A book by Tobias Leenaert, founder of the animal rights organization EVA (Ethical Vegetarian Alternative). It identifies three goals—reducing animal suffering, slaughter, and injustice toward animals—and presents the most effective strategies for achieving them. A pragmatic approach willing to use whatever means serve those ends.

About the author

He has also criticized Direct Action Everywhere’s disruptive protests (critique 1, critique 2). These criticisms concern effectiveness, connecting with this book’s theme. Briefly:

Calling someone’s behavior wrong can provoke moral reactance.
Extreme protests may instead arouse antipathy.
Animal rights and other social justice movements are at different phases. “DxE is doing good protests at the wrong time.”

I consider DxE’s activities very meaningful, while also largely agreeing with this book. Perhaps some of the conflict comes from differing expectations about how quickly animal liberation can be achieved. DxE aims to accomplish it within a generation—specifically, 40 years—whereas Tobias seems to take a somewhat longer view.

Foreword

The foreword is by Peter Singer, famous for Animal Liberation. He, too, has consistently emphasized practical ways to reduce animal suffering and slaughter over always pursuing moral perfection, so this book’s position presumably resonates with him.

Singer says that in Animal Liberation’s final paragraph, he wrote that liberation would follow if people abandoned selfishness and acted rationally and altruistically. In retrospect, however, this would make only a fraction of humanity vegan. Not everyone can abandon selfishness or think rationally all the time. We need diverse strategies to persuade as many people as possible, even using nonethical reasons such as health, convenience, and affordability. This is why he recommends the book.

Introduction: The Long Way to Veganville

The original title is Introduction: The Long Way to the Veganville.

The author calls meat eaters steakholders, altering “stakeholders” to suggest people holding onto steak. This is a practical strategy guide for persuading them. Unlike previous books, it will use every necessary means, rather than appealing only to human morality.

Specifically:

Alongside urging people to become vegan, ask them merely to reduce animal-product consumption. Widespread reductions will bring the tipping point closer faster than a tiny minority of vegans can.
Regard changed habits as positive, whatever the reason. People often change habits first and thoughts or attitudes afterward.
Consider how to create an environment encouraging change by making alternatives to animal products better, cheaper, and easier to obtain.
Propose a more relaxed, less stringent understanding of veganism.

As an introduction, this discusses the attitudes underlying the book. The author calls himself a slow opinionist. In an internet-saturated age, people tend to form opinions too quickly. A slow opinionist gathers sufficient information and openly considers opponents’ perspectives before deciding where to stand.

He also emphasizes distinguishing direction from strategy. Avoiding getting lost requires a compass accurately pointing north. But heading straight north from one’s current position is not necessarily the fastest, most effective route. He has encountered two common mistakes in vegan advocacy:

Believing there is only one right method
Believing every method is equally useful

There is no single right method, but neither are all methods equally useful. Finding better ones therefore requires continually experimenting with strategies and examining existing data and research, striving to practice effective altruism. Simply doing good is insufficient; we must consider how to do good most effectively.

This book focuses mainly on meat eating, which accounts for 99% of animals suffering and dying at human hands. The food industry’s share dwarfs animal experimentation, hunting, leather and fur, and entertainment combined. “Meat” here has a broad meaning, including fish, dairy, and eggs.

Chapter 1. Getting Our Bearings: Where Are We Going, and Where Are We?

The original title is Getting our Bearings: Where Are We Going, and Where Are We?

The movement has three goals:

Minimize animal suffering.
Minimize animal slaughter.
Minimize injustice toward animals.

Like veganism itself, creating a vegan world is not an end in itself, but a means to these goals. Changing attitudes as well as behavior also matters.

If a vegan world is the future ideal, we must assess the present. There are far too many steakholders. In the United States, meat-related industries are much larger than the automotive industry. People consider eating meat normal, natural, necessary, and nice (Four Ns of justification). Giving it up seems abnormal, unnatural, unnecessary, and unattractive.

Solomon Eliot Asch’s conformity experiments show a strong tendency to follow majority opinion, however strange it is. One reason many people eat meat is that many people currently eat meat.

