I agree the in-your-face approach seldom works. But I've noticed that even cautious messaging — eat a little less meat (small sacrifice) to end animal cruelty (big impact) — can provoke strong emotions. For evidence, look no further than Trebuchet's comment.
I'm going to have another story soon about cultivated meat and why that's a better solution than veganism, so please keep an eye on this space or subscribe!
I’m a big fan of cultivated meat, I donate to the Good Food Institute. But I’m less sure it’s a panacea than I used to be. I was listening to a podcast with Will MacAskill where he said his lay understanding of the abolition of slavery, which I shared, was one centered on an economic story. Yes, abolitionists played a major role, but so did the mechanization and industrialization of labor — or so he thought until reading the academic literature where he found the consensus is that abolition was, at its core, an example of large scale moral persuasion.
I used to think the moral persuasion component of animal welfare advocacy was less important and less effective than technological progress, i.e. cultivated meat development. And I do still think that would be massively helpful. But I wonder if we do need some tough conversations too.
Subscribed via RSS, looking forward to your piece :)
I think we need both: animal-welfare advocacy and affordable alternatives. What resonates less is arguments about climate change, land use, even personal health. But animal welfare is something a lot of people care at least a little about. I'll expand on this in my next article on the topic, which should come in a few days.
Almost nobody wants to ban meat. You're using an imaginary threat to justify not changing your behavior.
It’s a tough issue because you do want to ultimately challenge people in this for moral reasons, but it may be counterproductive. Faunalytics does good work here https://faunalytics.org/the-challenges-of-changing-public-opinion/
Thanks for the link!
I agree the in-your-face approach seldom works. But I've noticed that even cautious messaging — eat a little less meat (small sacrifice) to end animal cruelty (big impact) — can provoke strong emotions. For evidence, look no further than Trebuchet's comment.
I'm going to have another story soon about cultivated meat and why that's a better solution than veganism, so please keep an eye on this space or subscribe!
I’m a big fan of cultivated meat, I donate to the Good Food Institute. But I’m less sure it’s a panacea than I used to be. I was listening to a podcast with Will MacAskill where he said his lay understanding of the abolition of slavery, which I shared, was one centered on an economic story. Yes, abolitionists played a major role, but so did the mechanization and industrialization of labor — or so he thought until reading the academic literature where he found the consensus is that abolition was, at its core, an example of large scale moral persuasion.
I used to think the moral persuasion component of animal welfare advocacy was less important and less effective than technological progress, i.e. cultivated meat development. And I do still think that would be massively helpful. But I wonder if we do need some tough conversations too.
Subscribed via RSS, looking forward to your piece :)
Thank you for subscribing!
I think we need both: animal-welfare advocacy and affordable alternatives. What resonates less is arguments about climate change, land use, even personal health. But animal welfare is something a lot of people care at least a little about. I'll expand on this in my next article on the topic, which should come in a few days.