● To-do — Em to review
This whole tool is a draft of my own reasoning, externalised so it can be argued with. Nothing here is settled. Where the evidence is thin, I’ve said so under “Evidence & caveats.”
These are assumptions, not facts.
Behind every grant sits a chain of guesses: that a vegan is “worth more” than a reducer, that a young person is more reachable than a middle-aged one, that a conversation beats a billboard. Usually those guesses stay hidden inside a gut feeling. Here they’re written down as numbers you can change.
The point isn’t that these numbers are right. It’s that the conclusion is only ever as good as the assumption that produced it — so if you disagree, move the slider and watch what it does to the answer. Your edits are saved in this browser; Reset restores my defaults.
What “vegan” means here
Throughout, “vegan” means aspirationally vegan: someone who agrees the world should move this way, wants to be part of it, and is genuinely trying. It’s closer to how Buddhism treats the path than to a purity test — the pursuit counts, not a perfect record. A person eating plant-based 90% of the time and pulling others along may matter more than a flawless eater who tells no one.
That choice is upstream of everything below: it’s why retention and spread can outweigh raw dietary perfection.
One person, weighed fourteen ways
Each card states an equivalence, shows it as a live ratio, and lets you tune the multiplier behind it. The worked example and the bars update as you drag. Open “Evidence & caveats” for sources that support — or undercut — the claim.
Build a campaign, watch the assumptions multiply
Pick a profile and the tool chains your sliders into one number: impact-equivalent units, where 1 unit ≈ one generic, passive message landing on one general-audience person in a baseline setting. It’s a deliberately crude model — its job is to show how small assumptions compound, not to be exact.
The multiplication chain — every “×” is a slider
Sources & caveats, in full
A consolidated list of everything cited above. Many of these findings are contested, small, or drawn from outside animal advocacy and stretched to fit. Read them as provocations to the assumptions, not proof of them.