What do you think?
Rate this book
Human-Animal Studies #23
How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach
In this thought-provoking book, Tobias Leenaert leaves well-trodden animal advocacy paths and takes a fresh look at the strategies, objectives, and communication of the vegan and animal rights movement. He argues that, given our present situation, with entire societies dependent on using animals, we need a very pragmatic approach. How to Create a Vegan World contains many valuable ideas and insights for both budding advocates for animals and seasoned activists, organizational leaders, and even entrepreneurs.
215 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 1, 2017
165 people are currently reading
3682 people want to read
About the author
Tobias Leenaert
3 books161 followersTobias Leenaert is the author of How to Create a Vegan World: a Pragmatic Approach (published in 12 languages) and blogs at www.veganstrategist.org. He is a longtime speaker and strategist, giving talks and trainings all over the world. He is also co-founder of ProVeg International and was previously director of Proveg Belgium for fifteen years. Tobias is keen on thinking out of the box, building bridges between different groups, and practicing what he calls "slow opinion".
He is currently working on his first novel.
He is currently working on his first novel.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews
June 19, 2017
I'm the publisher of this book, so I thought I'd say a few words about why I decided to publish it. I'm a vegan of more than two decades and my publishing company, Lantern Books, reflects many different approaches to nonviolence—including that of treating animals well and no longer consuming them. Given that vegans remain a very small percentage of the U.S. population, it's clear that veganism is either undesirable, too difficult, or impossible to imagine for the vast majority of folks, no matter how much they may wish (or say they wish) to not harm animals. So, as a vegan, a reader, and a publisher, I'm always open to new approaches.
Tobias' book is a very refreshing and, to my mind, convincing case for vegans to climb down from our lofty perches and start being very hard-headed about how change happens and how people can be moved in the direction of veganism. His fundamental message is that we need to stop harping on identity and emphasize actions; we need to stop setting impossible goals and move toward practical, achievable steps; and we need to recognize that encouraging people to change will take a great deal of support, flexibility, and creativity, and less judgmentalism, rigidity, and absolutism. It's a challenging message for many vegans to hear, and I don't agree with everything Tobias says. But I'm very, very glad he said it; and I'm delighted to be his publisher.
Tobias' book is a very refreshing and, to my mind, convincing case for vegans to climb down from our lofty perches and start being very hard-headed about how change happens and how people can be moved in the direction of veganism. His fundamental message is that we need to stop harping on identity and emphasize actions; we need to stop setting impossible goals and move toward practical, achievable steps; and we need to recognize that encouraging people to change will take a great deal of support, flexibility, and creativity, and less judgmentalism, rigidity, and absolutism. It's a challenging message for many vegans to hear, and I don't agree with everything Tobias says. But I'm very, very glad he said it; and I'm delighted to be his publisher.
June 25, 2017
How to Create a Vegan World is the best, most comprehensive and immediately practiceable book I have read on the topic of vegan advocacy so far.
Tobias Leenaert recognizes that creating a vegan world is a momentuous task, different from anything else undertaken before by social movements, and that achieving it amounts to much more than the combined effort of convincing 7.6 billion individuals to go vegan. The good news he brings is that it may actually require much LESS effort, if and only if we get our movement to be more strategic. The roadmap he sketches to achieve vegan critical mass, enlightened by the helpful metaphor of climbing mount vegan, is clear and can inspire many novel ways of campaigning, as well as ways to improve the effectiveness of current campaigns.
I especially liked the chapter on Environments. It shows the many great opportunities that are still waiting to be realized when we change focus from getting individuals to adopt the vegan identity to making gradual changes on a societal and institutional level towards a more vegan world.
Tobias' writings have for years been an inspiration for the vegan advocacy work of Viva Las Vega's in The Netherlands. Reading this book has reinvigorated my commitment to being as effective and strategic an activist as possible. I am very happy that this book will now be available to vegan activists around the globe to read and cannot wait to share it with my colleagues.
Tobias Leenaert recognizes that creating a vegan world is a momentuous task, different from anything else undertaken before by social movements, and that achieving it amounts to much more than the combined effort of convincing 7.6 billion individuals to go vegan. The good news he brings is that it may actually require much LESS effort, if and only if we get our movement to be more strategic. The roadmap he sketches to achieve vegan critical mass, enlightened by the helpful metaphor of climbing mount vegan, is clear and can inspire many novel ways of campaigning, as well as ways to improve the effectiveness of current campaigns.
I especially liked the chapter on Environments. It shows the many great opportunities that are still waiting to be realized when we change focus from getting individuals to adopt the vegan identity to making gradual changes on a societal and institutional level towards a more vegan world.
Tobias' writings have for years been an inspiration for the vegan advocacy work of Viva Las Vega's in The Netherlands. Reading this book has reinvigorated my commitment to being as effective and strategic an activist as possible. I am very happy that this book will now be available to vegan activists around the globe to read and cannot wait to share it with my colleagues.
April 12, 2019
Frustrating and problematic book, in that the "world" the author wants to work towards will only be "vegan" (i.e., free of animal use) to the extent readers don't go along with his suggestion that they shouldn't argue for an end to all animal use. Leenaert is a long-time supposed vegan,* whose main interest is in 'growing the vegan movement' -- i.e., on getting more people to self-identify as 'vegan', because of the consequences he thinks that will have for animal use -- and who argues for a redefinition of veganism to allow people to call themselves vegan so long as they "mostly" (whatever that means) avoid using animals and animal products.
While this is partly understandable -- lack of exposure is veganism's Achilles' heel -- it is also both morally problematic -- veganism isn't primarily about ego considerations such as group membership / 'being allowed to call yourself X', but about the choice not to treat animals as things/property -- and unnecessary, given that veganism is now (finally) entering the mainstream. As such, I find the popularity and spread of these ideas (both via this book, and the workshops he organizes with Melanie Joy) quite worrisome and frustrating.
That said, because the bar is basically lying on the ground when it comes to this category of book, a lot of the practical suggestions Leenaert makes about how to behave will probably be helpful to most vegans. And a lot of the points he makes about problematic advocacy are good, though Leenaert refuses to point out that the main parties encouraging such behavior are the corporate charities, ranging from HSUS to PETA to dXe, all of whom engage in useless single issue and welfare reform campaigns (which form a great business model, because they won't stop animal use), and basically none of whom encourages its activists to become better advocates by learning to explain their reasons for being vegans, and for why their interlocutors should consider veganism (as opposed to "decreasing your meat consumption" and what have you). For more on that, see Francione and Charlton's Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach and ADVOCATE FOR ANIMALS!: An Abolitionist Vegan Handbook).
* I say supposed because he frequently intimates that he doesn't consider consistency a requirement for 'being' a vegan, who isn't clear whether he himself consistently refuses to use animal products, and who encourages readers who do consistently eschew animal use, to hate themselves for doing so, by repeatedly suggesting that their actions are "ineffective" and/or "bad for animals", by suggesting that such "rigidity" will "turn away" non-vegans, as though those are relevant considerations when it comes to morality. (Analogous to telling off human slavery abolitionists for refusing to us humans as slaves out of a worry that slave owners will find their behavior obnoxious; which only makes sense if you believe that avoiding that people dislike your actions is more important than not treating others as your property.)
While this is partly understandable -- lack of exposure is veganism's Achilles' heel -- it is also both morally problematic -- veganism isn't primarily about ego considerations such as group membership / 'being allowed to call yourself X', but about the choice not to treat animals as things/property -- and unnecessary, given that veganism is now (finally) entering the mainstream. As such, I find the popularity and spread of these ideas (both via this book, and the workshops he organizes with Melanie Joy) quite worrisome and frustrating.
That said, because the bar is basically lying on the ground when it comes to this category of book, a lot of the practical suggestions Leenaert makes about how to behave will probably be helpful to most vegans. And a lot of the points he makes about problematic advocacy are good, though Leenaert refuses to point out that the main parties encouraging such behavior are the corporate charities, ranging from HSUS to PETA to dXe, all of whom engage in useless single issue and welfare reform campaigns (which form a great business model, because they won't stop animal use), and basically none of whom encourages its activists to become better advocates by learning to explain their reasons for being vegans, and for why their interlocutors should consider veganism (as opposed to "decreasing your meat consumption" and what have you). For more on that, see Francione and Charlton's Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach and ADVOCATE FOR ANIMALS!: An Abolitionist Vegan Handbook).
* I say supposed because he frequently intimates that he doesn't consider consistency a requirement for 'being' a vegan, who isn't clear whether he himself consistently refuses to use animal products, and who encourages readers who do consistently eschew animal use, to hate themselves for doing so, by repeatedly suggesting that their actions are "ineffective" and/or "bad for animals", by suggesting that such "rigidity" will "turn away" non-vegans, as though those are relevant considerations when it comes to morality. (Analogous to telling off human slavery abolitionists for refusing to us humans as slaves out of a worry that slave owners will find their behavior obnoxious; which only makes sense if you believe that avoiding that people dislike your actions is more important than not treating others as your property.)
September 30, 2017
A great book on how (and why) not to be that preachy asshole vegan that everyone hates.
August 14, 2018
This book was really easy to read and follow, but most importantly it made me realize what I was doing wrong in my day-to-day activism (although I though that I am already effective at communicating). "Spoiler": it's about our personal perception of what our goal actually is and what's the best way to get there. I feel like a huge weight was lifted off me and I believe this book helped me to become not just a better activist, but to have a more sustainable future as an activist.
September 5, 2017
For me personally, the chapter about the Superlocavore was an eye-opener. This has made me more understanding of omnivores.
