I think you’re overstating the group dynamics aspect vs the “you know the truth so how can you participate in animal exploitation and abuse again”.
There are many influencers and companies that have rebranded from “vegan” to “plant based”. Some of these influencers have explicitly done this by saying that they don’t feel welcome in the vegan community anymore (which is a real problem that you’re alluding to). Most of these people do not get a backlash. In general they get support and at most they’ll be asked if they still hold vegan principles about not exploiting animals.
The people who get backlash are the ones who start making excuses for exploiting non human animals, such as Gaz Oakley.
I think this strongly suggests that the issue here isn’t a “you left our group” problem but a “you’ve started using your platform to normalize exploiting animals” one.
Yes. It's that he's started using your platform to normalize exploiting animals, but moreso that:
- He's used his platform to actively disparage some of the most promising developments likely to achieve positive consequences for the animals, particuarly delicious and convenient new plant-based meat products.
- In doing so, he's spreading irrational ways of thinking (such as a romanticized view of "natural" living) which distract from reality-based arguments for practical change. The actual best practical ways of living for the environment are efficient housing and transportation in highly walkable and bikeable cities, not bougie LARPing for viewers most of whom could never afford his lifestyle.
Anyone who's known me for a minute would know how much I'm in Tobias' camp with respect to vegan objectives and strategies, but using Gaz as a hook is a bad idea. This guy isn't merely an imperfect vegan; he's actively giving ammunition to dangerously misguided views.
VP and J. Goard: you may be right. I have not looked deeply/found enough re. what Oakley is spreading now, and he might not be the best example.
In any case, like I wrote, in this piece I wanted to make abstraction of him and talk about the wider issue re. treating ex-vegans (which I do think is a problem).
I understood what you were aiming to do. I just wish you (and Ramsden and a few others) would stop using individuals like him as hooks to introduce the general point, in a manner that seems to cast aspersion on those of us who may know their content in more detail, and who aren't reflexively purity-testing, but have good reasons to believe the influential person in question is going to have net harmful consequences.
There's a good chance that within hours of posting my last negative comment on Oakley, I was posting a fervent defense of Billie Eilish against some vegan wanting to reject her enormously positive influence, over the issue of horesback riding. That's because I think their respective overall impacts are likely to have opposite valence.
EDIT: I should clarify that my issue isn't with his personal decision to live in certain ways in the countryside, but rather with the disparaging tone he seems to take toward ways of living (e.g. densely, in energy-efficient, walkable and bikeable cities) and technologies (e.g. supplements, cleanly and efficiently produced plant meats) that are in reality doing the most work toward a future that's much better for humans and nonhumans.
My reaction is basically the same as Unnatural Vegan’s here:
I think that presenting “homesteading” as a solution for sustainability, environmental protection and/or sentientist ethics, is on balance extremely dangerous misinformation. More and more people trying to live like Gaz’s costly adventures is likely to result in most of them failing, and in making things worse in the process.
His criticism of B12 supplementation is particularly worrisome to me, harmful to vegans who listen to it and to the movement.
"Anyone who sees how ex-vegans are sometimes punished might become less likely to ever go vegan in the first place." This is SO important. Thanks, Tobias!
Very insightful and needs to be read by lots of vegans. I speak as a vegan of 25 years (and about 16 as a vegetarian before that). And I’ve probably been guilty of thinking or even saying some of the criticisms about lapsed vegans that you mention. But life is complicated. And the animals need unity and bigger alliances than a tiny percentage of vegans. I also think that some vegans need to understand the history of the united front- aligning with allies- even if you don’t agree with them 100%. The anti fascist movement is a good example- the common enemy was/is fascism- your allies are all desperate to keep it at bay but they don’t hold the same political views as you on other issues. Do you throw them out because they’re not pure enough or do you all get on the bus to the march, argue in an comradely manner about your differences and then get off the bus to stop the fascists from taking over a neighbourhood? (Then argue politely on the way home!)
