We live in a market economy made up of two major factors – supply and demand. These two factors determine what is bought and sold and for how much. Qualitatively, demand represents the wants and needs of buyers in an economy. Supply represents the efforts of firms to profit from existing demand. The stronger the demand for a given product, the more potential profit and resulting competition among suppliers there will be in attempting to
satisfy demand for the product. If there is no demand for a given product, there will be no supply for the product because firms will not be able to profit.
The most important conclusion to draw from the simple qualitative economic facts above is that demand drives supply. Marketing firms may help a product realize its potential demand, but they cannot create demand. [1]
Since demand drives supply, if we focus on changing demand, we can change
supply. But the reverse is not true: we cannot change demand by focusing on supply.
For example, Hellmann’s® Mayonnaise recently announced that it has switched to “cage-free eggs” in its Light
Mayonnaise. In a discussion with advocates about this switch, I suggested that if large animal welfare organizations insisted on engaging in single-issue campaigns (because such campaigns are good
fundraisers), then instead of “cage-free egg” campaigns, they would at least be engaging in legitimate animal advocacy to campaign for vegan alternatives in restaurants and brand-name products.
However, the problem with such vegan-oriented single issue campaigns is that
they are supply-side advocacy. To use the example above, let’s assume
that Hellmann’s® developed a vegan mayonnaise to compete with Vegenaise® and Nayonaise®. Only if there is sufficient demand will it be sufficiently profitable for Hellmann’s® to keep the product
on the market and develop it further. If there is not sufficient demand, the vegan product will not be sufficiently profitable and Hellmann’s® will discontinue the vegan product. The marketing and chief
executives and stockholders don’t care what sells (e.g. vegan products or animal products), they only care that a product or service sells, i.e. that there is a demand for the product.
So what does this imply for animal advocacy? It obviously implies that we
must focus virtually 100% of our time and energy on increasing demand for vegan alternatives to replace animal products. The only way to do that is through vegan education; that is, informing people why they
ought to go vegan and how to go vegan. As we create more demand for vegan products through vegan education, suppliers will respond by catering to the new demand.
There can never be enough vegan education. New vegan products can be taken off the shelf for a lack of demand; but people, once genuinely convinced that animals are persons to be fully included in the moral community, and once educated on how to be a vegan, will stay vegan for a lifetime and influence others, thereby increasing demand.
Welfare Activities Versus Vegan Advocacy
It is illegitimate to call welfare reform activities animal “advocacy” because such a paradigm and the resulting activities encourage people to continue consuming animal products. The welfare paradigm and
activities are not merely neutral and unproductive; they are harmful and counterproductive. On the surface, welfare activities appear to reduce violence and suffering in their temporary focus on the symptoms
of speciesism. But below the surface, welfarist thinking is the very
problem of exploitation itself. All animal exploiters, virtually without exception, “take animal welfare very seriously.” This is because the philosophy of animal welfare accepts, as a most basic and
dogmatic premise, that nonhuman animals are here for us to exploit.
Welfare activity, because of its inherent ineffectiveness and support of animal exploitation and killing, as both
a theoretical and practical matter, is the active promotion of violence.
Vegan advocacy inherently rejects all animal exploitation and the promotion
of violence. Such rejection is the essence of vegan advocacy, and is the only advocacy for nonhuman animals.
Four Types of Activities
Below are four types of activities distinguished by whether they address supply or demand, and whether they are vegan or welfare activities.
Type 4 activities are supply-side welfare activities. They generate most of the revenues for the large corporate animal welfare groups like PETA and HSUS, which is one reason they are so common and popular from the standpoint of the welfare groups. They are counterproductive because they indirectly encourage animal product
consumption. They also drain resources from demand-side vegan activities.
Examples of Type 4 activities are welfare single-issue campaigns, welfare law campaigns (e.g. Prop 2 in California), welfare reform campaigns, controlled atmosphere killing and cage-free campaigns, gestation crate campaigns, and foie gras prohibition campaigns.
Type 3 activities are demand-side welfare activities. They are counterproductive because they directly
encourage animal product consumption, increase demand for animal
products, decrease demand for vegan products, and drain resources from demand-side vegan activities.
Examples of Type 3 activities are encouraging or condoning “happy meat” and “cage-free egg” consumption. A typical Type 3 statement is, "If you're going to insist on eating that anyway, at least buy free-range." If we would not say, "If you're going to kill or rape anyway, at least don't beat the
victim as many times as you normally do", then we should not say similar things about animal product consumption. Silence is far better than Type 3 statements.
Type 2 activities are supply-side vegan
activities. With the exception of owning a vegan business, these
activities do little or nothing to decrease demand for animal products
or increase demand for vegan products. Owning a vegan business is an
excellent advocacy activity. All other supply-side vegan activities,
while not necessarily counterproductive, drain resources away from
demand-side vegan activities, and in many cases (such as anti-fur
campaigns), are counterproductive as they encourage speciesism by their narrow focus.
Examples of Type 2 activities are requesting vegan products from grocers and restaurants (as an advocacy tool; not because you simply want a certain vegan
product available); vegan product campaign (e.g. campaigning for
Hellmann’s® to develop and market a vegan mayonnaise); owning and
operating a vegan restaurant (again, a great form of advocacy, largely
because it incorporates Type 1 activities); vegan product development;
elimination single-issue campaigns (speciesist and utterly useless
unless we've eliminated demand).
Type 1 activities are demand-side vegan
activities. They decrease demand for animal products while
simultaneously increasing demand for vegan products. Because of their
focus on demand and vegan education, demand-side vegan activities are
the only activities capable of eventually abolishing animal
exploitation.
Examples of Type 1 activities are vegan education (explaining why and how to go vegan through various media and opportunities); abolitionist education
(explaining the legal and many other similarities between human chattel
slavery and modern nonhuman slavery); vegan food blogs and cooking
classes; educating fellow advocates and others about the problems with
welfarism and single-issue campaigns.
Important: Unless
we are operating a vegan business (which is mostly a supply-side
activity), we should spend between 97% and 100% of our animal advocacy
time doing Type 1, demand-side vegan activities and
the remaining time, if any, doing Type 2 supply-side vegan activities.
We should always stay entirely away from harmful Type 3 and 4 welfare
activities.
Welfare activities are popular because they accept our society’s violent and speciesist belief that nonhuman animals are here for us to exploit and kill, but they are
counterproductive because by such acceptance, they also promote and
strengthen the violent and speciesist notion that animals are here for
us to exploit and kill. Welfare activities are part of a vicious circle.
_________________
Note:
[1]
Marketing firms are in the business of realizing the potential demand
for products, but the realization they are able to generate consists in
making consumers aware of a given product or service along with various
psychological methods of stimulating potential consumers’ interest in
the product. Marketing a product can only fulfill a product’s potential demand;
it cannot create demand. We can market a highly undesirable product or
service all we want, but if the product has no inherent demand, the
product will not sell.
You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!
Join Animal Rights Zone