Imagine: LA Vegan Meat Competition

Imagine Los Angeles in the summer, June of 2019.

It’s hot outside—sweaty, breezy, beach weather. People pack the coasts during the day and wander the streets at night, hopping from restaurant to bar, from bar to other bar, from other bar to food truck.

It’s in this vibrant setting that the first Los Angeles Vegan Meat Competition is held.

Local chefs and food scientists have been working for months to perfect their recipes for the competition—celebrity chefs like Marcel Vigneron of the restaurant WOLF and Betty Fraser of Grub; food scientists like Ted Russin; and food entrepreneurs like Amelia Posada.

And the thing that’s similar about all of these individuals? None of them are vegan, or even vegetarian.

But despite diet or beliefs about animals, everyone loves a good competition, and these foodies are in the business because of their love for…well, good food. They, and dozens of other competitors, are in the Los Angeles Vegan Meat Competition because they like challenges, and because they want the chance to beat out everyone else for first place. The media attention alone is good enough, not to mention the drama and controversy around some of the meat-loving chefs entering a vegan food competition.

Not only that, but these people own businesses—new recipes are good for them, and the vegan community is a thriving base of consumers. From a strictly economic standpoint, it’s a no-brainer for them.

This is the beauty of competition: It can bring people together around a common purpose based solely on the spirit of besting each other and accomplishing a challenge, even if the competitors might not care as much about the object of the competition.

The result? A fairly easy way to make friends out of unlikely folks for a short time, to get media attention around the animal-friendly (vegan) future of food, and to create a huge amount of new products in a short amount of time.

The only problem, of course, is that for the time being the Los Angeles Vegan Meat Competition doesn’t exist. It’s just a story in our imaginations, in this article.

But it could exist—and hundreds of other vegan product creation competitions could exist too, in every city around the globe. Not only that, but dozens of other types of competitions could exist. Competitions to create new forms of animal advocacy. Competitions to saturate a city with anti-speciesist education. Competitions to create new organizations and institutions that help us build a food system without exploiting animals.

Everyone loves a good competition.

Maybe the first competition is to see who can create the second one.

Vegans Creating Vegans

Not all behavior change is created equally.

Let’s say you have $1,000.

You could take that $1,000 and stash it under your bed for the next couple decades. Each passing year, everything in the world would get slightly more expensive—inflation would be at work, slowly increasing the prices of everything. Your $1,000 would deteriorate in value, losing purchasing power.

Or, you could invest that $1,000 in a simple savings account, something with a very low interest rate. Over time, you would slowly accrue interest—not a ton of interest, but about enough to counteract inflation. This would be a bit smarter than stashing it under your bed, and your $1,000 would retain about the same amount of value that you started with.

But what if you were to take that $1,000 and actually invest it in something?

A first obvious and pretty standard option is investing it in a diversified stock and bond portfolio with a certain risk profile, something that more or less guarantees decent returns without too great a risk of losing your money. (Nevermind all those stock market crashes.) Your money would grow some small percentage each year, but that growth compounded over a couple of decades would yield significant growth. In fact, given decent returns you could expect your money to double in about a decade, maybe less.

Side note: I’m not a financial advisor.

You could just as easily invest in a company you believed in, or invest in your own project. Investing $1,000 into creating your own vegan waffle business could yield thousands of dollars and a solid company if you put in the time and effort.

However you do it, these investments (if made wisely) can greatly increase the value of that original $1,000, transforming it into something much bigger than what you started with.

Your money can be self-replicating—money can make more money.

(One important note here is the role of time. Legitimate investments often take many years to pay off in significant ways. This is also true for investments in yourself, investments in your organization, and investments in the movement.)

The Same with Vegans

As it is with money, so it is with vegans.

…sort of.

We’re going to be talking about “creating vegans” here, but you could think of it as empowering people, creating activists, helping people become animal advocates, etc. Whatever floats your boat.

The main question is: how can you make your impact compounding, or self-replicating?

The “Recidivism” Scenario

We can create vegans who eventually go back to eating animals. This is deteriorating impact. It’s like a wooden fence that rots in the weather over time, or that money you stashed under your bed. In this situation, we’re losing value over time, undoing previous work.

The “Lonely Vegan” Scenario

We could also create vegans who stay vegan, such as by focusing on reducing the recidivism rate. This is flat impact. It’s like a wooden fence that we coat with weather protectant wood stain, so that it stays pretty much the same for years—or like the money we invest in a simple savings account, gaining a little bit of interest each year.

The “Vegans Creating Vegans” Scenario

Or, we can create vegans who create other vegans. This is compounding impact. It’s like investing money in developing a wooden fence that creates other wooden fences, or a wooden fence that starts a wooden fence company for you and makes you thousands of dollars in profits.

Cool, huh?

Return on Investment

Let’s say we put some finite amount of energy into creating new vegans.

What kinds of returns do we get in each of these scenarios?

(Feel free to skip this section and head straight to “Examples” if you’re not as interested in quantified impact speculation. For those who are interested, stick around.)

“Recidivism” Return on Investment

Say we work for some length of time on getting people to go vegan, maybe a decade. Maybe we get 10 new people to go vegan each year because of our work.

But, because of recidivism, maybe all 10 of those people go back to eating animals the very next year. After a decade of work, we’ve gotten 100 people to go vegan for a short length of time, but then everything goes back to the way it was before.

Our return on investment in this scenario is very small, and finite. As soon as we stop doing work, our impact stops. Everything goes back to normal and it’s almost like nothing ever happened.

If we say each person in the US is responsible for the deaths of approximately 300 animals due to food (including fish, bycatch, etc.), then that’s 300*100=30,000 animals spared.

Obviously, this doesn’t sound like a very good way to create lasting change for trillions of animals globally.

“Lonely Vegan” Return on Investment

Let’s assume we put in the same amount of work as last time, with the same results—we work for a decade, influencing 10 people a year to change their behavior to help animals—so we still end up with 100 people who have gone vegan thanks to our influence.

But in this scenario, all of those people stay vegan indefinitely. After you stop working, there are still 100 people out in the world choosing to not eat animals. They’re not influencing other people, but they’re still responsible for sparing those animals from being brought into the system.

If we still assume 300 animals spared per year per vegan, then each year these 100 people keep another 30,000 animals from being born, raised, and killed. After ten years, that’s 300,000 animals. After thirty years, it’s almost a million. Your return on investment keeps growing year after year while all of those people are still alive.

Your impact in this scenario lives on even after you stop doing work, which is much better than the first scenario.

But there’s a much better scenario, if we can create it…

“Vegans Creating Vegans” Return on Investment

This is the compound interest scenario, the holy grail of what we want to accomplish.

Imagine that whenever we influenced someone to go vegan, they then started influencing other people to go vegan. And imagine that those new people influenced others… and so on.

Let’s say you spend a decade getting 100 people to go vegan, then you stop working—you retire from activism.

What happens now?

Well, those 100 people are staying vegan, just like in the last scenario. So their personal impact keeps growing.

But now, they’re also constantly influencing others. Let’s say instead of influencing 10 people a year like you do, they only influence 1 person per year.

The year after you stop working, your original 100 influence another 100 to go vegan. The next year is another 100. Then another 100.

Your original impact essentially multiplies itself every year, making your original investment way more impactful.

