All of nico stubler&#x27;s Comments + Replies

hey Jason. i touch on this a bit in section I., and am happy to add further clarification here.

"The second level Torres discusses entails abstaining from eating at what he calls “tables of violence”—i.e., refusing to sit at a table where animal flesh and/or animal products are present. At this level practitioners are free to attend restaurants or events that serve animal products, even though doing so might necessitate sitting at a different table or in a different room when it is time to eat. The third level entails abstaining from eating in “places of vi

... (read more)

thanks for this thoughtful response! for the most part, i don't disagree (and think with some clarification on my end, we may be able to agree 🤞).

in short, i don't view the Pledge as the only valid option for advancing this movement; rather, i believe a diversity of tactics are required to push this movement forward, and see the pledge as an important (though currently overlooked) tactic amongst these. given this position, i generally agree with most of your points above—but i don't think that detracts from the importance of a small (but increasingl... (read more)

that's an interesting point (and unfortunately i think quite common). the difference between the two is cultural acceptability of each practice. broadly speaking, most would consider that position of your parents to be reasonable, and the position of a Pledger to be problematic. but that's the very crux of the issue! and as i argue in section IV.3, practicing the Pledge is itself meant to address it.

if i really wanted to be in that environment (i.e., feigning normalcy and pleasure while those in my company eat animal bodies [which, as argued in the article, i generally view as problematic]), i would attend without eating. in fact, i've done so myself on two occasions.

even so, i think if one was open to practicing the pledge in some circumstances but not all, they should still practice the pledge in those limited circumstances! we are all imperfect, and i don't think we should allow a commitment to purity to prevent us from making positive progress. (in my eyes, i just don't see the "sacrifices" that come with the Pledge to outweigh the benefits, but can understand that many don't yet agree).

Charles Dillon

Thanks for the responses, it's been very helpful! I still do not agree that this is a productive step but I feel I have a better understanding of your approach than I did.

to answer your last question first, yes, i do share that concern! i think it is a very real and important consideration all Pledgers should center in the way we communicate it to others. (and while i note that a few times in the article, i could definitely have emphasized that stronger. thanks for flagging it). that said, i do think it is possible to communicate it in a way that is open, vulnerable, and engaging.

to answer your first question—how i would react—perhaps its easiest to note my initial reaction to the Pledge. when i first heard about it, i was ... (read more)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10455752.2020.1837895

i think the Pledge can be an effective tool (amongst others) for individuals to challenge the harms caused by Big Meat. i.e., it can be used by activists focused on the harms to animals, to public health, to workers, to the environment, etc. the article copied below makes a compelling case for framing veganism in this way (and i think the same applies to the Pledge):

(fwiw, i define activism/activists quite broadly; far from being reserved from grassroots organizers on the street, i thin... (read more)

nico stubler2y6

unfortunately, i think shockingly few people are willing to make significant personal "sacrifices" for ethical reasons (i put "sacrifice" in quotations because i don't see being vegan as a sacrifice—the important thing, however, is that others still do...).

i think there are a lot of reasons that hold people back from "going" vegan... the [perceived] hassle, social cost, free-rider effect, associated identity change, etc.

i think the solution is winning systemic change, i.e., policies that change the entire decision-making environment. e.g., as i argue... (read more)

hey Charles. thanks for the Qs

yupp. i fully agree with part 1, disagree [in part] with part 2. the point of the Pledge (imo) is to stigmatize the consumption of eating animal-based foods, not to create vegans (per se). the Pledge doesn't ask that we only eat with vegans.. it asks that we refuse to tolerate those around us not eating vegan around us.
yes, i do think the Pledge is unique (to the point of warranting publishing a journal article on it). i think the Pledge transforms the discussion in really important ways (the topic of parts II and IV of the ar

... (read more)

hey Charles,

as i clarify in section I, the Pledge does not require we only attend vegan venues. it simply requires that we only eat at vegan tables. this essentially leaves all the same venues friendly to vegan consumption friendly to Pledge practitioners as well.

