The Theory of Incremental Change

This is the second in a series of articles I’m writing about Animal Liberation, the book known as “the Bible” of the modern animal rights movement. If you haven’t yet, you can read the first article here.

In that article, I summarized some of the main arguments from Singer’s book and (hopefully) brought some awareness to the unfortunate plight of modern meat-producing animals. Now, I will attempt to answer the following question: What, if anything, should we do about it? 

The short answer is: We must reduce our consumption of meat.

Do We Really Have To?

After reading my last article, a friend questioned me on whether eating less meat was the right form of activism. After all, if one person became vegan, the impact would surely be negligible on a billion dollar industry. He thought that the only long term solution was through sweeping legal reforms that limited the abusive practices of factory farms.

I absolutely agree; legal protection for animals would be fantastic. The problem is, how are we going to get there? In the forty-something years since Animal Liberation was published, there have been almost no changes in laws regarding farm animals. There have been huge strides in the welfare of lab animals, but most of them have come from economic pressure, from bad press and consumers boycotting cosmetic products that employed cruel testing on animals. Laws never prescribe morality but more often reflect the prevailing moral feelings of the time; we cannot just expect these sweeping reforms to come out of nowhere when the majority of people are ignorant or indifferent to the issue.

“We must be careful not to let our objections become an excuse, a veil behind which to hide our inaction.”

When we purchase meat, we are directly supporting the cruel and inhumane industry that is factory farming. We give these companies the money to pay for lobbyists, for political influence and for propaganda campaigns. Even worse, we give them a moral shield of sorts: they can turn around and say, “How can factory farming be wrong when so many people are buying our products? We are merely filling the demand in the market.”

I think it’s important to examine the effectiveness of our activism. But we must be careful not to let that become an excuse, a veil behind which to hide our inaction. It might be true that going to a protest would be more effective than eating less meat, but were you planning to go to a protest? Most people don’t have the time to do something like that. But eating less meat takes no more time (and definitely less money) than not doing it. It’s my opinion (and Singer’s) that the easiest and most effective way of activism is to reduce our consumption of meat.

Practicality over Purity

In this section I will try to convince you, the reader, to do something important. It’s never easy to make changes in our lives but I hope that you will keep an open mind and listen to what I have to say.

The first thing I want to tell you is this: You do not have to become a vegan in order to make a difference in animal welfare. In fact, if the only change you make in your life after reading this is to forgo meat for one day of the week (“Meatless Monday” is an easy one), then I think it can be considered a victory for the animal liberation movement. 

Think about it this way: if everyone in the world participated in “Meatless Monday”, there would be 4.14 million fewer cows, 10.71 million fewer pigs, and 1.29 billion fewer chickens slaughtered each year. That kind of impact would be a magnitude larger than anything the animal liberation movement has managed to accomplish in four decades. And I find it difficult to imagine that even the most die-hard meat-lover would be unable to refrain for one day out of seven.

“There is no reason to treat this movement with the strict discipline of a religious doctrine.”

I think the guiding principle should be this: do only whatever is realistic and comfortable for you. Anyone who knows anything about addictive substances knows that going “cold turkey” is never a good idea. What’s better, to cut out all meat suddenly from your life, relapse after a week, give up, and never try again, or to cut out 1/7 of your meat consumption in a sustainable way that you can maintain throughout the rest of your life? The second one is clearly better for animal welfare. 

Of course, I’m not saying you have to limit it to one day out of seven. More is obviously better, but that’s something you can figure out over time as you get more comfortable with the idea of not needing to eat meat every meal. If there are other factors that are seriously hindering this lifestyle change, then you can make exceptions. If it’s hard for you to find vegan food when traveling, then your rule can be “meat is allowed on all the days when I’m traveling but only on half of the days when I’m not”. If you don’t want to put up with the social pressure of being the only vegan in a group of friends, your rule can be “I only eat meat when I go out with friends”. Your rule can be whatever you want it to be.

There is no reason to treat this movement with the strict discipline of a religious doctrine if our goal is to help animals. Rather, we should facilitate the spread of this movement by making it as realistic and digestible (pun intended) as possible.

Doing Something is Better Than Doing Nothing

Strangely enough, when we first start to reduce our meat consumption we may feel morally worse than we did before. When we eat vegetarian meals we are acknowledging that we think eating meat is wrong, and when we eat meat again we may feel guilt or unease. We may try to circumvent this cognitive dissonance by doing nothing from the outset, but this is misguided. When we know doing something is wrong, we know; willful ignorance cannot change that fact. I would say that this increase in moral feeling is a good thing; it gives more meaning and purpose to our lives and encourages us to think in new perspectives. We certainly do not deserve to be shielded from these realities that come about only as a consequence of our actions. After all, what is a moment of moral consciousness compared to a lifetime of suffering?

“If you are reducing your meat consumption in any capacity, then you are doing a good thing.”

Do not let your cognitive dissonance or the snide remarks of others dissuade you from this fact: If you are reducing your meat consumption in any capacity, you are doing a good thing, and good things deserve to be praised. For some incomprehensible reason, many people may deride you for “taking half measures” or “not doing enough” when they themselves do nothing at all. I can only imagine that this comes from a place of insecurity and guilt; perhaps they feel threatened that your good deed may force them to examine and change their own behavior.

Good luck on your journey. It may not be easy, but you will know that you are doing the right thing, and I think that is worth a lot.