Completely speculating here, but I wonder how much of the impetus for a campaign like this could be (emphasis on could!) illustrative of a broader disinterest in diet change work among some EAs. And so, even if vegnauary and adjacent efforts, or even veganism generally, are undermined in public discourse, some EAs might be ok with this because they basically don’t think diet change is a serious way to help animals?
Like, to me, if this campaign successfully brings in a lot of donations that otherwise wouldn’t be given, then that would be a success, assuming in the interim there aren’t major fractures in the movement generally or other harms. But I wonder if some EAs basically round those fractures to zero regardless of how serious they are/may seem.
This could be completely wrong, though! This is a quick take afterall :).
Encouraging such donations could be good, and advocating for diet change doesn’t seem to be favoured in EA. Advocating a “moral offsetting” approach to meat consumption is probably controversial I guess, but within realms of the plausibly reasonable. There doesn’t seem to be anything gained by being negative about veganism though, and not doing that would seem robustly better.
Edit—perhaps it could be argued that a campaign against veganism may more effectively raise attention than if no criticism were made. That would still seem to me to be an excessively risky and divisive strategy, though. And it makes claims that don’t seem to generally be correct about veganism and says some other silly things, which doesn’t seem like a good way to go.
There doesn’t seem to be anything gained by being negative about veganism though, and not doing that would seem robustly better.
Being seen as honest about the problems with veganism raises their credibility with their other recommendations. “Oh yes, we’re not like those annoying people you’ve already rejected, we have a different view”.
It doesn’t really seem honest to me. It ignores all the experiences of people who didn’t find it particularly problematic or even positive to do Veganuary.
Completely speculating here, but I wonder how much of the impetus for a campaign like this could be (emphasis on could!) illustrative of a broader disinterest in diet change work among some EAs. And so, even if vegnauary and adjacent efforts, or even veganism generally, are undermined in public discourse, some EAs might be ok with this because they basically don’t think diet change is a serious way to help animals?
Like, to me, if this campaign successfully brings in a lot of donations that otherwise wouldn’t be given, then that would be a success, assuming in the interim there aren’t major fractures in the movement generally or other harms. But I wonder if some EAs basically round those fractures to zero regardless of how serious they are/may seem.
This could be completely wrong, though! This is a quick take afterall :).
Encouraging such donations could be good, and advocating for diet change doesn’t seem to be favoured in EA. Advocating a “moral offsetting” approach to meat consumption is probably controversial I guess, but within realms of the plausibly reasonable. There doesn’t seem to be anything gained by being negative about veganism though, and not doing that would seem robustly better.
Edit—perhaps it could be argued that a campaign against veganism may more effectively raise attention than if no criticism were made. That would still seem to me to be an excessively risky and divisive strategy, though. And it makes claims that don’t seem to generally be correct about veganism and says some other silly things, which doesn’t seem like a good way to go.
Being seen as honest about the problems with veganism raises their credibility with their other recommendations. “Oh yes, we’re not like those annoying people you’ve already rejected, we have a different view”.
It doesn’t really seem honest to me. It ignores all the experiences of people who didn’t find it particularly problematic or even positive to do Veganuary.