Another problem: even after recognizing meat eating as problematic, many struggle to act. Moreover, around 84% of vegans and vegetarians eventually abandon their diets and resume eating meat.

The animal movement faces distinctive difficulties. First, every previous liberation movement concerned humans; animals are genuinely “other.” Second, the oppressed cannot actively participate in the movement (but see Earth species project —ak). Third, meat eating is deeply entangled with human evolutionary nature spanning millions of years.

Against these difficult realities, the movement is often overly idealistic. Of course, both extremes on the pragmatism–idealism spectrum are problematic: ruthless pragmatism and excessively idealistic dogmatism alike. Unfortunately, many social movements polarize, with frequent mutual condemnation. Pragmatists are accused of compromising with the world or inconsistency; idealists of failing to understand the world.

The author’s proposal: given the exceptionally unfavorable reality, a more pragmatic approach is initially more workable. As public support grows and the world changes, expand idealistic approaches.

Chapter 1’s conclusion: the world depends heavily on animal exploitation; the animal movement’s distinctive difficulties hinder progress; participants are too few and opponents very powerful. A highly pragmatic approach is therefore needed. Philosophical reflection on what is right is comparatively easy. Engaging with reality and doing the right thing at the right time to create actual change is truly difficult—and is our task.

Chapter 2. Call to Action: What Do We Ask People to Do?

The original title is Call to Action: What Do We Ask People to Do?

Which message—“Go vegan” or “Eat vegetarian every Monday”—will bring the most people to Veganville fastest? The author says vegans have never agreed, not even about what we have actually been doing over the years.

Simply stating exactly what we want is not always best; slogans also require pragmatism. This applies to all social movements, not only the animal movement.

For example, nineteenth-century British abolitionists repeatedly failed to legislate abolition. They decided to yield some idealism and change their message pragmatically. Instead of complete abolition, they proposed seizing slave-trading ships belonging to enemy allies, including France. Though a compromise short of their ultimate goal, this had advantages: it effectively appealed to contemporary British nationalism, and these ships accounted for a substantial share of British slave trading. The strategy succeeded enormously. Amazingly, just a year later the original legislation, previously defeated repeatedly, passed too.

The gluten-free movement offers another lesson. Gluten is life-threatening to only a tiny minority. But the popular perception that gluten is harmful increased demand for gluten-free products. Cheap, diverse products consequently entered the market, benefiting the original minority too.

Veganism can similarly benefit not only from “true vegans,” but also from reducetarians seeking to reduce meat consumption. Reducetarian messages are effective for several reasons:

First, reducetarians’ numbers let them bring larger, faster systemic changes.
Second, they can therefore save more animals immediately.
Third, once someone becomes a reducetarian, becoming vegan next is easier.
Fourth, most people become vegan gradually anyway, rather than all at once.
Fifth, reducetarians outnumber vegans, interacting with more people and influencing more places and fields, with greater reach.

Reducetarian messages also satisfy the criteria for a good message:

Something people will listen to: too extreme, and they close their eyes and ears.
Something readily actionable: “Go vegan” asks too much of most people. Meat-free Mondays or no meat before six are easier.
Based on evidence the public will trust: abundant rational evidence supports a fully plant-based diet’s healthfulness. But most people will not investigate and believe it unhealthy. By contrast, the claim that modern people eat too much meat and should reduce it is both evidence-based and readily credible.
Something that minimizes animal suffering and slaughter: reducetarian messages, like “Go vegan,” can reduce both.

Should we therefore stop saying “Go vegan”? The author recommends both, depending on circumstances. These people may be more receptive to “Go vegan”:

Relatively young people preferring clear-cut messages
Students, academics, and intellectuals, who are comparatively open
People already interested in animal welfare
People enjoying philosophical discussion, in one-on-one conversation

He also recommends “vegan” as an adjective (vegan food, vegan restaurant) rather than a noun (Are you a vegan?). Nouns suggest a dichotomy—vegan or not?—while adjectives do so less. “Become a vegan” and “Try vegan food” differ greatly.