You might like Loretta Ross's book CALLING IN. It's about ways to make the tents bigger rather than splitting movements into ever smaller groups of purists. Eye-opening. She's a human rights activist, but the same methods apply in working for animal rights. I appreciate your writings.
Thanks for these insights. Focusing advocacy and activism efforts against big business that vehemently supports the industry of animal consumption rather as opposed to spending time on individual backsliders seems a more effective way to go.
Why do you think punishing defectors works so well for religions (compare Islam which punishes apostates quite hard and is a growing religion vs Buddhism which does not punish them and is shrinking), yet you believe it won't work for veganism?
Not sure about this comparison as there are other reasons why a particular religion might grow faster than another, rather than just harshness of punishment.
Another great piece Tobias. There are immense challenges in this increasingly chaotic uncivilized civilization in getting enough of the general population to realize the truth about the rapidly declining state of humanity, our planet, and all those we share it with and what it takes to make the required corrections. It's clear that the vegan movement is fractured in different ways and constantly faces the endless attacks from the majority who live their values selectively. Values are what needs to be impressed upon the majority and even though their values are well-intentioned, they live them selectively which basically nullifies those values. I've been talking about non-selective compassion for many years with few people adding this to their conversations. Since beginning to talk about values last year, I'm seeing this entering the conversation which I'm very happy about. The trick is breaking through the barriers preventing the majority from examining their values with an open and unbiased mind. Life is authentic only when lived in accordance with values. This is being worked on particularly by an international team I'm part of aligned with Climate Healers (Dr. Rao is part of your team) and the Planet B Proclamation that needs to figure prominently in all the efforts of ethical changemakers. The next level I'm taking values is the inextricable connection to the soul which obviously ties in religious and spiritual beliefs.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. I try to extend compassion and understanding to all animals, including the human animal. It's a bit more challenging for humans sometimes but makes for a much more consistent and less cognitively dissonant existence.
I think you’re overstating the group dynamics aspect vs the “you know the truth so how can you participate in animal exploitation and abuse again”.
There are many influencers and companies that have rebranded from “vegan” to “plant based”. Some of these influencers have explicitly done this by saying that they don’t feel welcome in the vegan community anymore (which is a real problem that you’re alluding to). Most of these people do not get a backlash. In general they get support and at most they’ll be asked if they still hold vegan principles about not exploiting animals.
The people who get backlash are the ones who start making excuses for exploiting non human animals, such as Gaz Oakley.
I think this strongly suggests that the issue here isn’t a “you left our group” problem but a “you’ve started using your platform to normalize exploiting animals” one.
Yes. It's that he's started using your platform to normalize exploiting animals, but moreso that:
- He's used his platform to actively disparage some of the most promising developments likely to achieve positive consequences for the animals, particuarly delicious and convenient new plant-based meat products.
- In doing so, he's spreading irrational ways of thinking (such as a romanticized view of "natural" living) which distract from reality-based arguments for practical change. The actual best practical ways of living for the environment are efficient housing and transportation in highly walkable and bikeable cities, not bougie LARPing for viewers most of whom could never afford his lifestyle.
Anyone who's known me for a minute would know how much I'm in Tobias' camp with respect to vegan objectives and strategies, but using Gaz as a hook is a bad idea. This guy isn't merely an imperfect vegan; he's actively giving ammunition to dangerously misguided views.
VP and J. Goard: you may be right. I have not looked deeply/found enough re. what Oakley is spreading now, and he might not be the best example.
In any case, like I wrote, in this piece I wanted to make abstraction of him and talk about the wider issue re. treating ex-vegans (which I do think is a problem).
I understood what you were aiming to do. I just wish you (and Ramsden and a few others) would stop using individuals like him as hooks to introduce the general point, in a manner that seems to cast aspersion on those of us who may know their content in more detail, and who aren't reflexively purity-testing, but have good reasons to believe the influential person in question is going to have net harmful consequences.
There's a good chance that within hours of posting my last negative comment on Oakley, I was posting a fervent defense of Billie Eilish against some vegan wanting to reject her enormously positive influence, over the issue of horesback riding. That's because I think their respective overall impacts are likely to have opposite valence.
where can i see more of oakley's present misinformation-spreading?
