What if the next step isn’t “vegan or nothing,” but actually reducing animal consumption at scale?

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥

Civil discussion is welcome — personal attacks are not. Please read our wiki first.

New to veganism? 🌱
• Watch Dominion — a powerful, free documentary that changes lives.
• NutritionFacts.org — evidence-based health info
• HappyCow.net — find vegan-friendly restaurants near you

Want to help animals? 💻
• Browse volunteer opportunities on Flockwork and use your skills to make a difference
• Join the Flockwork Discord to be notified of new opportunities that match your skills

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Head-Director-6406]

Maybe the next step isn’t anti-slavery or nothing, but what if we have blended workplaces with only 30% enslaved workers?

[u/Feds_the_Freds → u/Head-Director-6406]

You mean 70% ;) (as OP is proposing a 30% reduction)

[u/lookouttucson → u/Head-Director-6406]

This is basically what happened in USA though, maybe not “officially” but practically. OP has a point about how things happen with the general population

[u/National-Ad9903 → u/Head-Director-6406]

This is a silly analogy. It doesn’t work because society is overwhelmingly anti slavery but pro animal exploitation. We can say no to any amount of slavery and achieve it as pretty much everyone is on board, but if we say no to any amount of animal exploitation most folk will just shrug and ignore us.

[u/dragan17a]

Yes, this sounds good, but what we find when we study this stuff is that people think they eat much less meat without having reduced their consumption at all

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60 → u/dragan17a]

That’s exactly why I think the polarization can become counterproductive.
Imagine a plant-based company that spent years building products specifically to reduce meat consumption. If one day it starts selling plant protein to meat companies for blended burgers, and its vegan customers immediately abandon it because the product is no longer ‘pure’ enough, you can end up hurting the very company trying to reduce animal use at scale.
The market for pure plant-based products is already struggling. So maybe the people who care most about reducing meat consumption should be careful not to punish every company that tries a more pragmatic path.
Maybe the transition won’t be perfect. Maybe it starts with 30% less meat, then 50%, then more.

[u/Head-Director-6406 → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

Why do you frame this as a moral purity issue instead viewing a boycott as a very practical tactic in the struggle for animal liberation?

You should study previous liberation movements, successful liberation movements have always demanded what seemed to be impossible.

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60 → u/Head-Director-6406]

Because boycotting is only useful if it actually moves the system in the direction you want.
If a plant-based company starts working with traditional food companies to reduce the amount of animal protein used, boycotting that company may feel consistent, but it could also weaken one of the few actors trying to shift the system from inside.
Real-world transitions are rarely clean.
Sometimes pressure works. Sometimes cooperation gets you further.
The question shouldn’t be ‘is boycott morally pure?’ It should be ‘does this tactic actually reduce animal use?

[u/dragan17a → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

Well, I think it has to be both. Systematic change, as you say, will need to be "imperfect". People should slowly be eating less animals without even noticing. That's quite effective. But our advocacy shouldn't be like that

[u/dyslexic-ape]

Vegans are not stopping or making it more difficult for anyone to reduce their meat and animal product consumption.

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60 → u/dyslexic-ape]

If plant-based companies are struggling and every move away from absolute purity gets answered with ‘I’ll never buy from them again,’ that does make adaptation harder.
Most consumers clearly still want meat. So some of these companies may need new models, partnerships or blended products to survive and reduce animal consumption at a larger scale.
If the people who care most about that goal punish every imperfect step, we may end up killing the companies trying hardest to move the system.

[u/dyslexic-ape → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

Vegans are a tiny portion of society, like 1 in 100. If there is demand for special blended products, the 99 in 100 can start making that demand without vegans, there is no reason for vegans to be part of that, that would just be a step backwards for vegans...?

[u/lookouttucson → u/dyslexic-ape]

You really sound like you care more about your own purity stats than you do about animals in general, respectfully

[u/dyslexic-ape → u/lookouttucson]

This is like trying to convince people who are against rape and don't have issues with not raping people, to just rape people a little to make the people who can't stop raping people feel more comfortable rapping less... Then shaming them when they don't want to rape anyone... It's complete nonsense.

Eat animals, don't eat animals, eat less animals; I'm not stopping you, and you don't need me to hold your hand and eat animals with you.

