Love this interview. We need money. The vegan movement is still so small. The production of animals for meat is only growing. Just asking people to go vegan and educating alone will not turn the tide.
A lot of people care about animals, few go vegan. It is not easy to go against the grain. For most people is easy to donate. And by donating people feel more connected with the plight of animals ( like you Saïd ‘food in the door’)
So reading your title annoyed me pretty heavily, but I read on to see where this was going.
After finishing, I still disagree.
Trying to build an animal welfare 'tent' that includes carnists is like trying to build a civil rights movement that includes rabid anti black racists. It sounds like a nice idea to include everybody, but they don't truly care about the cause.
We can't create moral accounting systems in which we allow people to "offset" their oppression and objectification of animals with donation, in the same way that we can't offset other forms of oppression with small acts of kindness.
For example, "I think Israel has a right to defend itself, but I sent 5$ to a Palestinian go fund me".
Would we understand this person as having joined the movement for a free Palestine? Would we understand them as pro Palestinian? Or would their conceptions about a settler colonial project as a legitimate state still be a problem?
This is why we say "go vegan", because we can't fight for liberation while constantly sucking up to those who do not actually share our goals. "Go vegan" isn't a bridge too far, it is the core of the movement to conceptualize animals as living breathing sentient beings. If people are actually pro animal, the idea of putting one's corpse in your mouth or mother's milk in your coffee is insane.
It would be cool if I was wrong and animal farming could stop if people just give a few bucks here and there while also far more heavily funding the systems that they are donating against, but unfortunately that's ridiculous.
>For example, "I think Israel has a right to defend itself, but I sent 5$ to a Palestinian go fund me".
>Would we understand this person as having joined the movement for a free Palestine? Would we understand them as pro Palestinian?
How about a different example "I think that people should be able to use fossil fuels to meet their basic needs for heat, safety, and transportation, but I sent $XXX to Earth Justice or Opportunity Green (whatever) to help build a better energy system"
Would we understand this person as having joined the movement to oppose climate change?
The example you give would be equivalent to being a vegan, since meeting our needs comes first even for us (vegans use vaccines for example because it is a matter of safety).
We can meet our needs while eating an entirely plant-based diet and everything else that comes with being a vegan. Meat and dairy are not necessities in the way that fuel and heating so often are in our lives.
If you were to, however, fly instead of take a train when it is not a matter of necessity, I would say yes, you are contradicting your belief in fighting climate change and creating sustainability, because you would be taking luxury over praxis.
Also, if you were to say that "nobody will give up flying so we should just drop it and donate to Green energy", you would be failing to recognize the power that our individual actions have to change the world, and you would be making an appeal to futility as a way to make yourself feel better about failing to commit to praxis (even though donating to Green energy is great).
i'm sure you're right in theory, but I guess the mean reason Farmkind is coming up with this idea is because we're still not seeing much growth in the number of vegans.
Anyway, I believe in moral awakening,s but I think they sometimes don't follow the script that we have in mind for them, and only occur after a lot of other things are in place.
Taking the size and progress of a movement as a way to criticize the validity of it's methods is bad.
We don't need criticism of vegans who advocate others to go vegan, because that is valuable work. If you want to do work as a Lib reaching people who are more conservative, then okay. But why do we always have to say "other vegans have it wrong, we need to ditch those methods", when we could stay in our lanes doing the work that we perceive as most valuable?
The reason is often that we are not firmly committed to the cause in the same way.
Vegans who advocate others to go vegan is only valuable work if it's actually effective (and doesn't alienate more people than it converts).
"Trying to build an animal welfare 'tent' that includes carnists is like trying to build a civil rights movement that includes rabid anti black racists" -- The anti-slavery movement first got traction exactly through including rabid anti-black racists in it's tent. As Thom discusses in this podcast at 37:32 (https://www.buzzsprout.com/2122817/episodes/17429225), the way the British anti-slavery movement first got traction was by rallying people who didn't care about slaves around the issue of the welfare of British sailors on slave ships.
Okay but we still do slavery, we just do it differently (see prison labor, see criminalizing freed slaves, etc).