And if we further assume that every new vegan is out there influencing others…

Year 1: 100
Year 2: 100 + 100
Year 3: (100 + 100) + (100 + 100)
Year 4: ((100 + 100) + (100 + 100)) + ((100 + 100) + (100 + 100))…

Instead of adding on 100 each year, we’re now doubling the number of vegans each year. Assuming this trend were to hold true for twenty years, you would be personally responsible for kicking off a chain of events that led to 100,000,000 new vegans, which would reduce the total number of animals killed each year for food by 1.3%.

Not bad for one person putting in ten years of work.

While this is obviously a contrived example, this is the basic power of compounding, self-replicating effects.

How to Create Compounding Effects

The real question is, how can we set up our work in a way where we maximize the chances of achieving these kinds of compounding effects?

No matter the type of work we’re doing, there are ways we can increase these odds.

Teach People to Teach

Currently, a lot of our approach to individual outreach and volunteer engagement looks like “let’s get this person to do this one specific thing.” That specific thing might be changing their diet, or leafleting, or protesting. But our goal is usually measured in terms of how many people we’ve gotten to do that thing.

The best case scenario for this type of work is “flat impact”, although “recidivism” is more likely in most cases. Many people will stop doing the thing we want them to do, like go vegan. Out of those who continue doing it, very few will make the leap to the next step—teaching others to do what they do.

“Teaching people to teach” is exactly how we can focus our efforts to have a bigger impact.

What does this look like?

First, we could experiment with setting the bar higher to begin. Instead of just giving people information on how they can personally change their attitudes on behavior, we can also emphasize how important it is to share what they’ve learned. If we start the conversation by focusing on how the person can begin impacting others, it could make it easier for them to make the behavior change. (For example, if they start by trying to consider how they could share this information with their friends and family, then it might be a given that they already somewhat agree with it and that they’re going to change their own behavior.)

Second, if we think that the majority of people wouldn’t like the approach stated above, we could still invest more of our time and energy in identifying those who would be interested in helping out. When we notice someone who is particularly interested, we can spend more time talking with them. We could figure out ways to connect with people who are always coming back to our websites or social media pages. We could create new programs just to find those people and help them get active and stay active.

Technology is an amazing tool that can help us. We could hold “digital conferences” on any topics we want, essentially for free, using video call / webinar technology. We can build applications and websites that help people connect and learn. Even old means of communicating with large groups of people like phone trees can be recreated, improved, and tested using modern digital technology.

And whenever we find ourselves helping someone, we can ask “how can they now help others?” And so on.

Activists training activists, training activists, training activists…

Teach and Train Ourselves

If your current ability is at X and you never focus on getting better, then you’ll perform at X this year and next year. Ten years from now, you’ll still be at X—you might have even decayed to something less, like 0.7X. Best case scenario, maybe you’re at 1.5X or 2X, if you’ve picked up some new techniques here or there.

However, if you focus on constant improvement then you unlock the power of compounding effects. 1% improvement every day for a year takes X to 37X. 1% improvement every day for a decade takes you from X to 5,929,000,000,000,000X. That multiplier is a number so high you and I don’t even know the word for it.

Self-improvement and constant learning aren’t a nice-to-have. They’re essential for anyone who wants to make a difference in the world.

Create Organizations and Institutions

As individuals, our time on this earth is very limited. However, there are ways that we can “cheat death” and extend our own personal impact far into the future. One of those ways is through the establishment of institutions.

If you set up an institution with a framework for operating and a means of sustaining itself, it can go on to become its own self-replicating organism. One example of this is organizations like Mercy For Animals or Vegan Outreach. These groups are legal entities, there’s an official board of directors helping to guide the direction of the organization, and there are structures in place that more-or-less ensure that funding will come in, people will get hired, etc.

The official structure provides stability, and the momentum invested in the organization over the course of a decade or more creates an inertia that can carry it forward into the future. In our movement, The Vegan Society is one of the longest lasting entities—founded in 1944 and continuing to operate to this day.

There’s a lot more work to be done in this area.

Going Forward

Keep this question in mind: how can I create compounding, self-replicating impact with the work I put in? If I were to stop working right now, would my impact for animals deteriorate, stay stagnate, or keep growing? How could I make it build on itself and grow even faster?

None of us lives forever. How are you going to make sure your impact for animals lives on after you’re gone?

(If you want more reading somewhat related to this, check out Nassim Taleb’s article called “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”. The discussion about the propagation of religions based on the rules of the religion is very relevant.)


The Animal Movement Project (AMP) is a platform dedicated to building the movement for animals.

We share thoughts and ideas that can take the movement for animals from x to 10x. Our focus is predominantly on animals exploited for food since they account for more than 99% of the animals exploited by humans. The topics covered are often about ways to tie the pieces of the movement together or to fill in the gaps. We focus on connecting people, ideas, and resources to each other.

Language on the Other Side

It’s rare for different flanks (groups? sides?) of the movement to talk to each other—what you may not know is how much people on different sides don’t even use the same language.

This week is going to be a short one, but I think it’s a good topic to chew on.

Transformation versus…

A few days ago, I was catching up with a close friend from “the other side” of the movement. We’ve both devoted our lives to helping animals as much as possible, but the groups we each work with don’t usually interact at all.

As we were drinking our tea (gong fu style), we got to talking about the various differences between our groups and the circles we run in.

One of the things we’ve realized is that our respective groups of people don’t even think or talk about the work we’re doing in the same way. In many cases, we use different words for the same things. More often, though, we’re using different concepts that don’t even really exist on the other side.

As one example, my friend kept mentioning “activist transformation” as being one of the primary goals of organizing people.

“That’s funny,” I said, “you would never hear anyone on this side of things talk about activists that way.”

“How would you talk about it?” he asked.

“We would probably say something like ‘volunteer engagement’. We’ve been using the phrase ‘people empowerment’ more recently, though, and we do use the terms ‘activists’ or ‘advocates’. Either way, I don’t think the idea of ‘transformation’ is something most people are thinking about. They probably wouldn’t even know how to think about it at first.”

Theory versus…

Another example is how much our work is grounded in and guided by various theories.

My friend (and many people on that side of the movement) is completely grounded in theory. The theories come from prior social movements, they come from sociological research, they come from studying people. But everything that he thinks about comes from theories, or is constructed and framed in terms of theories. If you walk into a room where people are discussing strategy, chances are some lessons from history are going to come up.

Meanwhile, it seems like those on this side of the movement rely more on piecing evidence together in a general direction, and in thinking about what needs to be done within a certain context. There aren’t necessarily full theories of change behind the actions, and people aren’t usually reading books about other social movements or discussing the trajectories of other social movements. If you walk into a room where people are discussing strategy, chances are they’re discussing metrics and research, data and impact estimates.

More Language Differences

Here are some terms or phrases I’ve noticed that indicate other differences in language between the various groups in the movement. Some of these terms are used almost exclusively by certain groups, and some are a little more universal.

Notice which ones you use the most often:

  • Animal rights, animal welfare, animal protection, animal liberation
  • Activist empowerment, activist transformation, volunteer engagement
  • Social movements, effective animal advocacy, effective altruism, economies of scale, markets
  • Theory of change, narrative, evidence, randomized controlled trial, impact estimates
  • Activists, advocates, vegans, vegetarians
  • Social change, diet change
  • Nonviolent struggle, corporate campaigns

Now, I’m not saying that certain phrases or ways of thinking are necessarily right or wrong, better or worse.

