I agree that removing the 10% of animal products from your diet that causes the least suffering is not that important, and otherwise clear-headed EAs treat it like a very big deal in a way they don’t treat giving 10% less to charity as a very big deal (even though it only takes small amounts of base giving for the latter to be a far bigger deal). There is a puritanical attitude to diet that is surprisingly pervasive on the forum which I think is counter-productive.
Another commenter (Tristan) is right to point to other and second-order benefits of veganism, but some of the common ones I hear I don’t find persuasive. For example, it’s not clear to me whether the signaling value of being 100% vegan and strict about it (which many people now pattern match with being shrill and judgmental) is positive, or at least more positive than being 90% vegan (signaling that change doesn’t have to be all or nothing, that taking intermediate first steps is good etc.)
But this post’s title that ‘you SHOULD eat meat if you hate factory farming’ goes too far. I don’t find the case compelling. So upvoting and disagreeing :)
Hey, I agree that many people associate veganism with ‘annoying people’. But that’s actually...more reason to call yourself vegan, if you’re not an annoying person yourself! Break the stereotype, and normalise being standing for vegan values :)
My sense is that a lot of people in EA are against factory farming, but still buy into human supremacy and are ok with free-range farming. Then the 90% approach reflects the appropriate attitude and is fine. But for those like myself who have long-term hopes of ending animal exploitation altogether, I think it makes sense to signal that we oppose all of it. Requiring others to be strict is certainly counter-productive, though. I also don’t think change has to be all or nothing—I actually think it’s really good for people who make exceptions sometimes to call themselves vegan.
To be clear, I want to see factory farming ended, I’m vegan (except occasional bivalves), and co-founded an animal welfare charity.
I’m with you on the goal.
But while all the vegans I know seem to take it as self-evident that being vegan is the best diet choice in terms of social signalling, I’m not convinced.
You’re right that it’s possible to be a non-judgmental strict vegan, and everyone should aspire to be. But in my experience, the average vegan doesn’t meet this standard. And so rather than assuming a marginal vegan will be the best case scenario, I assume they’ll be average, and I think that could be negative.
[Of course, I don’t have good data on how judgmentally the average vegan behaves — but neither do the people who assume they’re positive signaling value. It’s also likely that my and most people’s perceptions of vegans is skewed by a vocal minority. But the result is that omnivores are often very defensive around vegans, even when the vegan isn’t being judgmental and is just silently being a strict vegan. I suspect that for someone to know that you’re a strict vegan and not feel judged would require you to actively demonstrate to them that you don’t judge them. And that’s actually quite hard to do]I’m
My guess is that the people reading the EA Forum are much less judgmental than the average vegan and generally, there will be a selection effect such that people who are actually willing to think reasonably and be 90% vegan won’t be the judgmental ones anyway. So, probably for people here, it’s not harmful to recommend people be non-judgmental strict vegans for signalling reasons.
They’re probably less judgmental than average. Also perhaps poorer social skills on average. Do I back us to have the required tact? :P
But in all seriousness, the answer to “is it positive for social signalling to have an extra vegan EA forum reader” could defs be different to “is it positive for social signalling to have an extra vegan”. I had the latter in mind when I questioned the signalling value
That’s fair. I would love it if we had data on this, and to be honest I am unsure about whether being strictly vegan is always right—my stronger objection to this article was about not being strictly vegetarian. That is easier to do and I think is perceived as less strict, at least in western societies. On the other hand, as I said in another comment I think that it’s very hard to eat meat and fully internalise nonspeciesism at the same time. A true nonspeciesist should be disugsted by meat, because that’s literally a dead body in front of you. So I think it’s worth it to be strictly vegetarian primarily to reinforce your own values, internally—but also for the signalling effect.
I agree that removing the 10% of animal products from your diet that causes the least suffering is not that important, and otherwise clear-headed EAs treat it like a very big deal in a way they don’t treat giving 10% less to charity as a very big deal. … it’s not clear to me whether the signaling value of being 100% vegan and strict about it … is positive
Given this, why are you vegan?
