I think Cowspiracy, and Seaspiracy DID move the needle as much as you can realistically expect a movie to do, which is not going to be a huge, transformational amount.
I sometimes think those movies, along with What the Health (which I don't think really had a noticeable impact on the needle) were deliberately careless with the facts in order to ignite controversy and debate and promote the movie's agenda.
For example if you say that 30% of the plastic in the oceans is due to fishing it's a conservative claim, so no-one will challenge it or debate it, and so no-one will become aware that any of the plastic in the oceans is due to fishing.
But if you say that 70% of the plastic in the oceans it's due to fishing (can't remember actual numbers they use) well then now people are arguing across both social and mainstream media about whether it's really 30% or 70%. All of a sudden, everyone sees that no-one is claiming that fishing doesn't put any plastic in the oceans. Amidst all the argument, in the space of a week Seaspiracy changed "fishing is a substantial contributor to ocean plastic" from completely unknown to an established fact in about a week.
We could try this with pandemics, We could all agree to go on facebook and share a meme that says "every single pandemic in the last 50 years was caused by meat, or trading other animal products". Now I'm guessing that this statement is false (although I don't really know) and so people might reply and argue and point out that pandemic such and such was actually caused by something else, and than the origins of COVID-19 are still unproven, and they'd probably be right. But in the midst of all the argument "animal products cause certainly some and probably most pandemics" would become established fact.
Whereas if we literally wrote "animal products cause certainly some and probably most pandemics" such a conservative, hard to dispute statement would probably provoke no reaction at all, and therefore sink without trace, and most people would never know it was true. Some of the fault for this is in the architecture of both mainstream and social media but I think I've already gone on about that elsewhere.
But still...I wouldn't be in favour of making false or exaggerated statements or conspiracy theories. I think truth wins in the long run.
The ally that truth needs is not lies but cheaper and more readily available Beyond Burgers.
PS Although I decided to go for a serious response, I do realize that the original thread from Lou was more of a joke!
Thank you Jamie. It is not a case of having to exaggerate the facts but stating them, rather, in a persuasive and even forceful or impactful way. I agree that it is not right to make statements that are too open to rebuttal but the general feeling, as I can detect, is that we need to inject into the public consciousness a number of key ideas that serve as vehicles for our vegan principles. If, for example, we insist that animal agriculture is truly the main cause of global warming and extinction (through loss of habitat, etc) that is not an exaggeration by any means. But if we simply compare it to transport and offer weak data by stating that it contributes 18% of global warming gases as opposed to 15% for transport, that will not move very many members of the general public who, probably for the most part, cannot comprehend the relevance of either 15% or 18% and who do not bring to mind any affective visual image. We need to use affective mental imagery because evidence proves that we only bring about rapid changes in belief for if people are emotionally touched and if that emotional association persists. We have at least two problems with which to contend using the affective approach : that people will adopt an attitude of denial and/or refuse to emotionally engage or they will become innured to the imagery and desensitised. By keep beating the drum we may overcome to a small degree these untoward responses by simply conditioning people to merely accept our argument by continual exposure to it. But we ourselves need to accept that most people simply do not and will not care. We need to study the classic works on persuasion by the likes of Bernays and Cialdini and use such sophisiticated techniques as are proven. And we need to continually reinforce the message by repetition and with the frequent addition of fresh and novel evidence—or the same evidence innovatively presented in fresh guises. The general failure of the anti-vivisction movement over the last century and a half has not been down to any lack of heart-rending materials or poorly constructed evidence but to carefully constructed counter arguments, clout and public apathy. Morality has been used offensively as a defensive weapon and the public have been confused or persuaded of the 'necessity' of animal experimentation 'to save the lives of children, etc'—as they are today about consuming animal-derived substances.
In the old direct-mail industry, much faith was rightfully placed in testing copy. It was very expensive to mail out material in the hope of converting perhaps only 1% (or far fewer) of the recipients of the mailing. So different copy would be tested for effectiveness before a general rollout. I cannot find any reliable data on the conversion rate of non-vegans to veganism in respect of their having been persuaded by friends, media, publicity or otherwise—except for a French report which may be rather out of date and may not be accurate. There are so many influences and none may be uniquely determinant. Some of the more subtle influences might be the most important such as that of a partner in love or the influence of a highly regarded person—which could be a YouTuber.
