Volume IV · The Debate on Animal Exploitation · chapter 13
But Does Veganism Really Have a Practical Impact?
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Veganism has a practical impact: even without eliminating every contribution to exploitation, each person reduces demand, and the growth of exploitation doesn't show a lack of impact, only that it must be compared with what would happen without vegans.
Sometimes it seems like one person alone can't change anything. But over a lifetime, each person who stops eating animals keeps many of them from being born to suffer. Small choices added together make a big difference.
One drop doesn't fill a bucket, but buckets fill drop by drop. And if the bucket fills anyway because of a bigger faucet, the drops still reduce how much it overflows.
- P1 The impact of veganism should be measured by comparison with what would happen without it.
- P2 Each vegan reduces demand for animal products over their lifetime.
- P3 Less demand means fewer animals raised and killed.
- C Therefore, veganism has a practical impact, and not a small one.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “It's pointless, the industry just keeps growing.”
Answer It would grow even more without vegans. The right comparison is with the scenario without them, not with the past.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume IV, p. 59 of the PDF edition · English translation
In the world we live in, it is almost impossible to eliminate our contribution to entirely, since almost all products and services involve animal exploitation to some degree.
In addition, the techniques used to plant and harvest crops and to transport plant goods also kill small animals accidentally (and even intentionally, as in the extermination of animals that eat the crops).
These observations are an important reminder that we should try to do something to reduce the deaths that the production of plant foods also causes to animals. However, they are not a good reason to reject , since the fact that we cannot avoid all harm does not justify our failing to avoid as much as we can.
The aim is to avoid harming as many animals as possible, even if we cannot avoid harming all of them. Even if veganism enabled us to prevent the death of just a single animal, it would still be worth it. Moreover, in reality, the practice of veganism prevents a large number of animals from being born only to suffer and be killed. We will see this in more detail below.
Some people have the impression that veganism has no practical impact because they notice that, despite the increase in the number of vegans in recent decades, there has also been an increase in the number of animals exploited. However, this does not show that veganism has no practical impact. What we need to do to assess the practical impact of veganism is not to compare the number of animals exploited today with the number exploited in past decades, but to imagine what the world would be like today if every person who is vegan were not. Remember that, if the number of vegans were smaller, the number of animals killed today would be even greater than it already is. Below we will look at some estimates of the practical impact of veganism.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that 2 trillion vertebrates are killed for consumption each year (the actual number is probably higher148). Given that the human population is approximately 8 billion people, this amounts to an average of 250 vertebrate animals killed per person per year. Given the average human life expectancy (75 years), practicing veganism would mean that each person would prevent, over their lifetime, at least 18,000 vertebrates from being born to meet this fate.
The calculation above concerns only vertebrates. If we include invertebrates, we find that the number of animals killed in animal exploitation each year is far greater: between 34 and 54 trillion individuals149. This amounts to an average of 4,250 to 6,750 animals killed per person per year. Given an average human life expectancy of 75 years, each vegan would prevent, over their lifetime, somewhere between 318,000 and 506,000 animals from being born to meet this fate.
Thus, veganism certainly has a practical impact. And, as we have seen, this impact is not small.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
According to the chapter, how should we assess the practical impact of veganism?
Is it possible to completely eliminate one's contribution to animal exploitation today?
Food for thought
What other collective efforts depend on many small individual choices in order to work?
Author’s notes 2
- 148 For statistics on the exploitation of aquatic vertebrates, see (2019). For statistics on the exploitation of land vertebrates, see Our world in data (2018) and Sanders (2018). ↩
- 149 For statistics on the exploitation of land invertebrates, see Schukraft (2019) and Rowe (2020a, 2020b, 2021). For statistics on the exploitation of aquatic invertebrates, see Waldhorn; Altric (2023); Fishcount (2019). ↩
Sources cited in this text 7
The full list for the volume is in the Volume IV references.
- FISHCOUNT. Fishcount estimates of numbers of individuals killed in (FAO) reported fishery production. Fishcount: Reducing suffering in fisheries, 2019.
- ROWE, A. Global cochineal production: scale, welfare concerns, and potential interventions. Effective altruism forum, 11 fev. 2020a.
- ROWE, A. Insects raised for food and feed — global scale, practices, and policy. Rethink priorities, 29 jun. 2020b.
- ROWE, A. Silk production: global scale and animal welfare issues. Rethink priorities, 19 abr. 2021.
- SANDERS, B. Global Animal Slaughter Statistics And Charts. Faunalytics, 10 out. 2018.
- SCHUKRAFT, J. Managed honey bee welfare: problems and potential interventions. Rethink priorities, 14 nov. 2019.
- WALDHORN, D. AUTRIC, E. Shrimp: The animals most commonly used and killed for food production. Rethink Priorities, 11 ago. 2023.
Recommended texts
Keep exploring The Debate on Animal Exploitation.
But Doesn't Veganism Cause Even More Deaths Than Consuming Animals?
The claim that veganism kills more animals through agriculture has no evidence behind it and ignores that…
Does Concern for Species Justify Consuming Animals?
The idea that eating animals preserves domesticated species assumes that species matter in themselves,…
The Claim That the Struggle for Animals Should Be Put Off Until Later
“Humans first, animals later” fails: each person makes a difference to the animals affected, there's no…