The podcast really doesn't give much context of what the book says, and I haven't read it. It's unclear how much slaver welfare translated into anti slavery. What we see is a movement of the goalpost instead of actually slavery abolishment.
Kinda just seems like we're trying to make these movements about anything else than what they are. Like would you criticize someone for being anti slavery if it was ineffective at getting white sympathy? I'm so confused by this.
So animals keep dying and getting slaughtered while farmkind collects donation money to bring systemic change or improve their conditions in captivity? I don't even mention that the cruelty aspect is still intact but it might take decades to make a meaningful impact on the ecosystem while we are running out of safe space to operate within planetary boundaries. I think our misconception is to assume that our ecosystem will be sustainable as it has been so far. Sorry I don't buy that.
I don't doubt that some campaigns have welfare benefits (e.g., cage-free campaigns). But in 40 years in advocacy, I've mostly seen wishful thinking. E.g., "$1 causes three people to go vegan!" "$10 saves 742 animals!" (I've been guilty of this.)
If any of the claims were remotely true, things would not be so bad for animals today.
(And as you know, it drives me crazy when so many people have decided to focus on invertebrates when there is such obvious brutality to creatures who clearly have a significant capacity to suffer. Math /=/ Morality.)
I can’t decide whether this is a good or bad idea, but I’m inclined to ask: if carbon offset programs aren’t effective in cutting fossil fuel demand, why do we expect the offsetting of animal protein consumption to be effective in ending factory farming? Not trying to be obstructive, but I’m curious about the mechanics - how much money could feasibly be raised? Where would the money go - to a select few animal welfare organizations, or to a central fund that would be used to level the playing field against animal agriculture’s deep pockets? Who would manage such a fund? … there are many questions like these that need to be thought through if we’re serious about making it work.
Love this interview. We need money. The vegan movement is still so small. The production of animals for meat is only growing. Just asking people to go vegan and educating alone will not turn the tide.
A lot of people care about animals, few go vegan. It is not easy to go against the grain. For most people is easy to donate. And by donating people feel more connected with the plight of animals ( like you Saïd ‘food in the door’)
Tobias, this is such an important read! Pls schedule a webinar/discussion.
I think so too. You can find e.g. this podcast with Thom:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2122817/episodes/17429225
As a vegan, I am very enthusiastic of this approach! We need resources if we want to make a difference against the gigantic meat industry.
Such a great interview!!
This feels like hacking people's cognitive dissonance. Love it.
So reading your title annoyed me pretty heavily, but I read on to see where this was going.
After finishing, I still disagree.
Trying to build an animal welfare 'tent' that includes carnists is like trying to build a civil rights movement that includes rabid anti black racists. It sounds like a nice idea to include everybody, but they don't truly care about the cause.
We can't create moral accounting systems in which we allow people to "offset" their oppression and objectification of animals with donation, in the same way that we can't offset other forms of oppression with small acts of kindness.
For example, "I think Israel has a right to defend itself, but I sent 5$ to a Palestinian go fund me".
Would we understand this person as having joined the movement for a free Palestine? Would we understand them as pro Palestinian? Or would their conceptions about a settler colonial project as a legitimate state still be a problem?
This is why we say "go vegan", because we can't fight for liberation while constantly sucking up to those who do not actually share our goals. "Go vegan" isn't a bridge too far, it is the core of the movement to conceptualize animals as living breathing sentient beings. If people are actually pro animal, the idea of putting one's corpse in your mouth or mother's milk in your coffee is insane.
It would be cool if I was wrong and animal farming could stop if people just give a few bucks here and there while also far more heavily funding the systems that they are donating against, but unfortunately that's ridiculous.
>For example, "I think Israel has a right to defend itself, but I sent 5$ to a Palestinian go fund me".
>Would we understand this person as having joined the movement for a free Palestine? Would we understand them as pro Palestinian?
How about a different example "I think that people should be able to use fossil fuels to meet their basic needs for heat, safety, and transportation, but I sent $XXX to Earth Justice or Opportunity Green (whatever) to help build a better energy system"
Would we understand this person as having joined the movement to oppose climate change?
Thanks for engaging.