January 16, 2019
Like no other (recent) book on veganism, How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach by Tobias Leenaert will without a doubt spark many discussions and debates. Lots of us (vegans and animal rights advocates) will find ourselves challenged to question our way of thinking, living, and acting.
I might not fully agree with the author about everything said in this provoking and insightful book, but I do agree that we need to spread the circle of our compassion to everyone, both animals and humans alike. Not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it is the fastest way to the liberation and freedom for all of us.
Being a pragmatic idealist might therefore be the most effective way to a kinder, more compassionate and just world we all wish to see and live in.
BJ
www.bernardjan.com
Bernard Jan
I might not fully agree with the author about everything said in this provoking and insightful book, but I do agree that we need to spread the circle of our compassion to everyone, both animals and humans alike. Not only because it is the right thing to do but also because it is the fastest way to the liberation and freedom for all of us.
Being a pragmatic idealist might therefore be the most effective way to a kinder, more compassionate and just world we all wish to see and live in.
BJ
www.bernardjan.com
Bernard Jan
December 13, 2018
Second read, 12.2018, 5/5
I enjoyed How to Create a Vegan World a lot earlier this year, but kept thinking that it could be even more beneficial if read and discussed with fellow vegan activists. That's why I decided to host a book club in the animal rights organization I volunteer at, which was a brilliant idea! I did indeed get much more out of it, we came up with new ideas next year, were able to share our experiences and simply have marvelous discussions. This was also my first time hosting a book club and I think it went really well. Something I definitely want to do more of in the future!
First read, 5.2018, 4/5
How to Create a Vegan World is helpful and informative guide to any vegan advocate. I felt like many of the ideas were already known to me, but I’ve never thought about them pragmatically. And pragmatical this book indeed is, as the title promises. It also has illustrative graphics and examples, plus the whole metaphor about ‘Veganville’ is excellent. Tobias Leenaert gave me inspiration to do more. And to do better.
I enjoyed How to Create a Vegan World a lot earlier this year, but kept thinking that it could be even more beneficial if read and discussed with fellow vegan activists. That's why I decided to host a book club in the animal rights organization I volunteer at, which was a brilliant idea! I did indeed get much more out of it, we came up with new ideas next year, were able to share our experiences and simply have marvelous discussions. This was also my first time hosting a book club and I think it went really well. Something I definitely want to do more of in the future!
First read, 5.2018, 4/5
How to Create a Vegan World is helpful and informative guide to any vegan advocate. I felt like many of the ideas were already known to me, but I’ve never thought about them pragmatically. And pragmatical this book indeed is, as the title promises. It also has illustrative graphics and examples, plus the whole metaphor about ‘Veganville’ is excellent. Tobias Leenaert gave me inspiration to do more. And to do better.
June 28, 2021
Apparently I'm in the minority on this book... I found it frustrating. The author seemed hung up on labels, and dedicated a lot of real estate to explaining some really basic concepts, like "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar" and "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" but then proceeded to not follow that advice very well.
There are a lot of reasons to go vegan, and they all have value. That he was unable to see the morality in health and environmental reasons for veganism, was a missed opportunity. And to argue they're specifically non-moral felt arrogant and misguided. Let’s maybe stop trying to draw all of these lines between the many reasons to go vegan, ranking them, or even disparaging them, and instead embrace them all. That’s ultimately going to be the path.
I’m all for a vegan world. I would sadly not recommend this book though, as a way to get there.
There are a lot of reasons to go vegan, and they all have value. That he was unable to see the morality in health and environmental reasons for veganism, was a missed opportunity. And to argue they're specifically non-moral felt arrogant and misguided. Let’s maybe stop trying to draw all of these lines between the many reasons to go vegan, ranking them, or even disparaging them, and instead embrace them all. That’s ultimately going to be the path.
I’m all for a vegan world. I would sadly not recommend this book though, as a way to get there.
August 17, 2017
This book offers a refreshing view on veganism. It doesn't focus only on the vegan message, but mainly on how to spread this message without moralizing and keeping in mind that you are not your public. It was interesting to get an insight in the psychological explanation of possible reactions of meat-eaters to this message in order to understand them better and start a more open conversation. For me, a vegan at home, it was inspiring to find more arguments (based on data and research) for a more flexible view on veganism, so we can have a bigger impact with more people, with the main goal to arrive with a big group of likeminded people in Veganville in a few years. In order to change the world, we will have to talk and listen to each other, and that's two way traffic. Leenaert focuses for me in this way on a very important, often overlooked, part of the go vegan message.
July 16, 2018
Labai racionaliai ir nuosekliai parašyta knyga. Must-read kiekvienam vegetarui/veganui/reducetarui, kuriam rūpi ne tik jo asmeninis teisumas ir purizmas, bet ir tai, kaip vertėtų pristatyti bei atstovauti savo pažiūras kitiems.
January 15, 2021
Easily the best go-to practical guide for people who agree that a vegan world is something society should strive for. Glad I was able to move it up on the list before the author comes to speak to the Kansas City Effective Altruism group next weekend :D
September 2, 2021
Absolutely brilliant pragmatic approach to animal rights movement and climate activism! The main idea is to give the vegan movement an approach where it matters more to make a large-scale change by having the most people moving into the "vegan world" and focus less on veganism as an identity. So, if someone says "I could go vegan but I just don't want to stop eating cheese" then the answer is, "Go vegan in all other aspects and keep eating cheese then". This of course can mean that the idea of veganism is then devalued and becomes a term that doesn't mean anything. Vegan food would become more available in general but it might happen that if you ask for a vegan dish at a restaurant then they are more likely to still add cheese or milk etc in it because the last time they had a vegan there, they happily ate cowmilk-based cheese. The author addresses this type of issues between pragmatism and idealism in a graceful way - I can easily imagine these being heated arguments, but he reasons through them with such respect for both sides.
My biggest take-aways are that this is a great book for anyone to read that wants to make a change, whether it is about the world going vegan or any other cause, as he gives wonderful messages about how to talk to people in a way that makes sense. And secondly, he drives home the point that when people go on a vegan diet for reasons related to health (and other non-morale based reasons that I cannot think of right now), then they might eventually switch back to eating animal products again. But when people stay vegan, it is because they get more reasons over time to stay vegan, and specifically doing it for moral reasons is what helps make it stick the best. This also means that we can have a large part of the world go vegan for reasons like saving the climate or vegan food becomes cheaper and tastes better, but the change is unlikely to happen because people start having moral considerations about animals to the extent of changing the status quo. A vegan world is possible, just not in the way that would be ideal or in a way where it rests on the best aspects of humanity. But that's why this book really slaps - it takes the pragmatic approach to help get things done :)
My biggest take-aways are that this is a great book for anyone to read that wants to make a change, whether it is about the world going vegan or any other cause, as he gives wonderful messages about how to talk to people in a way that makes sense. And secondly, he drives home the point that when people go on a vegan diet for reasons related to health (and other non-morale based reasons that I cannot think of right now), then they might eventually switch back to eating animal products again. But when people stay vegan, it is because they get more reasons over time to stay vegan, and specifically doing it for moral reasons is what helps make it stick the best. This also means that we can have a large part of the world go vegan for reasons like saving the climate or vegan food becomes cheaper and tastes better, but the change is unlikely to happen because people start having moral considerations about animals to the extent of changing the status quo. A vegan world is possible, just not in the way that would be ideal or in a way where it rests on the best aspects of humanity. But that's why this book really slaps - it takes the pragmatic approach to help get things done :)
April 9, 2024
The author believes in animal liberation, but considers the right methods to achieve it at this point in time when vegans still don’t have mainstream recognition. He suggests that we need to be more strategic (manipulative) in order to spread the right message because most people don’t succumb to correct messages, but marketing strategies (manipulation). Most people aren’t moral and don’t want the truth is what he observed from slavery as slavery laws had to be reenacted gradually.
The author raises some interesting points, like he believes that if people change their behaviour, they can later change their whole ethics or be more susceptible to change it more. That means that there might be moments when people making small changes might mean that animal liberation happens sooner. He considers letting people become vegan for other reasons in order to spread veganism further and for it to be more in the public spheres.
This book being targeted towards vegans sure doesn’t seek to empower them, to understand them or to validate their efforts, but more so to criticise them and validate the ones who would insult vegans on a regular basis. On a large part I get it and we do need some dose of criticism, but this is leaning more towards apologising to meat eaters and it doesn’t validate the perspective of the existing ethical vegans enough. Also it’s quite literally advocating to play into capitalism and dishonesty, looking down on people and not having faith in them.
He states that young people, intellectuals and students are more likely to be pursued by ethical messages and I agree on that. They are less likely to be indoctrinated and can be more open minded, kind and smart.
It is a bit difficult to form an opinion on such a work for me because it goes like “I love vegans and all the methods, but also look at this method I have which most vegans do not consider and also maybe those other vegans are a bit too vain to think of all the reasons people eat meat.” It leaves me with confusion.
Why is it not about empowerment if you like all vegans? Why can’t all the strategies listed in the book be separated from what you don’t like about ethical vegans? Are your goals really the same if you hold your methods as most appropriate now and dismiss the methods of others as methods that can only be used late game in the vegan movement?
Also if the vegan movement is incomparable with other social injustices then why should these methods be used? Maybe the vegan movement needs more focus on the morals then? It’s not like we have a vegan world so who knows? (I believe author wrote something like this at one point, but against the ethical vegans)
The author frames veganism methods in an idealism vs pragmatism spectrum and wants a balance between them depending on the situation. It’s similar to welfarism vs abolitionism. There’s some validity to it and technically he argues for balance and appropriate situations, but again it seems that he dismisses the urgency from the ethical vegans perspective and how their activism works. He just assumed that it doesn’t and that it is wrong to shock and to surprise other people in order to get them to think.
