Tobias (TheVeganStrategist) released a book!

[miniboes]

https://www.amazon.nl/How-Create-Vegan-World-Pragmatic-ebook/dp/B073JLS3CV/ref=nav_custrec_signin?ie=UTF8

interestingly, i found out through my local EA community. There's an interesting overlap between EA and veganism, and the result seems to be this.

[brimstoneSalad]

Ah, he finished it! That's great. Looks like it has good reviews, I didn't know he had a foreword by Peter Singer.

[NonZeroSum]

How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach, Tobias Leenaert
https://www.amazon.nl/How-Create-Vegan-World-Pragmatic-ebook/dp/B073JLS3CV/ref=nav_custrec_signin?ie=UTF8

In this thought-provoking book, Tobias Leenaert leaves well-trodden animal advocacy paths and takes a fresh look at the strategies, objectives, and communication of the vegan and animal rights movement. He argues that, given our present situation, with entire societies dependent on using animals, we need a very pragmatic approach. How to Create a Vegan World contains many valuable ideas and insights for both budding advocates for animals and seasoned activists, organizational leaders, and even entrepreneurs.

My book
http://veganstrategist.org/veganworld/

How to Create a Vegan World: a Pragmatic Approach (Lantern Books, New York) is now available on Amazon!

This book is the result of my experience and thinking about the issues during almost twenty years of vegan advocacy and campaigning. The foreword is by Peter Singer.

If you like my work and this book, you can support me by recommending the book on social media, on your blog, in the newsletter or Facebook page of your group, by ordering bulk copies (see info below) and by writing a review on Amazon. Thank you!

For bulk orders and discounts, contact:

US
Books International: 703-661-1594 or steinermail@presswarehouse.com

UK
Deep Books: 020 86930234 or chris@deep-books.co.uk

Australia
Footprint Books: 61 02 9997 3973 or sales@footprint.com.au

Idealistic versus realistic animal advocacy
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-CcHZfm7K8

This video explains a need for more effectiveness and rationality in the animal advocacy movement, in line with the message of the recent book "How to Create a Vegan World: a Pragmatic Approach" by Tobias Leenaert

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/6lddxg/how_to_create_a_vegan_world_a_pragmatic_approach/

[Text removed to http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&p=32282#p32282]

[brimstoneSalad]

Q&A

There seem to be some different kinds of vegans (ideologically). Which were your book written for?
And how would you categorize those groups who are in or outside of effective altruism? Is there only one divide, or are there subdivisions?

How do you define veganism?
Do you still agree with the Vegan Society in terms of the letter of the law? If not, how would you change the definition?

When you talk about flexibility, how far do you take it?
Do you mean flexibility in terms of micro-ingredients as PETA has talked about
(https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/), flexibility in freegan terms resulting from accidents at restaurants (cheese on a veggie burger you'd asked for without cheese, etc.), and flexibility in extreme situations (on a trip or out unexpectedly, there's literally no vegan option, so you reluctantly order something vegetarian so you won't go hungry and then plan better next time rather than beat yourself up about it)?
Or do you mean something more, like a McDougall-esque or Paris exemption (the first, more controversial half "if you find yourself in a fine restaurant, allow yourself to eat what you want [Anything? veal? foie gras?], and if you have no access to vegan food, go vegetarian.") or occasionally intentionally eating macroscopic/obvious animal products for pleasure when there are vegan options available?

Do you think we should start coining promoting a higher diversity of terminology for lifestyle and ethics practices?
I'm a big believer in the power of words and labels to help people categorize and understand concepts. If there are more approaches to the issues "veganism" addresses, like freeganism, ostroveganism, flexitarianism, reducitarianism I think we should name them and promote those identities as options along side veganism. How can we determine when it's better to create a new brand identity rather than broadening an old one?

Do you see veganism as a Social Justice movement? Or something else unrelated to social justice?
If so, how do you define "Justice" in a consequential sense and avoid the deontological implications?

Are claims of a "non-criticism" contract tinfoil hat, or are they based on something?
I have never heard of this before, but there are some claims of a conspiracy between the major players in the vegan movement, a "contract" to not criticize each other publicly. Is this tinfoil hat stuff, or is there anything to it (maybe a misunderstanding of something else)?

[tobiasleenaert]

hi

here are my brief answers to the Q&A questions (I could repeat a big part of the book answering these, but it's for that purpose that i wrote the book, so...

There seem to be some different kinds of vegans (ideologically). Which were your book written for?
And how would you categorize those groups who are in or outside of effective altruism? Is there only one divide, or are there subdivisions?

