Thanks for writing this! This really resonated with me, and I agree that we would benefit a lot from using the V-word much less in many, if not most, contexts.

There are a few contexts, though, where I would still want to use it. One is when eating out, where saying that you are vegan or want a vegan meal communicates a clear dietary requirement very efficiently. Another is in the context of nutrition science, where vegan diets can be a relevant and distinct category, although that is admittedly a more niche use case.

More generally, I think the word is much more likely to be problematic when it is used to categorise a person than when it describes a food, meal, restaurant, etc.

But overall, I agree that tabooing the word in many of the contexts you describe could help create a much more welcoming. :)

Thanks for your comment! Yes, helping vegans be more tolerant of non-vegan allies is certainly one of the intentions behind this post. :)

I also think you raise an important point and I do touch on this to some extent in the following footnote:

For example, many people see veganism not merely as a way of eating, but as an ethical principle according to which animals should not be viewed as resources. The resulting identity and strong commitment to this principle can make veganism appear meaningful and aspirational to some, while making it appear isolating and restrictive to others. Whether these influences ultimately encourage or discourage others depends on how they are perceived, which varies substantially across individuals and socio-cultural contexts.

A clear principle like "don't eat animals" can be a useful heuristic that guides behaviour and makes the underlying moral values more salient. This could be described as reducing speciesism, or more broadly as increasing moral concern for animals. At the same time, because such a principle asks for all or nothing, it may also push some people away.

That said, my impression is that a meaningful proportion of non-vegans genuinely care about farmed animals having good lives, even if they don't question the norm of eating animals itself. At the same time, I agree it does seem comparatively rare for that concern to translate into activism without a vegan identity.

Thanks for the feedback! I agree that any such graphic inevitably risks conveying more confidence than is warranted. At the same time, I felt it was important to visualise the framework, as I think it becomes much less intuitive if left purely abstract. That was a trade-off I consciously made. As I mention in the footnote:

Although the curves could be aggregated into a single curve once relative weights have been assigned to the different objectives, this is deliberately omitted because doing so could inadvertently endorse one particular weighting and imply a level of quantitative precision the model is not intended to convey. Accordingly, each curve should be interpreted on its own scale in the vertical dimension, so their relative heights do not imply any particular weighting between the objectives.

I'm not sure there's a perfect solution here, but this felt like the best compromise to me.

Thanks for sharing this! The Balluch curve is very much aligned with how I think about effort, and I like that he explores in depth how advocacy can reshape the landscape over time, thereby effectively changing our empirical assumptions. I especially like the visual intuition of people "rolling" towards the local minimum. A very elegant way of thinking about the curves. :)

The only point I'd qualify is the assumption that a balanced mixed diet and a vegan diet are roughly equally healthy. I discuss this in a bit more detail in the section on health risk:

More generally, there is greater uncertainty about the health outcomes of dietary patterns that substantially restrict or eliminate food groups that have formed part of the human diet throughout evolution, particularly with regard to long-term health and critical life stages such as pregnancy, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. This reflects both the limited evidence base for comparatively novel and rare dietary patterns and the broader methodological limitations of nutrition science. A greater health risk is therefore assigned to dietary patterns at either extreme of the spectrum.

For that reason, I think health risk may be just as decisive as effort, depending on how people weight the different objectives.

Thanks! I actually intended culinary enjoyment to be incorporated into the model already. As I write in the Effort section:

The more a diet deviates from the norm in a given context, the greater the associated costs tend to be in terms of time, money, attention, as well as psychological and social costs related to factors such as culinary enjoyment, culture, community, or identity.

So the idea is that giving up culinary enjoyment makes a diet more costly, i.e. more effortful. I decided to include it this way because, like the other factors grouped under effort, I think it tends to have a U-shaped relationship with the proportion of animal-based foods in the diet, making it natural to combine them into a single curve. It also makes the optimisation framework mathematically more elegant by treating all of these as costs to be minimised.

Thanks, these are all good points.

First, I want to emphasise that the curves are highly contestable. My goal isn't to argue that these particular curves are correct, but rather to encourage readers to think explicitly about what their own curves would look like.

