I understand where this post is coming from, but I disagree with it pretty strongly. I might write a full post to flesh out my disagreement, but here are my messy thoughts:
I agree with downgrading the importance of being vegan, but I disagree strongly with making it taboo.
Many vegans actually define veganism not as a diet but as an ethical position. I embrace this—I actually think we should broaden the scope of veganism. If you eat vegan normally, and for the right reasons, but make the odd exception (I’m guilty as well!) then I want to say you’re vegan.
Implicit in the framing of this post is that the thing we’re against is factory farming. For me, and I expect many animal advocates, this isn’t enough—I think all killing of animals is murder, and I’m against all of it. This distinction is important because it requires adopting a stronger moral position, which veganism reflects.
The climate change analogy doesn’t work, because emitting some GHGs is morally unproblematic—the problem is how much we emit. Eating animals, however, is always to be complicit in murder.
Yes there is a personal cost. I also experience a cost from not being allowed to murder people—but I don’t question that cost. Similarly, I never question the cost of not eating meat. I would never want to be complicit in murder.
I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement. We want as many on board as possible. But I would be uncomfortable with non-vegans leading the animal rights movement. I like the ‘monk’ analogy—I want those who are seriously non-speciesist to lead.
Making it taboo is a bit like saying… “being strictly against the murder of innocent children, such that you boycott all products that require the murder of innocent children to be made? We don’t do that here. We’re against the torture of innocent children, but you go ahead and purchase fragments of their corpses if you want.” The alternative, of course is to take an approach where you view veganism as an ideal that all should strive for, but acknowledge that it’s hard, people face different challenges, and so are also not judgy of people who fail to meet that standard. My perception is that many animal advocacy groups already do this well.
You actually wrote “I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement.” You actually wrote that !!
As in, in your eyes, the true animal-rights movement is limited to the 1-2% of people who are vegans, but you deign to accept the help of some of the 98% of people who are not.
Vegans do not own the animal rights movement. People who care about animals and make commitments to help them own the animal rights movement.
If I, as an individual, decide that I want to do as much as possible to help end factory-farming, then becoming vegan would probably not be in the top 5 more impactful things I could do. On the other hand, it might well be among the most difficult things I could do.
Imagine if all the people who work on artificial protein decided that they owned the animal rights movement (because many people would argue that they are working on a much more viable long-term solution than veganism), but they were not so tolerant and decided that they didn’t want vegans in their movement unless they also dedicated their careers to artificial protein.
I do agree that it’s not about making veganism taboo. Vegans play a huge role in animal-rights, especially if they are clear that they do this because they oppose the killing of animals for food. (those of you who live in the kind of EA-bubble may not realise this, but most people do not immediately make this association—veganism is often seen as a kind of hippy / mindful / health-driven kind of thing rather than a robust position held by strong-willed people who care about animals.)
But when it’s used to exclude (as in, you wouldn’t be happy to have non-vegans leading the animal-rights movement), it is absolutely not helping.
Unless you see veganism as a total solution in itself. In that case, it’s not nearly enough to be vegan. You need to convince everyone to become vegan. Not just people who care about animal rights. Everyone. There is absolutely space for a movement to convince more people to become vegans, but (maybe I’m out of the loop) I haven’t seen any evidence of this. This is not about asking individual vegans to become advocates—they are already doing their part by role-modelling the behaviour—but about a movement that aggressively communicates how horrific it is that we kill animals and eat them, and then proposes a solution.
(Ironically, even this doesn’t necessarily have to be led by vegans—it might even work better if the protagonists were non-vegans who were trying to become vegans and encountering the same challenges that everyone else faces, rather than people who are already past them).
I understand where this post is coming from, but I disagree with it pretty strongly. I might write a full post to flesh out my disagreement, but here are my messy thoughts:
I agree with downgrading the importance of being vegan, but I disagree strongly with making it taboo.
Many vegans actually define veganism not as a diet but as an ethical position. I embrace this—I actually think we should broaden the scope of veganism. If you eat vegan normally, and for the right reasons, but make the odd exception (I’m guilty as well!) then I want to say you’re vegan.
Implicit in the framing of this post is that the thing we’re against is factory farming. For me, and I expect many animal advocates, this isn’t enough—I think all killing of animals is murder, and I’m against all of it. This distinction is important because it requires adopting a stronger moral position, which veganism reflects.
The climate change analogy doesn’t work, because emitting some GHGs is morally unproblematic—the problem is how much we emit. Eating animals, however, is always to be complicit in murder.
Yes there is a personal cost. I also experience a cost from not being allowed to murder people—but I don’t question that cost. Similarly, I never question the cost of not eating meat. I would never want to be complicit in murder.
I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement. We want as many on board as possible. But I would be uncomfortable with non-vegans leading the animal rights movement. I like the ‘monk’ analogy—I want those who are seriously non-speciesist to lead.
Making it taboo is a bit like saying… “being strictly against the murder of innocent children, such that you boycott all products that require the murder of innocent children to be made? We don’t do that here. We’re against the torture of innocent children, but you go ahead and purchase fragments of their corpses if you want.” The alternative, of course is to take an approach where you view veganism as an ideal that all should strive for, but acknowledge that it’s hard, people face different challenges, and so are also not judgy of people who fail to meet that standard. My perception is that many animal advocacy groups already do this well.
You actually wrote “I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement.” You actually wrote that !!
As in, in your eyes, the true animal-rights movement is limited to the 1-2% of people who are vegans, but you deign to accept the help of some of the 98% of people who are not.
Vegans do not own the animal rights movement. People who care about animals and make commitments to help them own the animal rights movement.
If I, as an individual, decide that I want to do as much as possible to help end factory-farming, then becoming vegan would probably not be in the top 5 more impactful things I could do. On the other hand, it might well be among the most difficult things I could do.
Imagine if all the people who work on artificial protein decided that they owned the animal rights movement (because many people would argue that they are working on a much more viable long-term solution than veganism), but they were not so tolerant and decided that they didn’t want vegans in their movement unless they also dedicated their careers to artificial protein.
I do agree that it’s not about making veganism taboo. Vegans play a huge role in animal-rights, especially if they are clear that they do this because they oppose the killing of animals for food. (those of you who live in the kind of EA-bubble may not realise this, but most people do not immediately make this association—veganism is often seen as a kind of hippy / mindful / health-driven kind of thing rather than a robust position held by strong-willed people who care about animals.)
But when it’s used to exclude (as in, you wouldn’t be happy to have non-vegans leading the animal-rights movement), it is absolutely not helping.
Unless you see veganism as a total solution in itself. In that case, it’s not nearly enough to be vegan. You need to convince everyone to become vegan. Not just people who care about animal rights. Everyone. There is absolutely space for a movement to convince more people to become vegans, but (maybe I’m out of the loop) I haven’t seen any evidence of this. This is not about asking individual vegans to become advocates—they are already doing their part by role-modelling the behaviour—but about a movement that aggressively communicates how horrific it is that we kill animals and eat them, and then proposes a solution.
(Ironically, even this doesn’t necessarily have to be led by vegans—it might even work better if the protagonists were non-vegans who were trying to become vegans and encountering the same challenges that everyone else faces, rather than people who are already past them).