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:
- Transmen and transwomen for feminine care innovation
- Hikikomori for future social spaces
- Amish for clothing sustainability
- 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.
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.
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!