Charles Dillon

That deals with the venue problem, but not with the group dynamics one. If my social group is eating together, I do not want to be the one insisting that my presence requires everyone else to eat only vegan options. It's just going to annoy people and make them think I'm difficult to be around. This is different to meeting one friend for food or something where the ask is smaller, but if there's a group of six friends, say, and only one person is vegan, the ask that everyone only eat vegan options every time the group meets is not going to engender goodwill for the vegan at the table, I think.

yes, if such a standard existed, i do think the similarities between these issues would be closer to outweighing their differences, and could see myself supportive a version of the Pledge in this context besides two remaining differences:

1. regarding food, both parties are already planning on making a new purchase, whereas regarding clothes, they aren't. so while the liberation pledge is simply asking our acquaintances to make a new purchase they already plan to make in a different way, a pledge related to clothing is asking others to either retroact... (read more)

[anonymous]2y12

I definitely agree that both of those differences are relevant and and I do understand why you might support one type of pledge but not the other due to these differences. But it's still the closest analogy I can think of for how non-vegans might feel in this situation, so I'm still curious about how you personally would react if someone you barely knew told you that wearing a particular set of brands was a precondition for meeting them. I personally would feel really put off by it and in all likelihood just wouldn't meet them because it would feel weird a... (read more)

thanks for that link; i see what you are getting at.

yes, i do think practicing the Pledge comes with some of the costs you mention in other comment. i simply think that the harms of these systems are so devastating comparatively that practicing the Pledge is the least i can do.

moreover, from my experience, practicing the Pledge has increased—not decreased—my capacity for further activism. in section IV.7 i respond to the issue of moral licensing, which applies here:
"However, at least in this context, the opposite impact is more likely. Powerfully and... (read more)

Linch

I think I may have misunderstood the scope of your post. If you mean to restrict it to (animal) activists, then I'm much less sure about my top comment (though still think it is probably in the right direction). However, the EA Forum have many people who want to do good in different roles, including e.g., entrepreneurs, students, earning-to-givers, professional communicators, bureaucrats, grantmakers, lawyers, operations folks, and (especially) researchers. For most of those roles, seeing yourself primarily motivated by impassioned conviction and activism may be less directly useful than for activists.

nico stubler2y6

i think we are further along than most assume. yes, the percentage of vegans is devastatingly small. BUT, there is reason to believe there is rapid growing social support:

"Yet a 2014 U.S. survey found that 93 percent of respondents felt it was “very important” to buy their food from humane sources. Eighty-seven percent believe “farmed animals have roughly the same ability to feel pain and discomfort as humans.” And an astounding 47 percent of U.S. adults say in a survey that they support the seemingly radical policy change of “a ban on slaughterhouse... (read more)

PabloAMC

I see, it makes sense. Yet, my belief is that these people are willing to say they would do so if it were "free", but it never is, if only because it requires efforts to change your own habits. If they really wanted, do you think they don't do it for the risk of criticism of others, or why? Notice that the idea of making it simple to eat less meat addresses what I think is the main obstacle: changing routines.

thanks for this L. it seems you took from the article exactly what i was trying to express, and there are few better feelings as a writer.

hey Linch. i like this comment!

while i don't fully agree,, thankfully i'm not sure i need to! the Pledge doesn't require i spend new resources, i.e., it doesn't come at the expense of other actions i can (and should) be doing in this space. rather, i see it as complimentary. i eat the same number of meals a day, the same types of food, and hopefully with the same people as i otherwise would.

to the extent practicing the Pledge does require additional social/emotional capital up front, i view it as an investment into my future self. (the more i have th... (read more)

Linch

Thanks for the engagement. I'm sometimes confused when things I perceive as subtly-but-not-legibly costly are not seen as costly by other people. Here's another example that comes to mind.