It’s fine for different groups of people to have their own terms and language and to understand things through their own different lenses. In fact, it’s probably good and healthy for the movement to have this kind of diversity.

But what we’re currently missing out on is the added value of learning from each other—the creativity that comes from taking two fairly different things and forcing them to interact.

A Challenge

My challenge to you for this week is to find someone from a “different side” of the movement, or a different group at the very least. Reach out to them and see if they’re interested in having a conversation.

Talk to them about how they think about things. What language do they use? What ideas and resources do they come back to most often? What can you both learn from each other?

And don’t stop there. Keep this in mind anytime you run up against an idea in the movement that you aren’t familiar with, or that you aren’t comfortable with.

Discomfort is just a sign that you have the opportunity to learn something.

I’ve created an anonymous feedback form so that you can give me any kind of feedback you’d like. If you’ve read a couple of AMP articles now, send your thoughts my way. You can also contact me the usual way.

The Animal Movement Project (AMP) is a platform dedicated to building the movement for animals.

We share thoughts and ideas that can take the movement for animals from x to 10x. Our focus is predominantly on animals exploited for food since they account for more than 99% of the animals exploited by humans. The topics covered are often about ways to tie the pieces of the movement together or to fill in the gaps. We focus on connecting people, ideas, and resources to each other.

Book Summary—Good to Great, by Jim Collins

I have the good fortune to scale the walls at the same climbing gym as one of the great modern business authors of our day, Jim Collins. I recently finished reading his 2001 book, Good to Great, and thought the lessons about how to transform businesses could apply to organizations within the animal movement.

I’m going to give you a rundown of the six big takeaways of this book, but if you have a solid reading habit this is a good book to read in full.

If you don’t have a solid reading habit, build one. 😉

The Main Idea

Jim takes a strictly research- and data-oriented view to his studies of business. For this book, he identified companies that had a long period of average (“good”) performance—as measured by stock market returns—followed by a long period of exceptional (“great”) performance.

He and his research team identified eleven companies that fit the bill, across all kinds of industries. For each of these eleven, they then identified a comparison company in the same industry that hadn’t made the transition to great performance.

The main question they asked was: What makes these two groups of companies different? Why did the one group reach outstanding performance while the other group failed to do so?

They identified six primary components that all of the “good to great” companies had that none of the comparison companies did:

  1. Level 5 Leadership
  2. First Who… Then What
  3. Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)
  4. The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles)
  5. A Culture of Discipline
  6. Technology Accelerators

I’m going to talk about the main idea behind each of these principles, and then offer some brief thoughts on what takeaways there are for the animal movement.

Since we are, relatively speaking, still a very small and young movement, I think there’s a lot we can learn from books like Good to Great that conduct very rigorous analyses of much larger and more established entities.

So what does it take to become great?

1—Level 5 Leadership

Main Idea

Jim and his research team didn’t even want to discover that executive leadership mattered.

“Make sure not to overemphasize the role of the CEO,” Jim told his team, because of how much the CEO is often over-emphasized as being a key part of an organization’s success. But over and over again, they kept seeing something they came to call Level 5 Leadership.

A Level 5 leader has two major qualities:

  • Personal Humility. These leaders don’t have giant egos, and they aren’t celebrities. They share credit with others, and accept responsibility when things go wrong.
  • Professional Will. Despite their humility, they will do anything and everything necessary to make the organization successful. They care deeply about results and success—not their own personal success, but the success of the organization.

These leaders embodied the window and the mirror: They looked “out the window” at everyone around them to allocate successes, but they looked “in the mirror” at themselves when things went wrong. They shared credit and took blame. This is in contrast to many leaders at the comparison companies, who did the opposite: taking credit for successes and putting blame on the staff, the industry, or “bad luck”.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

We should be careful about our use and fondness of charismatic leaders with big egos. We should also be wary of the “lone genius” who has all of the great ideas that an organization then simply executes.

Charisma can motivate people for a short time, and lone geniuses can be very effective while they’re around. But to have an outstanding long-term impact, a culture of results and intelligent decision-making have to be baked into the fabric of the organization. People at all levels need to know how to act in order to have the greatest impact for animals, rather than simply following the directives of a single commander. This is unlikely to happen if those in leadership are driven by their egos and want to take all of the credit for success.

Whatever success an organization has under the leadership of a highly ego-driven, lone genius leader, that success is sure to evaporate once they are no longer at the organization. (And it often evaporates because of the charismatic leader’s failure to have good successors in place and failure to set up the rest of the organization for future success.)

When choosing new leaders for organizations—and when thinking about what kind of leader you can be—think of the combination of personal humility and professional will.

2—First Who… Then What

Main Idea

Don’t start with what exactly you’re going to do. Start with who you’re going to do it with.

First, get the right people on the bus. (Also, get the wrong people off the bus.) Then get the right people in the right seats. Then figure out where to drive it. “First who, then what.”

There are three practical lessons the research team found:

  1. When in doubt, don’t hire. Limit your organizational growth based on how many good people you can find, and hire good people even if you don’t have anything for them to do yet.
  2. When you know something needs to change regarding people, act quickly. But before letting someone go, make sure they’re not just in the wrong seat on the bus.
  3. Put the best people on big opportunities, not big problems.

One idea that’s brought up again and again in this book is that good teams will debate and argue passionately about decisions in order to find the best path forward, but once a decision is made everyone gets behind it (essentially “disagree and commit”).

Lessons for the Animal Movement

As a movement, we’re often very focused on the what—what we want to do to change the world for animals. Having this vision is incredibly important of course, but how exactly we get there can look like a million different things.

I think we should prioritize who conversations more often. How can we find the best people and get them included? (“Get the right people on the bus.”) How can we move people around in the movement until we find a place where they fit in best? (“Get the right people in the right seats.”)

We should also encourage more vigorous debate in search of truth. We can’t just nod along in agreement, unwilling to challenge or explore ideas. To discover the best way forward, we’re going to need critical thought. We can’t incorporate everyone’s perspectives and knowledge unless we’re willing to be critical and challenge each other.

But for that to work, we also need more “disagree and commit” in our movement’s culture. I’ve seen many instances where people do disagree but aren’t willing to commit once something has been decided.

In brief:

  • Find the right people, and get them in the right seats.
  • Debate vigorously, then “disagree and commit”.

3—Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)

Main Idea

The main lesson of this chapter can be summed up in what Jim calls “The Stockdale Paradox”:

Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.

AND at the same time

Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

The idea here is that we need to seek and know the truth about our situation. If we’re drowning in debt and out of shape and hate our job, we need to confront those things.

But, at the same time, we need to always, always have hope that we will prevail—that no matter what the difficulties are, we will eventually be successful.

Confront the brutal facts and retain faith.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

I loved this chapter because of how applicable this idea is to the movement.

The facts of the situation are indeed brutal. Animals are kept in horrible conditions and killed in horrifying ways. There are more animals killed by humans for food now than at any point in the history of the world. (Trillions of individuals, including fish.) We’re not exactly winning the war just yet.

…just yet.

And that’s where the unwavering faith comes in.

