Reducetarian seems more motivating on studies

[edgaron]

If eating vegan is considered difficult for the majority of people. And 4 people eating less meat is more effective for the animals than a single vegan.
And also starting slowly, and with ethics in hand, like a reducetarian makes you more prone to stick with the diet.

Wouldnt it be more useful to promote easier, Non pure veganism (flexitarianism). And accept meat in special occasions? Even if you declare yourself to support veganism? Meat that you didnt buy for example or in restaurants with no vegan options..

I've been calling myself a vegan for a long time. I know many things about the subject like the graduality of sentience. Or how much suffering is caused by the different animal foods that Brian Tomasik writes about.
But dont know how I ended in the conviction that supporting veganism (like in social media) but eating flexitarian out of home, lets say once a month, was better for my activism in front of friends.

[Jebus]

Welcome Edgaron,

Your post was very difficult to read but I think I know what you were trying to get at.

If someone is trying to quit smoking, I think it would be easier to stop completely rather than to allow oneself one cigarette per day. Similarly, I see no point in periodically reminding myself how great a certain food (that I am trying to avoid) tastes.

I would encourage reduceterianism only if it is seen as a stepping stone to a fully ethical diet. Sure, reducing one's consumption of unethical foods is certainly better than not doing so at all, but in general I don't think it takes long before most people start slipping back on the reduction part.

[brimstoneSalad]

@edgaron There's what you do, and what you advocate.

You can absolutely DO more than you advocate others to do, there's nothing wrong with that and I don't think there's any evidence that doing less would encourage others to do more.
Like somebody who donates 90% of his or her income recommending everybody donate at least 10%. I can't see that putting me off the message; to the contrary, if somebody is able to donate 90% then surely I could donate 10% right?

The problem only comes in when you do *less* than what you advocate others to do, which looks to people like hypocrisy and puts them off anything you say.

There's definitely an argument to avoid coming off too judgmental or self-righteous, and there might be an argument for not being obsessive about things like micro-ingredients, but the argument for outright eating meat in certain situations would be pretty poor and based on the same kind of psychological speculation that some extremists use to dissuade people from mock meats or faux fur/pleather (because it might reinforce the view of animals as food/clothing by simulating it despite no evidence of that).
In terms of what you do, I suggest sticking to what we know and not speculating on possible greater effects of doing less when there's no evidence of that being useful -- speculation can go either way, so it's best to keep it to a minimum.

[edgaron]

Welcome Edgaron,
Your post was very difficult to read but I think I know what you were trying to get at.

Sorry Im not a native English

If someone is trying to quit smoking, I think it would be easier to stop completely rather than to allow oneself one cigarette per day. Similarly, I see no point in periodically reminding myself how great a certain food (that I am trying to avoid) tastes.

We are not talking here about a single drug. Its not about smoking or not smoking here, maybe vape, smoke Cigarettes, rolling tabacco, nicotine patches, cannabis, .. All have different consequences.

I would encourage reduceterianism only if it is seen as a stepping stone to a fully ethical diet. Sure, reducing one's consumption of unethical foods is certainly better than not doing so at all, but in general I don't think it takes long before most people start slipping back on the reduction part.

Of course there is no point on recommending a flexitarian diet to a vegan. Im talking about being a 99% vegan who tries to promote ethics but makes it easy on social occasions. Because nobody sticks with veganism (1% real vegans in UK) but many people 25% tries to reduce their meat consumption.

[edgaron]

@edgaron There's what you do, and what you advocate.
You can absolutely DO more than you advocate others to do, there's nothing wrong with that and I don't think there's any evidence that doing less would encourage others to do more.
Like somebody who donates 90% of his or her income recommending everybody donate at least 10%. I can't see that putting me off the message; to the contrary, if somebody is able to donate 90% then surely I could donate 10% right?

Sure, but not many people tries eating ethically. Because its too difficult to donate 99% they wont give anything. Not even try to understand how suffering scalates in the different products. Because thats extreme.

The problem only comes in when you do *less* than what you advocate others to do, which looks to people like hypocrisy and puts them off anything you say.

I won't do less, because by the moment there is more people concerned about eating ethical, there is no point of making everybody feel include.
Imagine I choose to eat cheese or backyard eggs in my example, how much suffering isn't justifiying that I try to promote reducetarianism??
Showing you that its about causing less suffering and not just purity.

Accepting 1% occasions of social norms gives space for the rest to meditate about their ethics. Something like a failure in their believe system, that vegans are extreme. Or that we are alienated.

There's definitely an argument to avoid coming off too judgmental or self-righteous, and there might be an argument for not being obsessive about things like micro-ingredients, but the argument for outright eating meat in certain situations would be pretty poor and based on the same kind of psychological speculation that some extremists use to dissuade people from mock meats or faux fur/pleather (because it might reinforce the view of animals as food/clothing by simulating it despite no evidence of that).
In terms of what you do, I suggest sticking to what we know and not speculating on possible greater effects of doing less when there's no evidence of that being useful -- speculation can go either way, so it's best to keep it to a minimum.

