I think a major part of why people lapse completely is that there exists a widespread belief that veg*nism is a hard and fast label, and falling off the wagon is irreversible. Many ex-vegans I know now eat completely omni diets that are simply at odds with their moral beliefs. I think that promoting the idea that 80⁄20 veganism is okay will result in a lot less animal product consumption overall. This article explains the way this black-and-white thinking negatively affects peoples’ beliefs around their diet and personal identity.
Religious communities have a lot to teach us here. Picture the following recruitment strategy:
target the majority of a population in a small, stable area (liberal upper-middle class suburbia seems like a good initial candidate)
focus on recruiting the influencers and the household cooks
hold weekly or monthly food-related events (communal meals) where people have an opportunity to learn more, question, make public commitments and be supported by their peers
promote adherence to values rather than strict rules, and encourage people to honestly discuss their challenges and successes.
Eventually, this kind of community could function like a local atheist spiritual community of some kind, and be a platform for spreading other effective altruism ideas.
In most parts of the world, veganism is not the norm, which I believe is a big part of why people find it so challenging long-term. Focusing on universities strengthens the perception that veganism is merely part of a normal period of experimentation. Once there are people who live in communities where more than 50% of people are veg*n, I suspect it will be much easier to both retain those people and convert new people.
i agree with the 80⁄20 idea, and i wonder we apparently 98% of our movement keeps stuck in black and white thinking. for instance in this case, we are apparently thinking that the question to what level of consumption the vegans are sliding back is irrelevant, but it’s not, of course. for one thing, moderate use still saves a lot of animals, for another, every reducer helps make full time veganism more easy, by increasing demand (and thus the supply), the social acceptability, the convenience with which to eat vegan etc… a society where 60% of people are 75% vegan is probably a lot better and closer to a vegan society than one where 10% of the people are full time vegan...
also, something jonathan saffran foer told me: you know the example of the guy that eats meat again because once he was at an airport and it was the only thing he could it? he fell back entirely. i think that has to do with the fact that we see veganism too much as an identity, and as something binary. when we fail, we might as well give up
i know the second point is perhaps in contradiction with the first, but maybe they both have some merit somewhere…
I think a major part of why people lapse completely is that there exists a widespread belief that veg*nism is a hard and fast label, and falling off the wagon is irreversible. Many ex-vegans I know now eat completely omni diets that are simply at odds with their moral beliefs. I think that promoting the idea that 80⁄20 veganism is okay will result in a lot less animal product consumption overall. This article explains the way this black-and-white thinking negatively affects peoples’ beliefs around their diet and personal identity.
Religious communities have a lot to teach us here. Picture the following recruitment strategy:
target the majority of a population in a small, stable area (liberal upper-middle class suburbia seems like a good initial candidate)
focus on recruiting the influencers and the household cooks
hold weekly or monthly food-related events (communal meals) where people have an opportunity to learn more, question, make public commitments and be supported by their peers
promote adherence to values rather than strict rules, and encourage people to honestly discuss their challenges and successes.
Eventually, this kind of community could function like a local atheist spiritual community of some kind, and be a platform for spreading other effective altruism ideas.
In most parts of the world, veganism is not the norm, which I believe is a big part of why people find it so challenging long-term. Focusing on universities strengthens the perception that veganism is merely part of a normal period of experimentation. Once there are people who live in communities where more than 50% of people are veg*n, I suspect it will be much easier to both retain those people and convert new people.
i agree with the 80⁄20 idea, and i wonder we apparently 98% of our movement keeps stuck in black and white thinking. for instance in this case, we are apparently thinking that the question to what level of consumption the vegans are sliding back is irrelevant, but it’s not, of course. for one thing, moderate use still saves a lot of animals, for another, every reducer helps make full time veganism more easy, by increasing demand (and thus the supply), the social acceptability, the convenience with which to eat vegan etc… a society where 60% of people are 75% vegan is probably a lot better and closer to a vegan society than one where 10% of the people are full time vegan...
also, something jonathan saffran foer told me: you know the example of the guy that eats meat again because once he was at an airport and it was the only thing he could it? he fell back entirely. i think that has to do with the fact that we see veganism too much as an identity, and as something binary. when we fail, we might as well give up
i know the second point is perhaps in contradiction with the first, but maybe they both have some merit somewhere…