I think my critique would be different from the ones described above. It would be that convincing people to go vegan (the end goal) takes time for them to interiorize the reasons and agree. It is naive to believe that we are Bayesian beings that have their preferences written in stone, and so if I make a really smart argument they will just change.
Rather, I believe it is more effective to invite them to try out things such as Meatless Monday, Veganuary, or similar. My intuition is that the key is showing that it’s not so costly to change (it really isn’t).
I acknowledge that the proposed kind of protest might help or might even be necessary in the future, but I’m not sure the time has come for this to succeed at a societal level. Part of this is because you are sending the message that going vegan has a very strong and narrow identity attached and that you expect other potential people going vegan to also pay the social cost of such behavior. If they perceive going vegan as expensive, they are probably even more likely to refuse it. Furthermore, the single fact that every time you eat with other people you refuse to eat meat is a way of signaling that you perceive that as wrong; and every time they decide where to go or what to buy they will be remembered of this fact.
So in summary, I’d rather go with the carrot than the stick here. At least for the time being.
hey Pablo. thanks for taking the time to share this constructive feedback. a few thoughts (in the order presented):
i don’t see convincing people to go vegan as the end goal, per se. rather, i view convincing people to understand veganism not as a value-neutral personal choice—but as one carrying deep ethical implications—to be the purpose.
i agree that the majority of people are not [yet] ready to quickly make big personal changes after listening to a compelling argument (i do, however, think many members of the EA Forum might be, which is why I wanted to share this idea here). that said, i do believe that practicing the Pledge plants a much stronger seed in the minds of others regarding the need to change, and consequently expedites the process of changing. it also helps to clarify the purpose of changing (doing the right thing, morally).
by practicing the Liberation Pledge we aren’t asking others to follow the Liberation Pledge, just to eat vegan around us.. as such, i don’t think the Liberation Pledge makes veganism look any more challenging… on the contrary, it shifts the overton window to make veganism seem more accessible and moderate by comparison. and by [hopefully] getting them to share a vegan meal with us, we help them to see how feasible [and tasty] it can be.
100%. by refusing to eat around those eating animal-based foods we signal that eating animal-based foods is morally wrong. that’s the central power of the Pledge.
I don’t see convincing people to go vegan as the end goal
I think we should agree that the objective is to have fewer animals suffer from the current animal agriculture system (or even from life in the wild, if we want to go wild 😝). It seems that 90 to 95% of this objective is to make people eat less or no meat. So I’d say that the objective should be something along those lines, such as going vegan, no?
i just don’t see us getting to that point via individual change (which in the current framing of “going vegan” entails identity change). i see us getting there via structural change. and think a critical factor for achieving structural change is through stigmatizing the act of eating animal-based foods (and the industry that produces them). the sentience institute has done some good work here (https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/foundational-questions-summaries#individual-vs.-institutional-interventions-and-messaging)
of course, it’s not one or the other. some level of individual change is required for enabling structural change (perhaps the two best articles i know that argue this are Lessig 1995 and Sunstein 1996). but given this movement’s historical focus on the former, i think it’s time to start exploring individual strategies for pursing the latter.
So, I think perhaps our disagreement is that I don’t think we have reached the critical mass to stigmatizing it yet. In the US or western countries in general veganism is ~1-2%. Vegetarianism and flexitarianism might rise that up to 8 to 10%. My intuition is that at this level one would still be seen eccentric enough to signal that animals are worth welfare considerations, but also eccentric enough that you risk marginalization (and very little impact?) if you attempt structural change.
i think we are further along than most assume. yes, the percentage of vegans is devastatingly small. BUT, there is reason to believe there is rapid growing social support:
“Yet a 2014 U.S. survey found that 93 percent of respondents felt it was “very important” to buy their food from humane sources. Eighty-seven percent believe “farmed animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans.” And an astounding 47 percent of U.S. adults say in a survey that they support the seemingly radical policy change of “a ban on slaughterhouses.”” https://progressive.org/magazine/emptying-the-cages/
in my eyes, practicing the Pledge is a strategy for helping others who already feel open to these positions [i.e., the majority] reify their support.
I see, it makes sense. Yet, my belief is that these people are willing to say they would do so if it were “free”, but it never is, if only because it requires efforts to change your own habits. If they really wanted, do you think they don’t do it for the risk of criticism of others, or why?
Notice that the idea of making it simple to eat less meat addresses what I think is the main obstacle: changing routines.
unfortunately, i think shockingly few people are willing to make significant personal “sacrifices” for ethical reasons (i put “sacrifice” in quotations because i don’t see being vegan as a sacrifice—the important thing, however, is that others still do...).
i think there are a lot of reasons that hold people back from “going” vegan… the [perceived] hassle, social cost, free-rider effect, associated identity change, etc.
i think the solution is winning systemic change, i.e., policies that change the entire decision-making environment. e.g., as i argue in my forthcoming book (shameless plug), if the sale of meat was banned, all of society would go vegetarian by default (and the collective transition would make it easier for everyone). this systemic change reduces (or eliminates) the hassle, social cost, fear of free riders undermining us, and the need to change identity that often comes with going vegan.
the key, in my mind, is creating the social conditions that will allow for far-reaching systemic changes to become viable, and i view the Pledge as one action (among others) that individuals can take to help.