We need to believe that we will be successful, no matter how difficult it is. No matter how long it takes, or how many challenges we have to overcome, we will end animal farming and we will create an infinitely better world for animals.

The combination of the two is incredibly important.

I see people who only do one or the other. Maybe they confront the brutal facts of reality, but there’s no faith in our eventual success. Without that faith, the facts themselves are incredibly demoralizing and demotivating. Why should we try hard or relentlessly seek the best path forward if we don’t think we’ll be successful?

Or, maybe they have faith that we’ll be successful…but they never confront the facts. They go around believing that animal liberation is just a year or two away, but they aren’t willing to look at the actual data, ask the hard questions, and make a realistic plan for how to get from point A to point B. I’ve been guilty of this one, definitely—being a prophet of the good news without really diving into the details, just believing what I want to believe about the state of the world.

We need both: confronting the brutal facts and maintaining the faith that we will prevail.

Finally, we need to embed “truth-seeking” into the fabric of our organizations and our groups. If we punish people for bringing up “brutal facts of reality”, then the truth will go unheard. If we punish people for disagreeing with each other, then we won’t make the best decisions.

We have to create an environment where questioning, truth-finding, and debate are encouraged without shame or blame.

4—The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles)

Main Idea

“What’s the difference between foxes and hedgehogs? A hedgehog is a simple creature who knows ‘one big thing’. Foxes are crafty creatures who know many little things.”

And the companies who went from good to great? They all had Hedgehog Concepts—a simple, big concept to guide their every action.

How do you discover your Hedgehog Concept? It lies at the intersection of these three questions:

  1. What are you deeply passionate about?
  2. What drives your economic engine?
  3. What can you be the best in the world at?

 

Confront the most brutal facts of your reality and seek a deep understanding about what lies at the intersection of those three questions. Once you’ve found that intersection, that is your Hedgehog Concept—everything you do from that point on gets filtered in or out by that concept.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

I think the answer to “what are you deeply passionate about” could start at the same place for a lot of us—we’re deeply passionate about ending the exploitation of animals, ending animal farming.

But maybe dig deeper into that question and find what specific areas of this work get you the most excited. Is it corporate campaigns, or creating new vegan products? Vegan outreach? Activist or volunteer mobilization? Local work, or international work?

Some would argue that “follow your passion” is bad advice, and I do think there’s probably a lot of truth in that—that interest is built, rather than discovered outright.

If you don’t have anything that you’re particularly passionate about right now, try to maintain a deep curiosity about whatever work you happen to be doing at the moment, and keep exploring new things from time to time. You might discover that you can build passion wherever you are, or maybe you’ll find something that you’re already naturally passionate about. Or maybe framed another way, what particular aspects of animal advocacy can keep you interested for years to come? Which do you care about the most?

Let’s talk about “what drives your economic engine.”

This one is interesting (and potentially a bit confusing), as many of us do our work for free (as volunteers or activists) or as professional advocates in organizations that primarily rely on donors. Some people do work at for-profit companies that have the mission of helping animals.

Either way, we all need to generate some kind of income to buy food, pay for rent, etc. Organizations need resources to pay salaries and get resources to do their work. It doesn’t matter whether this comes from profits, donors, or some other source. So the question for organizations is: What is the primary source of your income, and what drives that source?

As a specific example, we might look at how investigations drive the economics of Mercy For Animals, or leafleting drives the economics of Vegan Outreach. There’s quite a bit more info about this specific question in the book.

Finally, “what can you be the best in the world at?”

For your organization or group (or even yourself), what thing can you be number one or two in the world at? It could be something that you’re already doing, or something that you haven’t even started doing yet. The primary question here is, can you be the best?

When we double down on the things we can be particularly good at, we’re able to accomplish what no one else in the world can. By doing this, we add those talents that are uniquely our own, rather than spending time being just good at things many other people are good at.

5—A Culture of Discipline

Main Idea

Here’s a poignant quote from the book: “Bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people on the bus in the first place. If you get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off, you don’t need stultifying bureaucracy.”

Jim and his research team found an interesting pair of qualities: good to great organizations require adherence to a system, but also give people a lot of freedom within that system.

The most important aspect of discipline is sticking to your Hedgehog Concept—what you don’t do is perhaps even more important than what you do.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

We have a lot to learn from this idea of creating systems that work and then giving people freedom within those systems.

Let’s say you’re starting a group that’s going to advocate for banning the sale of animal products in a city. There are two ways you could approach it.

The dictatorship way is that you as the leader keep all of the knowledge in your head and you dictate to everyone what they should be doing at all times. Bobby goes off and buys flowers as part of his persuasion tactics—“Never buy flowers again, Bobby,” you tell him, because flowers are definitely not a part of your vision. At meetings, people throw out ideas and you shoot down all of the ones you disagree with and elevate the ones you like. Eventually, people are just task masters for your plan and vision because no one wants to be yelled at anymore and nobody has a framework for understanding why they’re doing what they’re doing.

The discipline way is that you set up a cohesive system, a structure for your group, and you give people complete freedom to operate within that structure. You set group rules: we’re always exceedingly friendly to others, but we make our case for animals; we focus exclusively on animal ethics; we focus on building relationships with key power holders in the city; everyone is expected to share a weekly summary of what they’re working on; etc. Once you set up the system, people know what’s in line with that system and what isn’t. They now have the freedom to come up with creative ways to solve problems and make progress because they know what is and isn’t acceptable. (And when you realize something is broken, updating the system becomes a primary concern.)

Under a dictatorship, it doesn’t matter how smoothly things run at any given moment—it all falls apart once the top person stops calling the shots.

But with discipline, the cohesive processes and structure outlast any one of the people in leadership, and people can thrive in their work as long as that structure is there.

If there’s a culture of discipline in organization, then people become free to do good work.

6—Technology Accelerators

Main Idea

Technology doesn’t create greatness, it only accelerates great work.

None of the good to great companies started with the mindset of “let’s just find some technology and use that to become great.” In fact, when asked about how they did great work, most of them didn’t even mention technology in their top five reasons.

But, very interestingly, many of the companies did use technology as an important accelerator of their work, and many were pioneers of newer advanced tech. It’s not that they didn’t use technology; they just started by focusing on the key issues of getting the right people and focusing in on their Hedgehog Concept. After those pieces were in place, they used the right technology to accelerate.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

Technology is a wonderful thing. We have a ton of room for growth here.

But, crucially, you can’t simply throw modern tech at a problem to make it go away. You have to start with the right people, and you need a deep understanding of what exactly you’re focused on—your Hedgehog Concept.

Assuming we have the initial pieces figured out, then it’s time to explore how the right technology can help us accelerate our impact.

It’s this exploration that I think we haven’t done such a great job of overall. As a movement, we often rely on sub-par software or websites. We don’t take the time to find the people with the right skills, and we don’t encourage people to learn the right skills. We focus so much on the change we want to accomplish that we stop paying attention to the crucial infrastructure that can help get us there—like good use of modern technology.

One Final Chapter—The Flywheel and the Doom Loop

Main Idea

When asking executives at these companies about any “magic moments” where things changed and they started making the transformation to being great, everyone’s reaction was the same—there weren’t really revolutionary moments like that; there was just a series of decisions and constant work in the right direction over a long period of time.

