Watch out for biases
If we want to help animals in the best way, we can't accept or reject a strategy just because we liked it at first. The author mentions two biases:
- confirmation bias: we pay attention to what confirms what we already think and ignore the rest;
- "take the best" heuristic: we choose quickly based on a single point, without looking at all the information.
For example, many people think that pointing out one benefit of the strategy they like already proves it's the best. That leads to bad decisions.
Strategy or goal?
The debate "focus on veganism or on reducing consumption?" is often seen as a clash of goals: as if people who talk about veganism wanted to abolish exploitation, and people who talk about reducing only wanted fewer "excesses."
The author shows that, often, both sides have the same goal (ending exploitation) and only disagree about which path works better.
Arguments on both sides
- For reducing: asking for something smaller can convince more people, and lots of people cutting back might spare more animals than a few people going vegan.
- For veganism: it makes clear that exploitation is unjust, sets a more stable standard, and keeps people from thinking "a little" is fine.
The conclusion
Deciding which strategy works better means carefully analyzing the effects of each, ideally with data, and not just with gut feelings.
In short
- We should judge strategies by their effects, not by personal taste.
- Veganism and reduction often share the same goal.
- Both sides have arguments that need to be weighed.