In my book I suggest people (in general, but especially in terms of activism and changemaking) can be situated on a spectrum that goes from idealistic to pragmatic (with dogmatic and ruthlessly pragmatic at the extreme ends). I suggest that given our dependency on using animals and how many people consume animal products today or use animals in other ways (clothing etc), this is a time for a high degree of pragmatism. My book is written for people who want to think about things and be open minded about new ideas and strategies.
Re. the question about divide or subdivisions, I think the idealistic - pragmatic spectrum is useful, and on the idealistic half of the spectrum there are several groups or kinds of activists, like the “abolitionists” (here meant mainly as people who agree with Francione), DXE, etc.
Note that i’m not using idealism or idealistic in a negative sense: I just think it’s not good if you go too far in that direction, and I think this is not the right time for being too idealistic. But there probably will come a time when a lot of the idealistic tactics will be necessary and very productive, and when a high degree of pragmatism becomes unnecessary.

How do you define veganism?
Do you still agree with the Vegan Society in terms of the letter of the law? If not, how would you change the definition?

Generally I find the adjective more useful than the noun: “a vegan meal”, “a vegan product…” is more useful and easily definable than “a vegan” or “veganism”. When we’re talking about people, or of the ideology, than I’m in favor of accepting a certain degree of fuzziness. The “practicable and possible” from the Vegan Society definition provides some leeway, but that doesn’t seem to prevent some vegans from determining for others what is practicable and possible. In any case, I’m all about being strategic, and I think it would be much more strategic if we saw veganism as a 99% thing than a 100% thing. Is a person who eats a non vegan cake three times a year at her grandmothers’, or even has a few bites of her grandmother’s signature recipe out of politeness once a year, a non-vegan? I wouldn’t think so. I don’t know where the cut off lies, this is where the fuziness comes in.
There’s a suggestion in my book about how I’d change the definition
Note that the above leads my critics to say that “Tobias tells people to be eat animals”, or things like that. If that’s your conclusion, there’s not much I can do.

When you talk about flexibility, how far do you take it?
Do you mean flexibility in terms of micro-ingredients as PETA has talked about
(https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/), flexibility in freegan terms resulting from accidents at restaurants (cheese on a veggie burger you'd asked for without cheese, etc.), and flexibility in extreme situations (on a trip or out unexpectedly, there's literally no vegan option, so you reluctantly order something vegetarian so you won't go hungry and then plan better next time rather than beat yourself up about it)?
Or do you mean something more, like a McDougall-esque or Paris exemption (the first, more controversial half "if you find yourself in a fine restaurant, allow yourself to eat what you want [Anything? veal? foie gras?], and if you have no access to vegan food, go vegetarian.") or occasionally intentionally eating macroscopic/obvious animal products for pleasure when there
are vegan options available?

See previous answer. I wouldn’t recommend people that they eat whatever they want when they are in a fine restaurant. But on the other hand I would be careful not to alienate a person who said or did that (and I see a lot of this alienation going on in our movement).
Basically I’d say to be as vegan as possible, but to let go of that if you think it’s unstrategic. That said, I can think of strategic exceptions I should make (according to this line of reasoning) but I just can’t because I’m disgusted with even a small bit of cheese. Personally I only make kind of microbit-exceptions. But I do think that people who choose to be vegetarian when out of home for strategic reasons may have a point.
I just don’t worry about the last percentages. If everyone right now would be vegan even for 80%, we’d have a vegan world already, because then the remaining 20% would take care of itself.

Do you think we should start coining/promoting a higher diversity of terminology for lifestyle and ethics practices?
I'm a big believer in the power of words and labels to help people categorize and understand concepts. If there are more approaches to the issues "veganism" addresses, like freeganism, ostroveganism, flexitarianism, reducitarianism I think we should name them and promote those identities as options along side veganism. How can we determine when it's better to create a new brand identity rather than broadening an old one?

It’s a good question, though I’m not sure to which extent all these labels are useful. I write in my book about the fact that identities are both a blessing and a curse. Personally i try to identify with as little as possible, as I see that any identification limits and clouds my thinking and my being.

Do you see veganism as a Social Justice movement? Or something else unrelated to social justice?
If so, how do you define "Justice" in a consequential sense and avoid the deontological implications?