Some of these changes were big, sure, but they came after many hours and weeks of analysis and thought and debate. They weren’t surprises; they didn’t feel revolutionary in the moment.

Jim and his research team called this “The Flywheel”—a metaphor of a big stone wheel that is agonizingly hard to get spinning at first, but push after push after push you can add a little momentum until it’s turning at an incredible velocity.

These companies first did the work of figuring out which direction they should push: they identified their Hedgehog Concept; they confronted the brutal facts; they started with “who”; etc. After doing this upfront work, they just continued to push in the right direction for years. They added on technology to accelerate their progress. If they made major acquisitions of other companies, it was after they’d already been making progress, to accelerate that progress. These companies didn’t do anything drastic to try to create progress.

With this work done, the results showed themselves year after year. They didn’t have to spend much time or energy motivating people or selling them on the future of the company, because people could see it was working.

This is contrasted with what many other companies did: “The Doom Loop”.

These companies would come in with big, revolutionary changes to get people inspired. But, without the upfront work being done, these changes never really led anywhere. Then they would backpedal and try a different new big change to try to get things going, undoing any momentum they might’ve built up the first time. Rinse; repeat.

These companies were very inconsistent, going from one thing to another. They would hop on the latest tech fads without knowing what exactly their core business model was. They would make major acquisition in the hope that it would inspire growth.

And because of the lurching back and forth—the lack of momentum, the undoing of any previously built-up momentum—these companies spent quite a bit of effort and energy trying to keep people motivated and selling them on the future of the company. The results weren’t there, and people were constantly changing directions and failing to build up sustainable progress, which was demotivating.

Lessons for the Animal Movement

The metaphor of pushing a flywheel is appropriate for our whole movement.

We push and push, and the flywheel barely moves. We keep pushing, for years—handing out leaflets, running social media ads, running local community groups, protesting, holding conferences, developing new products. Slowly, things start to move faster. We start noticing more vegan restaurants. We start seeing more funding coming into the movement. We meet people who are advocating for animals in countries we’d never expect, as part of groups we’ve never heard of.

It’s a great lesson for us as individuals, and for our organizations as well. If we do the work to identify where we can add the most value—what our Hedgehog Concept is—and who we need to be working with, then we can start pushing. We might not see progress at first, but day after day, year after year, we’ll build up momentum until our work is flying along with an incredible velocity.

Likewise, there’s a warning here. If we change directions constantly, undoing the momentum we’ve been building up in one direction, we will demotivate people and get nowhere—the “doom loop”.

Summed up, that’s what Good to Great is all about. Identify what’s important—get the right people onboard—and push.

Know someone who would enjoy this post? Send it their way! And send me feedback if you have any. I’d always love to hear from you.

The Animal Movement Project (AMP) is a platform dedicated to building the movement for animals.

We share thoughts and ideas that can take the movement for animals from x to 10x. Our focus is predominantly on animals exploited for food since they account for more than 99% of the animals exploited by humans. The topics covered are often about ways to tie the pieces of the movement together or to fill in the gaps. We focus on connecting people, ideas, and resources to each other.

Sketches made using https://sketch.io/

Transforming and Creating Culture—A Reflection on the Holidays

What could holidays look like in a vegan world?

Better yet, what new traditions can we create to bring people together?

Thanksgiving, circa 2018

Currently, the majority of people in the United States gather with their families each year on the second-to-last Thursday of November. People drive or fly in from out of town to be with parents, children, and siblings. A big feast is prepared, and everyone sits down at the dinner table together to eat and say what they’re thankful for. It’s a great time to be around family and friends, eat good food, and take a couple days off of work—things that everyone enjoys. (Unless politics start getting discussed.)

This all sounds rather lovely, except that the central part of the feast is almost always a dead turkey.

(One note that I think is really important, especially as we’re discussing this particular holiday: I know that certain holidays and traditions, Thanksgiving being one of them, originate from oppression against humans as well as nonhumans—in this case, a history of violence against the native people of North America. I’m offering the ideas in this post specifically in relation to the movement for nonhuman animals, like animals killed for food, but it’s possible some ideas could be applicable to discussing the human oppression and suffering involved as well. The basic idea of this post is to try to change culture from a psychologically sound place of understanding those who you want to influence. I think a promising example of transforming culture is how some cities are replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples’ Day.)

What to Do with Bad Culture

An understandable reaction to harmful and oppressive culture—such as any tradition that involves harming animals—is to want to simply reject it outright: “Thanksgiving is a stupid holiday and I will take no part in it. I won’t come, I won’t talk about it, and I’ll pretend it doesn’t even exist.”

This is a common reaction of vegans to things that involve eating animals, and it’s a common reaction of anyone who sees some dominant oppression in society. We think: the oppression is bad, and thus anything associated with the oppression is bad.

Unfortunately, this approach isn’t particularly popular with the majority of people. “You don’t eat animals, and now you want to destroy our holidays with family, too?”

For someone who doesn’t see the violence taking place at a Thanksgiving dinner table, bad-mouthing Thanksgiving is basically like saying, “I hate family and being thankful for things.” Not only does nothing get accomplished about the dead turkey on the table, but people are probably pushed a little further away from acknowledging the core issue, which is violence towards animals.

But to acquiesce and go along with the full cultural tradition is basically to give tacit approval to the act of killing a turkey for dinner.

How can we navigate this territory, making progress for animals without making a whole bunch of people angry or defiant in the process?

Transform or Create

Let’s say you’re trying to kick a bad habit. Should you focus on not doing that habit, or on what you will do instead?

Research suggests that trying to kick a habit by focusing on not doing it can actually be counterproductive, leading us to do the habit more than we had been before. “If I have the urge to smoke, then I just won’t smoke.” This is because by telling ourselves “don’t do that thing”, we’re actually thinking about the thing even more.

So what should we do? Instead of focusing on telling ourselves how much we’re not going to do the old thing, we have to tell ourselves something positive that we will do—a new habit that we’ll put in place. “If I have the urge to smoke, I’ll step outside and chew a piece of gum instead.”

This idea could provide a model for how to deal with negative aspects of culture.

Transform Existing Culture

We have a problem with the dead bird on the table for Thanksgiving.

Following the research above, if we keep talking about the things we want to get rid of, we’re just going to keep reinforcing thoughts of those things. By reinforcing those thoughts, people might become more entrenched in wanting those things, even if they didn’t feel as strongly before.

Reminds me of the saying, “Any press is good press.” When it comes to reinforcing ideas in our brain, that idea is probably true.

So let’s take a look at the other approach—emphasizing something else instead of the negative thing.

One way we could approach the issue is by identifying the positive aspects that we believe the culture or tradition is really about, and then communicating our support for those pieces while suggesting a substitution for the bad parts. (Perhaps downplaying the significance of those parts, if possible.)

Maybe we make the case that Thanksgiving is really about family and giving thanks, and we downplay as much as possible the role of the turkey—while maybe offering up some information about why it’s wrong to kill turkeys, if we can do so in a way the audience will be receptive to.

We then express our wholehearted support for those values—family and giving thanks—while expressing our desire to change just a couple of things. Maybe we could even frame those changes as being more in line with the values of family and giving thanks: “On a day where we celebrate giving thanks and family, we wouldn’t want to take the turkeys away from their families.”

