The material incentive to raise meat for slaughter is that people buy it. You remove that incentive by not buying it, fewer people will raise meat for slaughter.
Joseph Stalin himself described boycotts as a viable means of political activism.
The material incentive to raise meat for slaughter is that people buy it. You remove that incentive by not buying it, fewer people will raise meat for slaughter.
Joseph Stalin himself described boycotts as a viable means of political activism.
I think people get confused by the "personal consumer choices" thing. Me deciding that I don't like a company and not buying their products for a while isn't any kind of meaningful activism. Me cooperating with a large group of people for a sustained boycott, coupled with advocacy, can be.
I've seen people point out subsidies to farmers and so on as counteracting the effect of people going vegan, and that's true to an extent, but this just means there's a bigger barrier to overcome. Eventually if a large enough proportion of people went vegan, the dam would break.
The fact that the government has to step in to subsidize the industry certainly suggest to me that its actually having a pretty significant material effect. So I would sort of draw the exact opposite conclusion.