We really do need not just data but careful and intelligent analyses to inform our activities and our approach to educating and persuading the public or a sector of it. I may be supposing wrongly that we could adopt a reverse-reverse engineering approach by not spending all our precious time trying to unbundle and tease out the complex causes that move people towards veganism—if only because there are so many confounding factors that influence us and underpin a decisive action that had already been anticipated in our unconscious. Perhaps we should examine the vastly greater volume of data generated by the mass of people who are similarly exposed to some of the evidence but who choose not to respond positively. There is a lot of solid information on the mental mechanisms of denial and willful ignorance, addiction and habit that may be very relevant such as the work of Drs Goldhammer and Lisle. I wonder if there really are two sides to the same coin. Is failure to meet the imperative demands of veganism in any way the opposite behaviour of those who do respond and consequently change their behaviour? And what happens among that significant percentage of people who start to change their lives for the better but subsequently 'relapse' or' fail' for various reasons? The parable of the sower comes to mind—but those valid explanations of the causes of 'failure' do not address the social relations that need to be remedied. Perhaps we need to know something about the psychology of the 'winners' and 'losers' and their social environment rather than the ostensible antecedent influences which caused the person to adopt veganism for as long as they did.. It would be no small research project to provide answers to the many questions we might pose regarding how best to persuade non-vegans to embrace veganism. This information might help us better understand how to provide moral and material support to novice vegans.
Evidently, for some people, the only method might be to remove (perhaps forcibly) all animal products from their environment while, for others, it might be impossible to coerce them to eat any product of animal origin. If we are looking at two opposite ends of a spectrum, might we perhaps find, on occasion, two rather similar personalities equally committed to their viewpoint as we find among committed theists and atheists? Logical argument or an appeal to examine the evidence may be equally a waste of time in either case.
It is frustrating and sad to find the overwhelming evidence and moral arguments of veganism so ineffective among our fellow humans. But that is a challenge to address and to overcome. We can do our best only with sound knowledge and understanding of the theoretical and practical issues. I doubt whether many of us have sufficient training to act other than on a one-to-one level (or even at that level) with a great deal of success. I even wonder whether the often stupid and puerile counter-arguments to veganism might not be helping us simply on the basis that 'any publicity is good publicity'. Interviews by Joey Carbstrong and Earthling Ed must make viewers despair as to the intelligence of their fellow non-vegans—and so highlight the principled and logical arguments for veganism. I think too about the famous (if not original) utterance of deputy prime minister George Brown : 'When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow'.
I really do not think that conspiracy theory is much help to us here—unless it could materially change people's behaviour. We are bombarded with evidence that many of the events in our modern life are of the nature of deception. Whether it is the outlandish hoaxes perpetuated by governments or the similarly outlandish hoaxes perpetuated by the medical establishment on patients suffering from chronic diseases, the effects are little different. It is the hoax that usually wins out while truth-seeking 'conspiracy theorists' are derided not just by the hoaxers but by the general population. What we learn also from careful study of historical events is that many conspiracies are simply counter-conspiracies or, more aptly, pseudo-conspiracies. The Gunpowder Plot and the Cato Street Conspiracy were, in actual fact, (like many conspiracies) engineered by the then government with a purposeful aim—not by the supposed conspirators but by 'embedded' agents provocateurs exploiting patsies whom they encouraged. The usual outcome is that the named conspirators take the rap and provide the justification or pretext for the imposition of harsh political controls. Ironically, the controlling party shouts about conspiracy (whether that be '911 conspirators' or whatever/whoever); while experts with profound techical knowledge knowledge and moral integrity call such events into question but are promptly denigrated as conspiracy theorists. So, one conspiracy is official and the other nothing but a hoax—or vice versa depending upon one's commonsense, 'allowable' degree of cognitive dissonance, or willingness to confront uncomfortable facts.
Perhaps, it is little different with food—so, we should not expect to change a cultural habit by exhibiting mere facts and hoping to weave a narrative around them. Arguments against human slavery were probably no different, or not much different, five thousand years ago than now. We know that arguments against the consumption of animal products were well developed two and a half thousand years ago and maybe not much has since been added philosophically. If people live in a certain culture or are brought up in it, they may adhere to it substantially throughout their life unless there are very strong reasons such as tarumatic illness or an emotional event. Even then, it appears, many would rather risk an inevitably long and painful demise rather than adopt a healthy diet, give up cheese, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco!
So, it boils down, in some cases at least, to commonsense, integrity and moral fortitude. But what we know is that much more than ninety percent of the population would rather go to war, kill others, get maimed or die rather than appear to their peers in an unfavourable light—because few people are willing to openly question the reason for war. Such is the case even when millions of ordinary people are pitted against millions of other ordinary people. Is there a conspiracy to deceive or simply a misunderstanding? The true, clearly documented facts, about the last World War demonstrate that sixty-five million people died for no good reason because the war could have been easily prevented and later stopped by peaceful negotiation on no fewer than twenty separate occasions. Instead, the war was engineered for reasons based on monetary control. We know from incontrovertible documentary evidence that the lead, tobacco and asbestos industries conspired to confuse the public about the toxicity of their products just as the food , drug and agrochemical industries today.
Beneficial change only occurs when there is a sufficiently active mass not of evidence but opposition. And sufficiently active means, in effect, empowered. Farm animals are not empowered, carribean slaves were not empowered, and those that sought to empower themselves, like the followers of Spartacus, were often treated with utmost brutality and cruelty in order to conserve the status quo.