The latter part of Chapter 2 presents objections to reducetarian messaging and his responses.

Isn’t proposing anything short of veganism immoral? Ideally, yes, but meat eating is legal and almost universally considered necessary. If reducing suffering and slaughter matters more than maintaining personal moral consistency, pragmatism is needed.
Won’t people reduce just a little and stop there? Research suggests most become vegetarian or vegan gradually. Getting them to take a first step is therefore crucial.
Couldn’t “Go vegan” also encourage reductions? Most people are uninterested in veganism and likely to ignore the message entirely.
Even with reducetarian messages, shouldn’t we clearly state veganism as the ultimate goal? Transparency about goals is not always most effective. Meat advocates’ reactions show reducetarianism can be effective enough. A U.S. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association spokesperson called Meatless Monday an evil plan to make the public accept extreme veganism by planting the idea that meat is bad.
Aren’t reducetarians very different from vegans? Even assuming a large difference, consider their potentially substantial impact.
I became vegan overnight without difficulty; can’t others? Personal experience is not an objective yardstick. Veganism is far from a default option for most, and very difficult in some regions.

Widespread reductions in meat consumption are probably the fastest route to the tipping point. Once reached, meat will become far more expensive, and plant-based products cheaper, better, and more available. In that environment, more people can become vegan faster. Reducetarians’ help is indispensable.

Chapter 3. Arguments: How Do We Motivate for Change?

The original title is Arguments: How Do We Motivate for Change?

The goal is to get as many people as possible living in Veganville. People are comfortably eating meat elsewhere. Veganville sits atop a mountain, so nobody wants to come. Even asking people halfway up requires motivation. How should we persuade them?

Most vegans practice veganism for ethical reasons and primarily use those reasons to persuade others. They believe advocating veganism on grounds such as health is illegitimate, and lasting change requires ethical persuasion. But not necessarily.

For example, slavery in Britain and America was hardly abolished for ethical reasons alone. Following Britain’s Industrial Revolution, machines proved cheaper, more efficient, and more convenient than slaves, creating conditions for abolition. In America, the victory of the North, with fewer economic interests in slavery, in the Civil War played a major role. Whaling is similar: cheaper alternatives to whale oil appeared.

The expectation that correct information changes attitudes is also overrated. Information often fails to change behavior—the attitude–behavior gap. Rather than condemning this mismatch as hypocrisy, consider what prevents behavioral change.

The gap between knowledge and action creates cognitive dissonance. People resolve it by:

A tiny minority changing behavior and becoming vegan
Most changing beliefs to retain meat eating (animals died painlessly, were raised to be eaten anyway, feel less pain, and so on)
The rest insulating themselves from uncomfortable truths (“Don’t tell me; I don’t want to know”)

Conversely, changing behavior first often changes attitudes afterward. Humans are adept at finding reasons to justify existing behavior, but less adept at acting on rationally derived reasons (R. Abelson).

Seat belts and smoke-free public spaces are good examples. Many opposed these before legislation. Once laws forced behavioral change, attitudes naturally began changing too. People once opposed even smoke-free hospitals and university classrooms; now public attitudes have shifted so much that this seems hard to believe.

According to Hoffman et al., p. 142, 25% of those reducing meat for health later adopt ethical reasons too. Hamilton, p. 160, and Cooney 2014, pp. 74–75, describe similar findings.

First key claim: accept any reason serving the goal. Health, environment, or any other reason that moves people toward veganism should be welcomed. Building our message on values people already pursue is smarter than persuading them to adopt new values. Once behavior changes, changing attitudes is easier.

There may be objections.

Won’t health or environmental arguments increase chicken and fish consumption? 1) Studies do not clearly support reduced red-meat consumption leading to increased chicken consumption. 2) Take a longer view: children growing up in families eating only chicken and fish may later find veganism easier than children whose families also eat other meat. 3) Health and environmental organizations already recommend replacing other meat with chicken and fish. To take up their agenda and reframe it toward reducing those too, we need to discuss health and the environment as well.
Aren’t nonmoral reasons less durable? It is true that people eating vegetarian for nonmoral reasons persist less. But these reasons attract more people; some later add moral reasons; and many who stop later restart. Bringing people in this way is worthwhile.

