Why Be Vegan? Justified Using Social and Business Models for Innovation and Change

"Why are you vegan?" Magali asked me today. I shared my straightforward reasoning: environmentally and ethically, it's better to be vegan than consume meat and animal products, and I don't lose much by being vegan (I can afford it and I don't enjoy meat all that much), so it seemed an easy and clear choice.

Magali brought up an interesting counter-arguments: veganism isn't necessarily a more ethical stance than consuming meat, because there are huge numbers of animals that depend on human meat consumption for their very existence. Furthermore, moral justifications for veganism view animals as equal to each other and to humans, conflicting with an environmental ethics view of animals as hierarchical depending on their importance to their ecosystem. By eliminating farm animals and establishing this new perspective on animal ethics, veganism may actually cause more harm (i.e. animal cruelty and environmental damage) than good.

While this view is interesting to consider, I think it's too high level for immediate application. Meat production at the moment is dominated by factory farming and other unambiguously unethical practices: there's a ton of good that veganism can do before it begins to cause harm to animals or the environment.

The problem seems to be factory farming then, not meat consumption itself, Magali presses. The most ethical practice is to be mindful of where the meat you consume is sourced, supporting stakeholders in ethical meat production against unethical production.

Here I'll appeal to a business perspective, referencing Peter Thiel's thesis in Zero to One: competition kills innovation; monopolies are what actually drive innovation. I'm not convinced that ethical meat producers can outcompete unethical ones, or if it is possible, that it's worth the effort to make this happen. To me, a much more natural way of making a dent in unethical meat production is to fulfill the demand for meat with an entirely new category of product, i.e. plant-based meat alternatives, cellular agriculture, etc. The promise of new monopolies naturally drives innovation and progress, avoiding the rat race of competition.

Magali also brings up an interesting comparison of veganism to cancel culture, reflecting that its extremism might actually turn others away from changing their consumption practices, and that again, local practices are actually suboptimal compared to a more balanced, ethically sourced diet.

The idea of cancel culture is to cause unwarranted harm at a local level, in hopes of driving overall larger gain/alleviate overall harm to a larger group of people, i.e. by setting a precedent of accountability and changing cultural expectations. Any thoughtful justifier of cancel culture knows that it wrongs the individual or organization being targeted, for the sake of larger utilitarian gain.

I view veganism similarly: it may be suboptimal and turn some observers away at the local level, but it's trying to drive larger overall change. If people at large change their attitudes towards meat and animal product consumption through suboptimal vegan consumption, the net benefit will be greater than if a smaller group of people choose more balanced and locally optimized practices.

On a meta note, I find it interesting that social and business models for change (cancel culture and monopoly-building) often have tons of overlap with each other, and support the same conclusions. Groups advocating for social- vs. business-driven change often antagonize and demonize each other, and there are certainly huge differences in the tactics allowed in each: the foundational strategy, though, seems to have more in common than not.

Each of my rebuttals are certainly open to further questioning -- these are multi-faceted problems that I've only thought through on a basic level. Personally, veganism remains to me a clear choice if one values animal welfare and environmental sustainability and is able to afford it (monetarily or in terms of access and cultural acceptance), and the movement overall seems like it will cause more good than harm for a good amount of time to come.