tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44656710156831297682023-11-15T06:15:05.870-07:00Unpopular Vegan Essays ATTRIBUTION: Where this blog references or discusses the property status of animals, welfarism, new welfarism, animals and the law, or single-issue campaigns, it is based on The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights as developed by Gary L. Francione.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-52567208739856817152012-04-20T09:44:00.000-06:002012-09-26T05:30:47.826-06:00Freedom’s New Frontier: A Guide to Animal Rights<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition. I have intentionally left the links in this article directed to Gentle World's marvelous website.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This article will be the last post on this blog. For various reasons, I have decided to turn my attention to other projects.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 14.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px; min-height: 16.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span>__________________</div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The movement for animal rights is perhaps one of the most misunderstood social phenomena of the 21</span><span style="font: 8.7px Arial; letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><sup>st</sup></span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> century. Despite the sincere efforts of an increasing number of individuals willing to speak up on behalf of the animals who suffer at the hands of humans, our cause continues to be misconstrued, misrepresented, and maligned.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Admittedly, the blame for this lies partially with the movement itself, or at least with certain organizations and individuals perceived to be at the helm, who seem to create their own PR nightmares, or to be so off course that one sometimes wonders if they could actually be working for the other side.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This may come as a surprise to some, but for those of us who view animal rights as the most pressing social justice issue of our time, the antics of the large organizations are often as embarrassing as they are hurtful to the animals they purport to serve. Sadly, these groups have a monopoly on not only the available funding, but subsequently, to a large degree, the hearts and minds of those watching and listening, making it painfully obvious why the animal rights movement has gained such a poor reputation.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Meanwhile, in 2012, while many of our society’s advances progress ever more rapidly, our behavior toward animals is more objectionable than ever. Despite the emergence and growth of an entire industry devoted to providing excellent alternatives to virtually everything we obtain from animal exploitation, the number of animals enslaved and killed every year is greater than at any time in history.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Even to those of us who are deeply involved with animal rights and vegan education, a brief look at the math veritably boggles the mind.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Every year around the world, for no purpose other than providing food alone (<i>food</i> <i>which is not only inappropriate for human physiology, but actually contributes significantly to many of the most significant global health crises)</i>, approximately 56 billion nonhuman animals are intentionally bred, raised, and killed.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This entirely unnatural population of living beings not only causes our planet to strain under the weight of so many individuals, each requiring food, water and land that could otherwise be used much more efficiently, but also produces so much pollution and waste that the planet simply cannot recycle it fast enough.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The number of 56 billion does not even include those animals who live in water*, or those who are killed for other reasons, such as for clothing, experimentation or “sport”. In the US alone, we kill 10 billion land animals for food every year; far more than the entire current human population.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">At this rate of killing, the number of deaths is greater in five days than the deaths we’ve inflicted on humans in all wars and all genocides in recorded human history (approximately 619 million). Even if every non-vegan cut their current animal product consumption by 90%, it would take us only about 41 days to kill as many sentient nonhumans as we’ve killed humans in recorded history.</span></div>
<ul>
<li style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>It is hard to find accurate figures with regard to the number of fishes and other aquatic animals who are killed by humans every year. However, a conservative estimate would likely be around 100 billion, making the total number of animals killed for food at least three times as much (156 billion annually).</i></span></li>
</ul>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">How did we come to this? It’s obvious that the situation has been made much worse by the disastrous combination of continually increasing human population growth, technological advancements, industrial capacity, and economic demand during the 20th century and continuing into the 21st. However, all of this is occurring on top of a deep social and cultural prejudice against sentient nonhuman beings that is exacerbated by the fact that we humans are frighteningly indulgent of our destructive habits; willing to persistently put our frivolous desires above the indisputable needs and rights of those we oppress.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">To animal advocates faced with the harsh reality of this situation, it is abundantly clear that we have an enormous amount of work to do in order to shift society’s current paradigm from one of unimaginable and extreme violence to one of relatively peaceful sanity. Shifting away from the common belief that other animals are renewable resources – objects, insentient ‘things’, and economic commodities fit to be owned as property – will lead to a new perception that recognizes other animals as the conscious, feeling, innocent individuals they are.