what would the world be like in the future if everyone was vegan?

December 13, 2008

This of course is hypothetical because the chances of the entire world going

vegan in the

future is impossible. However, if it WAS possible, what do you think would have

to happen

NOW?

My main concern is how politicians are affected by the beef and dairy and fast

food

industries. How can the world be educated to know that these industries have

perpetuated

the myth that consuming their products will make them healthy?

What types of activities or campaigns do you think have the most affect in

turning people

away from consuming and wearing animals? (slaughterhouse footage? Education

about

veganism? Education about the environment? Celebrity and other endorsements?

Anything

else?)

And what do you think the future would be like if everyone was vegan?

What would happen to all the restaurants (fast food and other?)

What would happen to the economy? What industries would disappear and which

would

flourish?

What would happen to the hunting industry?

What about the fashion industry?

Zoos? Circuses? Vivisection?

What about all the people who are now employed in the business of animal

slaughter?

(not just slaughterhouse employees, but truck drivers, etc)

What will happen to the crime rates? Will they go down? (would people be less

aggressive

if they did not eat meat?)

Do you think religious / spiritual people will feel more in tune with their god

or goddess

or gods because they are finally not taking part in anything that kills another

living being?

What do you think would happen to the health industry once people aren't getting

sick

and dying from consuming all the meat and dairy?

How else would the world be affected in POSITIVE ways?

December 14, 2008

At 7:03 PM +0000 12/13/08, greenlightflix wrote:

>What types of activities or campaigns do you think have the most

>affect in turning people

>away from consuming and wearing animals? (slaughterhouse footage?

>Education about

>veganism? Education about the environment? Celebrity and other

>endorsements? Anything

>else?)

>

Giving them free food.

Getting them to taste the food without being biased by preconceptions

(all vegans are...).

Making vegan food the most readily available, safest, most

economical, and coolest type of food.

Making nonvegan foodlike substances uncool, hard to get, of

questionable safety, expensive, etc.

(Oh, wait, vegan food already is safer and cheaper, and making

nonvegan foodlike substances pricey and rare might make them more

desirable.)

December 14, 2008

For older folks we could do an ad that says:

Prescription anti cholesterol medication & a meat based diet:

$140 per month for meat, $120 per month for other foods, $250 per month for medication,

Total cholesterol 320

Plant based diet & no anti cholesterol medication:

$80 per month for vegetables, $40 per month for beans & other dry goods

Total cholesterol 164

Your Choice

Getting them to taste the food without being biased by preconceptions (all vegans are...).Making vegan food the most readily available, safest, most economical, and coolest type of food.Making nonvegan foodlike substances uncool, hard to get, of questionable safety, expensive, etc.(Oh, wait, vegan food already is safer and cheaper, and making nonvegan foodlike substances pricey and rare might make them more desirable.)

December 14, 2008

I should add, in case anyone around here should take offence, I am an older person.

December 14, 2008

At 7:03 PM +0000 12/13/08, greenlightflix wrote:

>What types of activities or campaigns do you think have the most

>affect in turning people away from consuming and wearing animals?

>(slaughterhouse footage? Education about veganism? Education about

> the environment? Celebrity and other endorsements? Anything else?)

>

Different for each person.

For me, slaughterhouse footage would keep me away

from vegans. I can't stomach it, so I leave when

vegan conferences start showing the snuff films.

I think the best approach is to present vegans in

a positive light, relentlessly. That's where PETA

is weak. Its campaigns give the impression that

vegans are wackos. Also, when the word " vegan "

shows up in the news, often it's because some

cult has starved a baby, and that also magnifies

the negative opinion of vegans, even when the

people are not in fact vegan.

I've been surprised, in otherwise progressive

circles, at the preconceptions nonvegetarians

have about veg*ns. It's the same kind of derisive

nonsense that turns up in reviews of veg*n

restaurants (and in practically every mention of

veg*nism or veg*ns in the press).

The study below found that " information alone is

not enough to change behavior. "

Celebrity and other endorsements may get someone

to pay attention (or, depending on their opinion

of the celeb, get more derisive), but I wouldn't

expect a lasting impact unless the person feels a

personal connection with the celeb.