If possible, we can transform the culture to remove the negative aspects while reinforcing the positive aspects—potentially even introducing new positive aspects to the culture, to lessen the feeling of loss of any of the negative aspects. The book Switch by Chip and Dan Heath is packed with good ideas on how to help make changes like these easier.

In time, we could shift culture where a vegan Thanksgiving is more in line with the “true meaning” of the holiday than a non-vegan one.

Create Analogous Culture

Sometimes, it might be really difficult to transform a piece of culture or a tradition.

Maybe we’re getting a lot of resistance to the idea of reframing it, or maybe the idea of animal exploitation is so deeply ingrained that it’d be impossible to remove it.

In these cases, one thing we could try is creating our own new and analogous culture.

For example, maybe we create a new tradition of going hiking on Thanksgiving, or donating to charity. Maybe we start a totally new “Vegan Pie Day” tradition on the Saturday before or after Thanksgiving.

Although this might not succeed at eradicating the negative aspects of the other tradition, it could give people more chances to positively associate with our ideas of creating a better world. Maybe your friend goes to a Thanksgiving dinner and eats part of a turkey, but then he also goes to Vegan Pie Day the next Saturday and gets exposed to the idea of not killing animals. After a few years, maybe some of those ideas have started to sink in. Maybe your friend grows slowly more uncomfortable with the turkey on the table each year because he knows he’s going to Vegan Pie Day a few days later.

Rather than always fighting the bad aspects of what we don’t like, we could experiment with creating some new, associated positive traditions—Vegan Pie Day or otherwise.

Creating New Culture

Another powerful thing to think about is how we can create completely new culture centered around animals or veganism.

I think Veganuary has done a great job of this, creating a “culture” of people trying out veganism in January, and I’m excited to see it continue growing. Vegan Outreach and others have also created—or adapted from others—a culture of leafleting within the movement. I think the Liberation Pledge is another example of trying to create new culture by uniting people who don’t sit at tables where animals are being eaten and adding a physical element (the fork bracelet).

Or consider the new culture that animal sanctuaries have created.

Previously, any place that kept animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens would only have them there in order to exploit them and eat or sell their bodies. Sanctuaries have created a whole new model, allowing animals to live full lives as freely and healthfully as possible. Sanctuaries also sometimes let the public come and meet the animals and learn about the ways in which humans exploit other animals. For many people, this is their first time ever meeting a cow, pig, or chicken.

In addition, there’s a third component of the new culture sanctuaries have created, which is that of volunteerism and vegan refuge from an emotionally challenging world. I hear this all the time from people who volunteer at one of our local sanctuaries here in Colorado, Luvin Arms.

(Side note—Luvin Arms has also recently started the Open Sanctuary project, open sourcing everything they know about starting and running a sanctuary. I think this is a phenomenal example of an organization investing in movement building.)

Sanctuaries are often run at least in part by volunteers, people who care about the mission and want to pitch in. Volunteers also sometimes come just for their own emotional health, which many people have told me is a large part of why they volunteer.

In sanctuaries, we see a very thorough example of new culture: creating a safe place for animals, not an exploitive one; creating an opportunity for public education around the issues; and creating a place for animal advocates to volunteer in a physical, hands-on way and to recharge their emotional batteries.

It’s this kind of culture that’s going to endure far into the future.

New Cultures We Could Create

Let’s take a couple of minutes to noodle on some types of new culture and tradition we could create.

Holidays

Everyone loves a good holiday. Why don’t we create our own, and have some associated activities with it?

It could be “Advocate Day”, where people who consider themselves animal advocates get together and share a meal and tell stories.

It could be “Vegan Pie Day”, where we all make or buy vegan pies and give them to non-vegan friends or family.

Maybe it’s “Animal Liberation Day”, where people get together and talk about all the progress that’s been made for animals. We could tell stories about all of the people who have advocated for animals through time, and tell stories about what kind of vision we have for the future.

Whatever it is, keep in mind the things that people like. People like food, friends, family, drinking, giving and receiving gifts, playing games, telling stories, engaging in meaningful rituals, singing, dancing, and laughing. (And of course, some people don’t like several of these things.)

Some days do already exist, like World Vegan Day (November 1st), World Vegetarian Day (October 1st), World Day for the End of Speciesism (date changes each year), etc. It seems like we have a long way to go, though, to successfully create new traditions that both naturally invite participation and also positively impact society for animals.

Activities

Certain types of activities can be baked in various cultures. For example, in many religious traditions, the activities of donating money (tithing) and traveling to spread the religion (mission trips) are big parts of what it means to be a member of that religion. People living in Boulder, where I live, have a strong culture of outdoor recreation like hiking, climbing, and skiing. High school boys where I grew up had a culture of getting together to play video games and eat at Waffle House.

We already have a culture of participating in sanctuary work, which is a great example of new culture being created. But what other positive things could we create?

We might also create a culture of donation, for example, where vegans and other animal advocates donate some percentage of their money to organizations working on animal issues. Maybe we have a culture of getting together with others weekly and writing letters to people in our local communities, encouraging them to adopt animal-friendly stances and policies. Maybe “Vegan Drinks” becomes a new monthly tradition, where every city around the world has one night a month where vegans come together to socialize and catch up. Maybe weekly potlucks or other types of weekly gatherings could become more of a norm.

Traditions for Your Group or Platform

If you’re part of a group, or you run a website, or you have a platform of any kind, you can create traditions and culture that are specific to your platform and your audience.

Veganuary is a good example of this, where the whole organization is built around a certain type of tradition. (The tradition of people trying out going vegan in January.)

Maybe you run a website or a social media page related to animal advocacy or veganism. You could create new culture or make up a tradition around anything you think is important.

Let’s say you really care about fish advocacy, because so many fish are killed each year and most people are very far from including fish in their moral consideration. You could have one week a year—let’s say you call it “Fish Week”—where you hold events and encourage specific actions related to fish advocacy. You could tap into human psychology and include some kind of celebration, and some kind of competition.

Or maybe you want to have a culture of vegan mentorship. One way to really emphasize that could be to have one day a month that’s always devoted to discussing mentorship, checking in with mentors and mentees, encouraging people to sign up for the mentoring program, etc.

There are a lot of opportunities here. Here are a couple of questions you could ask yourself:

  1. What are things we think are really important? What do we really care about?
  2. Is there a way to create some culture around those important things, where everyone in your community knows that they’re supposed to care about something? Or that they’re supposed to do something?
  3. Can you set up your culture in a way where doing the right thing is the easy thing, because it’s baked into the foundations of who you are?
  4. Is there a new tradition you can create to help bring attention or awareness to something important? How can you make sure it’s naturally appealing to people while still conveying the meaning you want?

And if we keep working on transforming existing culture and creating new culture, piece by piece we will create a better future for animals—family and holidays included.

What are your thoughts? Please feel free to leave a comment below or reach out using the contact form. And if you have ideas for future topics for AMP, I would love to hear those too!

The Animal Movement Project (AMP) is a platform dedicated to building the movement for animals.

We share thoughts and ideas that can take the movement for animals from x to 10x. Our focus is predominantly on animals exploited for food since they account for more than 99% of the animals exploited by humans. The topics covered are often about ways to tie the pieces of the movement together or to fill in the gaps. We focus on connecting people, ideas, and resources to each other.