</span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Following is a collection of articles written for those who are interested in understanding what this movement for animal rights is all about, as well as for those who are trying to figure out how to most effectively inform public opinion. We hope that these will offer some inspiration and clarity, so that together, we will be able to elevate the collective consciousness, bringing about a paradigm that will one day grant animals freedom from persecution and slaughter. And that is a freedom one surely cannot deny they deserve.</span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/the-importance-of-being-vegan/"><b>The Importance of Being Vegan</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>Veganism is not a fringe philosophy – it is a moral baseline that is consistent with beliefs that most of us already hold. Veganism is a simple matter of refraining from participating in unnecessary and harmful use of sentient beings. As most people are naturally opposed to unnecessary violence, becoming and staying vegan is not a matter of changing any of our basic moral beliefs. It simply requires us to be willing to change the habits we have developed that prevent us from living according to our principles.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/the-importance-of-being-vegan/">Read full article</a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #101010;"> </span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century/"><b>Legal Slavery in the 21</b><span style="font: 8.7px Arial; letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><b><sup>st</sup></b></span><b> Century</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>As surely as the abolitionists of the past knew that no man or woman should be the property of any other, the abolitionists of today know that the legal property status of animals stands in the way of their ever receiving any meaningful rights or protection, let alone being granted the freedom to live according to their own needs and desires.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/a-matter-of-life-and-death/"><b>A Matter of Life and Death</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>We consider killing humans to be wrong regardless of the individual’s cognitive abilities, moral capacity, mental health, sex, race, nationality, age or sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter whether the person in question is terminally suffering from dementia, psychologically ill, severely retarded or a productive genius – we believe it to be seriously wrong in all cases… By stark contrast, the majority of us act as if there is absolutely nothing wrong with unnecessarily killing a member of certain other species of sentient beings. But what rational basis do we have for such a discrepancy in our perception? What quality is found in all and only humans that could possibly point to the conclusion that the lives of other animals are unimportant?</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/a-matter-of-life-and-death/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/animal-cruelty-who-is-to-blame/"><b>Animal Cruelty: Who Is to Blame?</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>There is something very unjust about the fact that we delegate the most obscene work of our society to a select few who are emotionally hardened enough to carry it out, only to later denigrate them for their disconnection from their natural sense of empathy. When thinking about it honestly, most of us would be hard-pressed to find it in ourselves to slaughter an animal – or to rip off her skin, or slice open her body to remove the entrails, or butcher her flesh into supermarket-sized pieces… And yet, we continue to ask others to do it for us, while most people refuse to even watch these things on video or hear others describe them.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/animal-cruelty-who-is-to-blame/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/speciesism-and-veganism-transcending-politics-and-religion/"><b>Speciesism and Veganism: Transcending Politics and Religion</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>Speciesism, racism, sexism, and other prejudices rely on a morally irrelevant criterion (in this case, species) as the basis on which to deny the interests of an individual belonging to a different ‘group’, even if those interests are more significant than one’s own. As such, speciesism is simply a different form of the same underlying wrong at the foundation of all prejudices. It really doesn’t matter which morally irrelevant criteria we base our prejudice on – sex, race, skin color, age, sexual orientation, species – it is ethically wrong to use such arbitrary criteria to deny the rights of others.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/speciesism-and-veganism-transcending-politics-and-religion/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform/"><b>Making a Killing with Animal Welfare Reform</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>Animal advocacy organizations work side by side </i><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/partners-in-exploitation/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>with the animal industry</i></span></a><i> in developing and promoting “humane” labels for animal foods. Not only does this sort of “product development” consulting provide invaluable public relations assistance for these companies, but it also effectively gives these products the “animal people” stamp of approval when they reach the consumer. Although these programs may appear on the surface to offer greater protection for animals, it is painfully clear that they are designed as an (albeit very clever) PR campaign to increase sales, by making consumers feel better about using animal products. These labels, which include Certified Humane Raised & Handled, Humane Choice, Freedom Food and the Whole Foods 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards, could quite reasonably be viewed as the ultimate betrayal from the perspective of the victims.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really-effective/"><b>Are Anti-Cruelty Campaigns Really Effective?