Maybe we need a NAAV (Nat'l Assn. for the

Advancement of Vegans) -- an organization

dedicated to improving the public image of vegans

(but international and with a better acronym). It

would work mostly in the background, but whenever

any slurs against vegans surfaced, it would take

center stage, telling the truth. Its members

would be known for doing Good Works. It would

give annual awards for positive depictions of

vegans in the performing arts and literature, and

it would hold press conferences whenever any

medical research touting the health benefits of

vegan foods came out or whenever any vegan

accomplished something noteworthy. It would not

waste too much energy on the antivegan wackos

over at TWPF et al., but would spend a lot of

energy making alliances with other NGOs. (Anyway,

that's what I'd do if I won the lottery, which

would happen only if I played the lottery...but

maybe a blog...)

Here's that study on what makes people change:

excerpts from

Changing Behavior:Insights and Applications

www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Grants/Resources/Planning/Behavior.doc

Annette Frahm et al.

Dec. 1995, Rev. June 2001

Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County

King County Water Pollution Control Division

Introduction

Have you ever tried to get a smoker to stop? A kid to start wearing a bike

helmet? An aerosol user to switch? Changing behavior is both art and

science, and much can be learned from othersí attempts to change behavior

that can make our work more effective.

A project team at the Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King

County, Washington, spent several months in 1995 reading behavior change

literature from energy conservation, recycling, health education and other

fields, looking for insights.

.....This report summarizes our findings and includes

examples from field experience.

A key insight from the project is that information alone is not enough to

change behavior.

As government workers, we often try to solve a problem by

creating a brochure, believing that ìif we build a brochure, they will

come.î However, starting with a brochure starts at the wrong end of the

process. If information alone changed behavior, there would be no more

smokers, all kids would wear bike helmets, and all businesses would follow

the regulations.

In reality, there are many barriers besides information to achieving a

result. ....

At the first workshop, one staff member used the checklist and principles

in brainstorming how to get a reluctant small business to deal with

accumulated hazardous waste. That same afternoon he visited the business

and tried out his new strategiesóand the business owner picked up the phone

on the spot and called a treatment, storage, and

disposal facility. When properly applied, it works! ....

.....

Checklist of Action Steps for Behavior Change

This is a circular process. Working through steps 2, 3 and 4 may lead to

redefining the objective in step 1.

1. Define your objective. What is

your desired end result? You may

begin by thinking broadly, but narrow

your objective so it's achievable

and, if possible, measurable. How

will you know when you've achieved

your desired result?

2. Select your audience. Brainstorm

the possible audiences you could work

with and choose one. Pick the one

most likely to get your desired

result.

3. Learn about your audience. What do

they need? What do they want? What do

they know? What are their

perceptions? Who do they respect? Who

do they interact with (business and

social networks)? Define the specific

change you want the audience to make

to achieve your overall result.

4. Find out about your audience's

barriers to making the change. Go ask

your audience. Possible barriers

include: External: it costs too much,

technology isn't available, laws are

conflicting, etc. Personal: they

don't recognize the problem, don't

know what to do, don't consider it a

priority, etc.

5. Develop strategies to reach your

audience, using the behavior change

principles (e.g., commitment,

feedback, credibility, role models).

Are there community or political

leaders, associations, retailers,

innovators, or other specific target

groups that could help you reach your

desired end result?

6. Develop a method to measure the

effectiveness of your strategies.

Refer back to your objective in step 1.

Summary

Key Behavior Change Principles

0 . Just providing information has a limited

effect on behavior. There is no clear

causal relationship between providing information and changing behavior.

a. Learn about your customer or audience. What do

they know? Care about? Think about? Who

influences them?

b. Address the barriers to changing behavior.

Barriers may be external (it costs too much,

technology isn't available, laws are conflicting)

or personal (the person doesn't recognize the

problem, doesn't know what to do, doesn't

consider it a priority, thinks it's too hard).

1. Getting involved is the first step to making a

commitment, and making a commitment makes people

more likely to act. Small commitments lead to big

ones. Start by getting the shop owner involved in

a visit. Then ask them to sign a form stating

changes they will make.

2. Feedback and follow-up are important. Feedback

gives people cues about the impacts of their

behavior changes. Additional contact is also very

important in motivating people to stick with a

task.

