I’ve posted more in depth responses to ‘reducitarianism’ elsewhere. In one comment I made an analogy to quitting smoking, and how ‘reducing’ my cigarette count only led to a rebound where I smoked even more than before.
It’s well known in the scientific literature that people are so inaccurate at self-reporting what, and how much of what, they eat, that questionnaire-based studies are specifically designed to compensate for these inaccuracies. So anecdotal claims of people reducing their animal consumption mean very little, particularly when data seems to indicate the opposite.
And like Ed Winter’s post gets into, you need to put the concept of reduction within the concept of justice. Fewer animals being bred and slaughtered sounds nice, but what about for the animals still being abused and murdered? Do you find it acceptable when corporations promise only to reduce carbon emissions by about 10% by 2035? Or how would you feel if police unions claimed they would disproportionately arrest black people 20% less than they used to?
Sorry but ‘reduction’ is nothing but a self-soothe to make people feel like they’re doing something good, when in reality they are just continuing their injustice while assuaging their own guilt. Just another form of cognitive dissonance.