</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>Because animals are property and economic commodities, we have a wide divergence of social acceptability regarding the treatment of animals. On one hand, the law permits extreme cruelty for the most trivial of economic benefits, as long as the end use is socially acceptable. On the other hand, most people would be horrified to see a dog – especially their own dog – endure what animals raised for food or used in experiments endure. Single Issue Campaigns reinforce these irrational dichotomies by singling out specific uses of animals as though they are worse than others. When we campaign to eliminate one branch, such as the fur or seal-clubbing industries, while ignoring other branches, such as the leather, egg, and dairy industries, we send a message to the public that certain forms of exploitation are worse than others.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really-effective/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/taxpayers-fund-animal-cruelty-and-environmental-devastation/"><b>Taxpayers Fund Animal Cruelty and Environmental Devastation</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>Not only do such colossal government handouts artificially affect supply, these subsidies also lower the prices of animal products, which would be close to three times as high without subsidies. Considering the exorbitant costs of animal agriculture to the environment; and the costs of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excess sodium to human health, a responsible government would tax, not subsidize, animal products, even if the rights of animals were not an issue.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/taxpayers-fund-animal-cruelty-and-environmental-devastation/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/a-beginner%e2%80%99s-guide-to-vegan-advocacy/"><b>A Beginner’s Guide to Vegan Advocacy</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>During the past few years, the call to reduce our consumption of animal products has grown tremendously. There is a great deal of diversity amongst the individuals and organizations behind this appeal, as well as in the reasons and benefits they point to, and most of them are not </i><a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan</i></span></a><i>. However, there is one thing they have in common, and that is that they are all making it easier for people to be vegan for life. Indeed, the movement away from animal use is shaping up to possibly be the most significant social phenomenon of the 21st century.</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/a-beginner%e2%80%99s-guide-to-vegan-advocacy/">Read full article</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/opposition-confirms-my-purpose/"><b>Opposition Confirms My Purpose</b></a></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>“I found the minds of the people strangely indifferent to the subject of slavery. Their prejudices were invincible—stronger, if possible, than those of the slaveholders. Objections were started on every hand; apologies for the abominable system constantly saluted my ears; obstacles were industriously piled up in my path… What was yet more discouraging, my best friends—without an exception—besought me to give up the enterprise! It was not my duty (they argued) to spend my time, and talents, and services, where persecution, reproach and poverty were the only certain reward. My scheme was visionary—fanatical—unattainable… But opposition served only to increase my ardor, and confirm my purpose.”</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #101010; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>~ William Lloyd Garrison (July 14, 1830)</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 22.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px; text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/opposition-confirms-my-purpose/">Read full article</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-86811969884429047552012-04-06T06:51:00.000-06:002012-09-26T05:31:08.700-06:00Opposition Confirms My Purpose<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">This article was originally published February 29, 2012 on Care2.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>_________________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>“I found the minds of the people strangely indifferent to the subject of slavery. Their prejudices were invincible—stronger, if possible, than those of the slaveholders. Objections were started on every hand; apologies for the abominable system constantly saluted my ears; obstacles were industriously piled up in my path… What was yet more discouraging, my best friends—without an exception—besought me to give up the enterprise! It was not my duty (they argued) to spend my time, and talents, and services, where persecution, reproach and poverty were the only certain reward. My scheme was visionary—fanatical—unattainable… But opposition served only to increase my ardor, and confirm my purpose.”</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">~ William Lloyd Garrison (July 14, 1830)</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">We live in a world where the vast majority of people consider it perfectly acceptable to oppress and exploit other animals, despite the fact that we have <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;">no moral justification for doing so</span></a>. Every year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals are killed, after being intentionally bred and enslaved, all for human gain. Worldwide, the numbers equal approximately 56 billion annually. When we count animals who live in water, there are tens or hundreds of billions more every year.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">All of these animals are as innocent as children, but we treat them as though being born as a member of a different species is a crime worthy of life in prison, often accompanied by torture, ending with the death penalty. In fact, for the vast majority of them, the lives they are forced to live are so unbearable that premature death – <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/a-matter-of-life-and-death.html"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #0e23a3; text-decoration: underline;">itself a severe harm</span></a> – might conceivably serve as some kind of merciful release from a life of physical, psychological and emotional suffering.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Widespread veganism is the only hope these nonhuman beings have for emancipation from their brief, brutal existence. Such a fundamental change in our society will only be brought about by a radical moral paradigm shift similar to those which resulted in the abolition of human chattel slavery and the voting rights of women.