Recidivism: Or, Vegan and Back Again

Despite my best efforts, I almost didn’t make it into the movement.

Going Veg, Attempts #1-6

In high school, I saw factory farm footage and thought it was terrible. I dabbled in vegetarianism for a bit, then went back to eating animals. Let’s just say that suburban Georgia wasn’t a very supportive place to be vegetarian around that time.

(Maybe it’s gotten better with the recent explosion in veganism.)

In college, I basically repeated this. I watched a documentaryI think it was Food, Inc.—and was again horrified at how we treat animals, so I tried going vegetarian for the second time. College life remained relentlessly busy, though, and I didn’t have a ton of spare mental space or energy for a big lifestyle change: I had a demanding job, my math major classes could be brutally difficult, and I was spending every spare minute starting and growing a band with my close friend.

Once again, due to lack of support and lack of continued exposure to the issues, I gradually slipped back into eating animals.

It was just easier to not stress over what I ate. Apart from the things I saw on a screen once every few years, there was no real tangible benefit that I noticed to being vegetarian—and there were very real benefits to not being vegetarian, like having two dozen sandwich options to eat at Subway instead of one.

Besides, humans are social animals. I could only blaze this path alone for so long before burning out, and I had basically been alone in my efforts each time I tried.

I repeated this cycle about three more times, each time getting a little more serious about making a few more connections. I went vegetarian, then back—then I went vegan, then back—then I started getting more involved in activism, then back. It was only when I moved to Boulder, Colorado about four years ago that I completely committed to the process and finally made some good friends in the movement.

All in all, it took me about a decade of exposure to the issues and half a decade of trying to get involved before it really stuck. It was never easy, and I might as well have given up at any point.

Rampant Recidivism

All of this is to say, I can see how easy it would be for someone to go vegan or vegetarian and then give up. I mean, I gave up half a dozen times. 

According to a study by Faunalytics, somewhere around 84% of people who go vegetarian or vegan end up going back to eating animals—53% of them in the first year.

(Maybe some of them end up coming back to it later, like I did.)

It’s not like these are all people who say “You know what? I decided I actually don’t care”. There are immense pressures in society to conform to what’s seen as normal—in this case, not being vegan or vegetarian. You basically have to put up with always being different and occasionally (or daily) being made fun of in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. You’re not allowed to ever get sick or feel bad, because people will tell you that your diet is killing you. (They’ll tell you your diet is killing you even if you don’t get sick.)

Given the full weight of society pushing against you, and probably not much social support pushing you back the other way, it’s easy for time to take its toll. It’s easy to slip back into the mainstream.

Two Possible Futures

Let’s do some math! 

This isn’t going to be perfect of course, but let’s just construct a simple mathematical model of recidivism and see what happens.

I’m going to use the Python programming language and a Jupyter notebook, but you could also run something similar in Excel or Google Sheets if you wanted. (It’s fine if those words don’t mean anything to you, I’ll explain all of the results.)

Let’s assume that around 80% of people who go vegan end up going back to eating animals within a year, and then the rate drops off after that. Let’s also assume that vegans create more vegans, and that you probably create more vegans each year that you’re vegan. (These assumptions could be wrong, but let’s just go with it for now.)

How much impact are we missing for animals due to recidivism?

 

Modeling 3,000,000 Vegans in the US

Let’s start at the present day, assuming that 1% of the United States is vegan—about 3 million people—and let’s create two different futures. In the first future, the recidivism rate stays at 80% in the first year before dropping off—in other words, lots of vegans go back after the first year, but the rate of people giving up goes down after that. I’ll plug this into the model as an 80% probability of the person not being vegan after year one.

In the second future, we as a movement figure out how to drop recidivism to 50% in the first year, with the exact same drop off after.

I’ll also say that vegans create one vegan for every year they’ve been vegan. If someone has been vegan for 10 years, they create 10 vegans that year; if someone has been vegan for 3 years, they create 3 vegans.

“Creating” vegans sounds a little weird, but I think it’s probably better than “convert”. We might need some new language here.

Let’s take a look at the difference over 20 years.

Here’s the model: Simple vegan recidivism model in Python

One quick note. The model returns slightly different numbers with each run because of the use of probability, so the numbers I list here might not exactly match the ones you see in the linked model.

(If anyone wants to help me make this model more visual and interactive, please reach out.)

 

Future #1: 80% recidivism rate over 20 years

The first thing that we notice is that in this model, there’s a massive drop-off in year one because 80% of people drop off immediately, and no one is creating new vegans yet. (People who have been vegan for zero years don’t create any new vegans in the model.) So after year one, we’ve gone from 3,000,000 vegans down to 560,000.

Then, because the recidivism rate drops off and people start creating new vegans, we begin the climb back up. By year 10, we’re back up to 1,018,000 vegans, and by year 20 we’re at 1,616,000.

So obviously, our model isn’t perfectly reflecting reality here. According to the survey data we have, the number of vegans and vegetarians in the US definitely hasn’t fluctuated this much.

But we’re not going for perfection, just an interesting model. So let’s carry on!

 

Future #2: 50% recidivism rate over 20 years

Our initial drop-off is much less, because the first-year recidivism rate is much lower. After year one, we’re down to 1,343,000 vegans.

More vegans lasting through year one means that all those people will start creating more vegans in year two and beyond. By year 10, we’re up to 2,202,000 vegans, and by year 20 we’ve got 3,929,000 vegans in the US!

Discussion

In our very imperfect model, we ended up with 2.4 times as many vegans when we learned how to shave down the recidivism rate. Although I could spend months trying to create an accurate model of the growth of veganism in society (and still have a horribly inaccurate model), the basic idea here is the same: 

84% of people giving up on being vegan or vegetarian is huge. Reducing that number as much as possible will have significant effects, immediately and in the long-term.

 

Solutions: Shaving Recidivism

So, given the huge potential here (including endless spillover effects we probably can’t even anticipate), how can we make progress with this problem?

Let’s imagine recidivism as a big bearded monster, and our goal is to shave that monster as much as possible.

Actually, let’s maybe not continue this metaphor any further. 

So how do we address recidivism? Although some of the causes of recidivism have been documented, there hasn’t been much (or any?) research in addressing those causes. But, I think that we can make educated guesses about the solutions based on what we know some of the problems to be.

 

The Foundation Behind the Solutions: Matching Supply and Demand

Harish Sethu at Humane League Labs has a really great way of thinking about advocacy that he presented at the 2018 Animal Rights National Conference in sunny Los Angeles.

He posed something like this question to us: Is it better to focus on demand-based advocacy, such as influencing people to go vegan, or supply-based activism, such as the development of plant-based food products or encouraging companies to carry more vegan options.

The answer? Trick question—we need to match supply and demand, otherwise our efforts will be wasted.

Let’s say we develop a million different types of vegan food products, but nobody wants them. Too much supply without enough demand means that the products will fail, and we won’t help many animals. Everyone will keep buying what they usually do, because they don’t want vegan alternatives.

Similarly, if we encourage a million different people to go vegan, but there aren’t resources there to support them (like high availability of vegan food products), then those people will be fighting an uphill battle. After too long of this, they might give up and go back to doing what’s normal, what’s mainstream. Too much demand without enough supply is also a problem.