Second key claim: veganism is easier than before, but not easy enough. Many substitutes taste worse, cost more, or are difficult to obtain in some regions. Lowering transition costs requires better, more varied alternatives. More good things in Veganville make the journey easier to begin. Conversely, making meat eating harder can work too. Animal agriculture has systematically obstructed veganism for years. American egg producers, for example, pursued legislation prohibiting plant-based mayonnaise from being labeled mayonnaise. Counter-lobbying that makes meat consumption harder would be valuable.

Chapter 4. Environment: Making Things Easier

The original title is Environment: Making Things Easier.

Chapter 3 stressed making veganism easier. Call this CAFE: Creating A Facilitating Environment. In the journey metaphor, CAFE means paving roads, providing rest stops, and supplying food for travelers to Veganville.

Creating an environment means making the “rightest thing” the “easiest thing.” Sometimes people should do right automatically, without effort. An easy way to reduce environmentally harmful old-fashioned light bulbs is to develop better, cheaper alternatives. Legislation banning old bulbs, as in Europe, would be even better. Then merely buying a legal product becomes the “right action.”

Without good alternatives, change is difficult, so alternatives need improvement. Alternatives include services (replacing horse-drawn transport with cars), not just products. Improvement includes availability, variety, and price, alongside quality (taste, texture, health, and so on).

Companies making vegan products are important allies. Cooking vegan food ourselves is good, but not everyone can do so in every situation. Vegan products appearing on store shelves can themselves positively influence the public. Companies’ promotional channels are useful, and corporate funds make lobbying possible.

Consider two broad kinds of company.

First, startups seeking disruptive innovation, aiming to transform animal agriculture entirely. Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat belong here, mostly influenced by the vegan movement. Media attention generated by investments from celebrities such as Bill Gates also improves public perceptions.

Second, established animal-agriculture giants investing in substitutes, such as Germany’s Rügenwalder Mühle and U.S.-based multinational Tyson.

It may be disturbing to see corporations that abused and slaughtered animals participating in veganism. Some vegans adopt skeptical or cynical attitudes toward businesses from anticapitalist, anti-finance, or anti-commercial sentiments, generally rooted in concerns about justice and equality or corporate greed and power. But excessive distrust can be unproductive or waste good opportunities.

For-profit companies, by definition, require profits to survive; seeking profit is natural. What needs continual scrutiny is whether they are honest, transparent, and socially responsible.

They probably invest in veganism because they expect profits rather than for ethical reasons. But whatever their motives, we should use their contributions if they reduce animal suffering and slaughter. Animals need help beyond idealism and good intentions.

Advantages of large corporations investing in veganism:

Ample R&D and marketing budgets, distribution and sales channels: Companies need profits regardless of ingredients, so existing infrastructure can also distribute vegan food.
Lobbying: Once vegan food generates a significant share of profits, they will stop lobbying to promote meat consumption and obstruct vegan advocacy.

There are examples of cooperation. The author’s organization, Ethical Vegetarian Alternative, partnered with a plant-based food producer for its Thursday Veggieday campaign. EVA promoted plant-based food’s health and environmental benefits; the producer funded the campaign—a win-win partnership.

Traditional meat company Rügenwalder Mühle is changing so profoundly that one could call it an identity crisis. It invested over €40 million in promoting vegan products, more than all other German companies combined. It supports vegan organizations, reduces eggs in its nonvegan products, and continually develops vegan products. Its CEO even declared that all products would be meat-free within 20 years. Enemy or ally? There is no doubt.

A company called Clean Meat produces meat from animal cells without slaughter. It is potentially environmentally friendly, healthy, and safe. Some worry such technology is unnatural. But “traditional” meat production is full of chemicals, hormones, and electrical and mechanical equipment, and is equally far from natural. “Natural” is not particularly useful in this discussion.