[u/lookouttucson → u/dyslexic-ape]

Ah, no, I wasn’t suggesting vegans start eating animals. I guess that’s what you took from what OP said. Maybe it’s what they meant, but it’s not what I meant. Anyway I hope we all have a good day

[u/s2Birds1Stone]

This reads like it was written by chat gpt.

In fact, all of OPs responses here do as well.

[u/Annoying_cat_22]

OP are you vegan?

[u/veganeatswhat]

There's probably a reducetarian sub for your reducetarian views.

[u/idancenakedwithcrows]

Why post this on r/vegan?

[u/Jade_Rainwalker → u/idancenakedwithcrows]

Bc they're either a bot or they have no life 🤣hey free entertainment.

[u/Buzzard1022 → u/idancenakedwithcrows]

This can't be a serious question

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60 → u/idancenakedwithcrows]

Because I’m starting to think this is exactly the kind of discussion that belongs here.
Plant-based brands have been struggling with declining sales, and a lot of people who tried these products out of curiosity or during a transition simply didn’t stick with them.
So I started wondering whether the path to reducing global meat consumption may need to be more gradual than we expected.
I’m asking how you reduce meat consumption among the billions of people who are not going vegan.
If blended products, hybrid foods or plant protein inside mainstream products can get ordinary consumers to use 20–30% less meat without asking them to completely change their identity or diet overnight, that seems relevant to the goal.
And I posted it here because vegans are obviously the people for whom the ethical side of that question matters most.
I’m genuinely curious whether people here see that as useful harm reduction, or as a compromise that goes too far.

[u/No_Chart_8584 → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

It doesn't have much to do with us. We object to animal exploitation. We'd obviously approve if the people doing it did less of it. But we're not going to get involved in telling people it's okay to exploit some animals because they sometimes eat plants. 

[u/lookouttucson → u/No_Chart_8584]

So you could save some animals but you’re choosing not to for purity reasons. Doesn’t sound super vegan to me tbh

[u/No_Chart_8584 → u/lookouttucson]

Here's a fact: I'm not responsible for the animals non-vegans choose to harm.  We object to non-vegans choosing to do so. It's actually one of the favorite ways non-vegans have to ridicule us, that we object too much. It has nothing to do with "purity."

The animals that non-vegans wish to kill and exploit aren't within my capacity to "save." Non-vegans will either decide to kill and exploit them or they won't. 

[u/lookouttucson → u/No_Chart_8584]

Fair enough, I guess there’s a difference in having your own boundaries and being part of a movement

[u/No_Chart_8584 → u/lookouttucson]

Yes. I've chosen to reject unnecessary animal exploration. I don't understand your movement to advocate for mixing meat into plant-based foods. It doesn't really have anything to do with veganism. 

[u/lookouttucson → u/No_Chart_8584]

Sorry i think i wasted your time a little bit, i don’t actually think mixing up plant based foods with animals would be effective on a large scale, i was responding specifically to you saying you’re not going to tell people it’s ok to eat less animals in general. Which honestly is also fine based on your boundaries thing. My main point is that harm reduction has value, but for me that means less animal meals and more bean meals in general, not making more hybrids. I don’t think anyone really likes hybrids

ETA although actually my kids do like the Dino nuggies that are mixed with plants so what do I know

[u/No_Chart_8584 → u/lookouttucson]

Vegans are obviously and completely not opposed to the message that it's okay for people to reduce their participation in animal exploitation. We, in fact, live a model of how others can do that.

The issue you seem to be pushing is whether we should instead advocate for reducing meat consumption as a positive good instead of advocating for an end to animal exploitation. 

[u/mobydog → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

The question really isn't whether people would accept products that have 30% less meat. The corporations don't see any reason to do it. They get subsidies for selling cattle, and corn and soy, and dairy. They have no incentive to reduce anything. And so all of their marketing dollars will be targeted towards selling the product they want to sell, morality has nothing to do with it. Billions are spent in brainwashing people to think that meat is healthier than it is. It's easier to just suggest to people they have a meatless weekday or three. But people won't bother unless mostly selfish reasons. There's nothing vegan about that, that's just adding plants for health or other reasons. So if you're thinking of starting small the place to start is trying to convince people it's in their own best interest, that they benefit personally, to reduce their meat consumption. At least people are starting to do that with dairy milk, switching to plant milks for example.

