I’m not sure how much I agree with this / its applicability, but one argument I’ve heard is that, for individual decision-making and social norm-setting,
total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation
(Kind of a stretch, but I enjoyed this speech on the cultural and coordinating power of simple norms, which can be seen as a case against nuanced norms. Maybe the simplicity of some standards as individuals’ principles, advocacy goals, and social norms makes them more resilient to pressure, whereas more nuanced standards might more easily fall down slippery slopes, incrementally succumbing to pressure to expand the scope of their exceptions until they’re far too broad.)
Interesting idea to maximise persuasion/streamline argument.
But I’m not sure I buy this, personally, in this context.
I think something as complex as food systems requires a nuanced response. This actually brings up a further notable point around food resilience. From the book:
’it’s clear that the more diverse and complex an ecosystem is, the healthier and more resilient it is.
’When someone argues that all meat is “evil,” decentralized, regional, and regenerative food systems, which offer both better quality of life for animals and more sustainable food for humans, are excluded from the discussion. From a globalization perspective, this is also a challenging ethical position as the folks making the case to remove all animal inputs in the global food system are pushing for food policies that would destroy the food systems in developing countries.
’A truly resilient food system requires as much life as possible, and this means animals and plants… Encourage this system to be as diversified and resilient as possible.
‘Different regions have area-specific ecosystems that can provide different foods. In some areas it may make more sense to raise camels or goats, depending on what the landscape can provide. When we see regions feeding themselves instead of relying on outside food, we generally see more resilience.’
I’m not sure how much I agree with this / its applicability, but one argument I’ve heard is that, for individual decision-making and social norm-setting,
(Kind of a stretch, but I enjoyed this speech on the cultural and coordinating power of simple norms, which can be seen as a case against nuanced norms. Maybe the simplicity of some standards as individuals’ principles, advocacy goals, and social norms makes them more resilient to pressure, whereas more nuanced standards might more easily fall down slippery slopes, incrementally succumbing to pressure to expand the scope of their exceptions until they’re far too broad.)
Thanks for replying, Mauricio.
Interesting idea to maximise persuasion/streamline argument.
But I’m not sure I buy this, personally, in this context.
I think something as complex as food systems requires a nuanced response. This actually brings up a further notable point around food resilience. From the book:
’it’s clear that the more diverse and complex an ecosystem is, the healthier and more resilient it is.
’When someone argues that all meat is “evil,” decentralized, regional, and regenerative food systems, which offer both better quality of life for animals and more sustainable food for humans, are excluded from the discussion. From a globalization perspective, this is also a challenging ethical position as the folks making the case to remove all animal inputs in the global food system are pushing for food policies that would destroy the food systems in developing countries.
’A truly resilient food system requires as much life as possible, and this means animals and plants… Encourage this system to be as diversified and resilient as possible.
‘Different regions have area-specific ecosystems that can provide different foods. In some areas it may make more sense to raise camels or goats, depending on what the landscape can provide. When we see regions feeding themselves instead of relying on outside food, we generally see more resilience.’