Actually the more I write this review the more I seem to dislike this message, first I thought four stars then three and now I am willing to give two. I won’t give one because at least it’s about the vegan message and I doubt the intentions are bad. Like this raises discussion and references some great thinkers, but there are way better books than this and this could have been worded and written better. Do we want to focus on all this and how to appease the non vegan world, call our safe spaces islands and dismiss our own efforts? Thanks, no.
When a person advocates for half-truths and strategic persuasion (manipulation), I suppose his work and books and writing style starts to contain it and it becomes hard to determine the real arguments being made.
The author raises some interesting points, like he believes that if people change their behaviour, they can later change their whole ethics or be more susceptible to change it more. That means that there might be moments when people making small changes might mean that animal liberation happens sooner. He considers letting people become vegan for other reasons in order to spread veganism further and for it to be more in the public spheres.
This book being targeted towards vegans sure doesn’t seek to empower them, to understand them or to validate their efforts, but more so to criticise them and validate the ones who would insult vegans on a regular basis. On a large part I get it and we do need some dose of criticism, but this is leaning more towards apologising to meat eaters and it doesn’t validate the perspective of the existing ethical vegans enough. Also it’s quite literally advocating to play into capitalism and dishonesty, looking down on people and not having faith in them.
He states that young people, intellectuals and students are more likely to be pursued by ethical messages and I agree on that. They are less likely to be indoctrinated and can be more open minded, kind and smart.
It is a bit difficult to form an opinion on such a work for me because it goes like “I love vegans and all the methods, but also look at this method I have which most vegans do not consider and also maybe those other vegans are a bit too vain to think of all the reasons people eat meat.” It leaves me with confusion.
Why is it not about empowerment if you like all vegans? Why can’t all the strategies listed in the book be separated from what you don’t like about ethical vegans? Are your goals really the same if you hold your methods as most appropriate now and dismiss the methods of others as methods that can only be used late game in the vegan movement?
Also if the vegan movement is incomparable with other social injustices then why should these methods be used? Maybe the vegan movement needs more focus on the morals then? It’s not like we have a vegan world so who knows? (I believe author wrote something like this at one point, but against the ethical vegans)
The author frames veganism methods in an idealism vs pragmatism spectrum and wants a balance between them depending on the situation. It’s similar to welfarism vs abolitionism. There’s some validity to it and technically he argues for balance and appropriate situations, but again it seems that he dismisses the urgency from the ethical vegans perspective and how their activism works. He just assumed that it doesn’t and that it is wrong to shock and to surprise other people in order to get them to think.
Actually the more I write this review the more I seem to dislike this message, first I thought four stars then three and now I am willing to give two. I won’t give one because at least it’s about the vegan message and I doubt the intentions are bad. Like this raises discussion and references some great thinkers, but there are way better books than this and this could have been worded and written better. Do we want to focus on all this and how to appease the non vegan world, call our safe spaces islands and dismiss our own efforts? Thanks, no.
When a person advocates for half-truths and strategic persuasion (manipulation), I suppose his work and books and writing style starts to contain it and it becomes hard to determine the real arguments being made.
July 26, 2017
In Animal Allies (an organisation I volunteer with), our volunteers have 6 essential agreements, the first being: “We focus on research-based, effective activism to save the most animals possible.” As a result, Tobias’ work on his blog The Vegan Strategist has been of immense use to us several times. With the extra space afforded in a book format, Leenaert is able to present a macroscopic view of effective vegan activism and develop a narrative through an analogy he developed: Veganville (a town on the top of a mountain. The result is a book that is accessible to all and very practical. It begins with a snapshot of the movement at this point in time by contextualizing where our movement is in terms of adoption and how that must affect our strategies. This highlights the pragmatic approach - while one argument/method may be morally right, it may not be effective until veganism is much more mainstream and accepted. It then explores what our call to action should be and what arguments we should be making. It finishes up with how we can support people on their journey to Veganville as well as improving retention once they are there. Creating a Vegan World excels at concisely articulating the overall approaches we should be taking to be effective at reducing harm. Leenhaert logically explores arguments and counterarguments in approaches and justifying the various conclusions he makes. The result is a book that any new vegan, or any vegan organisation, can read as a general manifesto for how to become stronger advocates for animals. It is also a perfect companion to Veganomics as this book focuses on how to turn the data into action.
August 1, 2017
This book is really different from most that I've read on this topic, and has led me to examine things from a new perspective. The "you are not your audience" point is an especially critical one to keep in mind, I think—not only in animal advocacy but also in so many areas of life. The pragmatic approach the author proposes makes sense and I can see how it could lead to less frustration and burnout while facilitating faster progress for the cause. Highly recommended!
February 16, 2026
It’s easy to be a philosopher and say true things about the rights of animals. It’s much harder to get your hands dirty and do the right things at the right time truly to make a difference. That’s the art of high-impact advocacy.
In the West, most people more or less realise that eating meat is not a neutral act. Still, a public debate on the subject is largely absent. In How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach (2017), animal rights activist Tobias Leenaert (b. 1973) analyses why this is so. He observes that the animal rights movement focuses on changing attitudes: why should people stop eating animals? As a result, discussions are often steeped in moralism, chasing away not only ‘steakholders’ but – more worryingly – also those who support the cause yet cannot adhere to strict rules. Instead, Leenaert proposes a more constructive way of advancing the public debate. His arguments may rehearse a few truisms, but they allow activists to understand why so many of their efforts amount to little more than cries in the desert. The lessons extend well beyond veganism, too.
Inner compass
Less concerned with why people shouldn’t eat meat, Leenaert takes for granted an ‘inner compass’ pointing towards a world in which animals are no longer made to suffer or killed wantonly, and in which nearly all animal use is abolished. He concentrates on eating animals, since this lies at the heart of animal suffering and is a central priority of the movement. Food also has a strong social dimension, which helps explain why it provokes such concern.
The four Ns
While the author shares his fellow activists’ ultimate goal, his strategy differs. Recognising that impact is not about being right or winning an argument, he contends that the time is not yet ripe for dogmatism or finger-pointing. There are simply too many obstacles in the way. Society, for one, is ‘powered by animals’: our economies depend on them. Eating animals also remains the norm, sustained by the four Ns of justification – normal, natural, necessary, and nice. (On the last, Leenaert adds a spoiler: it’s the fat, the aromas, and the umami taste.) Becoming vegan or vegetarian means standing out from the crowd and one’s family and friends. The label ‘vegan’ puts many people off and excludes those whose support is needed. (Another spoiler: meat-reducers far outnumber vegans and vegetarians, making ‘flexitarians’ key to real change.)
It’s not about you
There are many further reasons to adopt a more pragmatic approach. In the short run, bending or suspending a principle or two will likely allow for a tipping point more quickly. What I particularly liked about the book is the way Leenaert combines a communicative and a political perspective in his strategy without losing sight of ‘what works’. One take-away I appreciated is his focus on reaching out to others (‘it’s not about you’) who will think differently about the subject (false-consensus bias). Another important aspect is the fundamental place of food in our societies.
Anthropocentric world
It’s been nine years since How to Create a Vegan World was published, and seventeen since Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals . The public debate about eating animals has proved resilient and difficult to move forward, even if activists adopt a pragmatic approach. As Leenaert points out, the anti-speciesist cause is unique in that its victims cannot revolt – Animal Farm remains the realm of fiction. In an anthropocentric world that depends on animals, meaningful change seems unlikely any time soon. However, as was the case with other societal issues – the author mainly refers to abolitionism – unforeseen events may open up strategic opportunities. Who knows, even environmentalism might lead to new kinds of farming, as George Monbiot argues in Regenesis: Feeding the World Without Devouring the Planet .
Although I didn’t necessarily learn anything new – I work in a different field, where pragmatic approaches are much more common – I appreciated Leenaert’s work. A fun thing about this topic is that it prompts reflection on something as ordinary and omnipresent as food. I look forward to reading James Bridle’s Ways of Being: Animals, Plants, Machines: The Search for a Planetary Intelligence next.
October 26, 2022
ay bu nasıl refahçılık aman tanrım didim
June 13, 2024
Verfrissend boek over veganisme en de dierenrechtenbeweging. Leenaert kiest voor pragmatisch activisme voor een veganistische wereld en legt in dit boek uit waarom en hoe.
“De vraag is niet: ‘Heb ik gelijk?’ noch ‘Is dit mijn waarheid?’ maar ‘Werkt dit?’”
Aantekeningen voor mezelf gemaakt. Eén grote spoiler.
Mijn verhaal lijkt in een specifiek punt op dat van Leenaert, namelijk dat ik mij ergens (vrij ver) in het veganistische spectrum bevind, en dat ik daar naartoe ben gegroeid en misschien nog steeds aan het groeien ben. Ik noem het expres een ‘spectrum’ omdat veganisme voor diverse mensen diverse betekenissen heeft. Leenaerts benoemt bijvoorbeeld dat het begrip bij veel mensen antipathie oproept vanwege associaties met radicaal moralisme en mogelijk omdat veel mensen in hun hart best wel weten dat vleesproductie niet deugt. Voor mij geldt ook nog dat ik me nooit veganist noem omdat ik mensen ken die vinden dat je dan ook andere levensovertuigingen hebben die van hen een uitsluitende groep maken: als je niet in die hoek zit, dan hoor je er niet bij - en ik wil niet bij zo’n uitsluitende groep behoren. Ik voel me niet thuis bij veganisme als een ‘totale levensstijl’ die ook radicale overtuigingen heeft over genderinclusie, racisme, kolonialisme, oude standbeelden in steden, fossiele subsidies, het kapitalisme, het patriarchaat, etc etc enfin u begrijp wat ik bedoel. Leenaerts ziet dit ook en stelt dat exclusief veganisme de ‘goede zaak’ kwaad berokkent. Hij pleit voor inclusief veganisme, voor vormen van activisme die mensen niet uitsluit maar juist omarmt. Daarnaast is hij een pragmaticus in de zin dat iemand die opschuift richting veganisme goed bezig is, en hij legt overtuigend uit waarom. Waarover later meer.
