Has your life had an overall positive impact on the world?

[Jebus]

I have pondered this question lately and unfortunately my answer is no. On the positive side, I have entertained more people than I have annoyed and I have made my parents proud. However this pales in comparison to the damage I made by eating meat for 30 years and consuming dairy for another four years after that.

The only way I can make up for this damage is to convert others to veganism. So far I have knowingly only converted one person who was 45 when I convinced him to become vegan. However, there are a few variables I must consider estimate before I can start crediting his "vegan years" to my account. These variables include:

The likelihood that he would have become vegan without my influence.
The likelihood that he will stay vegan for the rest of his life.
An estimation of his life longevity probability as a non-vegan.
The probability of him converting others who will convert others and so on.

Given these variables, I think I can credit 10 vegan years to my account. Hence, if I were to die today it would have been better if I had never been born. I am still over 20 vegan years short of reaching my goal of making my life worthwhile. Of course, it is possible that something I wrote or said somewhere may have impacted someone to become vegan or consume less meat/dairy but this will only amount to a few vegan months in my probability calculation.

Sure, I can do my best to feed homeless dogs and donate some of my earnings to good vegan causes, but in the end what really will have an impact is converting people to veganism or to consume less animal products.

I am curious as if I am the only vegan who has been thinking along these lines, and if not how does your equation work out? Also, if using this way of thinking can you think of any human being throughout history who has had a more positive impact on the world than Gary Yourofsky (or perhaps the person who convinced Gary to become vegan).

[brimstoneSalad]

I know the feeling. We're in somewhat similar situations there.

Gary Yourofsky could burn down an orphanage of puppies and probably still have a net positive impact in his life.
But that's not all there is to it.

Those things we do knowingly mean more than the things we do unknowingly, as far as our character, and that can mean more than the effects of our actions when you take into account chaos.

We can't predict the ultimate effects of our actions -- only the probable ones, and only based on what we can know -- by being born and blowing out birthday candles, you may have caused a hurricane somewhere that killed thousands.

That is to say, you can't in any way know how the world would have been if you hadn't been born.

All we can do is try as hard as we can with the information we can access.

If you didn't know you were harming animals (which I think is probably fair up until a certain age), or didn't know you had a choice not to harm animals (which may be fair slightly longer, particularly for those of us who are older and didn't grow up this generation), that does at least partially redeem your character.

Whether you're a good person or a bad one, overall, is not a clear question, because there are different ways (not moral relativist ways, but just different means of normalizing) to determine that.

1. The omniscient "if I hadn't existed" way: we simply do not have access to this information. At best, we can guess, but that isn't very useful.

2. In spirit. You did the right thing when you knew it was the right thing, and didn't bullshit or rationalize your way out of it. We never ALWAYS do the right thing, so this is also an issue of degree.

3. Relative to the hypothetical person who might have existed in your stead; that is, relative to the average person who is in your general situation. This makes certain practical assumptions about "free will" that don't hold up well under scrutiny, but it's a practical measure that reflects our notion of "justification".

Hopefully that helps you out a bit.

As to your case:
1. I think you're over-estimating the vegan-years. People who go vegan overwhelmingly switch back to eating meat after a couple years, and more often sooner (unless the do it as a couple, in which case it has a better shot at sticking forever). I would credit that conversion with about six months statistical vegan-years created. Convert married couples together if you want staying power.
2. Also, there's the issue of the Moral Ponzi scheme. E.g. somebody could say, "I converted somebody else to veganism, so now I can eat meat with a clear conscience", then the person you converted does the same thing, and so on. You can't necessarily claim moral credit for the moral choices that other people make. If this person went vegan for health reasons, that's one thing. But if they're taking moral credit for their own choices, you can't get points for them. Or if you can get points for them and they can't, then you don't get the points for your own choice to go vegan (whoever converted you did), and that turns into a pyramid scheme instead of a Ponzi scheme.
Taking credit for other's morally motivated choices is either a moral Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. It sounds like it would work, but in practice tends to fall apart when you examine the systematic effects.

[Red]

Does donating over $500 to charities count?

[Jebus]

Does donating over $500 to charities count?