EDIT: I should clarify that my issue isn't with his personal decision to live in certain ways in the countryside, but rather with the disparaging tone he seems to take toward ways of living (e.g. densely, in energy-efficient, walkable and bikeable cities) and technologies (e.g. supplements, cleanly and efficiently produced plant meats) that are in reality doing the most work toward a future that's much better for humans and nonhumans.
My reaction is basically the same as Unnatural Vegan’s here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66GGWUro8yo
I think that presenting “homesteading” as a solution for sustainability, environmental protection and/or sentientist ethics, is on balance extremely dangerous misinformation. More and more people trying to live like Gaz’s costly adventures is likely to result in most of them failing, and in making things worse in the process.
His criticism of B12 supplementation is particularly worrisome to me, harmful to vegans who listen to it and to the movement.
"Anyone who sees how ex-vegans are sometimes punished might become less likely to ever go vegan in the first place." This is SO important. Thanks, Tobias!
Too many great, important things to even choose a few.
Thank you, Tobias, for focusing on what can actually help animals, rather than get happy clicks from vegans.
Very insightful and needs to be read by lots of vegans. I speak as a vegan of 25 years (and about 16 as a vegetarian before that). And I’ve probably been guilty of thinking or even saying some of the criticisms about lapsed vegans that you mention. But life is complicated. And the animals need unity and bigger alliances than a tiny percentage of vegans. I also think that some vegans need to understand the history of the united front- aligning with allies- even if you don’t agree with them 100%. The anti fascist movement is a good example- the common enemy was/is fascism- your allies are all desperate to keep it at bay but they don’t hold the same political views as you on other issues. Do you throw them out because they’re not pure enough or do you all get on the bus to the march, argue in an comradely manner about your differences and then get off the bus to stop the fascists from taking over a neighbourhood? (Then argue politely on the way home!)
This post is worth saving to show people the next time someone moves away from being vegan. Thx
You might like Loretta Ross's book CALLING IN. It's about ways to make the tents bigger rather than splitting movements into ever smaller groups of purists. Eye-opening. She's a human rights activist, but the same methods apply in working for animal rights. I appreciate your writings.
Thanks for these insights. Focusing advocacy and activism efforts against big business that vehemently supports the industry of animal consumption rather as opposed to spending time on individual backsliders seems a more effective way to go.
Why do you think punishing defectors works so well for religions (compare Islam which punishes apostates quite hard and is a growing religion vs Buddhism which does not punish them and is shrinking), yet you believe it won't work for veganism?
Not sure about this comparison as there are other reasons why a particular religion might grow faster than another, rather than just harshness of punishment.
Very true. However, by my analysis it explains something like 23% of the variation among religions. https://i.imgur.com/cZQXyly.png
Great post that has given me some food for thought.
Another great piece Tobias. There are immense challenges in this increasingly chaotic uncivilized civilization in getting enough of the general population to realize the truth about the rapidly declining state of humanity, our planet, and all those we share it with and what it takes to make the required corrections. It's clear that the vegan movement is fractured in different ways and constantly faces the endless attacks from the majority who live their values selectively. Values are what needs to be impressed upon the majority and even though their values are well-intentioned, they live them selectively which basically nullifies those values. I've been talking about non-selective compassion for many years with few people adding this to their conversations. Since beginning to talk about values last year, I'm seeing this entering the conversation which I'm very happy about. The trick is breaking through the barriers preventing the majority from examining their values with an open and unbiased mind. Life is authentic only when lived in accordance with values. This is being worked on particularly by an international team I'm part of aligned with Climate Healers (Dr. Rao is part of your team) and the Planet B Proclamation that needs to figure prominently in all the efforts of ethical changemakers. The next level I'm taking values is the inextricable connection to the soul which obviously ties in religious and spiritual beliefs.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. I try to extend compassion and understanding to all animals, including the human animal. It's a bit more challenging for humans sometimes but makes for a much more consistent and less cognitively dissonant existence.