Goede en slechte veganisten
Volgens Leenaerts wil de harde kern van de dierenrechtenbeweging dat iedereen volledig veganist wordt, en niet alleen dat, maar ook nog eens om de juiste redenen, namelijk dierenrechten. Alle tussenvormen, zoals mensen die aan meatless monday doen, flexitariërs, vegetariërs en 99%-veganisten deugen allemaal niet, in die visie. Wat in die visie ook niet deugt, is als je je vleesconsumptie vermindert om andere redenen dan dierenrechten: geen reden, variatie in voeding, gezondheid en milieu. Kortom, in de radicale visie op veganisme voldoet alleen de 100% veganist (nb zoals hiervoor besproken is alleen de afbakening al problematisch) EN alleen die veganist die het vanuit moreel dierenaltruïsme doet. Dus bijna niemand. Leenaerts zet zich tegen de groep mensen af die anderen uitsluit en pleit voor een inclusieve benadering van dierenleed waarbij ook de tussenvormen en de andere motivaties meetellen. Immers, de impact op dieren en de wereld is veel groter met een grote groep minderaars dan met een klein groepje radicale veganisten. Hierin toon Leenaerts zich een consequentialist (oa Peter Singer, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill), iemand die de stroming in de ethiek aanhangt dat de impact belangrijker is dan principes (deontologie; oa Kant) of het ontwikkelen van een goed karakter (oa Aristoteles). Leenaerts citeert Saul Alinsky: “De eeuwige vraag ‘Heiligt het doel de middelen?’ is als zodanig betekenisloos; de werkelijke en enige vraag betreffende de ethiek van middelen en doel is, en is altijd geweest: ‘Heiligt dit specifieke doel deze specifieke middelen?’”
Systeem
De wereld is afhankelijk van het gebruik van dieren voor menselijke doeleinden. Voor voeding, kleding, cosmetica, vermaak, medicijnen, landbouw, etc etc. Het is een enorme opgave om deze afhankelijkheid op te heffen. Wat tot de discussie leidt of je eerst alle randvoorwaarden moet hebben geregeld voordat je individueel gedrag wilt aanspreken, of andersom, of parallel? Leenaerts kiest ervoor om eerst gedrag te doen veranderen waarmee het systeem ook verandert. Het is een duidelijke stellingname.
Gewoonte
Leenaerts stelt dat veel omnivoren (hij noemt ze een beetje belegen: “steakholders”) vlees eten uit gewoonte: ze doen het omdat ze het nu eenmaal doen. In hoge mate aangeleerd gedrag dus. Alle argumenten vóór vlees eten zijn uitingen van cognitieve dissonantiereductie, volgens hem. Leenaerts pleit voor pragmatisme, wat volgens hem ook een spectrum is; één met vier stadia: dogmatisme - idealisme - pragmatisme - Machiavellisme. “Pragmatisch zijn gaat dus om de realiteit in plaats van de regels, de vaststaande theorieën en ideeën.” Leenaerts kiest ervoor om de begrippen pragmatisch en idealistisch tegenover elkaar te zetten, in de wetenschap dat idealisme kan doorschieten in dogmatiek en pragmatisme in onethisch eigenbelang. Een beetje duiding: de idealist streeft naar meer veganisten, de pragmaticus naar minder vleesconsumptie; de idealist naar moraliteit (voor dieren) en samenwerking met gelijkgestemden, de pragmaticus accepteert alle motivaties en iedereen die kan en wil bijdragen. Een belangrijk twistpunt is dierenwelzijn: voor de idealist is het verbeteren van dierenwelzijn onacceptabel want het dier wordt nog steeds uitgebuit, voor de pragmaticus is elke verbetering welkom en is zij/hij/hun er niet tegen. De kernboodschap van Leenaerts, naast die van impact, is dat mensen sneller van pragmatisch naar idealistisch groeien dan dat ze radicaal, revolutionair, hun leefstijl omgooien van omnivoor naar 100%vegan. De transitie is ook nog eens bestendiger, met minder terugval naar oud gedrag. Tenslotte wijst Leenaerts erop dat als vleesconsumptie door minderen afneemt, zal ook het systeem reageren met minder vleesaanbod, meer alternatieven etc.
Vergelijkingen
Volgens Leenaerts maken veel harde kern veganisten vergelijkingen met mensen, maar gaan die niet op. Zo stellen zij dat een beetje slavernij afschaffen niet ok is. Leenaerts legt uit hoe juist slavernij in Amerika pragmatisch tot zijn einde is gekomen en inderdaad met tussenstappen. Een andere vergelijking is dat we niet accepteren dat verkrachters en mishandelaars dat een beetje minder gaan doen. Volgens Leenaerts gaat de vergelijking mank als we dieren langs een menselijke meetlat leggen; dieren zijn geen mensen, dierenwelzijn moet je anders zien dan menselijk welzijn. Hij wijst op vleesetende hoogleraren ethiek om te ondersteunen dat gedragsverandering moeilijk is, zelfs voor mensen die sterke overtuigingen hebben. Andersom werkt eenvoudiger, volgens hem: verander eerst je gedrag en dan verandert je houding (attitudes, overtuigingen) daarna. Volgens Leenaerts overschatten we stelselmatig de invloed van ons bewustzijn. De werkelijkheid is dat ons bewustzijn veelal ons gedrag achteraf rechtvaardigt (cogn dissonantiereductie). Daarom: eerst gedrag veranderen, dan zorgt het bewustzijn voor de attitudeverandering achteraf.
Stappenplan
Leenaerts geeft een soort stappenplan voor veganistisch activisme:
1. Omarm en propageer alle motivaties voor minderen; mensen en het systeem volgen dan vanzelf. Mensen die om gezondheidsredenen minder vlees willen eten zijn geen egoïsten, en moralisten zijn geen heiligen.
2. Maak plantaardige alternatieven eenvoudiger, creëer een omgeving voor plantaardige voeding: beschibaarheid, prijs, aantrekkelijke recepten, etc…
3. Maak beschikbaarheid van vleesproducten moeilijker: meer regels voor dierenwelzijn (daarom is dat wél een goed idee), belastingen waardoor deze producten duurder worden, etc…
Het creëren van een veganvriendelijke omgeving noemt Leenaerts CAFE: creating a friendly environment. Het idee is dat wat juist is om te doen ook gemakkelijk wordt om te doen. Leenaerts ziet hierbij voedingsindustrie als bondgenoot voor het produceren van plantaardige alternatieven voor vlees, voor het reduceren van porties vlees, voor lobbyen voor betere regelgeving, reclame maken voor plantaardige producten, sponsoren etc. Ook voor innovaties in voedseltechnologie zoals kweekvlees.
Hoe activist zijn?
De kern van activist zijn, aldus Leenaerts, is niet denken dat anderen zijn zoals jij, dat zijn ze niet. Hij citeert Dale Carnagie met zijn beroemde uitspraak: “Natuurlijk ben jij geïnteresseerd in wat jij wilt. Maar niemand anders is dat. De rest van ons is net zoals jij: we zijn geïnteresseerd in wat wij willen.” Leenaerts, gek op catchy soundbites als hij is, noemt het YANYA: you are not your audience. Hij beschrijft kort de innovatie-adoptiecurve van Rogers, met als boodschap dat je mensen telkens een stapje verder moet brengen en je taal moet aanpassen aan de categorie. Kortom: je moet eerst luisteren en begrijpen voordat je gaat zenden. Het gaat om hén, niet om jou. Leenaerts geeft tips:
- In gezelschap keren omnivoren zich vaak tegen niet-vleeseters. Activisten denken vaak vanwege luiheid of onverschilligheid, maar volgens Leenaerts is het schuld en angst. Omdat ze ook wel beseffen dat er issues aan vlees hangen. En uit angst voor verlies aan kwaliteit van leven als ze stoppen met vlees. Cognitieve dissonantie.
- Verleg communicatie van argumenteren waarom men veganist zou moeten worden, naar hoe dat te doen.
Veganseksuelen = mensen die alleen willen daten met andere vegans hahaha.
Oorspronkelijke definitie van veganisme
“De termen ‘veganist’ en ‘veganisme’ zijn bedacht door Donald en Dorothy Watson, medeoprichters van de Vegan Society in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. (…) De Watsons definieerden veganisme als ‘een manier van leven die probeert, zoveel als mogelijk en haalbaar is, alle uitbuiting van dieren uit te sluiten.’” Leenaerts pleit voor een ruime interpretatie van deze definitie:
- Niet alleen dierlijke producten betrekken maar ook onze invloed op anderen via verminderen, vegetarisme en bijna-veganisme;
- Definitie uitbreiden met: “in zoverre dat praktisch, haalbaar en effectief is”;
- Niet consequent zijn in volgen van regels, ideologie en voorschriften, maar wel in het streven/ambitie naar verminderen van doden en onrecht ten aanzien van dieren; de grondwaarden van veganisme;
- Onderscheid tussen medestanders en vijanden verruimen: medestanders kijken in dezelfde richting ook al brengen ze het nog niet volledig in de praktijk. Tevens hulp zoeken van mensen die niet tot de in-group behoren en andere motieven hebben om mee te werken (gezondheid, ondernemerschap, etc).