Debates about genetically modified foods are similar. At least theoretically, GMOs can reduce animal experimentation and grow more nutritious crops on less land. Distinguish principled opposition (genetic modification defies nature) from practical or contextual opposition (corporate monopolies, privatization of public knowledge and resources).

(Some argue that GMOs introduce additional risks requiring the precautionary principle. See The precautionary principle with application to the GMO for details. —ak)

Activists often want to establish nonprofits, but for-profit companies have many advantages, and the nonprofit–for-profit dichotomy does not neatly fit reality. Instead of this dichotomy, consider where to place emphasis along a finance-first to change-first continuum. Or earn income while contributing to change through YouTube, blogs, local restaurants, and other avenues.

Shared goals can be pursued in different ways. Karen Davis and Josh Tetrick both care deeply about chickens’ rights. Davis founded the nonprofit UPC for education and outreach. Tetrick founded the business Hampton Creek and developed egg-free mayonnaise. Different ways toward the same goal.

There are many other targets: NGOs, educational institutions, hospitals, insurers, and more. ProVeg, for example, successfully lobbied environmental organization Greenpeace to include halving Germany’s livestock population among its carbon-reduction goals.

Targeting influential people also works. ProVeg organized a conference on vegetarian diets and health for thousands of medical professionals and students. This requires understanding them and building trust. Positioning itself as a vegetarian advocacy organization rather than an animal rights group—a concept still unfamiliar to the public—is considered one effective strategy.

Schools offer opportunities too: train future vegan advocates, involve many students in Meatless Monday, or teach vegan cooking to culinary students and chefs.

Legislation matters. These changes can quickly reverse when CEOs or governments change. Laws are therefore the surest route. A restaurant voluntarily declaring itself smoke-free differs greatly from making smoking in restaurants illegal. Portugal, for example, legislated vegan options in all public-institution cafeterias. Health or environmental taxes on all meat and animal products, though controversial, are another definite approach.

Choice architecture can help. Supermarkets place expensive items at eye level to encourage purchases; we can use the same strategy. One school experimented with making vegan lunch the default every Tuesday and nonvegan lunch optional. Simply changing the default led 94% of students to choose vegan food on Tuesdays. At least that day, students automatically get the “right option” without actively choosing. They can always change it, so freedom is preserved and resistance avoided.

Influencing corporations and politicians requires professional organizations. Some vegans criticize building large organizations because they spend heavily on self-maintenance, compromise, and sometimes cooperate with enemies. But reaching voters and consumers and achieving major change requires pragmatism.

A facilitating environment makes veganism easier for anyone. Sometimes companies need pressure, but sometimes they need help making good actions easier. Professional organizations are needed to influence institutions, industries, structures, and politics.

Chapter 5. Support: Encouraging Every Step

The original title is Support: Encouraging Every Step.

Chapter 5 discusses helping and encouraging people who have begun the journey to Veganville.

Anyone can do this, the author says. Everyone is qualified to talk about change. You need not be strictly vegan to work for animals, and even strict vegans make mistakes.

The goal of conversation should be actual change. Continually ask whether you are truly creating change for animals. Telling the truth, saying the right thing, or winning arguments does not itself create change. What matters is not “Am I right?” or “Is this true?” but “Does this work?”

Take the common slogan “Meat is murder.” Is it true? Legally, only killing humans is murder, so it is false in that sense. It is also unclear whether it calls slaughter murder or meat eating murder. Ultimately, only those already vegan accept it as true. To use it, one must answer “Yes” when an audience member asks, “Am I a murderer?” Is that an effective conversation?

Focus on your audience, not yourself. Think of good conversationalists you know. Whatever their other qualities, they probably share a focus on you. Persuasion similarly requires interest and attention directed toward others.

Remember YANYA: You Are Not Your Audience. People differ in social position, age, education, and more. Do not assume their present mindset matches yours or that what persuaded you will persuade everyone. Imagine yourself nonvegan and consider:

How would it feel as a Jewish person to hear a non-Jewish vegan compare meat eating to the Holocaust?
How would it feel as a person of color to hear a white vegan compare animals’ situation to historical slavery?
How would it feel if someone refused a Christmas or Thanksgiving gathering (Seollal or Chuseok in Korea) because “animal corpses” were served?