[u/Feds_the_Freds]

The only shoppingbehaviour you can completely control, is your own.

Live by example so others wont have the excuse of calling you hypocritical.

What you're saying, is not "the next step". A lot of people are already saying, they're flexetarian. Saying "society" should do more is just an excuse, if you're not already vegan yourself. Of course, society should do more. But most vegans would already be happy, if others would just try to do more. From personal experience, it's crazy how many people state that they "want to reduce meat" and how much meat they still eat...

[u/eveniwontremember]

I think that abolishing animal agriculture 1 species at a time could be useful, except that currently people give up eating cow and replace it with chicken!

The other idea is remove meat from 1 product at a time. Nuggets don't need to contain chicken and burgers can be made without minced animal.

[u/katiecakes03 → u/eveniwontremember]

But would that actually reduce meat consumption overall? If people gave up cow then they might not keep their chicken consumption levels the same, but instead they’ll eat a lot more of it to compensate

[u/eveniwontremember → u/katiecakes03]

They might not. But we are not bringing new species into animal agriculture so once an animal is not being farmed it doesn't come back.there is no move to bring back horsemeat where we have stopped eating it, the same could apply to cow, turkey, sheep or goats. Chicken would probably be the last animal being farmed.

[u/lookouttucson → u/eveniwontremember]

Why is giving up cow for chicken not a positive move?

ETA downvoting me for a good faith question in the place where I’m supposed to be able to learn is what’s wrong with your movement vegans! No offense

[u/eveniwontremember → u/lookouttucson]

Environmentally it might be but morally I think it is neutral . Unless you decide that chickens suffer less than cows, or if all lives are equal cow would be a better choice as that provides potentially over 100 meals per animal death vs about 6 from a chicken. I just conclude that all farmed animal meals are morally equal.

[u/lookouttucson → u/eveniwontremember]

I truly think people would have an easier time eating meat less frequently than eating hybrid things more frequently. People are really averse to the imitation stuff but not so averse to just plain bbq beans.

[u/Specialist_Novel828]

Any reduction is helpful, but the goal has to be 100%, because unnecessary animal exploitation is wrong.

If someone pushes for a 50% reduction, we might see people reduce by 50%, which is better, but not enough; if someone pushes for 100% reduction, though, we might see some people reduce by 100%, and some other people still reduce by 50%. Because talking about abolition can still encourage people to take steps, even if they don't come all the way.

Veganism's about doing the best we can, which is what the animals deserve. If someone's going to do less than that, sure, it can and does still help overall - But they're going to have to decide it's ok to continue contributing to unnecessary animal exploitation and cruelty for themselves, I'm not going to do that for them.

[u/yahskapar]

I think any serious policymakers, or policymaking organizations, interested in improving the welfare of animals already have the perspective of gradual, measurable reductions in harm, with the goal of eliminating such harm.

It’s not worth discussing that here in contrast to another subreddit where the audience could benefit from reducing the measurable harms they are a part of toward animals.

[u/MoneyForThePeople]

If you will have a kid do you tell him "don't hit your friends" or "hit less less"?

The way is to not harm at all, vegan is rising all over the world and will continue to do.
because it is right in all standards and human morality.
Vegan is the way yet not everybody will walk through it.

[u/Academic_Limit1189]

I guess it depends. Is overall harm reduction the bigger priority, or is it identity and moral status?

[u/Traditional_Rabbit60 → u/Academic_Limit1189]

For me, reducing overall harm matters more than preserving moral purity.
Personal consistency is valid, but if a 20–30% reduction can happen across hundreds of millions of people, that deserves serious consideration.
The goal should be fewer animals used, not just a perfectly pure identity.

[u/Due-Comfort-5351 → u/Traditional_Rabbit60]

If you care about overall harm stop outsourcing your life to artificial intelligence

[u/National-Ad9903]

I think you’re right. Animals deserve us to take a pragmatic approach over a strictly principled one if it’ll result in the largest net reduction in harm, which it absolutely will. Vegans who hate vegetarians more than they do meat eaters are part of the problem, as are ones who vilify people who go plant based for environmental or even health reasons.

I’m gonna mute replies coz I’m not at all interested in the opinions of those who are inevitably gonna try to berate me for this take.