Kortom: geen veganissimo, geen in versus uit, geen wij versus zij.
Naar een ruime definitie van veganisme
Voor veel ethische veganisten is veganisme onderdeel van hun identiteit en sociale groep met wie ze zich identificeren. Dat is exclusief: het sluit anderen uit. Daarbij: “Misschien maken we ons zorgen dat het vegan-etiket iets van zijn waarde verliest als ‘te veel’ mensen dat krijgen opgeplakt. Misschien voelen we ons dan niet langer speciaal genoeg en daalt ons gevoel van eigenwaarde.” Leenaerts daarentegen laat zien dat hoe streng in de leer je ook bent, je altijd compromissen sluit, bijvoorbeeld over:
- Spectrum producten: vlees - yoghurt - room - honing - caseïne in verder vegan kaas - resten filtreerstoffen in wijn - E-nummers (zoals verzuren). Waar trek je de grens?
- Hoeveelheden (vanaf welke porties) en frequenties (vanaf hoe vaak ben je wel of niet vegan?)
- Omstandigheden: altijd, of alleen thuis en niet als je (internationaal) reist? Restaurants?
- Gedomesticeerde dieren: paardrijden, huisdieren, vrij scharrelende kippen bij je huis, eieren van die kippen…
- Leren schoenen, andere producten van leer. En als ze een bijproduct zijn? En wat als ze tweedehands zijn?
- Politieke ideologieën: abortus, gender, klimaat, kolonialisme, … welke overtuigingen moet je delen om je een veganist te mogen noemen?
Leenaerts pleit voor een milde, ruime definitie van veganisme die mensen insluit, de drempel verlaagt, ipv het voor mensen moeilijk maakt om zich veganist te noemen, waardoor die sociale groep klein en exclusief blijft.
Argumenten tegen een ruime definitie
Leenaerts bespreekt voor de volledigheid een aantal veelgehoorde argumenten tegen een inclusieve definitie van veganisme:
- Je moet consequent zijn. Veganisme is een morele plicht, geen dieet. Reactie Leenaerts: het is gemakkelijker om een volledig vegan gerecht te maken dan om als mens 100% vegan te zijn. Daarom: betrek het begrip vegan op je eten, niet op jezelf.
- Concept van veganisme wordt uitgehold door verminderaars en bijna-veganisten, omdat die toch nog dierenuitbuiting in stand houden. Reactie Leenaerts: op dit moment is veganisme zo klein dat vleeseten eerst voor het grootste deel de wereld uit moet, daarna kun je je zorgen maken over de laatste procenten.
- Veganisten moeten een voorbeeld zijn om te volgen. Is een consequent ethische veganist een aantrekkelijk voorbeeld, of stoot de obsessie mensen af?
Veganisme volhouden
Volgens Leenaerts zijn de belangrijkste redenen van mensen om vanuit veganisme terug te vallen op niet-plantaardige voeding: “smaak, gezondheid en (sociaal) ongemak.” Om terugval te verminderen:
- Ook hier geldt: geen veganissimo, geen in versus uit, geen wij versus zij;
- Aandacht voor gezondheid. Mensen leren b12 aan te vullen, en andere gezond eten-kennis bijbrengen;
- Alle motivaties verwelkomen, niet alleen de morele plicht;
- Veganisme gemakkelijker maken: veganistische producten in reguliere supermarkten ipv exclusieve winkels, vleesproducten duur en schaars maken, etc. Dus werken aan institutionele verandering zoals wetten en beleid;
- Streven naar veganisme is een marathon, niet een sprint. Heb geduld en empathie;
- Wordt niet cynisch. Mensen doen afschuwelijke dingen, maar ook prachtige.
- Wees niet te boos. “Als we boos zijn, zijn we al gauw aanmatigend, irrationeel, beschuldigend, vijandig en zien we alles zwart-wit.”
- Niet zwelgen in dierenleed maar dingen doen; wees dankbaar voor wat wél goed gaat;
- Jij bent ook een dier. Zorg goed voor jezelf. Je hoeft geen ontberingen te ondergaan om een activistisch veganist te zijn. Je mag geld verdienen en een goed leven hebben.
Veganville
Leenaerts stelt veganisme voor als een aantrekkelijke plek om te wonen: Veganville bevindt zich op een berg en de weg omhoog is niet eenvoudig en verloopt vaak in stadia; daarnaast kunnen mensen ook weer de berg af. Leenaerts pleit ervoor alle mensen op enige plek op de berg onderweg naar de top te ondersteunen en te werken aan voorkomen dat mensen weer naar beneden reizen. Het gaat erom dat veel mensen onderweg zijn met een reis omhoog, niet alleen om de mensen die al zijn aangekomen.
“De vraag is niet: ‘Heb ik gelijk?’ noch ‘Is dit mijn waarheid?’ maar ‘Werkt dit?’”
Aantekeningen voor mezelf gemaakt. Eén grote spoiler.
Mijn verhaal lijkt in een specifiek punt op dat van Leenaert, namelijk dat ik mij ergens (vrij ver) in het veganistische spectrum bevind, en dat ik daar naartoe ben gegroeid en misschien nog steeds aan het groeien ben. Ik noem het expres een ‘spectrum’ omdat veganisme voor diverse mensen diverse betekenissen heeft. Leenaerts benoemt bijvoorbeeld dat het begrip bij veel mensen antipathie oproept vanwege associaties met radicaal moralisme en mogelijk omdat veel mensen in hun hart best wel weten dat vleesproductie niet deugt. Voor mij geldt ook nog dat ik me nooit veganist noem omdat ik mensen ken die vinden dat je dan ook andere levensovertuigingen hebben die van hen een uitsluitende groep maken: als je niet in die hoek zit, dan hoor je er niet bij - en ik wil niet bij zo’n uitsluitende groep behoren. Ik voel me niet thuis bij veganisme als een ‘totale levensstijl’ die ook radicale overtuigingen heeft over genderinclusie, racisme, kolonialisme, oude standbeelden in steden, fossiele subsidies, het kapitalisme, het patriarchaat, etc etc enfin u begrijp wat ik bedoel. Leenaerts ziet dit ook en stelt dat exclusief veganisme de ‘goede zaak’ kwaad berokkent. Hij pleit voor inclusief veganisme, voor vormen van activisme die mensen niet uitsluit maar juist omarmt. Daarnaast is hij een pragmaticus in de zin dat iemand die opschuift richting veganisme goed bezig is, en hij legt overtuigend uit waarom. Waarover later meer.
Goede en slechte veganisten
Volgens Leenaerts wil de harde kern van de dierenrechtenbeweging dat iedereen volledig veganist wordt, en niet alleen dat, maar ook nog eens om de juiste redenen, namelijk dierenrechten. Alle tussenvormen, zoals mensen die aan meatless monday doen, flexitariërs, vegetariërs en 99%-veganisten deugen allemaal niet, in die visie. Wat in die visie ook niet deugt, is als je je vleesconsumptie vermindert om andere redenen dan dierenrechten: geen reden, variatie in voeding, gezondheid en milieu. Kortom, in de radicale visie op veganisme voldoet alleen de 100% veganist (nb zoals hiervoor besproken is alleen de afbakening al problematisch) EN alleen die veganist die het vanuit moreel dierenaltruïsme doet. Dus bijna niemand. Leenaerts zet zich tegen de groep mensen af die anderen uitsluit en pleit voor een inclusieve benadering van dierenleed waarbij ook de tussenvormen en de andere motivaties meetellen. Immers, de impact op dieren en de wereld is veel groter met een grote groep minderaars dan met een klein groepje radicale veganisten. Hierin toon Leenaerts zich een consequentialist (oa Peter Singer, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill), iemand die de stroming in de ethiek aanhangt dat de impact belangrijker is dan principes (deontologie; oa Kant) of het ontwikkelen van een goed karakter (oa Aristoteles). Leenaerts citeert Saul Alinsky: “De eeuwige vraag ‘Heiligt het doel de middelen?’ is als zodanig betekenisloos; de werkelijke en enige vraag betreffende de ethiek van middelen en doel is, en is altijd geweest: ‘Heiligt dit specifieke doel deze specifieke middelen?’”
Systeem
De wereld is afhankelijk van het gebruik van dieren voor menselijke doeleinden. Voor voeding, kleding, cosmetica, vermaak, medicijnen, landbouw, etc etc. Het is een enorme opgave om deze afhankelijkheid op te heffen. Wat tot de discussie leidt of je eerst alle randvoorwaarden moet hebben geregeld voordat je individueel gedrag wilt aanspreken, of andersom, of parallel? Leenaerts kiest ervoor om eerst gedrag te doen veranderen waarmee het systeem ook verandert. Het is een duidelijke stellingname.