When we seek to market a product, we select a target and focus our efforts on it. If necessary, we adapt our product more finely to that market. We might be trying to sell into the eighteen-to-thirty market and, in fact, to a much narrower sub-section if we are offering a specialised product. We do not cast our net over all age groups or our marketing budget would soon be depleted. As campaigning, proseltyzing vegans, our personal time and reosurces are very limited even when we collaborate. We need to achieve a wide enough presence to provide credibility but focus our fire power on the most promising targets among the general population. Do we know for certain who these targets are and have we a clear picture of their needs and expectations? Does there exist any information on this subject? If so, I am very keen to learn about it. If any member could identify such information, I should be very grateful.
I am severely sight-impaired so research is (literally) painfully difficult. I would be especially appreciative if somebody could help to draw up a compendium of such information from which a programme, policy, and database might be constructed. My email is
jeremy.delvarr@outlook.com. Please forward any information or correspondence in English or French only. I warmly welcome any suggestions, guidance or advice as I have some ideas but no practical experience in assembling social-science data or extracting information. I am a semi-retired chartered engineer with wide experience of technical (paper-based) documentation and technical editing; however, although I have been using computers professionally since 1983, I am not what I would call computer-literate in the true sense. I am in the process of establishing a low-cost professional membership society with international reach to coordinate the efforts of multiple disciplines in establishing plant-based food policies and disseminating information. Initially, writing and v/blogging in English but, eventually in all other languages including Esperanto, God willing.
My first desire is to get a handle on the entire subject of presentation because there are two 'market sectors' that concern me : firstly those like ourselves who are committed vegans and, secondly, those who are also sufficiently interested in a plant-based diet to seek further information from an independent, reliable and authoritative source which they could trust. The core of any organisation is the dedicated and knowledgeable membership but the wider purpose is to reach beyond and attract members at appropriate levels of adhesion. There are practitioners, and there are genuine enquirers some of whom will become practitioners. Then, there is a third 'market sector' of people who may be vaguely interested and, hopefully, sufficiently so to subscribe to a YouTube channel where they can receive timely information of the appropriate nature. Fortunately, we have already a wonderful resource in NutritonFacts.org and a number of other superb channels offering much to what I suggest are 'market sectors' one and two as well as to the occasional enquirer in sector three. Thank God for all of these marvellous people around the world each with their particular gifts to realise their particular vision of a kinder and more wholesome future. It is not my intention to necessarily duplicate their work but to provide a means of collaboration and a showcase, a rich and valuable resource, a coordinating function and centre of stability which can provide trustworthy and reliable information to anyone whether or not sympathetic to our moral cause.
We are very fortunate that many valuable resources on the Internet are in English and that this language has become international in reach. There are several excellent organisations such L214 publishing in French also and I guess (but do not know) that there must be many in other languages too. A few organisations that I know of in the English or French tongue are campaigning organisations or information providers or both. They do not usually coordinate the activitities of volunteers according to their specific professional abilities nor do they publish articles from specific standpoints such as medical, legal, artistic, musical or scientific (for example) in a way that is accessible to the general reader as distinct from members of a SIG (special interest group).
There is a growing interest in plant-based diets and plant-based medicine, plant-based sport, and so on. Drs Greger and Barnard have very carefully not slipped into the unfortunate position of political commentator as has Dr Milton Mills whose efforts otherwise are so commendable. Any professional society must similarly avoid any political and corporate allegiances and respect the widely differing standpoint of its members on many issues including culture and religion to be able to speak on equal footing with any- or everybody else around the world. This does not mean avoiding discussion of religon or politics per se but to do so respectfully without censure of the beliefs of others but in a positive and constructive way that might be of genuine interest to reader of any faith, political leaning, or none. I am seeking to establish a sober, tolerant, mature and open dialogue which will be attractive, informative and welcome to as many people as possible within the first two sectors I mentioned and, eventually, the third. The overriding policy will be based on the WIIFM principle as a means of providing the very best service and experience for members and the best value possible including free or voluntary membership contributions where feasible. I will be publishing, in due course, the articles and memoranda of the organisation I registered last year as a company limited by guarantee with charitable objectives. In the meanwhile, I would welcome your ideas and, in particular, your reponses by email to the matters I mentioned above.
I have many years of experience as a professional standards inspector, assessor and trustee for professional engineering institutions and, in the sixties and seventies, I was very active in the anti-vivisection movement (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) and worked with feral cats in urban areas for many years. I have never received any remuneration or expenses. I became a vegetarian in 1966 and a vegan several years later. I am severely disabled, partially sighted and elderly—in case that is an issue for some. My intention, God willing, is to promote dietary reform which is WFPBD known to us as veganism in its healthiest form and to do so from every angle but not by linking directly or indirectly to any other -ism or -ology. That does not mean disregarding any campaigning issues such as sport fishing, hunting, and dozens of other practices but reporting on them only when related in any way to diet, analyzing their effects and making a moral commentary. There is fine line between the work of a professional or learned institution and a campaigining organisation—both of which are based perhaps on more or less identical moral principles but whose objectives differ even if the aims are very similar.
I look forward to communicating with like-minded individuals.