3. People will listen first to their friends or

relatives, or others they see as credible. What

they hear at a dinner party will have more weight

than a comprehensive data summary.

4. Change agents and role models are important.

A few people in a group will typically adopt

innovative ideas and behaviors first, and spread

them through the group. Find these people and

help them successfully adopt a new behavior.

5. Changing attitudes may not change behavior.

There is no strong, direct or consistent

relationship between attitudes and subsequent

action.

6. Incentives may help change short-term, but

probably not long-term, behavior. People may

respond to incentives by changing their behavior,

but when the reward is removed, they generally

revert to their original behavior.

7. If you need to provide information, present it

effectively. People are more likely to pay

attention to information that is:

Vivid: Use language that conjures up a vivid and

memorable image, or provide a demonstration that

will stick in someone's mind.

Personal: Make statistical data personally

relevant. Talk about personal consequences or

refer to a group with which the person identifies.

Specific and concrete: Tell them how to do the behavior you want them to do.

Stated in terms of loss rather than gain: Focus

on showing people or businesses how much they are

losing every month or year by not doing a

specific behavior.

Told as a story: Use success stories as a motivating example.

Emotional: People tend to be persuaded more by

emotional messages than logical ones.

Key Behavior Change Principles

.....

Small commitments lead to big ones (soliciting a

small, short-term commitment is called the

ìfoot-in-the-doorî technique). ....

One study found that the percentage of people

agreeing to put an unsightly sign on their front

lawn that urged people to drive carefully

increased dramatically (from 17 percent to 76

percent) if they had first agreed to put a small

sign in their car favoring safe driving (Freedman

and Fraser, 1966).

Another study used the foot-in-the-door technique

to increase recycling behavior. Residents were

asked to commit themselves to one, two, or three

minor actions: complete a survey about recycling

behavior, save cans for one week, or send a

postcard to the city council urging an increased

recycling program. As the number of requested

commitments increased, so did the recycling

behavior. The effects were still observed 10

months later (Arbuthnot et al., 1976-77).

An energy conservation study asked randomly

assigned households for permission to list their

names in post-study publicity before the

information on conservation strategies was

distributed. Although their names were never

published, the group that agreed to publicize

their results used 15 percent less natural gas

and 20 percent less electricity. These

differences continued through the winter and

summer seasons following the study (Pallak et

al., 1980).

.....

Commitment has the greatest influence when:

the behavior to be done is clearly stated

it is relatively convenient to perform

the pledge is both written and public

the commitment is made freely

the person can choose what he or she is committing to do.

Choice increases commitment and increases the

person's sense of control. For example, people

were more willing to install an automatic

day-night thermostat if it had an override

mechanism (Yates and Aronson, 1983).

Feedback gives people cues about the impacts of

their behavior changesówhat works and what does

not. The more specific it is, the more useful.

Additional contact is also very important in

motivating people to stick with a task, and it

helps to focus attention.

Sometimes feedback is too general to provide

useful information. For example, most utility

bills are not itemized and cannot show the

relative merit of individual conservation

practices. This would be like going shopping when

you know the total cost of all the purchases but

not the price of individual items.

....

Comparative or social feedback appears to be

useful. A large sign was posted alongside an

expressway exit showing the percentage of drivers

who were not speeding on the previous day. The

sign reduced the number of speeding drivers by

more than 50 percent. The same sign without any

information about prior compliance had no effect

(Van Houten et al., 1980).

.....

A few people in a group will typically adopt

innovative ideas and behaviors first and spread

them through the group.

Change agents are respected and have wide-ranging

personal networks. Finding these people (business

owners, neighbors, community leaders) and helping

them adopt a new behavior successfully will help

spread the behavior through a population. These

key people are often referred to as ìearly

adopters.î

....

Behavior modeling is more powerful than providing information.

During the 1930s, the federal government wanted

to help farmers adopt better practices and

equipment. The first attempt to persuade farmers

relied on informational pamphlets. This approach

produced few results. A later attempt took the

form of demonstration projects. Government

consultants worked side by side with farmers on

selected farms. This program was a tremendous

success. The government-trained farmers served as

models for other farmers. When friends and

neighbors saw the results of the new methods

(an improved harvest), the techniques and

equipment spread rapidly (Nisbett et al., 1976).

