Many thanks for engaging, Lewis, and for this clarification. On the overall principal, I just want to make two points.
To precis Bruce's post in a sentence, the problem still feels to me to be that in the case of animal liberation campaigning, the EA movement has effectively gone, "that didn't work, let's do something else", rather than "that didn't work, let's do it better". There's room for both.
Second, the one thing I wish Bruce's brilliant post had done a little more explicitly was differentiate diet change campaigning and animal liberation campaigning. One is, broadly, trying to change the world one person at a time and I entirely get the argument that that's too slow (though I think invaluable by other measures). The other is different, it's trying to reach a tipping point at which animal exploitation (all of it) is no longer culturally and legally acceptable, at which point the entire edifice collapses.
EA welfare campaigning is about supply, animal liberation campaigning is about demand. As Prohibition and recreational drug policy tell us, as long as there is demand, supply will find a way. If there is no demand, it's over.
Last, when it comes to the practical steps, can I also point you at this, if you haven't seen it already? https://projectphoenixuk.substack.com/p/what-should-the-ai-windfall-build
Thanks, Ben. PETA spends plenty of money on things which don't directly promote animal liberation or diet change. For instance, my job was about promoting non-animal methods in regulatory toxicology (which PETA does very well). It ultimately served a liberationist goal but didn't seek to share or promote animal liberation messages. It was about what's effective and affordable and, for decisionmakers with no interest in animal rights, promoting animal welfare. Most of their work on entertainment, experimentation and fashion is similar. I admire PETA for blending very clear liberation messaging with practical, real world campaigns. No one is in any doubt about what PETA wants but in terms of actual expenditure on staff and programmes, much of it is not trying to change diets or directly influence views on animal rights.
I'd like just to pick up a couple of points in this reply, numbers 4 and 7. I appreciate that Lewis was addressing specific points that Bruce made rather than making a comprehensive argument but it's what's in front of us.
Firstly, characterising animal liberation activity as "liberationist activists chanting that cage-free is evil" is too narrow a definition at best, and unfair and inaccurate at worst. I entirely agree that that form of activism has shown almost no sign of creating lasting change and may well have been harmful, (although I accept that it may have contributed positively in some ways). Liberationist campaigning, however, encompasses a wide variety of different techniques and approaches. For every liberationist chanting "evil" there is another putting on a tie and talking to their adversaries (me, for instance, or indeed Bruce). If you define "activism" as "shouting at people that what they do is evil", then the case against it is watertight - but it's not a useful definition. Characterising activity intended to promote animal liberation in this way, with respect, is not helpful to an informed, evidence-based and open debate.
Similarly, all the "recent corporate animal welfare wins" came "after the movement pivoted away from vegan outreach" is winning an argument by defining the terms so you can't lose. Well, there were corporate wins before that pivot, and legislative wins that arguably had deeper (if not wider) effects before it too. Defining success by "recent corporate wins" begs its own questions and doesn't help the wider analysis. (I'm also curious about the evidence that the only significant legislative wins for animals in the UK took place before liberation activism.)
In regard to Point 7, I don't think it is helpful to include PETA's budget in the ledger of animal liberationist/diet change activity. When I worked at PETA, none of my work was liberationist or focussed on diet change. PETA does a proud job in both those areas but a very large amount of its work does not fall into those categories. And if $80m out of the $130m "budget" is accounted for by a single organisation (however good or effective), that hardly represents the diverse, innovative and dynamic movement ecosystem that is needed for success, or even needed to make a proper evaluation of the effectiveness of liberationist/diet change activity.
Thanks for the clarification, Ronen. A wider and deeper pool of people engaging has got to be beneficial and I welcome the engagement of people within the EA community in the kind of work you identify. I guess what I consistently object to is the argument or belief that the animal rights movement has "failed" at anything. In many cases we clearly haven't succeeded, but in my view that's because we haven't got it right yet. I know it's just a word and one that can be meant and interpreted in different ways, but the narrative that the AR movement has failed is corrosive and counterproductive. And premature by about 100 years!
Actually, animal rights advocates such as PETA have a very good track record for engaging legislators etc, over decades before and after the EA movement emerged. I've done political lobbying for many years in many AR organisations and am currently a lobbyist in the UK for The Vegan Society. We engage productively with legislators and policymakers who are not vegan, veggie or interested in animal rights. If you come to them with a proposition that makes sense and aligns with some other goals or values they have, they still work with you. Animal rights campaigners and lobbyists have been central to legislative changes that have benefited animals hugely for a very long time.
This is an important argument, thanks, but I don't agree that the better reference class is attempting to improve the wellbeing of others. The examples you provide certainly could be framed as justice issues, as you say, but are also problems that were/are pretty universally recognised, which require practical solutions that are/were politically and economically acceptable to those with the power to implement them. The need to end the consumption of animals doesn't fall into that category. Most people, politicians and cultures don't think it's OK for women to die in childbirth but do think it's OK for animals to be slaughtered for consumption.
