As others have argued, there are other positive consequences of going vegan besides the direct impact on the change in the demand. These include
demonstrating that a vegan diet is healthy and sustainable in the long-term and can be achieved by people such as the individual in question
provide data for long term studies on vegan health, nutrition and longevity
increase demand for vegan products including vegan options at restaurants and grocery, meat alternatives, cultured meat, vegan alternatives in clothing, etc.
the reduction in demand from animals arising from those who made dietary changes inspired by the individual
I disagree that eating meat is as indirect an effect on the ultimate harm (animal abuse) as contribution to GHG is. With emissions, there are a few more steps: emission --> greater concentrations in the atmosphere -- > greater radiative forcing --> increase in temperature --> (potentially) disruptive and destructive climatic events --> harm individuals. That is quite different for most people than eating the flesh of an animal that was alive not too long ago and whose life was dominated by unimaginable misery and suffering.
When it comes to the issue of deontology, I don’t think one has to embrace the philosophical position in a thoroughgoing manner to believe that one should live a life that is relatively in accordance with the principles that one believe in. And if the principle is to minimize animal suffering, then it follows that one would do one’s best to consume fewer products that increase the demand for that suffering (although that in and of itself does not lead to full-fledged veganism; more on that subsequently)
Even in the case of emissions, while offsetting is fine, I would still be a little troubled if someone is using a private jet for frivolous reasons regardless of how much they are offsetting it. The idea of offsetting without making any effort to reduce GHG in the first place is not ideal although I am a bit of a utilitarian monster and would bite the proverbial bullet (just as my grudging approval of a meat-eater who contributes plenty of money for animal charity although I won’t deny the bad taste it leaves in my mouth).
That said, I am fully on board—and have argued quite a bit about this myself—that one should not be expected to a 100% vegan if one is advocating on behalf of animal rights/welfare. Or more generally, the focus should not be on how close one is to some arbitrary ideal but doing what one can given all the constraints.
There are several things here:
As others have argued, there are other positive consequences of going vegan besides the direct impact on the change in the demand. These include
demonstrating that a vegan diet is healthy and sustainable in the long-term and can be achieved by people such as the individual in question
provide data for long term studies on vegan health, nutrition and longevity
increase demand for vegan products including vegan options at restaurants and grocery, meat alternatives, cultured meat, vegan alternatives in clothing, etc.
the reduction in demand from animals arising from those who made dietary changes inspired by the individual
I disagree that eating meat is as indirect an effect on the ultimate harm (animal abuse) as contribution to GHG is. With emissions, there are a few more steps: emission --> greater concentrations in the atmosphere -- > greater radiative forcing --> increase in temperature --> (potentially) disruptive and destructive climatic events --> harm individuals. That is quite different for most people than eating the flesh of an animal that was alive not too long ago and whose life was dominated by unimaginable misery and suffering.
When it comes to the issue of deontology, I don’t think one has to embrace the philosophical position in a thoroughgoing manner to believe that one should live a life that is relatively in accordance with the principles that one believe in. And if the principle is to minimize animal suffering, then it follows that one would do one’s best to consume fewer products that increase the demand for that suffering (although that in and of itself does not lead to full-fledged veganism; more on that subsequently)
Even in the case of emissions, while offsetting is fine, I would still be a little troubled if someone is using a private jet for frivolous reasons regardless of how much they are offsetting it. The idea of offsetting without making any effort to reduce GHG in the first place is not ideal although I am a bit of a utilitarian monster and would bite the proverbial bullet (just as my grudging approval of a meat-eater who contributes plenty of money for animal charity although I won’t deny the bad taste it leaves in my mouth).
That said, I am fully on board—and have argued quite a bit about this myself—that one should not be expected to a 100% vegan if one is advocating on behalf of animal rights/welfare. Or more generally, the focus should not be on how close one is to some arbitrary ideal but doing what one can given all the constraints.