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Moral paradigm shifts, however, do not cause themselves. They are caused by small groups of people within society – always considered “radical” in their own time – who persistently educate others over decades about why change is necessary. Indeed, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator, a weekly anti-slavery newspaper, in 1831, and it wasn’t until after 34 years and the bloodiest war on United States soil* that slavery was finally abolished in 1865. Similarly, the women’s suffrage movement’s first well-known spokesperson was John Stuart Mill in 1865, but women were not permitted to vote until 1918 in the United Kingdom, and 1920 in the United States.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>* Note that William Lloyd Garrison, the authors of this article, and the abolitionist approach to animal rights reject violence, and support only non-violent education and reasoned dialogue as a means to social justice, regardless of the cause.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">In their efforts to educate and to engage in civil disobedience in the name of noble causes, abolitionists and suffragists endured ridicule, anger, imprisonment, and death threats, both from the establishment itself, and also from counter-movements made up of citizens with an interest in maintaining the current situation.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Nobody minded a quiet abolitionist or suffragist. Respecting “everyone’s personal choice” with deferent silence was deemed “moderate and respectable” by those vested in the status quo. Challenging the injustice with moral education was called “self-righteous,” “offensive,” “extremist,” and “off-putting.”</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Take, for example, the following quote from 1847, in which human slavery proponent Joseph W. Lesesne criticizes anti-slavery advocates and the abolitionist movement:</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>“[The abolitionists'] conduct has been most atrocious. No language is strong enough to denounce it. The shameless impudence with which they have trampled the Constitution under their feet, and their mean and despicable contrivances to deprive us of our Slave property ought to be held up to the scorn of the whole Union.”</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">The more direct and unequivocal an advocate’s position, the more resistance he or she encountered.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">And so it is with vegans today. Despite the fact that we stand so clearly on the side of justice for all sentient beings, we can expect to encounter resistance most of the time. As strong vegan educators and advocates, we can expect to be dismissed, ignored, misrepresented, and to be subjected to whatever treatment those opposing us believe would be most effective at discouraging our efforts. Recognizing and accepting this situation for what it is, and realizing that other successful social justice movements faced similar resistance and criticism over spans of decades, can help us persist in our efforts over decades as well.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Aside from simply being on the justifiable side of a cause, a major reason that social justice movements of the past succeeded was persistence. Realizing that even the most effective vegan advocacy will take decades, rather than months or years, to have its intended goals achieved can give us the perspective we need to ultimately succeed by avoiding the burnout that comes with obsessive activity, unrealistic expectations, and a short-sighted focus on short-term results. We should recognize that it might sometimes be beneficial to take a break and recharge our batteries, and that, alongside our personal advocacy, it’s important that we also strive for physical, mental and emotional health, so that we can be as effective as possible in our efforts to educate and inspire others.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">So let us relentlessly persist in the struggle for justice at a pace we can maintain for as long as is necessary. Let us not measure our progress in insignificant welfare “victories”, which, during the short time they last, only serve to perpetuate the exploitation paradigm and make consumers feel better about their purchases of animal products. Let us instead measure progress in terms of the increasing number of ethical vegans, the decreases in animal product consumption, the increases in vegan alternatives, and the gradual transformation of the collective consciousness, which, only 65 years ago, didn’t even have a word to describe someone as being ‘vegan’.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Over time, the irrepressible power of justice will prevail, as we overcome the shameful prejudice and despicable discrimination that attempts to justify and maintain the moral status of animals as economic property and tradable commodities. Until that day comes, let whatever opposition comes our way serve only to increase our ardor, and confirm our purpose.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Drawing on the wisdom of another of the great voices of the anti-slavery movement of the 1800s, Frederick Douglass,</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><i>“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”</i></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-71521904737440696662012-02-25T16:13:00.001-07:002012-09-26T05:31:31.214-06:00Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginner's Guide)<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This article was originally published January 31, 2012 on Care2.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>_______________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">During the past few years, the call to reduce our consumption of animal products has grown tremendously. There is a great deal of diversity amongst the individuals and organizations behind this appeal, as well as in the reasons and benefits they point to, and most of them are not <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan</span></a>. However, there is one thing they have in common, and that is that they are all making it easier for people to be vegan for life. Indeed, the movement away from animal use is shaping up to possibly be the most significant social phenomenon of the 21st century.