The example you give would be equivalent to being a vegan, since meeting our needs comes first even for us (vegans use vaccines for example because it is a matter of safety).
We can meet our needs while eating an entirely plant-based diet and everything else that comes with being a vegan. Meat and dairy are not necessities in the way that fuel and heating so often are in our lives.
If you were to, however, fly instead of take a train when it is not a matter of necessity, I would say yes, you are contradicting your belief in fighting climate change and creating sustainability, because you would be taking luxury over praxis.
Also, if you were to say that "nobody will give up flying so we should just drop it and donate to Green energy", you would be failing to recognize the power that our individual actions have to change the world, and you would be making an appeal to futility as a way to make yourself feel better about failing to commit to praxis (even though donating to Green energy is great).
i'm sure you're right in theory, but I guess the mean reason Farmkind is coming up with this idea is because we're still not seeing much growth in the number of vegans.
Anyway, I believe in moral awakening,s but I think they sometimes don't follow the script that we have in mind for them, and only occur after a lot of other things are in place.
Taking the size and progress of a movement as a way to criticize the validity of it's methods is bad.
We don't need criticism of vegans who advocate others to go vegan, because that is valuable work. If you want to do work as a Lib reaching people who are more conservative, then okay. But why do we always have to say "other vegans have it wrong, we need to ditch those methods", when we could stay in our lanes doing the work that we perceive as most valuable?
The reason is often that we are not firmly committed to the cause in the same way.
Vegans who advocate others to go vegan is only valuable work if it's actually effective (and doesn't alienate more people than it converts).
"Trying to build an animal welfare 'tent' that includes carnists is like trying to build a civil rights movement that includes rabid anti black racists" -- The anti-slavery movement first got traction exactly through including rabid anti-black racists in it's tent. As Thom discusses in this podcast at 37:32 (https://www.buzzsprout.com/2122817/episodes/17429225), the way the British anti-slavery movement first got traction was by rallying people who didn't care about slaves around the issue of the welfare of British sailors on slave ships.
Okay but we still do slavery, we just do it differently (see prison labor, see criminalizing freed slaves, etc).
The podcast really doesn't give much context of what the book says, and I haven't read it. It's unclear how much slaver welfare translated into anti slavery. What we see is a movement of the goalpost instead of actually slavery abolishment.
Kinda just seems like we're trying to make these movements about anything else than what they are. Like would you criticize someone for being anti slavery if it was ineffective at getting white sympathy? I'm so confused by this.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
So animals keep dying and getting slaughtered while farmkind collects donation money to bring systemic change or improve their conditions in captivity? I don't even mention that the cruelty aspect is still intact but it might take decades to make a meaningful impact on the ecosystem while we are running out of safe space to operate within planetary boundaries. I think our misconception is to assume that our ecosystem will be sustainable as it has been so far. Sorry I don't buy that.
These are great questions, Tobias. Not hostile, not fawning, but legitimate.
Obviously, I am totally on-board with moving away from "Go Vegan!" I'm happy to consider anything.
But this:
>Next we estimate how much it costs our recommended charities to help cows, pigs, chickens, fish or shrimp.
Is where I have my doubts on this.
tl;dr: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/watch
I don't doubt that some campaigns have welfare benefits (e.g., cage-free campaigns). But in 40 years in advocacy, I've mostly seen wishful thinking. E.g., "$1 causes three people to go vegan!" "$10 saves 742 animals!" (I've been guilty of this.)
If any of the claims were remotely true, things would not be so bad for animals today.
(And as you know, it drives me crazy when so many people have decided to focus on invertebrates when there is such obvious brutality to creatures who clearly have a significant capacity to suffer. Math /=/ Morality.)
I can’t decide whether this is a good or bad idea, but I’m inclined to ask: if carbon offset programs aren’t effective in cutting fossil fuel demand, why do we expect the offsetting of animal protein consumption to be effective in ending factory farming? Not trying to be obstructive, but I’m curious about the mechanics - how much money could feasibly be raised? Where would the money go - to a select few animal welfare organizations, or to a central fund that would be used to level the playing field against animal agriculture’s deep pockets? Who would manage such a fund? … there are many questions like these that need to be thought through if we’re serious about making it work.