The question in Dave Pollard's Blog was why has the anti smoking message done so well and the animal roghts message has not? Many of the posters held strong views on not just how badly we treat animals but also how bad it was to eat meat anyway. Here are a few thoughts ....
What has really moved the anti-smoking message here on PEI, where we have a very high smoking participation, has been a shift in message and in the position of the messenger
What did not work was the message that smoking is bad for you given by a "superior" being. The reaction was "don't tell me how to live my life." The felt emotional reaction to the "superior voice" is often similar to how we react to a nagging spouse or mother telling us to wear a hat on a cold day. We get angry and rebellious
What is working here is a new message and a new position. The messenger is someone like you telling me that my smoking in the restaurant is killing me,your waitress -who is a real person in the ad. Ot we show images of a family playing cards with the parents smoking and the children coughing but with no spoken message. The picture is clear. This ad was followed up with a picture of the same game of cards but with the father smoking on the porch and coming in to play his hand. The message is "Don't let your smoking hurt innocents or those that you love" The messenger is not an expert but your real neighbour. The real drama of the impact of the smoker on others is shown for real.
I think that there is a huge message here for all of us that want to change what seems to be "bad" behaviour" Self righteous talking down from the expert position is a poor messenger role. We hear best from peers. Secondly many object to well meaning, even informed and correct advice given to "improve us". Speaking as a man, when I hear my "mother's" voice I tune out or even rebel. Appealing to my better nature is however a very acceptable message. We show the dad in the ad being responsible and caring. We acknowledge in an unsaid way that he might find giving up smoking himself too hard. But we reward him for being caring enough to protect his children
Another reason why anti-smoking is working is that there is no dispute that smoking is bad for you. I think we need to separate the issue about how dreadfully we keep and kill animals to the issue of whether meat is good or bad for us. The science is by no means on that meat is on its own bad for us. In fact much of the science, especially taken from the field of evolutionary biology makes the case that meat is critical for brain development is has no substitute.
There is no question however that how we treat animals is terrible. If you could show the public what it means to have cheap chicken, pork or beef, I think that many would be appalled and think of an alternative if it was available
If we could show the effect of how badly we treat animals that we eat in terms of additives and the "wrong food" and how their conditions create stress and hence poor meat. If we could show how the huge killing factories set up the conditions for bacteria and hence food poisoning risk - mainstream people might react and demand better conditions if only to protect themselves and their family.
However if you play the card that eating meat is bad for you you are in trouble. I am afraid though that you will have a tough time avoiding the evidence that human brain development is directly tied to our success in hunting and accessing large relative amounts of meat based protein. You also fall into the trap of being Mummy. This time Mummy who may not be right as well as being a nag.
Isn't the key issue to change how badly we treat animals?
In the 17th century everyone thought that human slavery was the natural order of things. The Quakers and the Brits challenged this meme and while slavery still exists, it has largely been overcome. If we were to challenge how we treat animals and reward those that treat them well, I think that we could make more progress
3:56:38 PM 
|