True, though Faunalytics and others have found that ethical vegans are less likely to lapse than people who become vegan for other reasons. As you say, making it easier will help prevent that but developing the understanding of animal rights that underpins true veganism (not just the diet) is another key component in making and retaining people. https://faunalytics.org/exploring-the-factors-behind-vegan-dietary-lapses/
I'm sure all of us who've tried and failed to bring individuals we know to our point of view have experienced what you describe here, Ariel. It's disheartening. But as Bruce says in his excellent reply, personal experience isn't the best guide to what's going to change society. We already have quite a bit of evidence about what might work, but we need more, and what we do know hasn't been implemented at scale. That's where those funders come in and where members of the EA community with a belief in animal liberation can have a transformative effect.
I think your analysis here is great but, with respect, doesn't account for one thing. People need a reason to leave meat and animal agriculture. Of course there are strong arguments that have nothing to do with animal liberation, but environmental arguments haven't made them abandon their cars and we all know that it's perfectly possible to eat a nutritious, healthy diet which includes some animal products. Like you say, by a whole load of criteria, meat is a good product. In addition to making it easier for people to leave, we need to make it attractive for them to leave.
That's why we need to invest in the advocacy which changes hearts and minds. Once you "get" animal rights, then abandoning animal products is a matter of when, not if. Making it easier to leave it certainly makes when come sooner.
Is anyone aware of any work intended to convert plant-based consumers to veganism, ie to test how open to animal rights arguments people are when they no longer eat animal products? I agree with you, Tom, that reducing the cognitive dissonance should work, so I'd really like to see any evidence about whether it does and how best to do it.
Yes. If we date the movement back to Singer or to the founding of key organisations like Animal Aid (UK) and PETA, a nascent movement trying to promote one of the most radical ideas in human history tried and made almost no progress for a few decades, working it out as it went along and making lots of mistakes. Well, duh. Of course the most effective approach wasn't going to be taken and of course progress was minimal. That doesn't show us the wrong thing was being done - in my view what it shows us is that the right thing was being done in the wrong way. And where it was done right, it takes more than 30 or 40 years to undo tens of thousands of years of culture.
With proper investment from those with money, we can do it better and we can give it time.
Many thanks for engaging, Lewis, and for this clarification. On the overall principal, I just want to make two points.
To precis Bruce's post in a sentence, the problem still feels to me to be that in the case of animal liberation campaigning, the EA movement has effectively gone, "that didn't work, let's do something else", rather than "that didn't work, let's do it better". There's room for both.
Second, the one thing I wish Bruce's brilliant post had done a little more explicitly was differentiate diet change campaigning and animal liberation campaigning. One is, broadly, trying to change the world one person at a time and I entirely get the argument that that's too slow (though I think invaluable by other measures). The other is different, it's trying to reach a tipping point at which animal exploitation (all of it) is no longer culturally and legally acceptable, at which point the entire edifice collapses.
EA welfare campaigning is about supply, animal liberation campaigning is about demand. As Prohibition and recreational drug policy tell us, as long as there is demand, supply will find a way. If there is no demand, it's over.
Last, when it comes to the practical steps, can I also point you at this, if you haven't seen it already? https://projectphoenixuk.substack.com/p/what-should-the-ai-windfall-build
Thanks, Ben. PETA spends plenty of money on things which don't directly promote animal liberation or diet change. For instance, my job was about promoting non-animal methods in regulatory toxicology (which PETA does very well). It ultimately served a liberationist goal but didn't seek to share or promote animal liberation messages. It was about what's effective and affordable and, for decisionmakers with no interest in animal rights, promoting animal welfare. Most of their work on entertainment, experimentation and fashion is similar. I admire PETA for blending very clear liberation messaging with practical, real world campaigns. No one is in any doubt about what PETA wants but in terms of actual expenditure on staff and programmes, much of it is not trying to change diets or directly influence views on animal rights.
I'd like just to pick up a couple of points in this reply, numbers 4 and 7. I appreciate that Lewis was addressing specific points that Bruce made rather than making a comprehensive argument but it's what's in front of us.
Firstly, characterising animal liberation activity as "liberationist activists chanting that cage-free is evil" is too narrow a definition at best, and unfair and inaccurate at worst. I entirely agree that that form of activism has shown almost no sign of creating lasting change and may well have been harmful, (although I accept that it may have contributed positively in some ways). Liberationist campaigning, however, encompasses a wide variety of different techniques and approaches. For every liberationist chanting "evil" there is another putting on a tie and talking to their adversaries (me, for instance, or indeed Bruce). If you define "activism" as "shouting at people that what they do is evil", then the case against it is watertight - but it's not a useful definition. Characterising activity intended to promote animal liberation in this way, with respect, is not helpful to an informed, evidence-based and open debate.
