemed like an extreme step and a bit unsustainable to me (personally). I think vegetarianism as a alternate option should’ve accepted and celebrated by vegans instead. On a side note, even though I am vegetarian I have massive respect for vegans.
This is especially unfortunate because most vegans had a multi-year vegetarian transition phase but it’s hard to see from the inside how important that was behaviorally because we believe our transition was more about increased understanding.
But just to be clear, it’s also good for people to be vegetarian even not on the way to vegan, and to take other actions for animals!
Really enjoyed this, and found myself making lots of comparisons to this article I read recently, making the case that all major religions have a 'brainy' version and a 'folksy' version, and you need both - with their different applications - to be successful. Worth a read perhaps: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/secrets-of-the-ancient-memelords
"The brainy version appeals to evangelists, explainers, and institution-builders—people who make their religion respectable and robust. The folksy version keeps a religion relevant and accessible to the 99.9% of humanity who can’t do faith full-time—people who might not be able to name all the commandments, but who will still show up on Sunday and put their dollars in the basket. The brainy version fills the pulpits; the folksy version fills the pews."
Thanks for sharing! That’s right on the money
A really out of the AR paradigm approach to thinking about how to encourage the movement forward in a way that disentangles us from the trope of "angry vegans pushing their agenda." As a practitioner steeped in Buddhist, Jain, and yoga studies, I can see this framework as a viable possibility. Thank you for opening up a new pathway for how to get more people aligned with their values without alienating, but rather, including.
This was definitely inspired in part by my own experience with Buddhism!
This post does really well at steelmanning both sides while still having a strong conclusion - basically the one text you need to read to get up to speed on the diet change debate (though that doesn't mean your conclusion is inevitably true).
While many aspects are covered, I have one nitpick: you gloss over the fact that discussions about veganism between vegans are often very offputting, involving extreme contempt and frequent insults. This isn't enough to mean that we should throw veganism off the boat, but it could mean:
- It makes sense for people like Lewis to push that side of animal advocacy under the bus
- We may have to "do something" about the vegan focus, and questioning whether veganism is the ethical peak (like the "anti-vegan vegans" do) is a way of opening that difficult debate
(Note: I don't buy the story according to which vegan assholery has been a major factor in animal advocacy not growing, though I think it can be harmful on the margin. A recent case was a non-vegan influencer making a post in support of an animal welfare campaign and getting comment-bombed due to not going vegan, though of course, there are many such cases.)
If your point is that I didn’t spend enough time on the case that “vegans need to accept veganism isn’t for everyone” or describe how we’d actually cause that belief to become widely held by vegan activists, then yeah that’s fair. Basically I think the vegan influencers would need to be on board
To draw out some literal historical cases of this: The priestly classes of the Manichean "elect" and the Cathar "perfecti" were vegetarian and pesco-vegan, respectively. In both cases the motivation was genuinely ethical; they shared a belief that nonhuman animals, like humans, are souls trapped in suffering-prone material bodies. The Cathars allowed fish consumption but forbade milk and eggs on the basis that at the time fish were not thought to reproduce sexually, the means by which Cathars presumed souls become trapped in a body.
Both religions ended up being very influential, probably in large part due to the fact that such dietary requirements were not imposed on the laity.
Both religions are also extinct now, so I don't know how much transfer that really promises to support your case here, but it does seem in line with the general idea that there is no contradiction in setting a low bar for entry to a movement whose goals are too lofty for the average person's asceticism tolerance.
I’m really hoping we don’t need to build a movement that lasts two millennia haha. Two centuries should be more than enough. So I think these examples (which I did not know about) are great! Most Buddhist monastic traditions historically fit this mold as well, other than some accepting meat alms.
here is my opinion - i think that factory farming is atrocity/ i donate to EA animal charities. i buy humanly raised animal products when i can ( and i check they are actually fine). i consider myself agreeing with vegans on 90% of things.
and i perceive vegans as deeply hostile. they react basically the same to me and to person that think it's fine to torture animals.
and this is the important thing about the purity thing. and it's very important one. vegans actively push away those who should be your allies. and it's really important to stop doing that.
(points for future if people proved interested in that:
that "mean" thing that didn't read mean at all to me, and what it means.
you deeply underestimate the ways vegans alienating people and the long term bad consequences of that.
the ways vegans are not truth seeking and why it's really bad on at least two different ways.
no, actually, change diet is diet problem, and learning from people who already was vegans is ridiculously biased sample that filter out everyone who failed to become one, and why lack of slack in diet is important. )
Thoughtful, thanks.
Im keen on concisely aggregating the pragmatic non-vegan approaches and their perceived pros and cons (in pragmatic terms).
Could anyone help add to this or signpost me please?
-2-tier social classes:
imo the analogy with widespread harms of failed celibacy and priest sexual abuse renders idea of an elevated priesthood with their own more demanding rules undesirable/unattainable for anyone.
-Offsetting:
maybe the term helps the idea spread, but offsetting in animal ethics assumes too much about any alleged hedonic calculus. so im more comfortable to just say Donate.
-Reducetarian:
"psychological laziness. People don’t track the amount of meat they eat throughout the week, making it all too easy to convince yourself you’ve made a bigger reduction than you have." -fair, but do you know where in that cited document this comes from please? couldnt find it. Keen to hear more critiques of reducetarianism.
Another problem is judging/determining the counterfactual. Anyone can say they "try" to eat less meat :S
Another problem is substituting chicken for cow
-Paris exception or variant (vegan; veggie sometimes when travelling or doing X):
similar to reducetarianism
[A moral criticism of all of them would be that non-expoitation is a categorical imperative. Praise would be it eliminates opportunity cost of veganism-only advocacy]
Ive seen a few claims that Chickens, Fish, and Decapods are a priority to stop eating. What's the best citation for this claim please? I presume it's based on suffering/kilogram
My thoughts on post-veganism and animal ethics at https://kungfuhobbit.medium.com/animal-ethics-36027802b457#d000
Thanks