I dont agree with this comparisson. Im being the opposite of extremist, in social ocassions, or if I didnt buy the meat myself, I could close my eyes to show how easy its to care about veganism 99% of the time, that its not a religion. Bringing the conversation and doing it on an off the vegan way until you have any other friend supporting your view.
For example Beef causes less suffering per plate than piggs or chickens, so if a cow that can feed 300kg of meat or 5000 bolognese spaghetty, more or less.
Can killing that cow justify 5 thounsand occasions that a vegan shows you that its about causing less suffering and not just purity.

[brimstoneSalad]

@edgaron I think you're missing my point a bit.

My point is that we don't really have evidence on whether more "perfection" (at least as far as I explained it) or imperfection in the way of eating meat or cheese occasionally are better for outreach. Because we don't have empirical evidence on that, it's speculation. Because it's speculation, it could go either way and we shouldn't really be using that as a guide to our actions.

Instead, when we know consuming animal products causes harm, that's what we should be focused on. There's an argument to be made for freeganism, but that's not just having not bought something yourself. Something purchased by somebody else and provided for you is not freegan.

[edgaron]

@brimstoneSalad Well here its your evidence.
For 43% of exvegetarians its crystal clear that the diet it extreme, till the point they preffer to trail their ethical views, which for them dont matter that much..
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... n-meat-why
• The purity problem. 43% of ex-vegetarians/vegans said they found it too difficult to be “pure” with their diet.

The proportion of true vegetarians and vegans in the United States is surprisingly small. Only about 2% of respondents did not consume any meat – 1.5% were vegetarians and 0.5% were vegans. These findings are generally consistent with other studies.

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study- ... rn-to-meat
The findings suggest that rather than pushing a full-on vegetarian diet, the more effective strategy would be to push a low-meat diet that is more likely to last.

while people are generally eating less meat, those who choose to give it up altogether struggle to keep up the habit.

[Jebus]

@edgaron You are missing the point. The links you posted show that people find it difficult to abstain from meat. We all knew that already.

The uncertainty concerns the overall most effective method of outreach. In other words, will the world consume less meat and dairy if we advocate veganism or reductionism?

As I wrote in my first reply, I don't believe advocating reductionism is an effective long-lasting way of reducing someone's meat consumption. At the same time, I wouldn't be overly critical to a vegan who occasionally dabbles with flexitarianism.

Here is an interesting tidbit from the first link you posted: "Vegans are less likely to backslide than vegetarians. While 86% of vegetarians returned to meat, only 70% of vegans did." This would suggest that advocating a stricter diet is more effective.

[brimstoneSalad]

@edgaron Like Jebus said, we already know that much.

Like Jebus said it isn't entirely clear if advocating for veganism or reducetarianism is better, but even grating that advocating for reduction is more effective (which I am willing to do) that doesn't say anything about whether a vegan advocating reducetarianism is more or less effective than a reducetarian advocating reducetarianism.

A. A chain smoker tells you that you should quit smoking.
B. A chain smoker tells you that you should smoke less.
C. A reduce-smoker tells you that you should quit smoking.
D. A reduce-smoker tells you that you should smoke less.
E. An ex-smoker tells you to that you should quit smoking.
F. An ex-smoker tells you that you should smoke less.

There's a good reason to believe that A is the least effective and that B is very close in ineffectiveness.
There's reason to believe thatC also has less efficacy.

Even if you believe the reduction message is more effective than the elimination message, there is no reason to believe that D and F have any difference in efficacy for advocating for reduction.

As I said before, it's very likely that somebody who as quit entirely only saying you should reduce will cause reflection on perspective: If this person can quit, then surely I can reduce. Beyond that, them having quit may also lead you to quit as well after reducing, not because you were told to but just because you have been inspired by its possibility by the person who convinced you to reduce.
Studies in persuasion show that people are more likely to do more when asked first to do less, but unless that *more* is demonstrated to be an option and put out there to them in some way (hopefully non-pushy so they'll be likely to accept it) they may not even think of it. If told and SHOWN that reduction is the best, people are probably less likely to even consider that elimination is an option.

The best advocate is probably a non-pushy vegan who advocates for reducetarianism.

[edgaron]

I dont agree with the comparisson @brimstoneSalad
A. A smoker tells you that you should quit
1. " tells you that you shoud change it to vaping, rolling, patches, ..
B. A smoker tells you that you should smoke less
1. " to vaping, rolling, patches
C.
D.
Too many options

The best advocate is probably a non-pushy vegan who advocates for reducetarianism. Ok I like that way to put it. Thanks


@Jebus You are right I dont have the propper study, its just an observation.
I want to end animal injustice thats why I consider being 99% vegans its a faster way to get everybody on board. I still think you can draw a line where the suffering your are caussing its worth a social moment for advocatting (once a month going ostro vegan, or accepting cheese cause there is no other option and its the product that causes the less suffering of all).
Telling other people whats the real suffering of their choices its important, thats why an all or nothing veganism doesnt makes sense to me, when consuming a backyard egg cannot compare in any manner with supporting the chicken, fish and cage eggs that causes 95% of the suffering.