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Vegan recipe blogs, which illustrate innovative techniques for preparing a huge range of delicious, satisfying meals and treats, have proliferated into the hundreds, if not thousands. Both the number and the variety of vegan food items are increasing annually in restaurants and supermarkets. New vegan businesses are opening every year, and thriving more than ever, including cafes, bakeries, restaurants, grocery stores, clothing and apparel stores, online boutiques, and even retreat centers and B&Bs.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Professional dietitians, in increasing numbers, are helping to guide consumers through the sea of books, blogs, articles and DVDs to learn how to achieve vibrant health on naturally wholesome vegan diets, as well as making it easier than ever to avoid the poor nutritional choices that frequently result in the “ex-vegan” phenomenon.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>Note: Some may be surprised to find this out, but it is becoming more and more well-known that all nutrients required by the human body can be obtained from non-animal sources, including plenty of </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/10-protein-packed-plants/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>protein</i></span></a><i>, iron, calcium, vitamin D, vitamin B12, and fatty acids such as Omega and DHA oils. If there were any nutritional deficiencies in well-planned vegan diets, the mainstream American Dietetic Association, American Medical Association, and similar science-based organizations would be broadcasting them far and wide.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>For those of us who are committed to ethical veganism, it is essential to derive all our nutrients from non-animal sources. Although there are those who claim to have experienced nutritional deficiencies caused by a plant-based diet, it seems ever more likely – in light of the information we now have access to – that these individuals may not have been sufficiently informed about vegan whole foods nutrition and the many options for nutritional supplementation, including the huge range of whole-food supplements that are becoming increasingly accessible for all of us in the developed world.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">As the devastating environmental effects of animal agriculture become increasingly apparent, environmentalists are speaking out about the industry’s <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/environment/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">blatant offenses against the global ecosystem</span></a>, such as deforestation for grazing, the cultivation of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/as-we-soy-so-shall-we-reap/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vast feed crop monocultures</span></a>, extremely high emissions of carbon and other warming gases such as methane, the careless squandering of oil, water and other finite natural resources, and the pollution of our air, water and soil – all while this filthy industry is artificially propped up by tens of billions of dollars in <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/taxpayers-fund-animal-cruelty-and-environmental-devastation.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">government welfare funding</span></a>.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">With the growing popularity of social media, the educational resources shared by dedicated advocates are making it easier for the previously uninformed to bear witness to institutionalized cruelty that is not only perfectly legal, but so horrific that most of us turn away in distress, unwilling to endure with our eyes what innocent others are forced to endure with their bodies.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">And a growing number of abolitionist vegans are explaining and demonstrating the simple fact that unless we shift the paradigm to fully include these sentient beings in our moral community by <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">embracing veganism</span></a> and rejecting the property status of animals, there will be no end to the socially-acceptable barbarism which allows us to treat beings as innocent as our children as <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">economic commodity units</span></a>.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The Internet, while still dominated by large corporate interests, has comparatively democratized the ability of grassroots advocates to share information. Blogs, forums, and social media sites have opened up communication lines for rational dialogue among everyday people at a rate of growth unprecedented since the invention of the printing press.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In the past, some individuals may have felt tempted or even obligated to tap into the wide reach of large organizations that soak up the majority of the funding available for animal advocacy by <a href="http://gentleworld.org/rain-without-thunder/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">appealing to mainstream values</span></a> with a message promoting animal welfare or vegetarianism. But now, individuals who are genuinely concerned with <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/a-matter-of-life-and-death.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">fundamental issues of animal rights</span></a> are able to make their voices heard independently.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Given the burgeoning opportunities, advocates can pick and choose what methods and media suit their talents, personalities, preferences, and geographic locations. If you’re a gregarious extrovert in the city or suburbs who loves to chat with people on the street, you might do well setting up tables at festivals or street stalls with cupcakes or finger foods.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">If you’re confident about your ability to prepare amazing food, you might enjoy holding a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/sharing-the-joy-of-vegan-cooking/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan cooking demonstration</span></a> in your own home or elsewhere, or hosting vegan dinners or potlucks with a suggestion to guests that they bring a friend who’s interested in learning more about veganism.