some people prefer to take big effective actions, rather than tiny actions that add up across many people
Like the OP says, I have heard people say that not eating meat has no effect because production decisions are made in large chunks. That isn’t about a preference for big actions.
I mean, it’s probably true in the same way that “my vote will probably not change the election” is probably true. most people value a 1/1000 chance of saving 1000 chickens at way less than a 100% chance of saving one chicken. for meat production in particular, the connection between you choosing not to eat meat and less meat being produced is more tenuous than for elections. imo the main reasonable arguments for not eating meat are either deontological/signalling (it is bad to do immoral things, it is bad to be a hypocrite, etc), or fdt style arguments (I am not deciding just for myself, but for many people who use the same decision strategy); incidentally, these are imo also the main reasons to vote.
Like the OP says, I have heard people say that not eating meat has no effect because production decisions are made in large chunks. That isn’t about a preference for big actions.
I mean, it’s probably true in the same way that “my vote will probably not change the election” is probably true. most people value a 1/1000 chance of saving 1000 chickens at way less than a 100% chance of saving one chicken. for meat production in particular, the connection between you choosing not to eat meat and less meat being produced is more tenuous than for elections. imo the main reasonable arguments for not eating meat are either deontological/signalling (it is bad to do immoral things, it is bad to be a hypocrite, etc), or fdt style arguments (I am not deciding just for myself, but for many people who use the same decision strategy); incidentally, these are imo also the main reasons to vote.