I think my critique would be different from the ones described above. It would be that convincing people to go vegan (the end goal) takes time for them to interiorize the reasons and agree. It is naive to believe that we are Bayesian beings that have their preferences written in stone, and so if I make a really smart argument they will just change.
Rather, I believe it is more effective to invite them to try out things such as Meatless Monday, Veganuary, or similar. My intuition is that the key is showing that it’s not so costly to change (it really isn’t).
I acknowledge that the proposed kind of protest might help or might even be necessary in the future, but I’m not sure the time has come for this to succeed at a societal level. Part of this is because you are sending the message that going vegan has a very strong and narrow identity attached and that you expect other potential people going vegan to also pay the social cost of such behavior. If they perceive going vegan as expensive, they are probably even more likely to refuse it. Furthermore, the single fact that every time you eat with other people you refuse to eat meat is a way of signaling that you perceive that as wrong; and every time they decide where to go or what to buy they will be remembered of this fact.
So in summary, I’d rather go with the carrot than the stick here. At least for the time being.
hey Pablo. thanks for taking the time to share this constructive feedback. a few thoughts (in the order presented):
i don’t see convincing people to go vegan as the end goal, per se. rather, i view convincing people to understand veganism not as a value-neutral personal choice—but as one carrying deep ethical implications—to be the purpose.
i agree that the majority of people are not [yet] ready to quickly make big personal changes after listening to a compelling argument (i do, however, think many members of the EA Forum might be, which is why I wanted to share this idea here). that said, i do believe that practicing the Pledge plants a much stronger seed in the minds of others regarding the need to change, and consequently expedites the process of changing. it also helps to clarify the purpose of changing (doing the right thing, morally).
by practicing the Liberation Pledge we aren’t asking others to follow the Liberation Pledge, just to eat vegan around us.. as such, i don’t think the Liberation Pledge makes veganism look any more challenging… on the contrary, it shifts the overton window to make veganism seem more accessible and moderate by comparison. and by [hopefully] getting them to share a vegan meal with us, we help them to see how feasible [and tasty] it can be.
100%. by refusing to eat around those eating animal-based foods we signal that eating animal-based foods is morally wrong. that’s the central power of the Pledge.
I think we should agree that the objective is to have fewer animals suffer from the current animal agriculture system (or even from life in the wild, if we want to go wild 😝). It seems that 90 to 95% of this objective is to make people eat less or no meat. So I’d say that the objective should be something along those lines, such as going vegan, no?
yup, i definitely agree on the objective 👍
i just don’t see us getting to that point via individual change (which in the current framing of “going vegan” entails identity change). i see us getting there via structural change. and think a critical factor for achieving structural change is through stigmatizing the act of eating animal-based foods (and the industry that produces them). the sentience institute has done some good work here (https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/foundational-questions-summaries#individual-vs.-institutional-interventions-and-messaging)
of course, it’s not one or the other. some level of individual change is required for enabling structural change (perhaps the two best articles i know that argue this are Lessig 1995 and Sunstein 1996). but given this movement’s historical focus on the former, i think it’s time to start exploring individual strategies for pursing the latter.
So, I think perhaps our disagreement is that I don’t think we have reached the critical mass to stigmatizing it yet. In the US or western countries in general veganism is ~1-2%. Vegetarianism and flexitarianism might rise that up to 8 to 10%. My intuition is that at this level one would still be seen eccentric enough to signal that animals are worth welfare considerations, but also eccentric enough that you risk marginalization (and very little impact?) if you attempt structural change.
i think we are further along than most assume. yes, the percentage of vegans is devastatingly small. BUT, there is reason to believe there is rapid growing social support:
“Yet a 2014 U.S. survey found that 93 percent of respondents felt it was “very important” to buy their food from humane sources. Eighty-seven percent believe “farmed animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans.” And an astounding 47 percent of U.S. adults say in a survey that they support the seemingly radical policy change of “a ban on slaughterhouses.””
https://progressive.org/magazine/emptying-the-cages/
in my eyes, practicing the Pledge is a strategy for helping others who already feel open to these positions [i.e., the majority] reify their support.
I see, it makes sense. Yet, my belief is that these people are willing to say they would do so if it were “free”, but it never is, if only because it requires efforts to change your own habits. If they really wanted, do you think they don’t do it for the risk of criticism of others, or why? Notice that the idea of making it simple to eat less meat addresses what I think is the main obstacle: changing routines.
unfortunately, i think shockingly few people are willing to make significant personal “sacrifices” for ethical reasons (i put “sacrifice” in quotations because i don’t see being vegan as a sacrifice—the important thing, however, is that others still do...).
i think there are a lot of reasons that hold people back from “going” vegan… the [perceived] hassle, social cost, free-rider effect, associated identity change, etc.
i think the solution is winning systemic change, i.e., policies that change the entire decision-making environment. e.g., as i argue in my forthcoming book (shameless plug), if the sale of meat was banned, all of society would go vegetarian by default (and the collective transition would make it easier for everyone). this systemic change reduces (or eliminates) the hassle, social cost, fear of free riders undermining us, and the need to change identity that often comes with going vegan.
the key, in my mind, is creating the social conditions that will allow for far-reaching systemic changes to become viable, and i view the Pledge as one action (among others) that individuals can take to help.