https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/5/27/15701168/save-animal-lives-eat-beef-not-chicken
A number of youtubers have responded to it, in part due to the suggestion in the title to eat beef instead, which seems to go not just in parallel to the vegan message on another track, but possibly against it.
Matt commented in his blog that he was uneasy about the title, because he doesn't want people to eat beef instead (just stop eating chicken), but then suggested it was perhaps OK because it got a lot of eyes on the video. Unnatural Vegan called this "Freelee logic" I think. The idea that whatever gets views justifies it because of the overall message.
http://www.mattball.org/2017/05/i-guess-it-really-doesnt-go-without.html
I'm sure Matt meant well, but it does seem like he was doing a little justifying here of the title (whether rational or not). Of course there was nothing wrong with the content, but is he misstepping in defending that title based on the ends it achieved (views)? A lot of people won't get past the title. What good could it do vs. the risk of what harm?At first, I was disappointed with the headline Vox put on the interview. However, given that the video has been trending on YouTube all weekend, and is closing in on a million views, I have to admit that Vox knew what they were doing in terms of capturing eyeballs. Clearly, there is a hunger among people to do something to help animals that seems, to them, achievable and sustainable.
[...]
To me, the most important goal is that we find the message that reaches and inspires new people, rather than what gets us more "Likes" on our Facebook feed. Given that this year, the average American will eat more animals and cause more suffering than ever before, I'll take a million new people learning about how to help animals over being lionized by the vegan police every day.
The downvotes on the Vox video clearly aren't just from vegans; many of the top comments are from environmentalist non-vegans who took issue with the suggestion to eat more beef.
Mic. the vegan, while he often courts pseudoscience (like his anti-GMO stuff) and gives impractical diet advice made a pretty good video on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxIVHye_OU
Basically outlining how replacing Chicken (which is more efficient, despite perhaps greater cruelty) with beef would be environmentally catastrophic. He's not an RD and he doesn't have nutrition training of any kind, but he does have a background in environmental studies or something of that kind if I recall correctly (maybe he should stick to those videos).
What are your thoughts?
I'd love to hear Vincent's take on the title. I know he supports the One Step message (and it might be a good message), but is it OK to advocate replacement with beef (whether this was inadvertent or not)?Vincent Berraud wrote:...
It looks like the video got a lot of bad press from meat eating environmentalists.
Maybe the best message is not telling people what NOT to eat, since we don't know what they'll replace it with, but instead telling people what TO eat (like beans, tofu, rope-grown oysters)? It seems like that risks less stepping on each other's toes, and permits more alliance with environmentalism.