Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat.
And the reformist position overlooks the question whether it actually works. Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction). I don’t have studies either way, but anecdotally people are extremely bad at keeping up dietary/lifestyle changes, but veganism is a lot simpler. “No animal products” is simpler than “have I reached my 90% yet?”.
Again, would love some studies on this, but it just seems more like wishful thinking. Additionally, we could just encourage both.
Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction).
I don’t think so. 10 people reducing it by 10% is nothing in a society where everyone claims they have reduced it and only eat happy to be killed animals from their uncles farm. On the other hand one vegan could show hundreds of people that there is no magic to not abusing animals and change some. It is not only about the personal impact but when veganism hits a critical mass and changes society.
Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat
I know lifelong smokers. The human body is resilient. If your argument is that veganism is healthy, you need a lot more than “I’m vegan and I’m not dead”.
I mentioned elsewhere about protein intakes. It’s not a controversial take that protein is one of the most important things we need in a day, that protein is easiest to find in meat, and that our body isn’t as good at digesting plant protein. For the rest, telling someone to go plant-based when you need a lot more than just a multivitamin to hit the Iron and B-12 content you need.
Whether or not veganism can be healthy (it might be), it is a known quantity that naive veganism is absolutely unhealthy. So my problem with “getting them vegan is easier than getting them to cut 10% meat” is that you’re trying to create naive vegans. That means you’re trying to create smokers.
Vegans, even life long vegans, exist. We do not need meat. And the reformist position overlooks the question whether it actually works. Convincing 10 people to CONSISTENTLY AND FOREVER decrease their meat intake by 10% is the same as convincing just 1 person to go vegan (aka 100% reduction). I don’t have studies either way, but anecdotally people are extremely bad at keeping up dietary/lifestyle changes, but veganism is a lot simpler. “No animal products” is simpler than “have I reached my 90% yet?”.
Again, would love some studies on this, but it just seems more like wishful thinking. Additionally, we could just encourage both.
I don’t think so. 10 people reducing it by 10% is nothing in a society where everyone claims they have reduced it and only eat happy to be killed animals from their uncles farm. On the other hand one vegan could show hundreds of people that there is no magic to not abusing animals and change some. It is not only about the personal impact but when veganism hits a critical mass and changes society.
I know lifelong smokers. The human body is resilient. If your argument is that veganism is healthy, you need a lot more than “I’m vegan and I’m not dead”.
I mentioned elsewhere about protein intakes. It’s not a controversial take that protein is one of the most important things we need in a day, that protein is easiest to find in meat, and that our body isn’t as good at digesting plant protein. For the rest, telling someone to go plant-based when you need a lot more than just a multivitamin to hit the Iron and B-12 content you need.
Whether or not veganism can be healthy (it might be), it is a known quantity that naive veganism is absolutely unhealthy. So my problem with “getting them vegan is easier than getting them to cut 10% meat” is that you’re trying to create naive vegans. That means you’re trying to create smokers.