That said, here are my thoughts on your specific points:

• Effort of vegan vs carnivore diets: My intuition is that a carnivore diet can often be implemented largely by leaving out certain plant-based foods, whereas a vegan diet usually requires suitable replacements to maintain a nutritionally complete diet. But I can also see arguments in the other direction, especially given that veganism is much more common and socially accepted than carnivore diets in many contexts. What I'm much more confident about is that, for most people currently eating a typical omnivorous diet, eating more animal-based foods is generally easier than eating fewer.
• Health risk of vegan vs predominantly animal-based diets: As explained in the assumptions section, I'm comparing reasonably well-planned implementations (better than average, but not theoretically optimal). So "predominantly animal-based" shouldn't be interpreted as a diet centred on red and processed meat (although I think the evidence against unprocessed red meat is relatively weak). My own best judgement is that a well-planned predominantly animal-based diet carries lower health risk than a well-planned vegan diet, but this is certainly contestable.
• Wild animal welfare beyond climate change: In principle, the external harm curve is intended to reflect all harms. However, soil animal welfare is a domain with substantial empirical uncertainty. As a result, I currently don't have sufficiently confident views to incorporate those considerations into the curves, but they could certainly matter under some assumptions.

Hope this is helpful!

Thanks, I really appreciate you sharing your perspective! I've mostly thought about the signalling benefits of pledges so far, not so much the potential downsides. But I can see how that might play out in some contexts.

Congrats on the recent pledge! :)

I agree that the flexibility to choose which charities to support makes the pledge feel much less constraining. At the same time, there is still a lock-in in committing to giving itself and to a fixed share of income.

That said, it's great to hear the current framing worked well for you. My impression is just that different people respond to different approaches to commitment, and I think the 10% pledge is the most aspirational option for some but not for everyone.

Good question, thanks for bringing this up!

A few thoughts come to mind:

• Long-term commitments can fade over time, so periodic recommitment could help by creating moments of reflection and renewed motivation. In that sense, successive time-bound pledges might be more effective than an open-ended pledge that is very similar to a recurring donation membership at a charity.
• OFTW directs donations to a curated set of charities focused on global poverty. That reduces decision complexity, but it also means pledgers have less agency and cannot support other cause areas.
• The 1% framing lowers the barrier substantially but, as you note, may not resonate as strongly with people who want to give very ambitiously, which I think is closer to the audience GWWC wants to reach.

Overall though, for the goals they are pursuing and the people they are trying to reach, their framing seems very sensible to me.

Thanks a lot for your comment and for taking the time to run the numbers. :)

A few thoughts in response to your points:

1. The 0.9 g EPA/DHA per 100 g you used is on the lower end, and many sources put sardines higher. We used ~1.4 g as an average in the table, which changes the calculation somewhat. But more importantly, sardines don't just replace EPA/DHA supplements. They also replace the protein source of a meal (often the most expensive component) and provide several other nutrients, that would otherwise have to be supplemented (e.g. B12) or that are not essential but beneficial (e.g. carninutrients).
2. I agree that incorporating half a tin of sardines per day wouldn't be very practical for most people. If you look at it weekly though it's 315 g, which corresponds to about three meals where sardines are the main protein source. Whether that's easy to manage will differ a lot between individuals and probably depend heavily on how pleasant or unpleasant one finds the taste. It can be quite strong (mostly true for canned sardines, not fresh ones), but it also varies by brand (I'd recommend e.g. "Fish Tales"), and people can also aquire the taste over time. I agree that for some people taking supplements is behaviourally easier than having about 3 sardine (or mussel) meals per week.
3. One important point here is that sardine prices vary quite a lot by country. In Germany they're relatively expensive, whereas in countries like France or the UK they're often noticeably cheaper. Beyond that, I think again it's important to consider that sardines don't just provide protein, but also EPA/DHA and several other micronutrients, which might otherwise need to be supplemented. That effectively reduces their price compared to looking at protein alone.

Hope this is helpful!