my impression is that climate change, animal welfare, and especially diet change have become politicized and by a significant demographic are all put in the same identity-basked (i.e. a woke progressive issue, coming from educated people who want to tell us what to do) and hence is creating a lot of reactance. I don't know how big or important this problem is, but if it is important, than i think the best way to address it is not just by having different products but also by having different messages and messengers (coming from those people's own camp). 
 

thanks for thinking on this issue. i do agree that all kind of social factors have often not been sufficiently apppreciated. however, having been in the animal/vegan movement for a few decades, it doesn't strike me that the approaches you mention haven't been tried. both companies and NGOs have been trying to make all things veg cool for a long time... I think many believed that this approach might be sufficient until say five years ago (until Beyond Meat crashed and all). I still think the issues are social to a very high extent, but maybe they have become more ideological and identity related still, to the extent that they can't be solved in the way you suggest?

Agree entirely (and I have MORE doubts, even as i have been a vegan for almost 30 years).
It is indeed a very narrow and demanding identity (and even more so when other progressive issues are presented as part and parcel of the vegan lifestyle).

It's noteworthy that the founders of the vegan society in the 1940's welcome everyone who was looking in the same direction, even if they weren't "practitioners".

 

Interesting post.

As a vegan-for-the-animals for 27 years I agree that

- nutrition science is very complex and very primitive

- there definitely could be nutritional benefits to animal products (and downsides to avoiding them) that we're not seeing yet

- the vegan/animal rights movement is sometimes too dogmatic about vegan diets, and sometimes downplays the potential pitfalls

- caring for your own health is important and a moral thing to do, with potentially beneficial altruistic outcomes

- agreed that within omnivorous diets a lot of variation in terms of negative impacts on animals exists

- I also think there's possibly potential pro-animal bias involved in our assessment of the science (including by vegan health professionals). Motivated reasoning and wishful thinking could also make us not see potential downsides, averse effects in ourselves, and not communicate about them.

however

- i think the claim that veganism is "probably unhealthy" is too strong, and too vague.

- just like we need to take into account pro-animal/pro-vegan bias, we also need to take into account a carnistic bias (same here in the comments)

- the caveat about correlation/causation is really important (e.g. in the case of depression/mood disorders)

- even if adding animal products to your diet is healthier (it's definitely possible), does one need to go for maximum health if it causes a lot of harm to others? I understand most people will want to maximize, but it doesn't necessarily make it the most moral option. how far do we go in this? start eating other animal food groups (like insects or whatever) because there might be something healthy in there that we might be missing?

- leaving out whole food groups could not be the best option, but on the other hand, just like we don't know all the beneficial properties of and nutrients etc in many foods, we also don't know the bad ones (we could be avoiding a lot of damaging nutrients when we avoid certain food groups)

- when you write posts like this, please give enough consideration to the uncertainty, the present polarisation around the topic, the gigantic scale of the suffering, the fact that most people will gobble down this vegan-critical information with great gusto...

thanks for your message. 
i think that indeed vegan advocacy doesn't have much to show for after several decades - at least not in terms of the number of vegans. But I do believe in some virtuous cycle between advocacy and alternatives, where the two can reinforce each other (more awareness means higher purchases of PB products means easier awareness...). 
I hope you can find a role in the movement that fits you and that has impact! :)

thanks, i tend to agree. I guess emotional appeals are often lacking, and so is rationality. Though there are people for whom either can work. One just needs to find them, and tailor the message and communication style to them - but it's easier said than done :)

thanks for these interesting musings. it seems to me that building such a kind of simulation is the path we are on, ever getting more digital, ever more able to create things that make us more comfortable. one day we may be able to upload our minds to a system, experience good things only, and have no more need for our bodies. it seems difficult to do that for all individuals on the planet though.
alternatively, conceivably we are already living in a (non ideal) simulation, where only we are real and other beings are part of the programming. that would mean that the suffering we see and cause around us is not real. I'm not counting on it but sometimes I hope it is like that.

thanks Janika. I understand the dilemma. sometimes even just with social media posts, it's the easy ones that go far and the ones that are deeper, more meaningful, more challenging... that don't. 
(is there a video online somewhere of you chicken song?)

glad to hear that :)

it can be crazy-making :-)