(In Chapter 2 of The Sexual Politics of Meat, Carol J. Adams notes that some terms are so strongly tied to particular groups’ oppression that transferring them elsewhere can be exploitative. The Jewish/Holocaust and people-of-color/slavery examples seem to fit. —ak)

Listening well is crucial. People may forget a conversation’s content but remember how it felt, making manner potentially more important than content. Consider poor listeners: they talk excessively, leave you unsure whether they heard you, ask few questions, show no interest in answers, and continually introduce their own topics. Do not converse this way.

The Animal Activist’s Handbook recommends answering a question with another question. If asked “Why did you become vegan?” ask “Why do you eat meat?” Advantages:

The questioner must think for themselves.
They get a chance to answer, and you can listen well. They may then want to listen to you.
Their answer helps you understand them better.

Avoid cornering people. We easily attribute nonvegans’ defensiveness to laziness or insensitivity, but it may arise from guilt and fear. Learning a fellow diner is vegan can cause these feelings, negatively affecting conversation. Minson and Monin’s research suggests people tend to resent and disdain those behaving more morally than themselves. Revealing your imperfections can reduce this: mention that you did not become vegan overnight or sometimes act against your convictions.

Avoid judging or criticizing others. Continually check whether you are doing so. Recognize that you cannot know all their circumstances, and that everyone differs. Recall your own imperfections and that you were probably once nonvegan. They may also be doing morally good things in other areas.

To practice nonjudgment, imagine a superlocavore vegan (SV vegan) who eats only homegrown crops and buys nothing in stores, because modern farming kills too many mice, birds, and insects. This person calls you a hypocrite, regards their own lifestyle as the moral minimum, and calls all ordinary vegans immoral. How does that feel?

Focusing on how rather than why also helps. Discussing why to become vegan easily turns into debate or argument; discussing how is easier. This usually means food, with three advantages:

Food culture is central to animal abuse and slaughter.
Food is also veganism’s key asset. Few things sell as well or are as loved.
Food naturally brings people together and facilitates interaction.

Serving food works well: invite people, cook, eat together, and let them experience good alternatives. Consider what they like, not what you like. Prepare generous portions even if you eat little, and suit their tastes even if you dislike strongly flavored food.

Finally, veganism needs greater inclusivity. As argued, getting many people to reduce meat consumption is the fastest way to change the whole system. That requires more inclusive veganism.

An identity exists because others do not share it. If everyone were vegan, veganism would cease to be an identity. Inclusivity relies on exclusivity. According to MIT neuroscientist E. Bruneau, stronger group identity tends to reduce empathy for outgroups.

“Vegan” is an important identity to us, so wanting a strict definition is understandable. But this may increase exclusion. For vegan advocacy especially, every outgroup is a potential future ally to bring into the ingroup. There is a contradictory demand: include outsiders while maintaining strong internal identity.

One solution is to distinguish the messages sent to each: pragmatic, inclusive messages externally, identity-building messages internally. But first, entry costs must not be excessive; second, outsiders must not be dismissed or alienated.

Unfortunately, alienation occurs within the ingroup too. Vegans and vegetarians, health-motivated and ethical vegans—people virtually indistinguishable to outsiders—often attack and exclude one another.

Excessively strict standards may make vegans appear to outsiders to want to obstruct wider participation in the animal movement. This is probably unintended. Continually examine whether your messaging is inclusive enough.

Donald Watson and Dorothy Watson coined vegan and veganism. Their proposed veganism was quite flexible:

Veganism is a way of life that seeks to exclude all forms of animal exploitation as far as possible and practical.

Many interpret “possible and practical” too strictly, treating being vegan like pregnancy: either pregnant or not, never “97% pregnant,” and likewise never “97% vegan.” This absolutism asks too much of nonvegans.

Consistency matters, but is not indispensable. Avoiding animal products is a means, not an end. Our goals are reducing suffering and slaughter and minimizing injustice toward animals. Forgetting a rule’s purpose and treating the rule itself as the goal leads to dogma.