(I’m also ~vegan but wrestle with the relative importance of it given how difficult can be; the signalling value to others is one of the reasons I think it’s good.)
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.
I agree that removing the 10% of animal products from your diet that causes the least suffering is not that important, and otherwise clear-headed EAs treat it like a very big deal in a way they don’t treat giving 10% less to charity as a very big deal (even though it only takes small amounts of base giving for the latter to be a far bigger deal). There is a puritanical attitude to diet that is surprisingly pervasive on the forum which I think is counter-productive.
Another commenter (Tristan) is right to point to other and second-order benefits of veganism, but some of the common ones I hear I don’t find persuasive. For example, it’s not clear to me whether the signaling value of being 100% vegan and strict about it (which many people now pattern match with being shrill and judgmental) is positive, or at least more positive than being 90% vegan (signaling that change doesn’t have to be all or nothing, that taking intermediate first steps is good etc.)
But this post’s title that ‘you SHOULD eat meat if you hate factory farming’ goes too far. I don’t find the case compelling. So upvoting and disagreeing :)
Hey, I agree that many people associate veganism with ‘annoying people’. But that’s actually...more reason to call yourself vegan, if you’re not an annoying person yourself! Break the stereotype, and normalise being standing for vegan values :)
My sense is that a lot of people in EA are against factory farming, but still buy into human supremacy and are ok with free-range farming. Then the 90% approach reflects the appropriate attitude and is fine. But for those like myself who have long-term hopes of ending animal exploitation altogether, I think it makes sense to signal that we oppose all of it. Requiring others to be strict is certainly counter-productive, though. I also don’t think change has to be all or nothing—I actually think it’s really good for people who make exceptions sometimes to call themselves vegan.
To be clear, I want to see factory farming ended, I’m vegan (except occasional bivalves), and co-founded an animal welfare charity.
I’m with you on the goal.
But while all the vegans I know seem to take it as self-evident that being vegan is the best diet choice in terms of social signalling, I’m not convinced.
You’re right that it’s possible to be a non-judgmental strict vegan, and everyone should aspire to be. But in my experience, the average vegan doesn’t meet this standard. And so rather than assuming a marginal vegan will be the best case scenario, I assume they’ll be average, and I think that could be negative.
[Of course, I don’t have good data on how judgmentally the average vegan behaves — but neither do the people who assume they’re positive signaling value. It’s also likely that my and most people’s perceptions of vegans is skewed by a vocal minority. But the result is that omnivores are often very defensive around vegans, even when the vegan isn’t being judgmental and is just silently being a strict vegan. I suspect that for someone to know that you’re a strict vegan and not feel judged would require you to actively demonstrate to them that you don’t judge them. And that’s actually quite hard to do]I’m
My guess is that the people reading the EA Forum are much less judgmental than the average vegan and generally, there will be a selection effect such that people who are actually willing to think reasonably and be 90% vegan won’t be the judgmental ones anyway. So, probably for people here, it’s not harmful to recommend people be non-judgmental strict vegans for signalling reasons.
They’re probably less judgmental than average. Also perhaps poorer social skills on average. Do I back us to have the required tact? :P
But in all seriousness, the answer to “is it positive for social signalling to have an extra vegan EA forum reader” could defs be different to “is it positive for social signalling to have an extra vegan”. I had the latter in mind when I questioned the signalling value
That’s fair. I would love it if we had data on this, and to be honest I am unsure about whether being strictly vegan is always right—my stronger objection to this article was about not being strictly vegetarian. That is easier to do and I think is perceived as less strict, at least in western societies. On the other hand, as I said in another comment I think that it’s very hard to eat meat and fully internalise nonspeciesism at the same time. A true nonspeciesist should be disugsted by meat, because that’s literally a dead body in front of you. So I think it’s worth it to be strictly vegetarian primarily to reinforce your own values, internally—but also for the signalling effect.
Given this, why are you vegan?
(I’m also ~vegan but wrestle with the relative importance of it given how difficult can be; the signalling value to others is one of the reasons I think it’s good.)
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.