Here’s what I consider to be the most important point: This analogy works not only for food products, but also for emotional and social “products”.

(Thinking about this blows my mind a little.)

If we encourage 1,000,000 people to go vegan (which we have), but we don’t adequately provide “products” for their new emotional and social needs, what happens? People get frustrated and give up.

I think in some ways, this is where we currently are as a movement.

We’ve spent literally decades focused almost exclusively on creating demand for a new future. We tell people “go vegan, go vegan, go vegan…” and then they do, and we say “congratulations!” and we move on to the next person.

Meanwhile, that person is left with new needs. They need to have a social environment that supports them. They need to know how to deal emotionally with the newfound knowledge that humans brutally exploit animals. They need ways to feel hope that a better future is possible, ways to feel like they’re making a difference to solve the problem.

These are all “products” in some sense—social and emotional products, not to mention the physical food products that we’re all aware of—and we as a movement haven’t focused much energy on creating these products. We haven’t built up enough supply for the demand we’ve created.

It’s like we’ve been encouraging people to get an education, but we haven’t been building schools or training teachers. We’ve been telling people to recycle, but not creating recycling plants.

We need to think more about the full life cycle of a vegan: Not only do we need to get them there, but we need to create the support systems for them afterwards as well.

You can think of the solution ideas below as being focused on one or more of these “products” that I think we need to create. This is just a starting list; there are plenty more things you could think of.

 

Solution #1: Increase Social Connection

As I mentioned in the blog 30 Million Vegans about people empowerment, our social connections can dictate or reinforce a lot of our behavior. What we do is often a matter of who we’re connected to.

There are four types of social connection I think could be valuable here:

  • Face-to-face peer connection. Connect a vegan with another vegan already in their community, and ideally someone who they would naturally be friends with. Meetup groups can help facilitate people meeting each other, but there’s a lot of room for more work to be done here.
  • Online peer connection. Connect a vegan with another vegan online, once again ideally someone who they would naturally be friends with. Facebook groups and other platforms of that nature provide space for this, although there are two problems here currently. First is that most people in these Facebook groups aren’t actually connected to other individuals within the group; they don’t have real relationships. Second is that these groups can often be quite hostile or focused on personal perfectionism instead of real impact for animals, which isn’t a good environment to be in (especially for people who might be prone to recidivism).
  • Mentoring connection. Connect a newer vegan with someone who’s been vegan for a while. This could happen online or in-person (ideally in-person.) I know that Vegan Outreach has done some work in this area (and others might have too), although I don’t have the stats for how successful their program has been.
  • Online non-peer connection. Connect a vegan to a volunteer or staff member at an organization who is volunteering their time to talk to newer vegans. The Veg Support program at Mercy For Animals is a great example of this, as is the Challenge 22+ initiative.

 

Solution #2: Provide Coping Mechanisms

What are the common problems that new vegans face, and how can we create “products” that help them cope with these problems? There’s a lot of psychological and sociological research that we can draw on.

For example, social isolation is a big problem: feeling alone, or feeling different, or being the butt of jokes.

What research exists that we can leverage to help people who are facing this problem? How can we turn that research into recommendations, and then get those to the people who need them?

 

Solution #3: Emphasize the Importance of Action, Not Perfection

There are two concepts we need to bake into our culture as a movement:

  1. It’s better to do something than to give up completely.

n>0 is better than n=0, where n is the amount of positive impact someone has for animals.

If someone is having a hard time being vegan because there’s cheese in everything, then that person should know that it’s okay to just do the best they can rather than give up completely.

We’d rather have 1,000 people eat cheese occasionally than totally give up and go back to eating chickens. We need to help people not be demoralized if they feel like they’re failing to meet some standard.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily work if people eat more of certain animals. For example, eating chickens or fish instead of cows drastically increases the number of animals who die each year, a fact that now seems fairly well-established in the movement thanks in part to the work of Matt Ball and others. Chickens and fish also suffer a great deal because of how often they’re kept in extreme confinement.

(Aside: It might be the case that it’s easier psychologically for someone to give up eating mammals, then birds, then fish, then get more involved in activism, so the long-term impact here is highly uncertain. But we should at least keep these facts in mind when making decisions.)

  1. Our impact on society is much bigger than our personal purchases.

This might be a little counterintuitive and weird, but hang on with me.

Imagine someone who works full time to end the exploitation of animals for food. They devote every waking hour to it and, in fact, each year they have a huge positive impact for animals.

Now imagine that they also eat McDonald’s hamburgers for every meal.

Weird, right? I’m not sure that this person would actually exist, but imagine that they did.

Despite the strangeness of this situation, their net impact on animals is still massively positive. In fact, most of their impact comes from the positive work they do for animals, and the McDonald’s hamburgers every day contribute only a very small amount of negative impact. Maybe their work helps end animal farming in our lifetimes.

Of course, in real life, we might assume that someone who eats animals for every meal isn’t actually doing work that creates significant positive change for them, and this assumption would probably be justified.

(I actually could imagine a hyper-utilitarian person in politics who works toward major reductions in animal farming while eating a standard American diet, in order to appear more “normal” and have greater political sway. But it’s still a strange concept.)

But the point is that each person is…well, only one person. If they change their own life, that’s only one person changed out of billions.

This is still very important of course—but now imagine that one person influencing 100 other people. Most of that person’s impact for animals comes from the beliefs and behaviors of those 100 people, not from their own personal actions.

I still believe that, generally speaking, it’s best to embody the change you want to see as much as possible. The spillover effects of embodied belief are probably significant. (Nobody likes a hypocrite.)

But I think that we as a movement need to do a better job about getting people to keep the big picture in mind, and to remember that to truly create a difference for animals we can’t just be happy with our own personal behavior change. (And that some behaviors, such as spending significant energy on eliminating every animal byproduct from our lives, probably aren’t worth it compared to higher impact behaviors.)

 

Conclusion

We do a lot of work to get people to care about animals and make choices that have positive impacts on animals.

However, we risk losing 80+% of that work if we don’t simultaneously focus on keeping people there once they change. It’s possible that veg recidivism has been responsible for us losing the vast majority of the impact we could have had via individual diet change.

For anyone working on individual diet change, keep the problem of recidivism top of mind. Ask yourself, “When I’m successful at getting someone to go vegan or to take meaningful action for animals, what am I going to do to make sure they’re supported? How am I going to make sure they don’t go back to how they were before?”

Once we’re all asking this question, maybe we’ll recapture that 80% lost impact.

Imagine what kind of world we’ll create when that happens.

What do you think? These posts are for you, so please leave a comment below with your thoughts!

Do you want more depth? Less? Longer posts, shorter posts? Comment below, or you can reach me through the contact page.

If you have information about this topic that you think I should have included, please let me know and I can potentially make edits for future readers.

If you have ideas for topics to cover on the AMP blog, definitely let me know those too.

The Animal Movement Project (AMP) is a platform dedicated to building the movement for animals.

We share thoughts and ideas that can take the movement for animals from x to 10x. Our focus is predominantly on animals exploited for food since they account for more than 99% of the animals exploited by humans. The topics covered are often about ways to tie the pieces of the movement together or to fill in the gaps. We focus on connecting people, ideas, and resources to each other.