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Or, if you’re an introvert who would rather cross the street than engage with people you don’t know, blogging, vlogging, and social media advocacy would likely be your preferred venue. (Those of us who live in rural areas also usually find it easier and far more effective to use the opportunities offered by the Web for our advocacy.) Not confident in your writing ability? No problem – perhaps you can team up with another advocate who inspires you, and help them to be more productive by doing research or writing outlines that they can polish up into an engaging article for publication. Maybe you’re better at editing than writing; you might be able to find someone who’s in need of assistance with that. Collaboration (with someone whose approach appeals to you) can be a great way to achieve more and reach out further.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>Note: There are some activists who insist that face-to-face outreach is somehow superior to online communication. However (in the absence of comprehensive studies), is there any reason to think offline or online advocacy is more effective than the other? It seems that the strengths of online are the weaknesses of offline, and vice versa, but neither seems to be more effective than the alternative. Offline, face-to-face advocacy can often be more personable and forthcoming than online due to the subtle nature of nonverbal communication (not to mention the unquestionable power that mouth-watering vegan food has over the skeptical consumer harboring imaginary fears of sensory deprivation as a result of eliminating animal products). But online advocacy – which works around the clock, everyday, for all those who understand the language – can reach many more people, oftentimes by a few orders of magnitude.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">More important than the venue or media used in advocacy, however, is the quality of the content. <a href="http://gentleworld.org/kohala-fair-2011-bigger-than-ever/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Excellent vegan food</span></a>, a powerful vegan message, and friendliness and charisma will obviously do much better while tabling at a festival than bland or unappealing food, a message of compromise, and mediocrity, aggression or a judgmental attitude. And good photography, <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/food-recipes/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">terrific vegan recipes</span></a>, and well-researched, convincing writing will do better online – all other factors being equal – than content of lesser quality.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Finally, quality entails knowing what not to promote. Encouraging the purchase of animal products purported to be produced under <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/something-almost-primal.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">‘ethical’ conditions</span></a> (free-range, cage-free, humanely-raised, grass-fed, organic, etc.) serves only to reinforce the common, traditional belief that it is morally acceptable to use other animals as resources for human consumption.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The same can be said for the confused and confusing message generated by the promotion of a <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/a-call-to-vegetarians.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">lacto-ovo vegetarian diet</span></a>, which ignores the violence inherent in the production of milk and eggs (not to mention the barbarism involved in the manufacture of other animal-based products including <a href="http://gentleworld.org/whats-wrong-with-wool/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">clothing</span></a> and <a href="http://gentleworld.org/hidden-animal-fats/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">toiletries</span></a>), as though these equally brutal industries should somehow be exempt from the moral examination undertaken by those who view meat production to be an intolerable form of injustice.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The fact is that none of us needs any animal products in our lives. We exploit animals and consume the products of their bodies because of pleasure, amusement, convenience, and blind tradition – all trivial reasons to rationalize the brutality of unnecessary exploitation. Sadly, no matter what we say or how well we say it, the fact is that most people won’t go vegan simply upon hearing our message. However, as vegan advocates, veganism is the message we should exclusively and unequivocally promote. Anything less – promoting vegetarianism, or the consumption of ‘humane’ animal products – betrays the fundamental truth that brings us to veganism in the first place: the understanding that we must bring an end to all exploitation if we are to move beyond the pandemic of violence that underlies our current cultural paradigm.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">It is not unusual for animal advocates to be deeply troubled and frustrated by the state of our society and its hardened attitude toward animals who are not human. But social change, while often slow, is also unpredictable, subject to tipping points, paradigm shifts, and peaceful revolutions in attitudes and behavior. As someone who advocates unequivocally for widespread veganism, don’t forget that you are among the gentle, strong, and independent-minded pioneers of a growing, positive, and peaceful movement to protect our environment, improve public health, and most important, to eventually end the social acceptability of violence and injustice inflicted on the innocent.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">With a little effort, courage, creativity, and the willingness to share what we’ve learned with patience, persistence, and understanding, we can all help others to understand the significance of this essential change we are trying to bring to fruition.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-53925903161010942992012-02-04T12:05:00.002-07:002012-09-26T05:31:44.537-06:00A Matter of Life and Death<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This article was originally published December 31, 2011 on Care2.