My friend is on the phone discussing the results of a petition to end bullfighting and she continues "sorry, I don't have any money. Here talk to my friend." whereupon I am talking to a representative of World Animal Protection. "Oh, Hi, is this WSPA? Oh, you've changed your name. Yeah well, anyway, I've been donating 60 kr every month for a decade... Hey, while I've got you on the phone, what is WAP's position on veganism?"
Turns out World Animal Protection has no vegan position. Are they doing good work? Is advocating for cage-free eggs part of the solution or just sugar coating the problem?
What institutions have the most positive impact per dollar donated?
Replies
No clue about $ per donation. As for "Is advocating for cage-free eggs part of the solution or just sugar coating the problem?" Ahimsa
From what I understand there are incrementalist and abolitionists. Incrementalist promote social justice by focusing on a single issue. Cage-free, dog fighting, pig wrestling, etc. Incrementalist know that social change happens gradually. By petitioning one company at a time incrementalists are changing the industry to cage-free. Closer to the goal and promoting more respect for animals. Yet, reasonable cage-free does almost nothing for animal welfare.
Abolitionists see the forest for the trees and bring attention that killing an animal is still immoral, no matter how humane the act is. Abolitionists focus on humane washing. Humane washing is when animal rights groups collaborate with agribusiness and make transparent lies that the farms are a paradise for animals. Both the corrupt animal right group and agribusiness make lots of money this way.
Both are useful the incrementalist inch the animal rights movement forward. Abolitionist expose humane washing and corrupt animal rights groups.
Anyways, both incrementalists and abolitionists are needed. So, my best guess would be to fund the approach that is least funded. From looking at change.org there seems to be exclusively incrementalists action. Meaning, the abolitionist approach needs more funds.
Look at change.org for examples of incrementalists. Humanemyth.org and peaceprarie for abolitionists.
Links.
1. https://www.change.org/p/mondelez-international-stop-sourcing-eggs-...
2. http://humanemyth.org/
3. http://peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html
Hi RawVeganGamer,
I agree with your thoughts regarding incremental vs abolition activism. I had not previously considered the possibility of corruption and humane washing. I hope that is not common. Without further investigation, I assume groups like "World Animal Protection" have great intensions but may not have, as you say "seen the forest for the trees". They may have a defietist view of veganism and see animal welfare as a more practicable goal. I am more hopeful for humanity and personally seek ethical consistency regardless of the actions of others.
In the end, I see my own mission as the total elimination of animal suffering directly caused by humans. I am not persuaded by organic, free-range, or cruelty-free initiatives. I am ambivilent as to whether incrementalists or wellfarists are on the right path, doing net-good. I would prefer to put my money, time, and energy into a more direct unappologetic cause, namely veganism.
Veganism is uncompromisingly consistent with simple unarguable principals: ahimsa, satya, asteya, ...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I'd make a case for Faunalytics, the market research firm for the animal protection movement. Faunalytics makes many organizations more effective, so your investment in them is leveraged. For example, they did a breakthrough study on veg recidivism in the U.S. recently that shows for every one current vegetarian there are five ex-vegetarians! Many groups are using the results, which included a great deal more detail, to look at their programs and see how we retain more people who try veg. Businesses know that retention is the key to profitability, and for us, it's the key to growth of veganism.
The organization also offers a free online library with thousands of research studies. So it's a one stop shop to find other research on how to effectively engage people in veganism.
Disclosure that I'm on the board of directors. That's because I think having the information on how people think is critical for us to make all vegan activism more effective. Please check them out at http://faunalytics.org.
Hi Freshenista,
Thank you for your service and for bringing my attension to Faunalytics. I read the recidivism results with great interest and am now reading much more of their material.
While Faunalytics is not as strictly vegan as I would prefer (in my own life-choices), I greatly appreciate Faunalytics' analysis of motivation, trends, and methodology. Indeed, my own path was step by step through vegetarianism and I now try to work with others at their own level of awareness and empowerment.
Information is power. I do believe Faunalytics is a worthy institution. Thank you for the introduction.
Delighted that you read the recidivism, Ahimsa! It is such important information.
Curious about your comment that Faunalytics is not as strictly vegan as you would prefer. Is that based on the studies you see in the database? There's no screen on the research about animals it includes. It even has studies from the meat industry, when available, if it can inform our advocacy.
The principals (ED, Board, etc.) are committed vegans, I can assure you.
