The paradoxical complementarity of baby steps and animal rights

Should vegans advocate baby steps? Recently, I have read a lot of opinions of vegans about this very question. It’s pretty obvious that the vegan community is split. Most are in favor, but a vocal strong willed minority is very much against it.

I propose that both perspectives are valid and that baby steps and animal rights are incompatible and yet paradoxically complimentary.

Against baby-steps

First of all, animal rights and baby steps are incompatible. Gary Yourofsky’s famous speech would not have been so famous, if at the end of it he would have proposed baby steps. Likening animals rights violations to any other injustice is a valid moral stance. Animal rights advocates should seek the total abolishment of animal exploitation.

It undermines the animal rights movement if one condones baby steps. The question will always remain, can you justify the suffering of that one individual animal for your taste pleasure? One does not become justified in killing a cow just because one has been vegan for a ten years.

I have been active with Anonymous for the Voiceless for a couple of years and have witnessed how incredibly effective it can be. One time I got 10 people in the span of three hours pledging veganism to me. I have spoken to numerous people who became vegan through being in contact with non-apologetic vegans. The vegan / animal rights message, in the right context, definitely gets people on board and baby steps have no place in that message.

In favor of baby steps

On the other hand, why do we care about animal rights in the first place? Is it not because we care about the life and suffering of sentient beings? If so, is then not any reduction in animal suffering a win? And, strategically speaking, is an all or nothing mentality always the best strategy to improve the real world situation for animals?

The data clearly shows that baby steps are effective in reducing animal suffering and in helping us achieve a vegan future. Asking people to reduce is more effective, in certain contexts, than to ask them to go vegan (source). And people who have already reduced, like vegetarians for example, are several times more likely to become vegans than people who have not (source). So while advocating for baby steps might not morally be the best thing to do, it could still, practically speaking, be a good thing to do.

Without baby steps the vegan movement is unlikely to have found the traction that it has found today. Let’s not forget the vegan society was initially created from members of the vegetarian society.

Maybe baby steps and animal rights don’t mix, but they certainly match.

Paradoxical complementarity

Speaking of the vegan society, let’s also not forget that the vegan society’s definition of veganism has changed at least 13 times since its inception (source). Even the founders of veganism were unsure about whether veganism should be a diet or an animal rights movement. So perhaps instead of gatekeeping, maybe we can just acknowledge that the total abolishment of animal exploitation isn’t going to happen over night and is too large and complex of a problem to be tackled by a singular strategy.

While I personally feel baby steps are for babies and will continue to fight for animal rights, I also realize that I do not live in an ideal world. Practically speaking, the data convinces me that baby steps have a very important role to play in the success of the vegan movement. It’s sad that we need meat free Monday’s, but since it actually helps in reducing animal suffering I should be happy that it exists and that there are people who fight for it.

So embrace the paradoxical complementarity of baby steps in veganism and let go of any sense of hostility towards people who are on a path that leads to veganism, welcome utilitarians who are concerned with reducing suffering, stop gatekeeping so hard and be thankful for those of us who fight for baby steps as well as those of us who fight for animal rights. We’re in this together!