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>_______________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In recent years, <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/rights-or-wrongs.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">the debate about the welfare of animals</span></a> has centralized around specific cases of egregious suffering, with a strong focus on <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really-effective.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">certain practices and procedures</span></a> perceived to cause extreme harm, including intensive confinement, bodily mutilations, and physical and psychological torture.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This focus on specific welfare violations has led to an interesting phenomenon: The public’s attention has been sidetracked from the primary issue involved with <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">economic exploitation of sentient beings</span></a>, which is the commodification of their very lives.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In other words, the current direction of the debate has obscured from view the fundamental question of whether it is unethical, or morally indefensible, to take the life of another sentient being for any reason other than self-defense or compassion toward an individual who is severely suffering from a terminal illness or fatal injury.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This is the reason that <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">the animal industry now markets itself</span></a> as a stronghold of ‘<a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/killing-with-your-own-hands.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">ethical death and dismemberment</span></a>‘. In this new territory of animal slavery double-speak, consumers are actually expected to believe the ever-more-frequent and increasingly perverse accounts of ‘<a href="http://gentleworld.org/bruno-a-new-perspective-on-happy-cows/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">happy farming</span></a>‘; the proliferation of animal exploitation sites where the victims are so content with their circumstances that they happily offer the products of their bodies, then go gladly to their deaths at the side of kindly oppressors whom they trust unconditionally.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But doesn’t this absurd marketing scheme fundamentally betray something that is firmly secured inside each one of us – the knowledge that other animals, just like human animals, care about their lives and don’t want to die?</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">With the exception (for some people) of the violence of war, and the execution of violent criminals who are deemed to be morally incorrigible, the vast majority of us agree that it is unquestionably wrong to unnecessarily kill a member of our own species (except in genuine instances of euthanasia, which is a highly sensitive issue and remains illegal throughout most of the world).</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">We consider killing humans to be wrong regardless of the individual’s cognitive abilities, moral capacity, mental health, sex, race, nationality, age or sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter whether the person in question is terminally suffering from dementia, psychologically ill, severely retarded or a productive genius – we believe it to be seriously wrong in all cases. If we consider any given case to be particularly egregious, it is often due to the individual’s vulnerability, not to any mental or moral characteristics he or she may possess.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">By stark contrast, the majority of us act as if there is absolutely nothing wrong with unnecessarily killing a member of certain other species of sentient beings. But what rational basis do we have for such a discrepancy in our perception? What quality is found in all and only humans that could possibly point to the conclusion that the lives of other animals are unimportant?</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Intelligence or moral capacity as a criterion would make the lives of millions of humans (such as certain individuals suffering from dementia, those who are mentally disabled, and infants) equally expendable. Among human and nonhuman animals, traits such as intelligence and moral capacity exist on an overlapping continuum, making any line-drawing in this regard arbitrary.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But even if there was a distinct cutoff with regard to some criterion such as intelligence or moral capacity, would it matter when it comes to an interest in continued existence and not being killed unnecessarily? When we stop and think about it, such a distinction wouldn’t matter in the least. This is because, just as eyes are sufficient for an interest in continuing to see, and ears are sufficient for an interest in continuing to hear, so sentience alone – the ability to experience one’s life – is sufficient for an interest in continued existence.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">It has been suggested by some that a concept of death, plans for the future, or an interest in some form of ongoing activity is necessary for an interest in continuing to live. But again, if this were the case, as explained above, many humans would not have an interest in continued existence either.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>Note: An analogy to a legal contract is helpful to explain why sentience alone, rather than any conception of the future, is the necessary and sufficient criterion. Legal contracts are often complex and contain unfamiliar terms and meanings to people who are not lawyers. Suggesting that an individual must conceptually understand the future in order to have an interest in future existence is analogous to suggesting that a party to a contract must conceptually understand a harmful clause in order to be harmed by the clause. But we know that we can be harmed by clauses in legal contracts that we didn’t understand when signing the contract. Similarly, it is obvious that sentient nonhumans (just like sentient humans of limited mental capacity) can be harmed by killing even if they don’t have an understanding of their future or their death as an abstract, conceptual matter.