Similarly, all the "recent corporate animal welfare wins" came "after the movement pivoted away from vegan outreach" is winning an argument by defining the terms so you can't lose. Well, there were corporate wins before that pivot, and legislative wins that arguably had deeper (if not wider) effects before it too. Defining success by "recent corporate wins" begs its own questions and doesn't help the wider analysis. (I'm also curious about the evidence that the only significant legislative wins for animals in the UK took place before liberation activism.)
In regard to Point 7, I don't think it is helpful to include PETA's budget in the ledger of animal liberationist/diet change activity. When I worked at PETA, none of my work was liberationist or focussed on diet change. PETA does a proud job in both those areas but a very large amount of its work does not fall into those categories. And if $80m out of the $130m "budget" is accounted for by a single organisation (however good or effective), that hardly represents the diverse, innovative and dynamic movement ecosystem that is needed for success, or even needed to make a proper evaluation of the effectiveness of liberationist/diet change activity.
Thanks for the clarification, Ronen. A wider and deeper pool of people engaging has got to be beneficial and I welcome the engagement of people within the EA community in the kind of work you identify. I guess what I consistently object to is the argument or belief that the animal rights movement has "failed" at anything. In many cases we clearly haven't succeeded, but in my view that's because we haven't got it right yet. I know it's just a word and one that can be meant and interpreted in different ways, but the narrative that the AR movement has failed is corrosive and counterproductive. And premature by about 100 years!
Actually, animal rights advocates such as PETA have a very good track record for engaging legislators etc, over decades before and after the EA movement emerged. I've done political lobbying for many years in many AR organisations and am currently a lobbyist in the UK for The Vegan Society. We engage productively with legislators and policymakers who are not vegan, veggie or interested in animal rights. If you come to them with a proposition that makes sense and aligns with some other goals or values they have, they still work with you. Animal rights campaigners and lobbyists have been central to legislative changes that have benefited animals hugely for a very long time.
This is an important argument, thanks, but I don't agree that the better reference class is attempting to improve the wellbeing of others. The examples you provide certainly could be framed as justice issues, as you say, but are also problems that were/are pretty universally recognised, which require practical solutions that are/were politically and economically acceptable to those with the power to implement them. The need to end the consumption of animals doesn't fall into that category. Most people, politicians and cultures don't think it's OK for women to die in childbirth but do think it's OK for animals to be slaughtered for consumption.
True, though Faunalytics and others have found that ethical vegans are less likely to lapse than people who become vegan for other reasons. As you say, making it easier will help prevent that but developing the understanding of animal rights that underpins true veganism (not just the diet) is another key component in making and retaining people. https://faunalytics.org/exploring-the-factors-behind-vegan-dietary-lapses/
I'm sure all of us who've tried and failed to bring individuals we know to our point of view have experienced what you describe here, Ariel. It's disheartening. But as Bruce says in his excellent reply, personal experience isn't the best guide to what's going to change society. We already have quite a bit of evidence about what might work, but we need more, and what we do know hasn't been implemented at scale. That's where those funders come in and where members of the EA community with a belief in animal liberation can have a transformative effect.
I think your analysis here is great but, with respect, doesn't account for one thing. People need a reason to leave meat and animal agriculture. Of course there are strong arguments that have nothing to do with animal liberation, but environmental arguments haven't made them abandon their cars and we all know that it's perfectly possible to eat a nutritious, healthy diet which includes some animal products. Like you say, by a whole load of criteria, meat is a good product. In addition to making it easier for people to leave, we need to make it attractive for them to leave.
That's why we need to invest in the advocacy which changes hearts and minds. Once you "get" animal rights, then abandoning animal products is a matter of when, not if. Making it easier to leave it certainly makes when come sooner.
Is anyone aware of any work intended to convert plant-based consumers to veganism, ie to test how open to animal rights arguments people are when they no longer eat animal products? I agree with you, Tom, that reducing the cognitive dissonance should work, so I'd really like to see any evidence about whether it does and how best to do it.
Yes. If we date the movement back to Singer or to the founding of key organisations like Animal Aid (UK) and PETA, a nascent movement trying to promote one of the most radical ideas in human history tried and made almost no progress for a few decades, working it out as it went along and making lots of mistakes. Well, duh. Of course the most effective approach wasn't going to be taken and of course progress was minimal. That doesn't show us the wrong thing was being done - in my view what it shows us is that the right thing was being done in the wrong way. And where it was done right, it takes more than 30 or 40 years to undo tens of thousands of years of culture.
With proper investment from those with money, we can do it better and we can give it time.