we need to talk about reducetarianism
reducitarianism is as defined by the
reducetarian foundation the practice of
eating less meat as well as less dairy
and fewer eggs regardless of the degree
or motivation and i bet many of you here
today are already reducitarians that's
brian caitman he's the guy who coined
the term when talking about the
reduction or elimination of animal
products there are three main angles
that come up the environment personal
health and morality everyone who is a
part of this debate from the
reducetarian foundation to the vegan
society agree on this and they're all
important however today i want to talk
about morality why because it's the
thing that's most relevant to the
primary victims of the industry that
produces animal products the animals
now we don't typically think of animals
as victims but if we honestly consider
the issue from their point of view what
else can they be they're not willing
participants today we're using kill
somewhere in the region of 80 billion
land animals and around 2 trillion
marine animals per year we confine them
separate them from their families
mutilate them exploit their reproductive
systems and ultimately kill them and for
what for products that we don't even
need if we did what we did to farm
animals to dogs or cats it wouldn't just
be a moral outrage it would be illegal
these animals can't choose not to be
there and try as they might they have no
chance of escaping if this doesn't make
them victims of an unjust and cruel
system
then i don't know what does
and here lies the first flaw of
reducetarianism it reframes the issue
from an injustice that must end as soon
as possible for the sake of the victims
to simply being a problem of scale it's
saying that simply reducing the number
of animals we use hurt and ultimately
kill
is enough imagine this represents all
the farm animals in the world
now fast forward in time and imagine we
live in a reducetarian world
the number of farm animals would
decrease maybe even quite a bit and
obviously that's good but imagine that
you are one of the remaining animals
would you feel any better about your
plight because instead of being one in
80 billion you are one in one billion or
even one in 100 if we recognize that
this issue is not simply one of scale
but it's instead about the injustices
that are being carried out on individual
animals then this is clearly far from
enough the whole point of an injustice
is that we must end it not simply just
reduce it while still fundamentally
allowing the injustice to continue case
in point would we say someone who beats
their dog should be allowed to continue
beating their dog as long as they do it
a little less now imagine we fast
forward again but this time we land in a
vegan world isn't this the outcome that
best fulfills the overall aim of
reducing suffering and creating a more
equitable food system and with all the
food innovation happening we wouldn't
even have to sacrifice any of the taste
pleasure we experience from consuming
animal products so if this is the best
outcome shouldn't this be the one that
we advocate for
however in opposition to this the main
thrust of reducetarianism is that not
everyone is able or willing to follow a
completely vegetarian diet and so
offering people something of a
compromise is more likely to get them to
make changes but the problem with this
mentality is that an injustice is an
injustice and what is wrong is wrong
sure it can be inconvenient and even
challenging to confront an injustice but
that doesn't make doing so any less
important and on top of that even if it
is better to be a reducetarian than to
be a hardcore carnivore that doesn't
mean there is any merit in actually
advocating for it imagine someone comes
across information about how harmful
animal agriculture is and then considers
doing something about it
there are three courses of action they
could take they could do nothing
they could reduce their consumption of
animal products or they could become
vegan if we advertise reducetarianism as
the end goal the prospects of that
person becoming vegan decrease
essentially would actually get rid of
this option however if we advertise
veganism as the end goal all three
options are still on the table it
accomplishes the same thing as
advocating for reducitarianism but
there's a chance the person would
actually become vegan instead which
would increase their positive impact on
the world and it gives them the
opportunity to also oppose other
industries that exploit animals as well
like the fashion industry animal testing
and the entertainment industry put
simply promoting veganism won't stop
people from reducing but promoting
reduced terrorism will stop people from
going vegan and if the point of veganism
is to reduce the suffering of animals
what is the point of reducitarianism to
claim that it's fine to still cause
needless suffering as long as you're
causing a little less needless suffering
than you have caused in the past
finally advocating for reducitarianism
assumes that people are unwilling to
confront reality and take action to
change it if it causes them an
inconvenience of course this is the case
for some people but not for everyone and
as campaigns like the gunnery show every
year there are literally hundreds of
thousands of people worldwide who are
more than willing to change to end the
unjust exploitation of animals and not
to mention treating people like they're
not capable of making a significant
change in their life
is actually incredibly condescending now
of course there's nothing wrong with
praising people for the positive changes
they are making however reducetarianism
promotes those changes as being enough
when for the animals who are still being
exploited and killed those changes are
obviously not enough
[Music]
you