Small incremental changes are easier to make than big ones. It is also better to have many people reducing meat than just a few full vegans.
In my experience they often do go vegan overnight though. The key tends to be actually connecting the food on your plate with where it came from and accepting that animals are capable of suffering. Once that connection is made, animal products simply aren’t seen as food anymore and going vegan overnight is the only logical conclusion.
Some people may be further along the spectrum towards being vegan when this connection is actually made but regardless of if you are vegetarian, “only eat free range meat”, or an unapologetic meat eater, once the connection is made they are vegan.
The word easier here is a choice. What is more comfortable is easier, but eating a plant based diet is very easy. It’s cheaper and widely available in most countries. What you mean by easier really refers to more comfortable, not really to there being less physical obstacles
not really to there being less physical obstacles
Depends on availability. Plenty of eateries don’t have vegan options and this is especially true for locations accommodating larger groups. Furthermore, a lot of vegans need supplements (as I’ve been told), which is also subject to availability.
Lastly, it’s easier to convince a thousand people to eat less meat – especially since they usually already have the ingredients required for vegetarian food at home – than to skip meat alltogether.
Two thousand meals a week that turned vegetarian is a lot more impact than 70 meals turned vegan.
It is easy once you are in, know what are the good vegan meals and how to cook them etc. Most people will have animal product for each meal - they don’t know better. To them vegans just eat salads and nuts, which is obviously not enticing. If they don’t take the easy way, they will just continue the only way they know how and change nothing.
You will get more people to join your cause with a positive message: i.g. “Do these small steps to start” than a negative one, I.g. “If you don’t go fully vegan, you are still part of the problem.”
“Perfect is the enemy of good.”
So it is easier to convince people to reduce meat consumption, which than makes it more likely that people will go vegetarian or vegan later
And i actually feel like vegans on the internet can be too aggressive, alienating people they could get on their side
best is the enemy of better.
why are you giving vegans advice on how to market veganism? if the facts won’t change your mind then it’s not the fault of the vegans.
Because I want more people to become vegan and the way most people on the internet argue does not help this goal
It’s kind of hard to approach this in a tactful way. I think a lot of why vegans don’t appreciate this approach is because it often doesn’t work in actual practice. I’ll give a personal example as an analogy - I used to be a smoker. I tried quitting at least 50 times over the time period I was addicted to nicotine. One of the tricks I would use was to reduce the amount I would smoke each day. It would help briefly, but what would always happen is that I would get to a point where it was too hard to reduce any further, and then after plateauing for a few days, I would rebound and smoke even more than I used to.
Reduction still played a role in my effort to quit, but there were a lot of other tricks I had to employ to make it stick, and the overarching point is that reduction as a goal went nowhere, but reduction combined with the intent to stop all together did eventually work.
And that’s what also happens with dietary changes. Reduction starts with halfway good intentions, but when it’s the goal it becomes a temporary self-soothe that simply ends up rebounding in the end. In fact the people who run wfpb health coaching clinics have stated in interviews that people are most successful when they go all in with the dietary changes - because it turns out that people often feel dramatic positive changes to their health within only days of going plant-based, and those positive changes reinforce their motivation to keep going.
And as this article points out, reducitarianism can never achieve justice. It’s like when suits-wearers promise to reduce their carbon emissions by 10% by 2035 or something. It’s better than nothing, but will never solve the problems that need to be solved.
Of course facts can be aggressive
Let’s assume you talk to someone from a first world country. It is aggressive to say your lifestyle is responsible for the death of children in the developmental world, you are indirectly a murderer
It is more helpful to say: try fair-trade chlothes and check for companies that you buy from
Dividing society does not help better it
Or vegans can just mind their own business and leave the rest alone. Claiming abuse and murder and yet still buy smartphones whose materials are sourced by abuse of the poor, drive around on liquefied animals and use plastics.
Vegans don’t see themselves as perfect. It’s all about doing the best you can, where you can
Which is fair enough and I can respect that. But I have no respect for assholes who think they are better than the rest and keep calling everyone murderer and animal abuser while they claim they can undo 100k+ years of evolution in a single life-time and hypocritically rely on modern medicine to keep them healthy.
Or animal abusers can just mind their own business and stop abusing and murdering innocent animals?
Stop using medicine and vaccines. K? Thank you. Those rely on horse shoe crabs donating blood and that’s animal abuse. Not to mention other medicine testing. Oh also, stop buying organic, since you know that’s exploitation of animals. Only veggies with good old artificial fertilizer are to be used. We don’t want you looking like a hypocrite while criticizing others.
Just because they do one good thing doesn’t mean they have to live the perfect life. It’s pretty hard to live in the modern world without a smartphone, while its realy not that hard to not eat animal products.