No criticism intended, just wondering about your impressions, which are very helpful and hoping to address any concerns. I'm so glad you gave me the opportunity to share this very important, but often unrecognized organization with you and fellow 30 BADers. Thank you!
Thank you, Freshenista, for your assurances. I appologize for my misinformed comments.
For the sake of constructive critical feedback, here are ramblings based on my honest reactions to a brief encounter with the material. I am under the impression that Faunalytics is sympathetic and apologetic to vegetarianism based on my observation that many of its article headlines refer to vegetarianism alone; I have not seen vegan (unqualified) stand on its own in any article.
While I too am sympathetic to vegetarianism and reduced-meat consumption as baby steps toward veganism, they are still omnivorous lifestyles, milestones on the path, but not a goal. It's a delicate and nuanced discussion, to be sure, but it is also my impression that most vegetarians want to go vegan if not for small hang-ups (social awkwardness, difficulty while traveling, milk chocolate or cheese addiction, fears of calcium or protein deficiency, etc). So while I cannot expect a research and data provider to declare an opinion, I wonder if Faunalytics has a position on vegetarian vs veganism, welfare vs abolition, based on evidence with respect to reduced animal suffering, maximum impact, effective messaging to humans, etc.
Sincerely, Ahimsa
You are not misinformed and no apology is needed.
If the headlines on research pieces refer to vegetarianism rather than veganism, I suspect it is because that's what someone (usually not Faunalytics, but I'll come back to that) studied. So the title only reflects the work done by an academic or other group that may not have looked at vegans. There is certainly no attempt to hide information about vegans from advocates or to promote information about vegetarian advocacy over veganism.
Finding from research Faunalytics has conducted do, however, strongly suggest that helping people move along a path toward veganism is more effective than promoting 100% veganism for all. Yes, there are people who have those epiphanies and commit to vegan right away. They are in the minority. For many, if not most omnivores, veganism is extreme and unattainable. Matt Ball just wrote an article on an example I use at conferences, which is asking people to go 100% raw. Now. Getting people to take steps toward the goal, as long as you keep them moving and don't just settle, is more effective than an ask that seems impossible. That's consistent with my work in social (behavioral) marketing as well. In the recidivism study, you might have read that people who go veg very quickly are more likely not to stick with it, another potential support for the benefits of moving some people more gradually.
Re: meat reduction, because there is a much bigger audience willing to reduce meat rather than give it up entirely, as documented in Faunalytics research, the # of animals we can save by advocating meat reduction may greatly exceed the # we can save with vegan advocacy, at least in the current environment. So sometimes we have to ask if we're about creating vegans or saving more animals. The answer is actually "both."
I'm not saying vegan advocacy isn't important and valuable nor is Faunalytics. Rather, that there are multiple strategies that can and should operate in parallel, usually by different organizations to maximize the number of animals we can save from suffering and death. Faunalytics founder Che Green wrote an excellent piece on that in 2009 that's currently circulating on Facebook again on how our traditional strategics are falling far short. As a result, we need to look more at innovative ideas and allowing different approaches to reach our shared goal.
While I think groups continue to innovate (Pay per view, 3D experience, Animal Equality's amazing protest with dead animals, etc.), we've still got a long way to go. Faunalytics does a lot of work on impact measurement. Our ability to know what's working and what isn't is perhaps our most powerful and most under-utilized tool.
So I'd summarize that as abolition goal with recognition that that is best served by a variety of strategies to make it happen.
Again, just follow-up information here. It is clear you're taking a thoughtful approach to the info. That's just the type of advocate that values the work Faunalytics does.
Thanks again, Freshenista, I appreciate your explanation, and presentation of Faunalytics in general.
I am not surprised that slow-movers more often to stick to 'the plan'. Similarly, I am afraid the personal desire for strict adherence and purist judgment from vegan peers contribute to abandoning veganism all together. I prefer to think we're all on our own gray-shaded path toward a pure vegan ideal. It will be easier as more of our omnivorous peers join, accelerating in a positive feedback.
> "the # of animals we can save by advocating meat reduction
> may greatly exceed the # we can save with vegan advocacy...
> creating vegans or saving more animals... both"
That's well said. I have a similar calculus when cooking for or participating in meals with omnivores. We save far more animals when a half dozen people eat 90% vegan than one alone eating 100% vegan.
Has Faunalytics spun off an advocacy group based on your best research analysis? Or are there some organizations that jump to mind as taking the evidence and recommendations most to heart? Does Faunalytics publish recommendations for individual vegan advocates?
Thank you, Ahimsa.