I want to convince them and not trick them into a situation.
Yeah, vegan patties are tasty, if have no choice but to live vegan now is not how any of this works. This might be a joke colleagues or friends tell each other, but the argument and emotional belief system of its speaker is incomplete for veganism.
Veganism is one of the most binary philosophies - there are no consistent half-vegans.
“Veganism = Religion” is a thought-terminating cliché, a knockout argument.
There are no unfalsifiable entities (i.e. gods, prophets) in the vegan philosophy.
Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical philosophy and way of life.
I’m not against vegan burger patties, their development and further market penetration. The absence of vegan burger patties on the other hand would not end veganism or rob it of any argumentative strength.
Again: I don’t question the arguments in favor of veganism, I agree with them (I have better things to do than come here to piss off vegans). I don’t question your right to treat your diet as an “ethical philosophy and way of life”, i.e. something very close to a religion (it sounds like Buddhism).
I’m saying: what is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible? If you care about ending animal suffering and saving the environment as much as you seem to do, then you should be interested in the answer to that question. It sounds to me like you’re more interested in just holding the moral high ground personally. Would be delighted to be wrong.
What is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible?
My opposition to techbros in the vegan context stems from the argument that posits tasty vegan burger patties specifically or “artificial meat” generally as some sort of prerequisite for personally adopting veganism.
Once artificial meat is ready, I’m going vegan. - This is a moving-goalposts argumentative fallacy.
My opinion is that the best way to get a maximum of people to eat less meat is to convince them of/for veganism, because once a critical share of a society actually holds a opinion, society-wide change canwill happen more rapidly and somewhat spontaneously. Society-wide change can then render carnist behaviour (i.e. animal product production chain, hunting etc.) impossible, undesired, deviant or illegal.
This social tipping point isn’t possible IMO, when the people behaving plant-based are not actually vegan (i.e. convinced by the vegan philosophy).
And also hopelessly idealistic, I would say. There will never be more than a small minority of people prepared to change something as crucial to their self-image and group identity as food for the sake of ethical considerations alone. The evidence to the contrary is just not there. People don’t care, or don’t care enough. Even educated people in rich places, let alone the up-and-coming masses in the wider world.
IMO there are precisely three things that might precipitate change: taste, cost, and (distant third) healthiness. I.e., the only things the vast majority of people care about when in the supermarket. Hence the promise of fake meat. It may never be tastier or healthier but if one day it is literally, say, 30% cheaper then we might have a game-changer. At which point, lots of animals will be spared suffering and the environment can take a breather. Although personally I have a terrible suspicion that even this won’t be enough and that lab meat will be only thing to pass muster.
Your approach of fostering a nebulous social movement that will spontaneously sweep all before it, well, again, I would love to be wrong but the evidence is pretty clear that it’s not coming and won’t come. And in the meantime, the animal suffering and environmental destruction does not relent.
I want to convince them and not trick them into a situation.
Yeah, vegan patties are tasty, if have no choice but to live vegan now is not how any of this works. This might be a joke colleagues or friends tell each other, but the argument and emotional belief system of its speaker is incomplete for veganism.
Veganism is one of the most binary philosophies - there are no consistent half-vegans.
This sounds like a prescription for a religion more than a diet.
Being religious is fine. The problem is that this approach is clearly not going to be effective at getting people to eat less meat.
“Veganism = Religion” is a thought-terminating cliché, a knockout argument.
There are no unfalsifiable entities (i.e. gods, prophets) in the vegan philosophy.
Veganism is not a diet, it is an ethical philosophy and way of life.
I’m not against vegan burger patties, their development and further market penetration. The absence of vegan burger patties on the other hand would not end veganism or rob it of any argumentative strength.
Again: I don’t question the arguments in favor of veganism, I agree with them (I have better things to do than come here to piss off vegans). I don’t question your right to treat your diet as an “ethical philosophy and way of life”, i.e. something very close to a religion (it sounds like Buddhism).
I’m saying: what is the best way to get the most people - including techbros and everyone else - to eat as little meat as possible? If you care about ending animal suffering and saving the environment as much as you seem to do, then you should be interested in the answer to that question. It sounds to me like you’re more interested in just holding the moral high ground personally. Would be delighted to be wrong.
My opposition to techbros in the vegan context stems from the argument that posits tasty vegan burger patties specifically or “artificial meat” generally as some sort of prerequisite for personally adopting veganism.
Once artificial meat is ready, I’m going vegan. - This is a moving-goalposts argumentative fallacy.
My opinion is that the best way to get a maximum of people to eat less meat is to convince them of/for veganism, because once a critical share of a society actually holds a opinion, society-wide change can
willhappen more rapidly and somewhat spontaneously. Society-wide change can then render carnist behaviour (i.e. animal product production chain, hunting etc.) impossible, undesired, deviant or illegal.This social tipping point isn’t possible IMO, when the people behaving plant-based are not actually vegan (i.e. convinced by the vegan philosophy).
A coherent and well-articulated philosophy.
And also hopelessly idealistic, I would say. There will never be more than a small minority of people prepared to change something as crucial to their self-image and group identity as food for the sake of ethical considerations alone. The evidence to the contrary is just not there. People don’t care, or don’t care enough. Even educated people in rich places, let alone the up-and-coming masses in the wider world.
IMO there are precisely three things that might precipitate change: taste, cost, and (distant third) healthiness. I.e., the only things the vast majority of people care about when in the supermarket. Hence the promise of fake meat. It may never be tastier or healthier but if one day it is literally, say, 30% cheaper then we might have a game-changer. At which point, lots of animals will be spared suffering and the environment can take a breather. Although personally I have a terrible suspicion that even this won’t be enough and that lab meat will be only thing to pass muster.
Your approach of fostering a nebulous social movement that will spontaneously sweep all before it, well, again, I would love to be wrong but the evidence is pretty clear that it’s not coming and won’t come. And in the meantime, the animal suffering and environmental destruction does not relent.