The King County sewer utility is using a similar

technique to encourage the use of biosolids by

farmers.

The Green Gardening Program sponsors annual tours

of King County gardens grown with little or no

pesticides. Most gardens are at peopleís homes.

The gardeners give hourly tours, talking about

plant choice, how they solved problems, and how

they reduced pesticide and water use. People can

touch the plants, ask the gardeners questions,

and get a concrete sense of alternative gardening

approaches.

....

There is not a simple or direct relationship

between attitudes and actual behavior. Those

attitudes which are most closely related to a

personís basic values are those which are most

likely to be carried into behavior.

For example, while 85 percent of respondents to a

survey saw the energy crisis as serious, there

was no clear relationship between energy-related

attitudes and conservation behavior. In fact,

people who cited conservation as the single most

important strategy for improving our energy

future were no more likely than others to take

energy-conserving actions (Costanzo et al., 1986).

People often respond to incentives by changing

their behavior, but when the reward is removed,

they generally revert to their original behavior.

....

A study of bus ridership tested commitment and

incentives with three groups: commitment only,

incentives only (free bus tickets), and

commitment plus incentives. All three groups had

much higher rates of bus ridership than did the

information-only control group. People in the

commitment-only group rode the bus as often as

those in the two free ticket groups during a

four-week intervention phase and two follow-up

periods. In contrast, only one person in the

control group rode the bus at all (Bachman and

Katzev, 1982).

....Clear, specific, concrete information is remembered best.

For example, imagine a 10-second TV announcement

at 11 p.m. that depicts a lovely rural scene with

a voiceover that says, ìTo preserve our

environment, we must conserve energy.î A better

design would be an announcement at 11 p.m. that

shows a person setting back a thermostat and

says, ìNow that youíre almost ready to go to bed,

please turn your thermostat back to 55 degrees.

Youíll save about 15 percent on your bill by

doing this setback regularlyî (Winett and Ester,

1983).

People respond more seriously to a loss than to a gain.

Researchers found that people would work harder

to keep from losing $100 than to make an

additional $100. The psychological consequences

of the two are very different (Tversky and

Kahneman, 1981).

People who fear loss are more willing to try an

innovation. Focus on showing people or businesses

how much they are losing every month or year by

not doing a specific behavior.

....

People tend to be persuaded more by emotional

messages than logical ones. If messages relate to

something people care about, they may be more

likely to take action.

Advertisements aiming to reduce the use of

pesticides among King County residents have

framed the message in terms of potential health

impacts, especially on children, because market

research has shown that concern about their

childrenís health is a powerful motivator. A bus

advertisement showed a childís hand reaching for

a ball on a lawn, with the caption, ìChild

picking up a) ball, b) pesticides, c) both.î The

radio and bus advertising campaign appears to

have had an impact. People who said they were

very or somewhat likely to use bug or weed

killers on their lawns dropped from 51 percent

before the ad campaign to 38 percent following

the campaign (Northwest Research Group, 1996).

We donít pretend to be experts in behavior

change. We did secondary research, compiled some

key ideas, and are attempting both to apply the

principles in our work in King County and to

share the principles with others who are also

trying to change environmental behavior. We hope

to experiment, learn, and adapt in order to make

our programs as effective as possible. Weíre

always glad to hear different perspectives and

insights. We plan to incorporate our own

experiences and othersí into a future revision of

this report.

December 14, 2008

Hi Greenlightfix (should we call you that?)

I have a slightly more positive view. I believe that if the human race has a future, then that future will eventually lead us into eating a diet which is vegan, with only a few individuals who don't.

I base this on the way that ethics change over history... 3,000 years ago most cultures practiced human sacrifice, and found it a perfectly ordinary thing to do. 2,000 years ago, paedophilia was acceptable in many societies. 500 years ago most cultures engaged in slavery, and found it a perfectly ordinary and acceptable part of society. 200 years ago it was considered perfectly ordinary and acceptable for men to " own " and beat their wives and daughters. 100 years ago, most people thought that dog fighting, cock fighting, bear bating, etc. were perfectly reasonable activities.