Gewoonte
Leenaerts stelt dat veel omnivoren (hij noemt ze een beetje belegen: “steakholders”) vlees eten uit gewoonte: ze doen het omdat ze het nu eenmaal doen. In hoge mate aangeleerd gedrag dus. Alle argumenten vóór vlees eten zijn uitingen van cognitieve dissonantiereductie, volgens hem. Leenaerts pleit voor pragmatisme, wat volgens hem ook een spectrum is; één met vier stadia: dogmatisme - idealisme - pragmatisme - Machiavellisme. “Pragmatisch zijn gaat dus om de realiteit in plaats van de regels, de vaststaande theorieën en ideeën.” Leenaerts kiest ervoor om de begrippen pragmatisch en idealistisch tegenover elkaar te zetten, in de wetenschap dat idealisme kan doorschieten in dogmatiek en pragmatisme in onethisch eigenbelang. Een beetje duiding: de idealist streeft naar meer veganisten, de pragmaticus naar minder vleesconsumptie; de idealist naar moraliteit (voor dieren) en samenwerking met gelijkgestemden, de pragmaticus accepteert alle motivaties en iedereen die kan en wil bijdragen. Een belangrijk twistpunt is dierenwelzijn: voor de idealist is het verbeteren van dierenwelzijn onacceptabel want het dier wordt nog steeds uitgebuit, voor de pragmaticus is elke verbetering welkom en is zij/hij/hun er niet tegen. De kernboodschap van Leenaerts, naast die van impact, is dat mensen sneller van pragmatisch naar idealistisch groeien dan dat ze radicaal, revolutionair, hun leefstijl omgooien van omnivoor naar 100%vegan. De transitie is ook nog eens bestendiger, met minder terugval naar oud gedrag. Tenslotte wijst Leenaerts erop dat als vleesconsumptie door minderen afneemt, zal ook het systeem reageren met minder vleesaanbod, meer alternatieven etc.
Vergelijkingen
Volgens Leenaerts maken veel harde kern veganisten vergelijkingen met mensen, maar gaan die niet op. Zo stellen zij dat een beetje slavernij afschaffen niet ok is. Leenaerts legt uit hoe juist slavernij in Amerika pragmatisch tot zijn einde is gekomen en inderdaad met tussenstappen. Een andere vergelijking is dat we niet accepteren dat verkrachters en mishandelaars dat een beetje minder gaan doen. Volgens Leenaerts gaat de vergelijking mank als we dieren langs een menselijke meetlat leggen; dieren zijn geen mensen, dierenwelzijn moet je anders zien dan menselijk welzijn. Hij wijst op vleesetende hoogleraren ethiek om te ondersteunen dat gedragsverandering moeilijk is, zelfs voor mensen die sterke overtuigingen hebben. Andersom werkt eenvoudiger, volgens hem: verander eerst je gedrag en dan verandert je houding (attitudes, overtuigingen) daarna. Volgens Leenaerts overschatten we stelselmatig de invloed van ons bewustzijn. De werkelijkheid is dat ons bewustzijn veelal ons gedrag achteraf rechtvaardigt (cogn dissonantiereductie). Daarom: eerst gedrag veranderen, dan zorgt het bewustzijn voor de attitudeverandering achteraf.
Stappenplan
Leenaerts geeft een soort stappenplan voor veganistisch activisme:
1. Omarm en propageer alle motivaties voor minderen; mensen en het systeem volgen dan vanzelf. Mensen die om gezondheidsredenen minder vlees willen eten zijn geen egoïsten, en moralisten zijn geen heiligen.
2. Maak plantaardige alternatieven eenvoudiger, creëer een omgeving voor plantaardige voeding: beschibaarheid, prijs, aantrekkelijke recepten, etc…
3. Maak beschikbaarheid van vleesproducten moeilijker: meer regels voor dierenwelzijn (daarom is dat wél een goed idee), belastingen waardoor deze producten duurder worden, etc…
Het creëren van een veganvriendelijke omgeving noemt Leenaerts CAFE: creating a friendly environment. Het idee is dat wat juist is om te doen ook gemakkelijk wordt om te doen. Leenaerts ziet hierbij voedingsindustrie als bondgenoot voor het produceren van plantaardige alternatieven voor vlees, voor het reduceren van porties vlees, voor lobbyen voor betere regelgeving, reclame maken voor plantaardige producten, sponsoren etc. Ook voor innovaties in voedseltechnologie zoals kweekvlees.
Hoe activist zijn?
De kern van activist zijn, aldus Leenaerts, is niet denken dat anderen zijn zoals jij, dat zijn ze niet. Hij citeert Dale Carnagie met zijn beroemde uitspraak: “Natuurlijk ben jij geïnteresseerd in wat jij wilt. Maar niemand anders is dat. De rest van ons is net zoals jij: we zijn geïnteresseerd in wat wij willen.” Leenaerts, gek op catchy soundbites als hij is, noemt het YANYA: you are not your audience. Hij beschrijft kort de innovatie-adoptiecurve van Rogers, met als boodschap dat je mensen telkens een stapje verder moet brengen en je taal moet aanpassen aan de categorie. Kortom: je moet eerst luisteren en begrijpen voordat je gaat zenden. Het gaat om hén, niet om jou. Leenaerts geeft tips:
- In gezelschap keren omnivoren zich vaak tegen niet-vleeseters. Activisten denken vaak vanwege luiheid of onverschilligheid, maar volgens Leenaerts is het schuld en angst. Omdat ze ook wel beseffen dat er issues aan vlees hangen. En uit angst voor verlies aan kwaliteit van leven als ze stoppen met vlees. Cognitieve dissonantie.
- Verleg communicatie van argumenteren waarom men veganist zou moeten worden, naar hoe dat te doen.
Veganseksuelen = mensen die alleen willen daten met andere vegans hahaha.
Oorspronkelijke definitie van veganisme
“De termen ‘veganist’ en ‘veganisme’ zijn bedacht door Donald en Dorothy Watson, medeoprichters van de Vegan Society in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. (…) De Watsons definieerden veganisme als ‘een manier van leven die probeert, zoveel als mogelijk en haalbaar is, alle uitbuiting van dieren uit te sluiten.’” Leenaerts pleit voor een ruime interpretatie van deze definitie:
- Niet alleen dierlijke producten betrekken maar ook onze invloed op anderen via verminderen, vegetarisme en bijna-veganisme;
- Definitie uitbreiden met: “in zoverre dat praktisch, haalbaar en effectief is”;
- Niet consequent zijn in volgen van regels, ideologie en voorschriften, maar wel in het streven/ambitie naar verminderen van doden en onrecht ten aanzien van dieren; de grondwaarden van veganisme;
- Onderscheid tussen medestanders en vijanden verruimen: medestanders kijken in dezelfde richting ook al brengen ze het nog niet volledig in de praktijk. Tevens hulp zoeken van mensen die niet tot de in-group behoren en andere motieven hebben om mee te werken (gezondheid, ondernemerschap, etc).
Kortom: geen veganissimo, geen in versus uit, geen wij versus zij.
Naar een ruime definitie van veganisme
Voor veel ethische veganisten is veganisme onderdeel van hun identiteit en sociale groep met wie ze zich identificeren. Dat is exclusief: het sluit anderen uit. Daarbij: “Misschien maken we ons zorgen dat het vegan-etiket iets van zijn waarde verliest als ‘te veel’ mensen dat krijgen opgeplakt. Misschien voelen we ons dan niet langer speciaal genoeg en daalt ons gevoel van eigenwaarde.” Leenaerts daarentegen laat zien dat hoe streng in de leer je ook bent, je altijd compromissen sluit, bijvoorbeeld over:
- Spectrum producten: vlees - yoghurt - room - honing - caseïne in verder vegan kaas - resten filtreerstoffen in wijn - E-nummers (zoals verzuren). Waar trek je de grens?
- Hoeveelheden (vanaf welke porties) en frequenties (vanaf hoe vaak ben je wel of niet vegan?)
- Omstandigheden: altijd, of alleen thuis en niet als je (internationaal) reist? Restaurants?
- Gedomesticeerde dieren: paardrijden, huisdieren, vrij scharrelende kippen bij je huis, eieren van die kippen…
- Leren schoenen, andere producten van leer. En als ze een bijproduct zijn? En wat als ze tweedehands zijn?
- Politieke ideologieën: abortus, gender, klimaat, kolonialisme, … welke overtuigingen moet je delen om je een veganist te mogen noemen?
Leenaerts pleit voor een milde, ruime definitie van veganisme die mensen insluit, de drempel verlaagt, ipv het voor mensen moeilijk maakt om zich veganist te noemen, waardoor die sociale groep klein en exclusief blijft.
Argumenten tegen een ruime definitie
Leenaerts bespreekt voor de volledigheid een aantal veelgehoorde argumenten tegen een inclusieve definitie van veganisme:
- Je moet consequent zijn. Veganisme is een morele plicht, geen dieet. Reactie Leenaerts: het is gemakkelijker om een volledig vegan gerecht te maken dan om als mens 100% vegan te zijn. Daarom: betrek het begrip vegan op je eten, niet op jezelf.
- Concept van veganisme wordt uitgehold door verminderaars en bijna-veganisten, omdat die toch nog dierenuitbuiting in stand houden. Reactie Leenaerts: op dit moment is veganisme zo klein dat vleeseten eerst voor het grootste deel de wereld uit moet, daarna kun je je zorgen maken over de laatste procenten.
- Veganisten moeten een voorbeeld zijn om te volgen. Is een consequent ethische veganist een aantrekkelijk voorbeeld, of stoot de obsessie mensen af?
Veganisme volhouden
Volgens Leenaerts zijn de belangrijkste redenen van mensen om vanuit veganisme terug te vallen op niet-plantaardige voeding: “smaak, gezondheid en (sociaal) ongemak.” Om terugval te verminderen:
- Ook hier geldt: geen veganissimo, geen in versus uit, geen wij versus zij;
- Aandacht voor gezondheid. Mensen leren b12 aan te vullen, en andere gezond eten-kennis bijbrengen;
- Alle motivaties verwelkomen, niet alleen de morele plicht;
- Veganisme gemakkelijker maken: veganistische producten in reguliere supermarkten ipv exclusieve winkels, vleesproducten duur en schaars maken, etc. Dus werken aan institutionele verandering zoals wetten en beleid;
- Streven naar veganisme is een marathon, niet een sprint. Heb geduld en empathie;
- Wordt niet cynisch. Mensen doen afschuwelijke dingen, maar ook prachtige.
