How to influence different types of audiences

When it comes to defending animals effectively, it’s useful to consider the following questions:

(1) What characteristics of each type of audience should we consider when planning strategies to benefit animals?

(2) Should all activists and organizations focus on the same types of audiences?

(3) Should all activists and organizations always focus on the same types of audiences, or should they vary over time?

In this blog post, we’ll focus on the first question.¹ We’ll analyze some characteristics of different types of audiences that directly influence the possibility of doing something that benefits animals, and to what extent that is impactful.

Below, we’ll classify different types of audiences based on the relationship between the goal they pursue and the degree of consideration they give to animals.² Based on this, different audiences can be divided into: (1) the indifferent, (2) those who aim to harm animals, and (3) those who aim to benefit them. We’ll analyze each category separately.

Indifferent people

Indifferent people are those who don’t aim to harm or benefit animals. What they seek is something else. They won’t stop pursuing their goal, regardless of whether it has the side effect of harming or benefiting animals. Moreover, if harming (or benefiting) animals helps them achieve their goal, they’ll try to cause that harm (or benefit). In short, whether indifferent people harm or benefit animals depends on what best helps them achieve their goal.

For example, those who exploit animals don’t necessarily seek harm to animals for its own sake: generally, what they seek is to maximize profits. This also applies to those who consume animal exploitation: generally, what they seek is to enjoy a specific taste (or they may simply adopt the practice out of convenience or because it’s part of the culture they belong to), not harm to animals for its own sake. However, in both cases, their practices cause serious harm to animals, and these people don’t consider that harm sufficient reason to change their practices.

Three ways to try to change the attitude of indifferent people

(1) Trying to make them stop being indifferent. Many people are indifferent because they’ve never stopped to think about moral consideration for animals. At least some of them could change their minds if they learned the arguments in favor of such consideration. In fact, this is what happened with most of those who today defend animals (for example, most of them previously consumed products derived from animal exploitation).

(2) Trying to limit their influence. We can try to enact laws that guarantee legal rights to animals or that impose greater costs on those who exploit animals.

(3) Trying to ensure that the pursuit of their goal doesn’t harm animals. One example would be promoting research into technologies that replace the use of animals. However, whether we’re talking about producers or consumers, for a change in their practices to take place (if they remain indifferent), they must believe that the method that doesn’t harm animals is more effective for achieving their goal (whether that’s maximizing profits, enjoying a specific taste, buying a cheaper product, conducting experiments, etc.).

People whose goal is to harm animals

Now we’ll discuss those whose goal is harm to animals for its own sake. One example might be those who enjoy hunting or fishing. Of course, one could argue that this case isn’t really different from those who consume animals, since the latter also derive pleasure from that activity (and those who hunt and fish also consume the animals after killing them in many cases). However, the mention of hunting and fishing isn’t because these activities are more objectionable than those carried out by those who don’t directly kill animals; they’re used as an example because those who hunt or fish won’t automatically stop doing so if, for example, cultivated meat were available (not even if it were cheaper and tastier than conventional meat).

One might think there’s no way to get these people to start wanting to help animals. It’s clear that this change can be much more difficult. In most cases, they believe they’re doing the right thing. Coming to believe that what they’re doing is wrong would be a motivation to change their behavior. Therefore, presenting arguments in favor of moral consideration for animals remains an option worth trying in this case.

We can also try to limit their influence. Again, we can try to enact laws that guarantee legal rights to nonhuman animals or that prohibit specific practices that harm them.

People dedicated to helping animals

Below are some suggestions for those already dedicated to helping animals, so that their actions have a greater impact.

(1) Trying to expand the goal. There are already several people concerned about sentient beings, although generally, it is not about all of them. For example, when talking about animals used for consumption, the vast majority (crustaceans and other invertebrates) tend to be left in the background or even ignored in vegan activism. Furthermore, the vast majority of animal activists overlook the situation of wild animals who are victims of natural processes, who are far more numerous than exploited animals.³ This is partly because they don’t know which animals are most exploited in each context, what life is like for most animals in nature, and how many animals are affected by natural processes. However, biases also play a role. For example, some believe that smaller animals, who arouse less empathy in us or who have lower cognitive capacities, deserve less consideration or that we shouldn’t worry about the harms of natural origin. Therefore, it’s worth providing information to these people, as well as explaining why we should consider all sentient beings, and that this consideration should be independent of the source of their harm.

