Good question! I think (a) having to think about which is the 10% and “should I eat this” every meal uses too much bandwidth. I find a simple rule easier overall. It’s kind of like how I don’t calculate the consequences of my actions at every decision even though I’m consequentialist. I rely on heuristics instead. (b) I found it really hard to get to my current diet. It took me many years. And I think that personally I’ll find it hard to re-introduce 10% of the animal products without being tempted and it becoming 50%. (c) I think the things I say about veganism to other vegans / animal people are more credible when I’m vegan [as I’m clearly committed to the cause and not making excuses for myself].
As someone who endorses offsetting (or donating to animal charities in excess of offset) as a form of being an ally to animals, would not being an omnivore who donates far in excess of the offset make you more credible regarding this position?
No, not to many animal advocates and vegans. I’ve had plenty reach out to check my “vegan credentials” to determine whether (in their view) I’m “on their side”
Yeah, I understand the need for credibility with the animal rights community, but it probably would be helpful if there were more prominent omnivores who emphatically identified as animal advocates. Probably one of the reasons factory farming can be so successful is that there’s a perceived barrier to entry to fighting it as becoming vegan. The more that vegans reinforce the narrative that “to be on our side, you need to be vegan”, the more they are alienating potential allies and making it easier for the monstrous system to persist. I think what might be the most important in broadening the movement would be prominent animal rights activists who are omnivores.
Agreed! We’re trying to find people with audiences who are sympathetic the cause but unwilling or unable to change their diet (e.g. Sam Harris) and provide them with a non-diet-related solution that they can speak to their audience about without having to fear backlash due to perceived moralising about people’s diets
I guess it’s an interesting position you’re in—you might personally want to be strictly vegan, but also in some ways the whole point of FarmKind is that you don’t need to do that/doing that doesn’t have all that large an impact.
Which also puts you in a bit of a bind bc as you say there are animal advocates who will see not being vegan as a mark of unseriousness.
Getting FarmKind featured by Sam Harris would be a real coup.
You can also do both to some extent—when people query it you can say that you’re vegan but that the impact of doing so is far less than e.g. one’s own personal giving to animal orgs.
Good question! I think (a) having to think about which is the 10% and “should I eat this” every meal uses too much bandwidth. I find a simple rule easier overall. It’s kind of like how I don’t calculate the consequences of my actions at every decision even though I’m consequentialist. I rely on heuristics instead. (b) I found it really hard to get to my current diet. It took me many years. And I think that personally I’ll find it hard to re-introduce 10% of the animal products without being tempted and it becoming 50%. (c) I think the things I say about veganism to other vegans / animal people are more credible when I’m vegan [as I’m clearly committed to the cause and not making excuses for myself].
As someone who endorses offsetting (or donating to animal charities in excess of offset) as a form of being an ally to animals, would not being an omnivore who donates far in excess of the offset make you more credible regarding this position?
No, not to many animal advocates and vegans. I’ve had plenty reach out to check my “vegan credentials” to determine whether (in their view) I’m “on their side”
Yeah, I understand the need for credibility with the animal rights community, but it probably would be helpful if there were more prominent omnivores who emphatically identified as animal advocates. Probably one of the reasons factory farming can be so successful is that there’s a perceived barrier to entry to fighting it as becoming vegan. The more that vegans reinforce the narrative that “to be on our side, you need to be vegan”, the more they are alienating potential allies and making it easier for the monstrous system to persist. I think what might be the most important in broadening the movement would be prominent animal rights activists who are omnivores.
Agreed! We’re trying to find people with audiences who are sympathetic the cause but unwilling or unable to change their diet (e.g. Sam Harris) and provide them with a non-diet-related solution that they can speak to their audience about without having to fear backlash due to perceived moralising about people’s diets
I guess it’s an interesting position you’re in—you might personally want to be strictly vegan, but also in some ways the whole point of FarmKind is that you don’t need to do that/doing that doesn’t have all that large an impact.
Which also puts you in a bit of a bind bc as you say there are animal advocates who will see not being vegan as a mark of unseriousness.
Getting FarmKind featured by Sam Harris would be a real coup.
You can also do both to some extent—when people query it you can say that you’re vegan but that the impact of doing so is far less than e.g. one’s own personal giving to animal orgs.