thanks for this response Monica

i think it's an interesting comparison, but do think there are notable differences between what we eat and wear.
regarding what we eat, the issue is pretty cut and dry. are they eating an animal, or not? (and as i argue in the article, i don't think it makes sense to get into the nitty gritty of whether something is vegan or not. if it's clearly not vegan, i'm clearly against it, but don't require them dig into the supply chain, etc.).
regarding what we wear, the issue is less obvious. and i think that nuance makes a Pledge rel... (read more)

7[anonymous]2y

Thanks for your response, Nico. I'm not sure those differences are so significant. One reasonably clear-cut standard you could have for clothing is coercion of labor with violence. This standard would accept conditions of arbitrarily low wages, poor safety conditions, and abuse but would not accept conditions in which workers who tried to walk out the door were in any way physically hurt or restrained. There is an obvious problem of figuring out which clothing was produced in such a condition, but let's imagine for the sake of argument that there exists a list of brands that have been verified as not coercive and that this list is large enough to make it practical for most people to shop exclusively from it. I would not be remotely surprised to learn that such a list does in fact exist and that I am making a pretty substantial moral mistake by not consulting it before buying stuff. Now let's imagine that I did not know about this list. I know that there forced labor exists, I am sympathetic to the idea that it is a bigger deal than I might immediately appreciate, and I am aware I might be contributing to it through shopping. But let's also say I imagine that searching is time consuming, that verified brands are too expensive to justify , that I have moral uncertainty about using my time and efforts in this dimension where they could be used elsewhere, and am I really so sure that forced labor is a widespread problem anyway? In walks my hypothetical acquaintance Bob. Bob knows about this list, has answers and evidence to my questions about the prevalence of forced labor, and can give me tips about how to make shopping on my budget easy while steering clear of forced labor. On top of that, he can quietly demonstrate to me how well-dressed one can be while avoiding forced labor. It would be a real shame if Bob started the conversation with me by saying "Hey! I would love to chat with you, but I see that you are wearing a brand-X t-shirt, which is totally immoral, as

hey Michael. i think that's one of the first questions many people who consider taking the Pledge have, and i'm glad you asked it.

a negative example: an uncle i haven't seen in years was passing through new york city, and invited me out to dinner. i first noted my excitement to see and share a meal with him, second noted my commitment to never eat around those consuming animal-based foods, and finally asked if he'd prefer grabbing some vegan food with me or would rather just grab drinks. he elected to just get drinks.

while far from ideal, i was still... (read more)

thanks Steve 🙏

i love hearing that. i've taken the Pledge for about the same length of time, and the more i've practiced it, the more i've come to believe in its efficacy.

thanks Ally!

agreed—i think these are super important conversations for us to be having.

nico stubler2y4

hey Charles,

yupp, i did share this post on my instagram story, and invited folk who have experience/opinions (positive or negative) on the Pledge to contribute. it seems to me that people who have direct experience with the Pledge and/or have spent considerable time thinking about it prior to this post could contribute worthwhile comments to the discussion 👍

yup, i definitely agree on the objective 👍

i just don't see us getting to that point via individual change (which in the current framing of "going vegan" entails identity change). i see us getting there via structural change. and think a critical factor for achieving structural change is through stigmatizing the act of eating animal-based foods (and the industry that produces them). the sentience institute has done some good work here (https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/foundational-questions-summaries#individual-vs.-institutional-interventions-and-messagi... (read more)

PabloAMC2y12

So, I think perhaps our disagreement is that I don't think we have reached the critical mass to stigmatizing it yet. In the US or western countries in general veganism is ~1-2%. Vegetarianism and flexitarianism might rise that up to 8 to 10%. My intuition is that at this level one would still be seen eccentric enough to signal that animals are worth welfare considerations, but also eccentric enough that you risk marginalization (and very little impact?) if you attempt structural change.

hey Larks. thanks for that analysis.

is it not a positive outcome that this post is drawing new members to the EA Forum and community?

PabloAMC2y13

I do think it is good to have the EA forum as a place of discussion and disagreement on how to improve the world.