Good point with the comparison to personal carbon footprints.
I think youâre underestimating the value of âsocial contagionâ as you call it (alternatively ârole-modellingâ or ânormalisingâ). I became a vegetarian because vegetarians around me were making me question my beliefs and were showing me it was possible. Also, I think people are very dismissive of opinions that feel are hypocritical. I think the animal welfare message loses a lot of power if itâs not coming from a vegetarian/âvegan or, even better, a large group of vegetarians/âvegans
I question your economic analysis of meat-eating:
your reduction in demand for meat makes them cheaper for others, which will lead some to increase in their consumption...
Following this logic the amount of consumption of any given non-essential good would never change. If I refuse to buy seal fur then the amount of seal fur gets cheaper so someone else buys a little more. More likely there will be a net reduction in supply.
In some cases, such as a party, a fixed quantity of meat has already been prepared and some may simply be discarded if it is not all consumed
The âfixed quantityâ is based on a prediction of how much meat will be needed at the party. If an organiser knows there will be vegetarians there, theyâll probably order less salami.
My takeaway from this is that we should reduce our animal product consumption AND decrease our personal carbon footprint, primarily for the social contagion/ânormalising/ânon-hypocrite effect, secondarily for the drop-in-the-bucket direct effects.
your reduction in demand for meat makes them cheaper for others, which will lead some to increase in their consumption...
Following this logic the amount of consumption of any given non-essential good would never change.
Youâve misunderstood the line you quoted. Itâs only saying that other peopleâs meat consumption will increase by some fraction of the amount youâve reduced your consumption, not that people will increase their consumption by however much you reduce yours.
Yep, Iâm just saying that the equilibrium change in the quantity consumed will be less than the individualâs foregone consumption, not that it will be zero. How much less depends on the elasticities of supply and demand.
Good point with the comparison to personal carbon footprints.
I think youâre underestimating the value of âsocial contagionâ as you call it (alternatively ârole-modellingâ or ânormalisingâ). I became a vegetarian because vegetarians around me were making me question my beliefs and were showing me it was possible. Also, I think people are very dismissive of opinions that feel are hypocritical. I think the animal welfare message loses a lot of power if itâs not coming from a vegetarian/âvegan or, even better, a large group of vegetarians/âvegans
I question your economic analysis of meat-eating:
Following this logic the amount of consumption of any given non-essential good would never change. If I refuse to buy seal fur then the amount of seal fur gets cheaper so someone else buys a little more. More likely there will be a net reduction in supply.
The âfixed quantityâ is based on a prediction of how much meat will be needed at the party. If an organiser knows there will be vegetarians there, theyâll probably order less salami.
My takeaway from this is that we should reduce our animal product consumption AND decrease our personal carbon footprint, primarily for the social contagion/ânormalising/ânon-hypocrite effect, secondarily for the drop-in-the-bucket direct effects.
Youâve misunderstood the line you quoted. Itâs only saying that other peopleâs meat consumption will increase by some fraction of the amount youâve reduced your consumption, not that people will increase their consumption by however much you reduce yours.
Yep, Iâm just saying that the equilibrium change in the quantity consumed will be less than the individualâs foregone consumption, not that it will be zero. How much less depends on the elasticities of supply and demand.