Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Jay Bailey4
0
0

Thanks Elle, I appreciate that. I believe your claims - I fully believe it's possible to safely go vegan for an extended period, I'm just not sure how difficult it is (i.e, what's the default outcome, if one tries without doing research first) and what ways there are to prevent that outcome if the outcome is not good.

I shall message you, and welcome to the forum!

Reply
See in context
by [anonymous]
2 min read 14

14

Animal welfareCommunityDietary changeMarketingMoral advocacy
Frontpage

Before I address the title of the article I'm going to quickly outlined why I think brands and products grow and why behaviours in general become more popular. This post involves some meandering so reader beware.

I've been doing marketing for about 15 years and as far as I can tell there are 3 models of communication that change people's behaviour:

Model 1: "SALIENCE": 

communication changes behaviour by creating salience between an intervention or product or brand and the memories people access at a point of purchase or engagement (i.e. 'when they are in-market'). For example, when I want to make "pasta bolognaise" the associated memories my brain surfaces could be "barilla", "italian" and "beyond meat" (for all the nerds this leans into associative network theory if you're interested in learning more)

Model 2: "PERSUASION":  

communication changes behaviour by persuading or telling a story. This leans into System 2 thinking and Narrative Transportation Theory respectively (I recommend checking out Thinking Fast and Slow and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_theory_(psychology))

Model 3: "CULTURAL IMPRINTING": communication changes behaviour because all consumption is actually about building and maintaining status within a desired group and all products are consumed in social settings (for more I recommend "ads don't work that way" > https://meltingasphalt.com/ads-dont-work-that-way/)

In classic marketing theory these are all bucketed under "Promotion" (i.e. communication). There are 3 other "P's" to marketing (and reasons why products or brands grow):

Product & Price (which IMO only need to be 'good enough' rather than 'the best' - see satisficing)

Physical availability (Is the thing I want to buy easy to find?)

Ok but what does this have to do with non human animals?

AFAICT about 30% of EAs are vegan but my model says that if non human animals have any hope this number should be closer to 90%.

Let's review the model:

M1 - "SALIENCE": if you're in EA you're hearing about animals suffering and vegan alternatives all the time

M2- "PERSUASION": EAs are especially rational people and not eating animals is obviously the more rational choice for 90%+ people reading this

M3: "CULTURAL IMPRINTING": it is a higher status move in the EA community to be vegan than not

Product & Price: vegan food tastes fine, and EAs can afford it (i.e. they're relatively rich)

Physical availability: the hardest part of any product adoption is to get people to try it once and you can't go to an EA event without trying vegan food

So how is any of this useful?

In behaviour change and marketing strategy a common practice to get a deeper or different view of peoples decision making is by studying its extreme users instead of the general population.

Some examples of how this has worked elsewhere:

  1. Transmen and transwomen for feminine care innovation
  2. Hikikomori for future social spaces
  3. Amish for clothing sustainability
  4. Arthritis sufferers for kitchen utensils

Anyway, I think looking deeply at why EAs do and do not eat farm grown meat (at an individual level) and why vegan adoption is so low 'in EA culture' could provide lots of insight.

14

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments14


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Ryan Greenblatt14
6
5

EAs are especially rational people and not eating animals is obviously the more rational choice for 90%+ people reading this

I'm about 99% bivalve vegan (occasionally I eat fish for cognitive reasons). However, I think it doesn't make sense for strongly longtermist individuals in terms of the direct straightforward benefits of veganism. The direct animal suffering is negligable relative to the future. I'm strongly longtermist, but I stay vegan for a combination of less direct reasons like signaling to myself and generally being cooperative (for reasons like acausal decision theory and directly being cooperative with current people).

Reply
Greg_Colbourn ⏸️ 1
1
1

Why doesn't it make sense for strongly longtermist individuals? Any longtermists from 200 years ago who were slavery supporters would feel pretty dumb and embarrassed now.

Reply
Ariel Simnegar 🔸14
5
2

Thanks for your post. One place where you might get pushback is in whether or not “not eating animals is obviously the more rational choice”. I’m vegan, but I think there are somewhat persuasive arguments that promoting veganism may not be net positive: https://reducing-suffering.org/vegetarianism-and-wild-animals/

Reply
TW12311
8
1

I expect that if plant based alternatives ever were to become as available, tasty, and cheap as animal products, a large proportion of people and likely nearly all EAs would become vegan. Cultural effects do matter, but in the end I expect them to be mostly downstream of technology in this particular case. Moral appeals have unfortunately had limited success on this issue.

Reply
Jay Bailey8
2
1

I am one of those meat-eating EA's, so I figured I'd give some reasons why I'm not vegan, to aid the goals of this post in finding out about these things.

Price: While I can technically afford it, I still prefer to save money when possible.
Availability: A lot of food out there, especially frozen foods which I buy a lot of since I don't like cooking, involves meat. It's simply easier to decide on meals when meat is an option.
Knowledge: If I were to go vegan, I would be unsure how to go vegan safely for an extended period, and how to make sure I got a decent variety rather than eating the same foods over and over (which comes into taste - I don't mind vegan food but there's much more variety I can find in meat-based dishes)
Convenience: Similarly to above - it takes resources to seek out vegan options, more resources than to just eat normally.

The harms are real, but the harms are far away and abstract. So when I feel vaguely guilty about eating meat, I think about all the hassle and cost it would take to swap diets, and I shy away from it and don't do it. 