Excessive consistency is inefficient too. Imagine a friend aspiring to veganism inviting you over and preparing a vegan meal, accidentally using pasta containing eggs. Is refusing even a bite for consistency’s sake good? Might it instead leave the friend with a negative view of veganism?

Even perfect consistency would not suffice. A fully vegan diet is not free from animal suffering and slaughter: some vegan products directly harm animals through harvesting, monocultures, chemicals, herbicides, and other injuries.

Perfect consistency is also impossible. Wherever the line is drawn, it is incomplete. Most vegans appear imperfect to an SV vegan eating only homegrown crops. Pig-derived materials are also used not only in food and cosmetics but in buildings, railway brakes, sandpaper, cigarettes, and countless other things, making total avoidance impractical.

There may be objections to this position on consistency.

Won’t inconsistency confuse nonvegans? Given that vegans are only 1% of the population and most people have not taken one step toward Veganville, the importance of clear consistency is overrated.
Doesn’t this risk diluting veganism? The worry is that “almost vegan” or reducetarian messages leave some animals suffering even after their future achievement. Given current conditions, that is premature. Moreover, if that future arrived, demands for complete veganism would certainly strengthen.
Don’t we need role models? If only exceptionally perfect people qualify as vegan, nonvegans may find it too remote, making it counterproductive. In some circumstances, even nonvegans may be better positioned to influence others positively.

(The final reply reminds me of Roxane Gay’s Bad Feminist:

I embrace the label of bad feminist because I am human. I am messy. I am not trying to be an example. I am not trying to be perfect. I am not trying to say I have all the answers. I am not trying to say I’m right. I am just trying—to support what I believe in, to do some good in this world, to make some noise with my writing.

End of quotation)

Veganism should include, not exclude. If we need “true vegan,” define it by positive influence on nonvegans, rather than perfect avoidance of animal products. If we need “veganism,” add effectiveness to the Watsons’ definition. If we want consistency, let it concern goals rather than rules. If we distinguish allies and enemies, call those facing the same direction allies even when they do not agree entirely.

Because we cannot do this alone.

Chapter 6. Sustainability: How to Keep on Keeping On

The original title is Sustainability. How to Keep on Keeping On.

Even after arriving in Veganville, people may leave for various reasons. How can vegans remain vegan and activists keep acting?

Eighty-four percent of vegans and vegetarians give up and return to meat, primarily because of taste, health, and convenience. Help therefore includes:

Giving new vegans health information, such as vitamin B12 guidance
Since they have already chosen veganism, using ethical arguments to strengthen their motivation to stay
Creating the facilitating environment of Chapter 4 (CAFE) and making meat eating comparatively expensive and inconvenient

Advice for avoiding activist burnout:

Remember that building a vegan world is a marathon, not a sprint. It will not come easily. Be patient and take your time.
Follow the book’s strategies, designed for sustainability as well as effectiveness.
Persuasion resembles gradually filling an empty basket. How full it is cannot readily be seen from outside. Many people contribute little by little until it suddenly overflows and change occurs. Recognize that filling another person’s basket is not your responsibility alone.
However difficult things become, do not lose faith in humanity.
Avoid excessive anger.
Do something rather than surrender to helplessness. Do not merely grieve over animals’ suffering. Working more effectively will make animals happier too.
Be grateful. Even within tragedy, there is much to appreciate.
Remember that you are an animal too. Do not abuse yourself. Rest enough and live happily.

Conclusion: The Future of Vegan Strategy and Communication

The original title is Conclusion: The Future of Vegan Strategy and Communication.

The argument has been for appropriate pragmatism in vegan advocacy. Alongside “Go vegan,” we need “Reduce meat for whatever reason.” Lobbying, new products, legislation, and other measures must create a facilitating environment. We must also work toward more inclusive veganism.

The system will change, though we do not know when. Reducetarians as well as vegans will contribute, with nonethical reasons playing roles too. Past the tipping point, the need for pragmatism will gradually diminish and ethical arguments can be stronger. Veganville will then lie near the valley, rather than atop the mountain, easily accessible to all.