(2) Sharing more knowledge about how to benefit animals. This would increase the chances that those who help animals are more effective and reduce the chances of their activism being counterproductive. One way to expand knowledge in this regard would be to research which problems affect the greatest number of animals, and what the criteria are for deciding which problems to prioritize and which strategies to choose. This knowledge can also include how to get those who don’t aim to benefit animals to cause less or no harm to them, or even to benefit them.

(3) Trying to increase their influence to benefit animals. Those who already aim to help animals can aspire to well-paid professions, secure more donations, obtain positions with decision-making power, or increase their degree of influence in other ways (for example, by becoming better known).

The relationship between the goal pursued, knowledge, and influence

One risk associated with increasing influence is that, if knowledge about the best way to achieve the goal doesn’t increase proportionally, the magnitude of possible negative effects from counterproductive actions also increases.

For example, suppose someone wants as many animals as possible to be born in nature because they think those animals will have happy lives. However, the opposite is actually true: the vast majority of animals born in nature have lives full of suffering.⁴ That person intended to cause a benefit. But, due to a lack of knowledge, their action will have a negative effect, which will be greater the greater their influence on causing animals to be born in nature.

A similar risk exists when there’s knowledge but a lack of influence. For example, imagine that another person knows what the most effective strategies are to benefit animals, but has fewer economic resources, doesn’t hold an institutional position of power, can’t manage to influence others, etc. In this case, despite knowing how to achieve their goal, they don’t have the means to do so due to their limited influence.

Therefore, it’s positive for more people to try to benefit sentient beings, and it’s also good for those who have that goal to have greater knowledge about how to achieve it. However, an increase in influence only increases the probability of achieving that goal more efficiently if it’s accompanied by an increase in knowledge about how to achieve it. Otherwise, the risk of counterproductive actions is high, and the greater the discrepancy between the level of influence and the level of knowledge. For the same reasons, it’s important to try to limit the power of those who are indifferent and of those who aim to harm animals, especially if they have great influence over how to achieve the goals they pursue.

Who is it most worthwhile to try to influence, and how?

(1) It’s better to focus on those who are most open to revising their prior beliefs on this matter.⁵ Focusing on these people is simpler and has a greater impact per unit of effort. If, on the contrary, we focus on those who offer greater resistance, we’ll influence fewer people over the same period of time with the same resources.

(2) For the same reason (efficiency in the use of time), it’s better to focus on actions that reach a large audience all at once (a text, a video, or a talk, for example), rather than talking with each person individually. Except, of course, if the conversation is with someone who has great influence over changing the situation of animals.

(3) In the case of those who already intend to help animals, it’s important that we try to expand their knowledge about how to achieve that goal. The greater their influence, the more urgent it becomes (since, as we’ve seen, the risk of counterproductive actions taking place is greater the larger the discrepancy between the degree of knowledge and influence).

(4) As for those who already aim to benefit animals and have greater knowledge about how to achieve it, it’s important that they continue increasing both their knowledge and their influence (whether by obtaining more resources, holding an institutional position, or any other way that increases their effectiveness).

The different contributions of each group

Below are some groups of people and what their specific contributions could be to improving the situation of animals.

Philosophers working in animal ethics. They can identify serious problems that have gone unnoticed and develop strong arguments against objections to giving animals moral consideration.

Animal activists. Since they already share the goal (fully or partially), the focus should be on growing their influence and knowledge, both to surface important issues they’ve missed and to sharpen the best arguments for animal consideration.

The general public. They can contribute by reducing their consumption, pressuring institutions to change, and becoming activists themselves.

Those who exploit animals. They may invest in alternatives to animal use if those prove more profitable than the status quo.

Potential donors. They can begin donating, or substantially increase what they already give, to animal advocacy.

Effective altruists. They can research which strategies work best, but only once they’ve adopted the wellbeing of sentient beings as a goal.

The scientific community. They can find ways to cut the cost of alternatives to animal use and put them into practice, and they can discover ways to reduce the suffering of wild animals.

Those in institutional positions. They can propose or support laws that benefit animals.

Influencers. The well-known ones can greatly expand awareness of these issues, including among people positioned to drive change. But they need a solid grasp of animal ethics and effective strategy, so their message lands correctly rather than backfiring.

Conclusion

What we’ve seen leads us to the conclusion that those who want to help animals should focus on: (1) acquiring more knowledge about the most effective ways to achieve that goal, as well as (2) trying to obtain greater influence (economic resources, positions of institutional power, etc.). Another option, of course, is for some to specialize in acquiring more knowledge and others in obtaining more influence. In any case, in terms of collective effort, knowledge without the capacity for influence will probably prove ineffective in achieving a positive outcome, while the capacity for influence without knowledge risks causing great harm, even when the intention is good.

---

Notes