I definitely see veganism as a social justice movement, and animal rights or wellbeing as a social justice issue, but that doesn’t mean we always have to communicate or campaign about it in those terms. When in certain circumstances it’s all about a good vegan culinary experience and conviviality, and the animals are not mentioned, we are still doing the work. It’s not because we are not talking about animals or social justice, that we are not working on it.
Also, moral arguments can create a lot of antagonism (see e.g. this post).
The question of consequential vs deontological is really interesting and something that fascinates me. I definitely do think that being good and acting justly are very important, even independent of consequences. But I still think that consequences are more important. I have to do more thinking about this. I have never come across a synthesis that satisfies me

Are claims of a "non-criticism" contract tinfoil hat, or are they based on something?
I have never heard of this before, but there are some claims of a conspiracy between the major players in the vegan movement, a "contract" to not criticize each other publicly. Is this tinfoil hat stuff, or is there anything to it (maybe a misunderstanding of something else)?

I’ve never heard something explicit re. this, but to me it seems kind of common sense. It’s good that different stakeholders within the movement (bigger and smaller groups etc) get along and work together. Public criticism is not concudive to that. So I would naturally avoid it. If I have criticism towards groups or people that I know, I will do that in private. That’s not just nicer, it’s also more strategic I think. And if we really think we must do it in public (and sometimes that may happen, especially after private criticism goes unnoticed), we should do our best to excellently formulate it.
I think in general we are too quick to criticize and think we know it all. I’m in favor of slow opinion.

[brimstoneSalad]

Great, thank you Tobias!

But there probably will come a time when a lot of the idealistic tactics will be necessary and very productive, and when a high degree of pragmatism becomes unnecessary.

It's a very diplomatic way of putting it; not saying that they're wrong, but just that this isn't the time for that kind of action yet.

The “practicable and possible” from the Vegan Society definition provides some leeway, but that doesn’t seem to prevent some vegans from determining for others what is practicable and possible.

Given the bias some people may have, do you think there's something to be said for polite peer review and accountability?
If somebody really wants to eat something, he or she may be more lenient about that thing than necessary and say it's not practicable not to eat it, while that's not strictly true.

I don't mean extremes of criticism that turn into a witch hunt, but something more balanced.
Do you think it's possible to keep it from going to extremes?

I think people are worried about an identity they hold being coopted by hypocrites who want to be trendy and cash in but don't share their values. While I don't think veganism is a community, I can understand the concern. We see the same blow back by more strict biblical Christians against "Sunday Christians".

Is a person who eats a non vegan cake three times a year at her grandmothers’, or even has a few bites of her grandmother’s signature recipe out of politeness once a year, a non-vegan? I wouldn’t think so. I don’t know where the cut off lies, this is where the fuziness comes in.

If we had more data about efficacy, we could do a calculus that determined the ideal level of leniency for the most people adopting the practice while still doing the most good overall.
There could be a good argument for that being what is practicable in an objective sense. It would also change and become more strict over time as society adapted.

Lacking that calculus, my concern would be human bias. If we can just act on sound judgement, that's probably the best we have, so it's what we should go with... but that judgement can not be sound if it is biased.

I could say definitively that if you really don't want to eat something, and it makes you sick to your stomach, but you do so out of a desire to make veganism more approachable to witnesses, you're definitely not biased in favor of eating it so your judgement would probably be as sound as it could be.
The trouble of bias would come in if you legitimately enjoy the cake or whatever it is.

You might find cheese revolting, so if you were to eat something with a tiny bit of cheese on it to make veganism more approachable, you would be acting on the most sound judgement possible.
Whereas I might find cheese delicious and jump at an opportunity to eat it for the greater good... and in that case I'm precisely the person who can not have sound judgement in deciding to do so.

But if the heuristic becomes that we can only eat non-vegan things in social situations that we find revolting, I'm not sure how much that benefits the approachability of veganism when somebody finds out about that.

One of the trickiest things about developing heuristics for practical veganism is that those heuristics themselves have an effect.

I would have been more likely to stay vegetarian and not go vegan if I thought I'd be required to eat small amounts of meat some time, or maybe gelatin (which I did not eat), to make sure veganism was approachable.

See previous answer. I wouldn’t recommend people that they eat whatever they want when they are in a fine restaurant. But on the other hand I would be careful not to alienate a person who said or did that (and I see a lot of this alienation going on in our movement).

I don't think saying that person isn't vegan is necessarily alienating.

I would thank him or her for being reducetarian/flexitarian and mostly vegan, and appreciate this person as an ally. I think the big thing is that we need to be more appreciative of near-vegans. They need more carrot and less stick.