Now the " moral majority " find all these things repugnant, and so in the future I firmly believe that those things which a small minority find repugnant now will follow suit. It is highly unlikely to occur in our lifetimes, but I am sure it will happen eventually.

BB

Peter

2008/12/13 greenlightflix <greenlightflix

This of course is hypothetical because the chances of the entire world going vegan in thefuture is impossible. However, if it WAS possible, what do you think would have to happen

NOW?My main concern is how politicians are affected by the beef and dairy and fast foodindustries. How can the world be educated to know that these industries have perpetuatedthe myth that consuming their products will make them healthy?

What types of activities or campaigns do you think have the most affect in turning peopleaway from consuming and wearing animals? (slaughterhouse footage? Education aboutveganism? Education about the environment? Celebrity and other endorsements? Anything

else?)And what do you think the future would be like if everyone was vegan?What would happen to all the restaurants (fast food and other?)What would happen to the economy? What industries would disappear and which would

flourish?What would happen to the hunting industry?What about the fashion industry?Zoos? Circuses? Vivisection?What about all the people who are now employed in the business of animal slaughter?

(not just slaughterhouse employees, but truck drivers, etc)What will happen to the crime rates? Will they go down? (would people be less aggressiveif they did not eat meat?)Do you think religious / spiritual people will feel more in tune with their god or goddess

or gods because they are finally not taking part in anything that kills another living being?What do you think would happen to the health industry once people aren't getting sickand dying from consuming all the meat and dairy?

How else would the world be affected in POSITIVE ways?---To send an email to -! Groups Links<*>

/<*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional<*> To change settings online go to:

/join ( ID required)<*> To change settings via email: -digest

-fullfeatured <*>

December 15, 2008

At 7:03 PM +0000 12/13/08, greenlightflix wrote:

>My main concern is how politicians are affected by the beef and

>dairy and fast food

>industries. How can the world be educated to know that these

>industries have perpetuated

>the myth that consuming their products will make them healthy?

First step is take the " food pyramid " and govt-sponsored food and

nutrition propaganda out of the reach of big agribiz (Dept. of Ag.)

and move it to a dept. that's focused on health and nutrition

(probably create a new cabinet-level dept., or maybe HHS).

December 15, 2008

For option 1, add the cost of hospitalization after MI or stroke,

recuperation, lowered quality of life, etc. For option 2, add all the

fun activities you can do when you can remain active until you finally

keel over from old old old age. Or have a realistic " fixed

income " budget for vegans and non, where most of the non budget

goes for Rx and medical help, and most of the vegan budget goes for a

variety of things that make life interesting.

By the way, it's not only " older folks " who have a

problem with cholesterol. Elevated levels are showing up at younger

ages, to the extent that somewhere I read a proposal to add statins to

tap water!!

Twenty years ago, a cousin's wife died of a massive heart attack

(while in the car with her 15 year old) at age 45. That's barely

middle age.

At 6:43 PM -0800 12/13/08, <nina92116

wrote:

For older folks we could do an ad that says:

Prescription

anti cholesterol medication & a meat based diet:

$140 per month for

meat, $120 per month for other foods, $250 per month for

medication,

Total cholesterol

320

Plant based diet &

no anti cholesterol medication:

$80 per month for

vegetables, $40 per month for beans & other dry goods

Total cholesterol

164

Your Choice

December 15, 2008

Why for older folks?

Jo

, <nina92116 wrote:

>

> For older folks we could do an ad that says:

>

> Prescription anti cholesterol medication & a meat based

diet:

> $140 per month for meat, $120 per month for other foods,

$250 per month for medication,

> Total cholesterol 320

> Plant based diet & no anti cholesterol medication:

> $80 per month for vegetables, $40 per month for beans &

other dry goods

> Total cholesterol 164

> Your Choice

>

Getting them to taste the food without being biased by

preconceptions

> (all vegans are...).

>

> Making vegan food the most readily available, safest, most

> economical, and coolest type of food.

>

> Making nonvegan foodlike substances uncool, hard to get, of

> questionable safety, expensive, etc.

>

> (Oh, wait, vegan food already is safer and cheaper, and making

> nonvegan foodlike substances pricey and rare might make them more

> desirable.)

>

> .

>

December 15, 2008