Of course, especially if it was an efficient charity, but let's put the $500 in perspective. Would it offset the damage I did when beating up some poor kid in 4th grade? Probably? Would it offset the damage I did while being a loyal McDonalds customer over 10 years? No, not even close.

[miniboes]

I am way too young to make any judgment of this kind. As I went vegan young, however, my years being a vegan will heavily outnumber my carnivorous years in the long run.

[Jebus]

As I went vegan young, however, my years being a vegan will heavily outnumber my carnivorous years in the long run.

Unless you die young. . .

Anyways, I envy you and all others who became vegan so young. Perhaps things would have been different if I had met a vegan, had Internet access, or watched a movie like "Earthlings." I had no such advantages growing up.

[brimstoneSalad]

Perhaps things would have been different if I had met a vegan, had Internet access, or watched a movie like "Earthlings." I had no such advantages growing up.

You should already know that you're a good person NOW, and that's the most important thing. Also, that you're the kind of person who stays that way. You can't change the past.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with doing as much good as you possibly can to make up for the past... but we should kind of all be doing that anyway, shouldn't we? Crimes in our youth or no.

[Jebus]

[ Of course, there's nothing wrong with doing as much good as you possibly can to make up for the past... but we should kind of all be doing that anyway, shouldn't we? Crimes in our youth or no.

Absolutely and a better question to ask would be: Will the future be better off without me? i.e. Would the world profit from my suicide? For 99% of the world population the answer should be yes.

Perhaps the initial question illustrates why I have had such a hard time convincing my mother (77 years) and my sister (52 years). They are both intelligent and otherwise rational but close their minds to the idea of veganism. I think it might take too much for an older person to admit that his/her life has had a negative impact on the world.

[brimstoneSalad]

Absolutely and a better question to ask would be: Will the future be better off without me? i.e. Would the world profit from my suicide? For 99% of the world population the answer should be yes.

Well, I don't think that's true for most people. Those who exist as mere warm bodies trudging through life still serve as an impetus to the economy, and propel the development of science and technology through raw consumerism -- which will ultimately solve these problems and then some.
If everybody who wasn't vegan suddenly vanished, I'm not certain that the world would be better for it in the long term, since the world economy would more or less grind to a halt and the technological advancement we see now would slow to a crawl. Immediately speaking there would be less suffering, but that's to ignore the end-game.

They are bad people for not changing for the better when they realize the harm they are doing though, yes.

Perhaps the initial question illustrates why I have had such a hard time convincing my mother (77 years) and my sister (52 years). They are both intelligent and otherwise rational but close their minds to the idea of veganism. I think it might take too much for an older person to admit that his/her life has had a negative impact on the world.

That's an interesting insight.

Maybe you could try discussing with them the idea of the future, rather than the past?

[Jebus]

If everybody who wasn't vegan suddenly vanished, I'm not certain that the world would be better for it in the long term, since the world economy would more or less grind to a halt and the technological advancement we see now would slow to a crawl. Immediately speaking there would be less suffering, but that's to ignore the end-game.

This touches on a similar discussion we had a while ago about hitting the reset button. I believe you are overly optimistic. There is just too much that could go wrong between now and the technological utopia you believe we will enter into. Global warming, nuclear devastation, and epidemic outbreaks are just a few of the very probable occurrences that might hinder any further development. However, for sake of argument I will ignore these risks and guesstimate what might happen if everyone who is not vegan suddenly vanished.

Climate change would be mitigated.
There would be less of a strain on world resources, forests would grow back etc.
The world economy as we know it would collapse. However, soon a new economy would evolve.
As vegans on average are better educated, they will have better educated children.
As vegans on average are less religious, they will have less religious children.
While technology would evolve a bit slower because of fewer scientists, it would still evolve and probably in a much more safe and ethical fashion.
Fewer human deaths percentage wise from the top killers: Heart disease, diabetes, traffic accidents, prescription drugs.
Fewer wars. There may be some power hungry vegans arguing about who should govern the new world and a few of these vegans might be the ones who control the weapons. However, I find this unlikely

The only possible negative consequences that I am unsure about are the effects on the eco-systems due to the liberation of millions of captivated animals and the result of large land farm land areas not being taken care of. As you wrote that the non-vegans would vanish, I will not get into the negative consequences of 7 billion human corpses rotting.