Basically I’d say to be as vegan as possible, but to let go of that if you think it’s unstrategic.

I would agree, with some caveats: provided you aren't biased in favor of letting go, or another authority has sanctioned it and you're leaning on their expertise (like PETA and the microgram exceptions, and unknowns like stearates or glycerides etc.).

But I do think that people who choose to be vegetarian when out of home for strategic reasons may have a point.

I agree they might, but they also might not. We don't really know how this affects perception, and I think it could be subject to the same cognitive and assessment biases freeganism often is. When people want to eat something, they'll find a way to rationalize it. This happens in dieting too.

I would say if they like cheese, then they're vegetarians and commendably eat vegan at home, even reducing their dary/egg consumption, which is excellent and should be applauded. But they aren't vegan.
If they hate cheese and they choke it down to make veganism more approachable, then they're vegan... but that kind of rule doesn't really make veganism that much more approachable once it's explained to somebody. It kind of sounds nuts. Even the "making exceptions for appearance" sounds to a lot of ordinary people like hypocrisy.

It's kind of a catch-22. It makes sense as a heuristic until you start actually using it, and then it may be counterproductive.

For this reason, I think it's better to mostly stay the course with veganism with respect to overt animal products (with microgram things/unknowns being the only exception), and promote parallel paths that are more graduated like reducetarianism.

I just don’t worry about the last percentages. If everyone right now would be vegan even for 80%, we’d have a vegan world already, because then the remaining 20% would take care of itself.

I would look at the history of religion, and particularly those which spread very well.
By the numbers, it looks like Christians and Muslims have had astounding success across South America and Africa, and Asia. But in obtaining that kind of spread, the vast majority kept local customs and only nominally included Christian or Muslim names and holidays and functionally just added Jesus/Allah to an existing pantheon. That's even true in many parts of Europe.

We are not typical. Philosophers and thinkers are not typical. The average person is keen on identity, but even keener on loopholes. I'm sure if we loosened the definition we could have a mostly "vegan" world much faster, but it might not mean much.

It's something history tells us of the spread of other ideologies, and it's something that strikes me as a very real concern.

To me it seems safer to promote things like reducetarianism for the broad population, and vegetarianism, and to leave veganism as a niche that will grow as people graduate from one ism to another.

It’s a good question, though I’m not sure to which extent all these labels are useful. I write in my book about the fact that identities are both a blessing and a curse. Personally i try to identify with as little as possible, as I see that any identification limits and clouds my thinking and my being.

I don't think most people do all that much thinking. You can't really project your own progress and thinking on the vast majority.
For most people, naming something is a way to understand it, and to consider it as an optional extension of identity.
When we name reducetarianism, ostroveganism, vegetarianism, etc. we end up teaching these concepts which people would otherwise not think of.

It's also kind of like a SKU in retail. Why are there 50 flavors of poptarts? So there's one for everybody? Or so that people will try more flavors? A new SKU of veganism or a vegan adjacent concept is potentially a good way for a second crack at some people who have tried before and failed.
People will put on and take off identities like nothing, they tend to be more concerned with avoiding hypocrisy (or their perception of it) than actually having sound value systems.

I definitely see veganism as a social justice movement, and animal rights or wellbeing as a social justice issue, but that doesn’t mean we always have to communicate or campaign about it in those terms.

Surely we don't have to use the terms. I'm wondering why you see it that way.

Social justice seems to deal with the just application of law to different members of society, but animals (and the mentally handicapped) are usually quite outside that. Law needs to be just because of the implications to people who understand it as unjust; the whole social contract thing, where we want to be treated justly, so we must be concerned with unjust laws. We need to cultivate respect for the law, but it's hard to extend that expectation to animals (or children, for that matter).

There was a recent debate on Youtube with a person called Destiny, who is kind of an "Objectivist", I think it demonstrates the issue pretty well.

Vegan Gains did the debate, and Unnatural Vegan also responded to it.

Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR-63cAVCPM

I've found no coherent consequential views of Justice that apply to non-agents. Of course it is important for children an animals to have protection, but I don't think we should lean on deontology to do this. Philosophically, "justice" seems to be a pretty loaded word. And it is politically too.
I've seen argument that consequentialists retake justice and redefine it somehow, but that seems dubious to me when modern discourse gives strong claim to deontological concepts.

The question of consequential vs deontological is really interesting and something that fascinates me. I definitely do think that being good and acting justly are very important, even independent of consequences.

Why do you think that? Can you give an example of what you mean?
What does it mean to be good independent of the consequences?