- Wees niet te boos. “Als we boos zijn, zijn we al gauw aanmatigend, irrationeel, beschuldigend, vijandig en zien we alles zwart-wit.”
- Niet zwelgen in dierenleed maar dingen doen; wees dankbaar voor wat wél goed gaat;
- Jij bent ook een dier. Zorg goed voor jezelf. Je hoeft geen ontberingen te ondergaan om een activistisch veganist te zijn. Je mag geld verdienen en een goed leven hebben.
Veganville
Leenaerts stelt veganisme voor als een aantrekkelijke plek om te wonen: Veganville bevindt zich op een berg en de weg omhoog is niet eenvoudig en verloopt vaak in stadia; daarnaast kunnen mensen ook weer de berg af. Leenaerts pleit ervoor alle mensen op enige plek op de berg onderweg naar de top te ondersteunen en te werken aan voorkomen dat mensen weer naar beneden reizen. Het gaat erom dat veel mensen onderweg zijn met een reis omhoog, niet alleen om de mensen die al zijn aangekomen.
May 21, 2024
I've been vegan for 3 years already, and I plan on doing it for the rest of my life.
I started reading this book knowing that I wouldn't agree on everything the author said — in fact, I'd say I disagreed with the majority of the points brought up by Leenaert.
But I definitely needed to read this, because it helped me retrace my steps on the "road to Veganville" (the metaphor the author uses, which should be self explanatory). And even though I am (or was?) an idealist more than a pragmatist, and I hold the ethical aspect of veganism to be the most important one, I realised that my experience matches what Leenaert describes: that some people can start the trek to Veganville for any reason, and then focus on the moral argument, which only solidifies our foundations.
Although this book will make a lot of sense to people that have been vegan for a couple of years already, I think that maybe reading it when you're just starting (or why not, about to begin) can be really interesting and help avoid some of the traps we as vegans fall in, right from the get go.
PS: I still very much think that a reducitarian or vegetarian approach are only acceptable if they are (reasonably timed) steps in a direction for which the end goal is veganism. I live in Germany, where the phrase is "I only eat a little of meat" is really common. Would we accept anyone saying "I'm only a bit racist/sexist/homophobic"? I can't help but feeling like "I only eat meat once a month" is tantamount to saying "I only abuse other people once a month". In the absence of necessity, there's no moral justification.
I started reading this book knowing that I wouldn't agree on everything the author said — in fact, I'd say I disagreed with the majority of the points brought up by Leenaert.
But I definitely needed to read this, because it helped me retrace my steps on the "road to Veganville" (the metaphor the author uses, which should be self explanatory). And even though I am (or was?) an idealist more than a pragmatist, and I hold the ethical aspect of veganism to be the most important one, I realised that my experience matches what Leenaert describes: that some people can start the trek to Veganville for any reason, and then focus on the moral argument, which only solidifies our foundations.
Although this book will make a lot of sense to people that have been vegan for a couple of years already, I think that maybe reading it when you're just starting (or why not, about to begin) can be really interesting and help avoid some of the traps we as vegans fall in, right from the get go.
PS: I still very much think that a reducitarian or vegetarian approach are only acceptable if they are (reasonably timed) steps in a direction for which the end goal is veganism. I live in Germany, where the phrase is "I only eat a little of meat" is really common. Would we accept anyone saying "I'm only a bit racist/sexist/homophobic"? I can't help but feeling like "I only eat meat once a month" is tantamount to saying "I only abuse other people once a month". In the absence of necessity, there's no moral justification.
May 22, 2021
Autor mówi stanowczo, że dotychczasowe działania w celu ochrony praw zwierząt się nie sprawdziły, jednak proponuje one inne, uniwersalne działania. Przez książkę przepłynełam i podrzucę każdemu rośinnemu (i nie tylko znajomemu)
October 23, 2020
This was a simultaneously rewarding and very frustrating book. I think vegan activists do need to think about how it makes sense to approach activism, and Leenaert's approach is one possible tactic. However, throughout this book, its made to seem that this is undoubtedly the best approach, where there is little actual evidence to back this up. We need some vegan social scientists do some empirical experiments with the different methods and track vegan adherence rates over time.
I also think, philosophically, that this book stands on very shakey ground. There is too much glorification of capitalism and consumer choice and false equivalency between reductarianism, vegetarianism and veganism. I'm a bit biased because I'm a Kantian, but I think that this was human ethics (such as the modern anti-racism movement, civil rights, abolitionism,etc.) activists would not be entertaining the validity of points of view akin to "I only own one slave" or "I'm only racist after 6". I found the author's dismissal of these comparisons to be inadequate.
If we go back to the empirical evidence provided in these pages, I think it's interesting that the author doesn't talk about strategies used by the environmental movement. These strategies, which are very similar to the approach laid out in this book, have largely failed to change consumer behavior. For me personally, when I first started reducing the amount of animal products in my diet, it was for environmental reasons. But those reasons failed to make the change stick. I couldn't answer the question: how much reduction is an okay amount? There was always more I could do, and no amount of reduction ever felt like enough. It was very easy to fall for the black/white fallacy and just continue my regular consumption. Ethics made me realize every animal death was a tragedy, and that was enough for me to go fully vegan.
In conclusion, the author presents a "feel good" method of activism in these pages that may or may not be more effective than more hardline types of activism. I think both approaches have their places, and even those the arguments made in this book are flawed, this type of persuasion is still important for vegan activists to have in their toolkit.
I also think, philosophically, that this book stands on very shakey ground. There is too much glorification of capitalism and consumer choice and false equivalency between reductarianism, vegetarianism and veganism. I'm a bit biased because I'm a Kantian, but I think that this was human ethics (such as the modern anti-racism movement, civil rights, abolitionism,etc.) activists would not be entertaining the validity of points of view akin to "I only own one slave" or "I'm only racist after 6". I found the author's dismissal of these comparisons to be inadequate.
If we go back to the empirical evidence provided in these pages, I think it's interesting that the author doesn't talk about strategies used by the environmental movement. These strategies, which are very similar to the approach laid out in this book, have largely failed to change consumer behavior. For me personally, when I first started reducing the amount of animal products in my diet, it was for environmental reasons. But those reasons failed to make the change stick. I couldn't answer the question: how much reduction is an okay amount? There was always more I could do, and no amount of reduction ever felt like enough. It was very easy to fall for the black/white fallacy and just continue my regular consumption. Ethics made me realize every animal death was a tragedy, and that was enough for me to go fully vegan.
In conclusion, the author presents a "feel good" method of activism in these pages that may or may not be more effective than more hardline types of activism. I think both approaches have their places, and even those the arguments made in this book are flawed, this type of persuasion is still important for vegan activists to have in their toolkit.
March 3, 2018
Wow. This was a very different approach to how vegans should promote the movement. It was challenging, thought-provoking, fortified with research and highly inspiring. All vegans should give this one a read.
January 31, 2025
Imagine a place called Veganville. It's not some exclusive club where only the perfect vegans hang out, but a welcoming spot where everyone can enjoy delicious, affordable, and sustainable plant-based food without guilt. That’s the vibe of Tobias Leenaert’s book, How to Create a Vegan World. After all, a sea of green pebbles—people making smaller, imperfect changes—will make the ocean look greener than a few perfectly green pebbles.
This book has become my lighthouse, guiding me towards the change I want to see in the world. It challenges the purism found in some vegan subgroups and promotes a more inclusive approach. It’s not just about us or the animals; it’s about creating a sustainable future for the planet and all its inhabitants.
I loved the down-to-earth tone of the book, the way it tackles arguments and counterarguments, and the easy-going writing style. It’s packed with relatable analogies and realistic suggestions like promoting Meatless Mondays or vegan options before 6 PM to ease people into the idea without overwhelming them. Vegans are not meant to be perfect. The definition by the Watsons states that veganism is “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of animal exploitation.” This book does a fantastic job of explaining how to make veganism more practical for everyone.
So, if you want to help create a vegan world but feel turned off by the pressure to be perfect, this is your handbook (also, btw, allies are welcome to read it, cause amaze). It’s about making practical, realistic changes that collectively lead to big shifts. One delicious, plant-based meal at a time ;)
This book has become my lighthouse, guiding me towards the change I want to see in the world. It challenges the purism found in some vegan subgroups and promotes a more inclusive approach. It’s not just about us or the animals; it’s about creating a sustainable future for the planet and all its inhabitants.
I loved the down-to-earth tone of the book, the way it tackles arguments and counterarguments, and the easy-going writing style. It’s packed with relatable analogies and realistic suggestions like promoting Meatless Mondays or vegan options before 6 PM to ease people into the idea without overwhelming them. Vegans are not meant to be perfect. The definition by the Watsons states that veganism is “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of animal exploitation.” This book does a fantastic job of explaining how to make veganism more practical for everyone.
So, if you want to help create a vegan world but feel turned off by the pressure to be perfect, this is your handbook (also, btw, allies are welcome to read it, cause amaze). It’s about making practical, realistic changes that collectively lead to big shifts. One delicious, plant-based meal at a time ;)
March 5, 2026
Literally a great pragmatic approach to veganism. Leenart shifts the focus from judging individual choices to building accessibility, making the movement more inclusive and less prone to burnout.
