Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jacy Reese just did his TEDx talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmbVphZKYc
The End of Animal Farming | Jacy Reese

Overall it's a great talk, and if you haven't seen it, check it out.

I was hoping everybody could give some feedback, such as pros and cons, to his presentation. (Watch it before you read my thoughts if you can)

Overall it was very diplomatic, which was great. I also liked the audience participation, and his discussion about how so many people believe their meat comes from ethical sources and yet the statistics of farming say otherwise.

There were two things that struck me:

1. It's important to mention the harms of animal agriculture, but it was a kind of hard sell early in the talk and I'm worried it might cause some people to click off a little early and miss the most important message there (which is very diplomatic). I think putting it in the context of criticizing the aggressive vegan activist approach might have helped soften that. E.g. talking about the direct approach and the arguments made briefly and saying those thing are true, but that most people are already pretty easy to convince of the negatives might have helped (it's more making it seem possible for them).

2. The mention of wild animal suffering near the end is a little dangerous, since most people have bizarre biases against addressing that "because it's nature". It could help to at least give an example that's more acceptable, because people might jump to the most objectionable and obvious thing they can think of (like making lions vegetarian). Clarifying with a more specific and more acceptable example like curing diseases could help soften that for most people; it's harder to imagine people objecting to eradicating rabies or Tasmanian devil facial cancer or something along those lines.
User avatar
Canastenard
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:20 pm
Diet: Vegan
Contact:

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Canastenard »

I like how this talk presents veganism as a long term project for society that will involve multiple actors, which is exactly how I envision it too. It makes the case for a positive vision of the future that will be mad easier thanks to technological advances that are on the way.

One part I would like to comment on specifically is about "humane" farms. Jacy mentions how there's no "humane" way to slaughter animals which makes sense, but I think he could have gone further in his reasoning. Personally I would have said that farmed animals are still being treated as products before feeling individuals, and that it leads to an inevitable conflict of interest between the human exploiter and exploited animals, in the sense that higher investment for animal welfare inevitably leads to decreased productivity and even more environmental impact; those interests are inherently antagonistic, and if consumer demand of meat increases (like it unfortunately does when people get out of poverty - we can see the increase in demand in emerging countries) then animals are going to be the big losers because the means that lead to higher productivity inevitably go against animal welfare (cutting pro-welfare investments that don't lead to increased productivity, leading to things like more concentrated populations and less efforts made to combat animal boredom). To be fair I suppose what I said was implicitly meant when he mentioned how more "humane" farms lead to higher price for animal products.

I also think it was a good thing to have a more nuanced view on antibiotics. Sure, we should stop feeding so much of them to farmed animals to prevent hyper-resistant pathogens in the future, but they're also good for animal welfare because they, you know, prevent diseases. Like pesticides in plant agriculture, most people have an intuitionally negative view of them in animal agriculture, but some good also comes from them. It may also be a way to make people think: I don't want a future filled with super-resistant pathogens, but not using antibiotics leads to lower animal welfare and less productivity (I'm pretty sure diseased animals are deemed unfit for human consumption after all). It inevitably leads to conclusions that advocate for lowered consumption of animal products, and the great thing is that Jacy didn't even mention it explicitly.

I agree with the remark about wild animal suffering too. Mocking farm animal liberation with the notion of making wild carnivores not carnivore anymore is a common strawman of detractors of veganism, because if you can't take farm animal suffering seriously for whatever reason (you love meat too much or just believe in whatever "natural order" asks us to kill and eat animals), then you're miles away from thinking seriously about wild animal suffering, and the image of vegans asking for carnivores to become vegetarian - not advocated for explicitly in this talk but could easily come to the mind of a radical anti-vegan - could easily confirm their views.
Appeal to nature: the strange belief that what is perceived as "natural" is necessarily safer, more effective or morally superior compared to what isn't.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:49 pm Jacy Reese just did his TEDx talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmbVphZKYc
The End of Animal Farming | Jacy Reese
It's an interesting talk, think he speaks well, and emphasizes a positive vision. A good olive branch to those too stubborn to ever move to veganism on their own, to fight for vegan agriculture to effectively put meat out of most people's price reach?

I would have liked Reece to talk more about the benefits to the land, wildlife & climate change, when we move towards vegan agriculture, some pretty pictures of cross planted fields with hedgerows, with room to leave land alone until rotation, a wildlife pond corner for walkers tourist trails and farm hotel b&b like many farmers are turning to. And the campaign points you could petition politicians on.

Obviously couldn't go on forever and have to keep it fairly simple. Name of a website at the end where they could find more information on effective altruism?
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Jamie in Chile »

I thought it was good, well done to him. I honestly couldn't think of much specific feedback.

47% support a ban on slaughterhouses seems hard to believe - do some of them want to see a movement to have animals slaughtered on local farms. I wonder what % would support a ban on any commercial facility for the killing of animals or what % would support a ban on the killing of animals for food in general.
Cirion Spellbinder
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Presumably somewhere

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Cirion Spellbinder »

I've finally gotten to your request!
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:49 pmIt's important to mention the harms of animal agriculture, but it was a kind of hard sell early in the talk and I'm worried it might cause some people to click off a little early and miss the most important message there (which is very diplomatic). I think putting it in the context of criticizing the aggressive vegan activist approach might have helped soften that. E.g. talking about the direct approach and the arguments made briefly and saying those thing are true, but that most people are already pretty easy to convince of the negatives might have helped (it's more making it seem possible for them).
I mostly agree. Its best, in my opinion, to avoid discussing the cruelty of animal agriculture unless the person is explicitly interested or criticizing veganism. It has a huge hit or miss effect like you mentioned. Focusing on the environmental impact yields a much smaller risk because (a) self-labeled rational / pragmatic people can neither play the subjective card (which takes longer to debunk), nor (b) accuse you of using emotional evidence, and (c) in educated circles, its generally concerned lunacy to deny causes of global warming. Also, though I'm not sure why, it seems like less of an attack in my mind to insinuate that someone is destroying the planet rather than the lives of innocents.
The mention of wild animal suffering near the end is a little dangerous, since most people have bizarre biases against addressing that "because it's nature". It could help to at least give an example that's more acceptable, because people might jump to the most objectionable and obvious thing they can think of (like making lions vegetarian). Clarifying with a more specific and more acceptable example like curing diseases could help soften that for most people; it's harder to imagine people objecting to eradicating rabies or Tasmanian devil facial cancer or something along those lines.
Yep. Also worth noting that vegan activists should dispel the notion that they think veganism is in tune with nature and that they are vegan to be natural. Not only does this help, again, with the pragmatic demographic I've been bagging on, but it won't lead people to think you're a hypocrite for living in a house or using public transportation.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Lay Vegan »

I largely agree with brim's critique.

It was an intriguing and informative talk. I like that he acknowledged that everyone can help to improve animal welfare by focusing more on inciting corporate change in businesses and governments. After all, diet is just one of many ways to positively impact animals. I find this tactic to be more inclusive and less alienating to non vegans. Requiring that meat-eaters be vegan or vegetarian as some benchmark to join fight for animals might just push them away even further.

I also like his reassurance to the audience that giving up meat, dairy, and eggs may not be a requirement should lab-grown products become successful.

For some reason, I found his point on the "collapse of compassion" to be a little confusing. He explained what it is well but he lost me at some point talking about how focusing on individualistic change causes this phenomenon in non vegans.

I found myself having to read up more on this after his speech before I could understand his point there.
JacyReese
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 7:04 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by JacyReese »

Hey folks! Philosophical Vegan pointed me to this thread on Twitter, and I'd love to share some thoughts. These are all important strategic questions, most of which I spent >30 minutes discussing/thinking about/researching before the talk. They all have numerous considerations on both sides, and I think reasonable people can come to differing views. Though I'm also a big believer in Aumann updating, i.e. I think reasonable people should converge in their views quite quickly, even if they can't fully vet each other's evidence.

<<Overall it was very diplomatic, which was great.>>

So first off, even this was a tough call, haha. There's frequently a trade-off between getting attention and getting positive/deep engagement, and I worry I went a little too far in the latter direction. I'm trying to adjust this a little as I get ready for my book launch, such as by focusing more on my critiques of individual consumer focus within veg/animal activism, and my critiques of "humane" animal farming in the general population.

<<It's important to mention the harms of animal agriculture, but it was a kind of hard sell early in the talk...>>

Good point. In the book, my publisher and I have actually decided not to have any focused discussion of the harms of animal ag. It's entirely a book about how we get to the end of animal farming, not why. (Potentially there's an exception here for my critiques of "humane" animal farming, but I approach it as a strategic question. Should we say things like "end factory farming" or "end animal farming"? Rather than a moral assessment of "humane" animal farming.

In the talk, the scale seemed to tip towards inclusion, for two reasons: (1) Many vegan/animal influencers (e.g. Best Video You Will Ever See) focus heavily on raising awareness and converting people to veg*nism. My impression is they were much more likely to share it if it included the harms discussion. These influencers are a great source of YT views, but they are not as important for book sales. (2) In the video, I have less time to get people on board with my views. It's a lot easier to watch a full YT video and find yourself in heavy disagreement than to read a full book and find yourself in heavy disagreement. So I felt the need to have a significant part of the talk that argued aggressively for something most people would already agree with (that factory farming is bad), such that they were in an "agreeing mood" for lack of a better term.

<<The mention of wild animal suffering near the end is a little dangerous...>>

I'm fairly confident that very few people not already familiar with WAS perceived that as talking about controversial intervention in the wild. It was probably read by most (if they read it as anything) as standard environmentalism, perhaps with a focus on the more wildlife-centric environmentalism, like preserving endangered species. But if I believe this, why did I include it? (1) To prime viewers a little for the discussion of WAS (just a few pages) that's in the book, or that they might encounter in the world of EAA (effective animal advocacy, or effective altruism for animals). (2) To ensure we keep wild animals included in animal rights discussions, to better enable us to tackle WAS down the road and make small investments in it now (e.g. research, movement-building). This is also why I'm very glad WAS has been discussed at the International Animal Rights Conference, and hopefully will be discussed soon at the Animal Rights National Conference.

<<I like how this talk presents veganism as a long term project for society that will involve multiple actors, which is exactly how I envision it too.>>

Thanks! That's probably the #1 takeaway I want from the book and the TEDx talk. I'd like vegans and nonvegans to see farmed animal issues as demanding a social movement to fix the food system, not just a reason for some hardcore folks to adopt veganism.

<<Personally I would have said that farmed animals are still being treated as products before feeling individuals...>>

The two reasons I didn't go into this, or replace other stuff with it, are: (1) I don't think it's very convincing for people who aren't already convinced by it. It's been a big focus of vegan/animal advocacy to date, and it seems to mostly just appeal to a certain demographic (say, left-wing animal lovers). (2) I actually don't personally endorse it, at least as an intrinsic argument. I oppose the commodification of sentient beings (humans or nonhumans) because of the suffering it leads to, not because I inherently oppose commodification.

<<higher investment for animal welfare inevitably leads to decreased productivity and even more environmental impact; those interests are inherently antagonistic...>>

I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I think I'd just categorize it as unnecessary detail. I think I did imply it with the high prices of animal products, and there just didn't seem to be room for elaboration given how choosy I was being with every word I included in the talk.

<<I also think it was a good thing to have a more nuanced view on antibiotics...>>

Yeah, I've considered avoiding saying the 80% antibiotics point because I'm not that excited about eliminating antibiotics in animal farming, at least compared to other reforms we could achieve with similar investments of resources. "Superbugs" are super compelling to a general audience though, and I think the antibiotics argument is the best public health argument. (I'm not very convinced of nutrition arguments for veganism, and the health hazards from local pollution (e.g. manure runoff) just aren't that compelling, at least to non-far-left audiences.)

<<I would have liked Reece to talk more about the benefits to the land, wildlife & climate change...>>

I didn't want to put too much focus on the harms of animal farming (or the benefits of animal-free farming), and I also am concerned about a lot of mainstream environmentalism because of the implications for the welfare of individual wild animals.

<<Name of a website at the end where they could find more information on effective altruism?>>

TED and TEDx really don't like this kind of stuff. (Same if I had plugged my book.) At the very least, self-promotion would probably keep my talk from being featured on the TED website, which is unlikely in any case, but would lead to hundreds of thousands or millions of views if it happened.

<<47% support a ban on slaughterhouses seems hard to believe...>>

Here's the source: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/anim ... urvey-2017

In this and other surveys, I don't think people are thinking through these in enough depth to have beliefs like "want to see a movement to have animals slaughtered on local farms." But of course you could get them to think about that detail in a survey if you'd like.

<<I found myself having to read up more on this after his speech before I could understand his point there.>>

That's good to know. It's actually somewhat-common advice to be a little confusing in parts of a TEDx talk in order to pique curiosity and get people to look for more detail (e.g. buy a book). I also like to be a little confusing because it's a very common feature of public intellectuals. Think of the quirky, ineloquent college professor stereotype. E.g. I sometimes use words that I know very few people in the audience will understand. I try to emulate Steven Pinker's approach here.


Thanks again for the kind words and thoughtful criticism, everyone! I'll try to check this website again to see if there are any further responses. This website reminds me a bit of Felicifia, an old utilitarianism website where a lot of people in the effective altruism movement got there start, before we branded our approach as EA.
JacyReese
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 7:04 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by JacyReese »

I'd also like to add that I'm very open to feedback on how I can most effectively advocate against animal farming. There are a lot of these complex questions when it comes to getting traction in the public arena, such as how much I should try to build my platform by speaking on larger issues that get more attention in the current public discourse, then try to use my platform to work on this particular issue.
User avatar
Canastenard
Junior Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:20 pm
Diet: Vegan
Contact:

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Canastenard »

Hello Jacy! Nice to have your feedback directly on this forum.
JacyReese wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:17 pmThe two reasons I didn't go into this, or replace other stuff with it, are: (1) I don't think it's very convincing for people who aren't already convinced by it. It's been a big focus of vegan/animal advocacy to date, and it seems to mostly just appeal to a certain demographic (say, left-wing animal lovers). (2) I actually don't personally endorse it, at least as an intrinsic argument. I oppose the commodification of sentient beings (humans or nonhumans) because of the suffering it leads to, not because I inherently oppose commodification.
You're right that intrisic "commodification" is not a very compelling argument, with your response I actually feel like I was basically promoting another way to mention the central point which is that farmed animals are going to be the big losers when being exploited for human business. After all animals can't really fight back against those who exploit them, unlike human workers who have legal means to avoid being over-exploited by their boss... but at the same time "animals can't have lawyers to protect them" doesn't sound like an argument that would be compelling to most people :roll: might be better to stick with empirical evidence by showing coverage of animals in so-called "humane" farms.
I'm not sure I fully understand this, but I think I'd just categorize it as unnecessary detail. I think I did imply it with the high prices of animal products, and there just didn't seem to be room for elaboration given how choosy I was being with every word I included in the talk.
The point I was trying to make is that if you want to maximize the output of animal products you'll often have to do things that go against animal welfare. For example you can either concentrate a lot of pigs on a small surface where they never see the light of day or give them an access to the outdoor where they can move relatively freely and ways to do what they naturally want to like having dust baths. The pigs in the later are going to have a better quality of life but it's going to be more expensive and you're going to need more land to have the same amount of meat as for the former farm, making it less environmentally sustainable by pound of meat. Of course you can have the best of both and better by simply sticking with plant agriculture.
Appeal to nature: the strange belief that what is perceived as "natural" is necessarily safer, more effective or morally superior compared to what isn't.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Jacy Reese's TEDx talk criticism

Post by Lay Vegan »

JacyReese wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 2:36 pm I'd also like to add that I'm very open to feedback on how I can most effectively advocate against animal farming. There are a lot of these complex questions when it comes to getting traction in the public arena, such as how much I should try to build my platform by speaking on larger issues that get more attention in the current public discourse, then try to use my platform to work on this particular issue.
I think you touched upon this well in your talk.

Rather than demanding that people immediately go vegan, we should encourage people to gradually reduce their meat/diary consumption. This message is probably far more digestible to our target audience, and less likely to put the on the defensive.

What do you think about focusing our advocacy primarily on one species at a time as a strategy to end animal farming? https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6 ... f-chicken

People pick and choose their preferred animals arbitrarily, and it’s unlikely they will stop eating all farm animals simultaneously. It seems that people tend to have more empathy toward “cute” mammals like cows and pigs than they do toward the more off-putting chickens and fish. This study found that Americans cut their beef consumption by nearly one-fifth from 2005 to 2014. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/fil ... bon-ip.pdf

Of course, this doesn’t mean that Americans are eating less meat, just that they’re just switching to other meats like poultry and fish, but perhaps we advocates can take advantage of this by continuing to drive the decline in beef products, then when demand has reached an historic low, switch our focus primarily another species? I’m not saying we can’t encourage people to reduce all their meat consumption, or go totally vegetarian, but perhaps the greatest change will come in telling people to eat less and less of certain types of meat, and narrowing it down.


Heck I’d support raising, slaughtering, and hunting your own animals for food as comparatively less harmful than funding a billion-dollar industry that legalizes and normalizes serious animal abuses.

Another way to help would be lobbying for corporate changes in business practices toward animal welfare. I’m really glad you emphasized this in your talk, since anyone, regardless of what they eat can participate in this. You covered that so well that I don’t really have much more to add there.

This isn’t relevant to animal farming, but in my own personal experience, our city-wide lobbyist group has had some success passing an ordinance that bans the use of bullhooks and other torture devices on animals at Pittsburgh zoos and circuses. And lots of people who worked with us and their legislators were not vegan or vegetarian. If we had been so divisive as to set vegetarianism as a benchmark to join the fight, I don’t think we could’ve garnered enough support from our city council representatives.
Post Reply