I'm not quite sure why those harms are far away and abstract, whereas the harms caused by malaria or AI risk don't invoke the same feelings in me. I think it's because I can use maths to determine the number of humans impacted and then put myself in the place of one of those humans - it's harder to do that with chickens. Also, giving away 10% of my income is actually less of a day-to-day drain on my resources than going vegan would be. I feel aversion to spending money, but I only give away money once a month, and it doesn't cause me financial hardship. By contrast, veganism requires daily effort.

As a micro-example of where these considerations don't apply - there are some plant meat based strips that I can get at my local supermarket. I find them tastier than actual meat when put into curry, and they're just as cheap when on special. So whenever they're on special, I pick a bunch of them up and they become my default option for a while. I know how to cook them, I know where to get them, they're just as cheap (sometimes) and I enjoy the taste. So I end up avoiding meat by default. I hope plant-based meat will eventually reach that saturation point for all kinds of dishes too.

Reply
ElleB9
0
0

"Knowledge: If I were to go vegan, I would be unsure how to go vegan safely for an extended period, and how to make sure I got a decent variety rather than eating the same foods over and over (which comes into taste - I don't mind vegan food but there's much more variety I can find in meat-based dishes)"

If knowledge is one of your preventative factors, I have been vegetarian since 2005 and vegan since 2015. I am happy to help. I compete in various sports and am in good health. I am happy to communicate with you directly and provide evidence of such claims if that helps quell your concerns about "[going] vegan safely for an extended period." 

I would ecstatically give you my time in the pursuit of sharing knowledge and helping to reduce barriers to veganism.

Reply
Jay Bailey4
0
0

Thanks Elle, I appreciate that. I believe your claims - I fully believe it's possible to safely go vegan for an extended period, I'm just not sure how difficult it is (i.e, what's the default outcome, if one tries without doing research first) and what ways there are to prevent that outcome if the outcome is not good.

I shall message you, and welcome to the forum!

Reply
Igor Scaldini4
1
1

Although I'm not sure (because I don't have enough knowledge) if your claim on "not eating animals is the more rational choice for 90%+ people reading this" is correct, I liked this mental model. 

As a member of EA community and an altruist, I eat meat. Not because it's cheaper (it's not, at least in Brazil), it's convenient (I live in a massive city with a lot of vegan options), or it's rational (I'm not sure if it is) but because eating is more then putting calories in...

Eating is a social activity. It's about belonging and connections. 

And what is our most important need after physiological and safety, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs?

Belonging and Love. 

So I believe most people don't go vegan (EAs or not) because it's hard to adapt to this lifestyle socially,  unless other vegans surround you. 

I don't have a definitive solution to this puzzle (to have more vegans, we need more vegans). Still, I would like to share my view on that because I think what most vegan advocates get wrong is framing "eating" as a purely rational and physiological activity. 

It's like soccer. 40.000 people doesn't go to the stadium because it's rational to watch 22 guys running for a soccer ball, but because their social lives are embedded on it. 

Reply
sapphire2
4
1

I agree with the thrust of the argument but I think its a little too pessimistic. A lot of EAs aren't especially altruistic people. Tons of EAs got involved because of Xrisk. And it requires very little altruism to care about whether you and everyone you know will die. You can look at the data on EA donations and notice they aren't that high. EAs dont donate 10% until they have a pre-tax income of around one million dollars per year!

Reply
Henri Thunberg 🔸4
2
0

Emm sorry, what? Out of 8,000 GWWC pledgers, who have at least pledged to give 10%, very few earn $1M?

Reply
MHR🔸9
1
0

I think your graph actually agrees with what sapphire's comment was arguing? Among the GWWC pledgers, donations don't actually hit the pledged 10% of income until well past an income of $100k/year. It's hard to eyeball the combined pledger/non-pledger average donation percentage from the graph, but it seems fair to say it's under 10% at the vast majority of income levels. 

Reply
sapphire3
2
0

I mean that 'at what income do GWWC pledgers actually start donating 10%+'. Or more precisely 'consider the set of GWWC pledge takers who make at least X per year, for what value X does is the mean donation at least X/10'. The value of X you get is around one million per year. Donations are of course even lower for people who didn't take the pledge! Giving 10% when you make one million PER YEAR is not a very big ask. You will notice EAs making large, but not absurd salaries, like 100-200K give around 5%. Some EAs are extremely altruistic, but the average EA isn't that altruistic imo. 

Reply
Jeff Kaufman 🔸2
0
0

Looking at the chart henrith posted, it looks to me like the GWWC=yes line crosses 10% just below $300k/y, which is still high but well below $1M/y.

Additionally, eyeballing the points on the chart, it looks to me like there's an issue with the way the fit works, where people earning less donating less makes it look like people who earn more also donate less?

It looks like the chart came from Rethink Priorities EA Survey 2020 Series: Donation Data. Maybe the data is public and I can check this...

Reply
Jeff Kaufman 🔸2
0
0

https://github.com/rethinkpriorities/ea_data_public has "The actual code and data is in the EA-data private repo. A line in the main_2020.R file there copies the content to this repo in a parallel folder on one's hard drive, to be pushed here. ... No data will be shared here, for now at least."

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
Recent opportunities in Animal welfare
19
Announcement: Animal Charity Evaluators is hosting an AMA on February 17 at 8-10am PT
4 authors
· · 1m read
0
0
20
Anima International is hiring: Global Policy Generalist, Campaigner, Communications Generalist, Operations Generalist
Anima International
· · 1m read
3
3
111
AI Moral Alignment: The Most Important Goal of Our Generation
Ronen Bar
· · 10m read
30
30
View more