A reminder that this movement is about reducing animal suffering and exploitation, not about being right.
A reminder that this movement is about reducing animal suffering and exploitation, not about being right.
November 4, 2021
To jest najlepsza książka z tej tematyki jaką czytałam. Wszystko jest racjonalnie przedstawione, nie ma w tym żadnego radykalizmu. Autor nie przedstawia samych swoich opinii, a pisze obiektywnie bazując na badaniach naukowych, ustawach prawnych i wydarzeniach. Myślę, że jest to idealny tekst dla osób, które „nie będą czytać o wege propagandzie” xd bo samo podejście piszącego jest dosyć inkluzywne. Myślę, że nikt czytając tą książkę nie poczuje się atakowany czy wykluczany
April 7, 2018
Here is an eminently challenging book, not only for vegans, but for any idealist, radical, or any person with tendencies toward principle or purity over practice or pragmatism. I am all of the above.
Before I rejected meat entirely, and began my journey toward a vegan diet, I was already a meat reducer. In fact, for about a decade my partner and I have made a practice of serving vegan or vegetarian meals whenever we host or contribute to potlucks. For over seven years, we lived in a community home, where we shared in twice weekly open house meals, our little home serving vegan food to ten to forty people consistently. I also ate a vegetarian diet for a year in my early twenties, long before this. So, avoiding animal based food was not new to me. But neither was I a stranger to a gentle, many sided approach to a goal of supporting animal welfare.
Less than a year into seeking to reduce my consumption of animal products as much as possible, and I already find myself tending toward a hardline approach to my activism and advocacy. I am no longer a "welfarist" - seeking mostly to encourage "ethical" treatment of animals in the care of (as the property of) humans - but now support animal liberation. I needed this book right now.
Brimming with data points and references to scientific studies, polls, and analysis of the history of animal rights action, Leenaert argues in his book that to create a vegan world - a world with little or no human caused animal suffering or injustice - we must learn to take a long view, and focus on the efficacy of our actions even ahead of our own personal moral purity. To the dogmatic vegan (and we all can be tempted with dogmatism), this can be challenging, even offensive. I had to lay my offence aside several times to digest this book.
Courting accusations of compromise, Leenaert nevertheless argues very convincingly for personal and public actions and outreach that may include the continued participation in injustice toward animals now, for the sake reducing harm when eliminating it is unlikely. Leenaert also firmly plants the goal of a vegan world at the centre of his proposed actions, and outlines every step he sees as having the best likelihood of obtaining this goal.
For an example of this book's content, I will use my own experience. My outreach and advocacy for animal rights is currently the lowest it has ever been, even as the personal cost I incur is the highest, and my convictions the most radical. Yet, my actions in the past - my personal meat reduction, hosting of vegan meals, and participation in vegan community living - had measurably more impact in the reduction of animal suffering compared to my actions now. As a meat eater, I was more effective than I am now that I am not.
Here is one of the core difficult truths of Leenaert's book. One step further, he frequently reminds the reader that meat reducers have historically had more impact on animal suffering in the history of animal rights action than vegans, simply because there are so many more of them. These reducers are also the population that has had the most positive impact on moving the culture to shift toward a more vegan friendly environment. As meat reducers eat more vegetable and grain based diets, and include more meat alternatives in their meals, these things become more readily available to vegans, and create more opportunities for others to consider reduction.
I will definitely buy this book, possibly two copies so I can share with as many vegan and vegan adjacent friends as possible. It's a hard read, but a necessary one.
Despite all of this, I cannot claim that I supported every idea presented here. On the contrary, I did find myself pushing back many times over proposals that I believe crossed the line into hypocrisy and complicity. However, the core argument of the book, that we ought to consider our effectiveness over our own personal identity as vegans, is sound. But these details were not the biggest problem I had with the book. My heaviest criticism of this book is not in what it says, but what it does not say. As many readers might already expect, this book is thoroughly in bed with capitalism. All the actions and data and steps proposed assume the best course of action for animal rights activists should capitalism always be the system by which we interact and operate. There is no revolution in these pages. I believe that any plan that seeks to liberate animals from the oppression that does not include an overthrow of the entire capitalist system is idealistic, foolishly utopian. My pragmatic approach to animal liberation includes burning that motherfucker down.
But until then, borrow this book from your local vegan anarchist cooperative and read it for a challenge of your methods, and a call to action that just might help us see more nonhuman animals free and more human animal allies with us in the fight for their freedom.
☠
Trade Paperback
Lantern Books, 2017
Forward by Peter Singer
Four Stars
March 30-April 7, 2018
☠
Before I rejected meat entirely, and began my journey toward a vegan diet, I was already a meat reducer. In fact, for about a decade my partner and I have made a practice of serving vegan or vegetarian meals whenever we host or contribute to potlucks. For over seven years, we lived in a community home, where we shared in twice weekly open house meals, our little home serving vegan food to ten to forty people consistently. I also ate a vegetarian diet for a year in my early twenties, long before this. So, avoiding animal based food was not new to me. But neither was I a stranger to a gentle, many sided approach to a goal of supporting animal welfare.
Less than a year into seeking to reduce my consumption of animal products as much as possible, and I already find myself tending toward a hardline approach to my activism and advocacy. I am no longer a "welfarist" - seeking mostly to encourage "ethical" treatment of animals in the care of (as the property of) humans - but now support animal liberation. I needed this book right now.
Brimming with data points and references to scientific studies, polls, and analysis of the history of animal rights action, Leenaert argues in his book that to create a vegan world - a world with little or no human caused animal suffering or injustice - we must learn to take a long view, and focus on the efficacy of our actions even ahead of our own personal moral purity. To the dogmatic vegan (and we all can be tempted with dogmatism), this can be challenging, even offensive. I had to lay my offence aside several times to digest this book.
Courting accusations of compromise, Leenaert nevertheless argues very convincingly for personal and public actions and outreach that may include the continued participation in injustice toward animals now, for the sake reducing harm when eliminating it is unlikely. Leenaert also firmly plants the goal of a vegan world at the centre of his proposed actions, and outlines every step he sees as having the best likelihood of obtaining this goal.
For an example of this book's content, I will use my own experience. My outreach and advocacy for animal rights is currently the lowest it has ever been, even as the personal cost I incur is the highest, and my convictions the most radical. Yet, my actions in the past - my personal meat reduction, hosting of vegan meals, and participation in vegan community living - had measurably more impact in the reduction of animal suffering compared to my actions now. As a meat eater, I was more effective than I am now that I am not.
Here is one of the core difficult truths of Leenaert's book. One step further, he frequently reminds the reader that meat reducers have historically had more impact on animal suffering in the history of animal rights action than vegans, simply because there are so many more of them. These reducers are also the population that has had the most positive impact on moving the culture to shift toward a more vegan friendly environment. As meat reducers eat more vegetable and grain based diets, and include more meat alternatives in their meals, these things become more readily available to vegans, and create more opportunities for others to consider reduction.
I will definitely buy this book, possibly two copies so I can share with as many vegan and vegan adjacent friends as possible. It's a hard read, but a necessary one.
Despite all of this, I cannot claim that I supported every idea presented here. On the contrary, I did find myself pushing back many times over proposals that I believe crossed the line into hypocrisy and complicity. However, the core argument of the book, that we ought to consider our effectiveness over our own personal identity as vegans, is sound. But these details were not the biggest problem I had with the book. My heaviest criticism of this book is not in what it says, but what it does not say. As many readers might already expect, this book is thoroughly in bed with capitalism. All the actions and data and steps proposed assume the best course of action for animal rights activists should capitalism always be the system by which we interact and operate. There is no revolution in these pages. I believe that any plan that seeks to liberate animals from the oppression that does not include an overthrow of the entire capitalist system is idealistic, foolishly utopian. My pragmatic approach to animal liberation includes burning that motherfucker down.
But until then, borrow this book from your local vegan anarchist cooperative and read it for a challenge of your methods, and a call to action that just might help us see more nonhuman animals free and more human animal allies with us in the fight for their freedom.
☠
Trade Paperback
Lantern Books, 2017
Forward by Peter Singer
Four Stars
March 30-April 7, 2018
☠
February 15, 2019
All I could imagine when I was reading this book was Michael or Chidi from The Good Place narrating it. It was a good time.
Read
January 4, 2024Dobra rzecz do przeczytania w wege-styczniu. Autor zostawił mnie ze świeżym spojrzeniem na etyczne jedzenie i pragmatyczne podejście do niego. Na pewno jeszcze zajrzę do tego tytułu. Chociażby po to, żeby sprawdzić polecane źródła 😁
August 8, 2021
If you consider yourself a vegan/vegetarian and are passionate about conveying your values to others or increasing your impact, this is a must read.
The book summarizes a lot of relevant literature and thoughts about veganism. It explains why a pragmatic approach is the best way to create a (more) vega(n) world.
A lot of the concept are more broadly applicable and hence relevant for any type of activist (or advocator of ideals, if you are more comfortable with that). Too often advocates only create more of an "us versus them" mentality which often only delays/stalls progress. Reading this book will make sure that you help the world progress faster!
The book summarizes a lot of relevant literature and thoughts about veganism. It explains why a pragmatic approach is the best way to create a (more) vega(n) world.
A lot of the concept are more broadly applicable and hence relevant for any type of activist (or advocator of ideals, if you are more comfortable with that). Too often advocates only create more of an "us versus them" mentality which often only delays/stalls progress. Reading this book will make sure that you help the world progress faster!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews