“We would never ask child abusers to commit less child abuse, so we can’t ask other people to reduce their animal product consumption. We must ask them to end it.”
I would ask whatever more cost-effectively decreases child abuse. If child abuse was as prevalent as the consumption of factory-farmed animals, I guess asking for a reduction of it, while simultaneously highlighting that the optimal amount of child abose is 0, would tend to be more cost-effective than just demanding the end of child abuse.
I assume there should be a portfolio of tactics, including more restrictive/deontic ones to leverage the radical flank effect. I also guess the fraction of more restrictive/deontic tactics should increase as the prevalence of the bad practice decreases, i.e. as the number of people opposed to the practice increases.
Thanks for the post, Emre!
I would ask whatever more cost-effectively decreases child abuse. If child abuse was as prevalent as the consumption of factory-farmed animals, I guess asking for a reduction of it, while simultaneously highlighting that the optimal amount of child abose is 0, would tend to be more cost-effective than just demanding the end of child abuse.
I assume there should be a portfolio of tactics, including more restrictive/deontic ones to leverage the radical flank effect. I also guess the fraction of more restrictive/deontic tactics should increase as the prevalence of the bad practice decreases, i.e. as the number of people opposed to the practice increases.