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In fact, wouldn’t it be fair to say that untimely death at the hands of another is, with the possible exception of severe torture, the ultimate infliction of harm? Even a quick and genuinely painless death deprives an individual of the chance to experience his or her life, in any capacity, ever again. It stands to reason then, that if we believe animals other than humans ought to be protected from being harmed unnecessarily, they ought to be protected from being killed unnecessarily. Since <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">our society’s reasons for using animals are based on custom and convenience</span></a>, and are, in fact, all unnecessary, we have no grounds on which to justify the continuation of such archaic and barbaric practices.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">It is straightforward to see that if death is harmful to sentient humans, regardless of intelligence or other capacities, then it must also be harmful to sentient nonhumans, regardless of their intelligence or other capacities. When people who consider human lives and deaths to be important are willing to dismiss the importance of the lives and deaths of nonhuman animals, they are making an arbitrary distinction based on a <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/speciesism-and-veganism-transcending-politics-and-religion.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">speciesist prejudice</span></a>, in the same way racists or sexists arbitrarily dismiss the important interests of minority groups or women.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">When we make a sincere and honest effort to place ourselves in the position of another sentient being, it is very easy to see why we should <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">respect their lives</span></a>, regardless of their species or any other characteristics they possess. Like us, they want to be happy, healthy, free from harm, and to enjoy the most precious thing they have: life itself.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-16374925946156035502012-01-12T23:04:00.004-07:002012-01-12T23:08:02.969-07:00On Fact-Value Entanglement<div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(This essay was originally published in <a href="http://www.theabolitionist.info/" target="_blank">The Abolitionist</a>.)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In our modern society, what we call “facts” are usually held in much higher epistemic esteem than what we call “values.” And the most esteemed of all facts are what we call “scientific facts.” And of what we call “values,” the least esteemed as knowledge are what we call “moral values.” Indeed, many people go so far as to deny that there can be any such thing as a “moral fact;” claiming instead that all moral claims can only be an expression of a human culture’s or individual’s values, which in turn are little more than expressions of emotion or (weak) subjective opinion.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But should any such dichotomy between facts and values exist? As I will argue below, while a <i>distinction</i> between facts and values can be useful, the widely-accepted modern <i>dichotomy</i> between facts and values is plainly false. Rather, facts and values are interdependent<i>;</i> and it is a great source of confusion, especially moral confusion, to pretend that facts and values are two entirely different and unrelated categories of thought and perception.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Scientific Values</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It may come as some surprise to many readers that the theory of knowledge supporting scientific claims of fact relies heavily on epistemic <i>value </i>judgments; therefore, as the American philosopher and mathematician Hilary Putnam has rightly claimed, facts and values are <i>entangled</i>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me explain. The vast majority of scientific claims, with the usual exception of boring, unaided observational data, are theory-laden. For example, when we see the sun “rise” in the morning (an observation), whether we believe the sun is moving (possible fact) or we’re moving (possible fact) depends on our theory of planetary motion. When there is an earthquake (an observation), whether we believe the quake was caused by a break in a fault line along a plate (possible fact) or caused by Zeus (possible fact) depends on our theory of what causes earthquakes. Being theory-laden does not mean the claims of fact are unreliable or false, but it does mean they are <i>entangled in values</i>.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What does it mean for a scientific theory or claim of fact to be entangled in values? The scientific values of parsimony, elegance, falsifiability, verifiability, logical consistency, mathematical consistency, observational consistency, explanatory power, and predictive power are all <i>values </i>of both scientific theories and claims of fact, none of which make the theories or claims true (especially by themselves), but taken together, significantly increase the probability of any given theory’s or claim’s truth. These <i>values</i> are the reasons, for example, why biologists choose evolution over “intelligent design” or young earth creationism to explain the existence of species and other biological phenomena.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thus, science and scientific claims of fact are chock-full of <i>values</i>. This does not mean truth is subjective or relative in science, any more than entanglement with values means that truth is subjective or relative in morality. It means there are useful value criteria (<i>values</i>) for determining which theories, claims of fact, and interpretations of observations are more likely true. And our certainty regarding scientific truth is heavily dependent on <i>values.</i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moral Values</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nihilists aside, people will readily admit that there are values in morality. Moral values would include justice, fairness, empathy, integrity (consistency of attitudes, beliefs and behavior both between each other and over time), and flourishing of all sentient beings. Like scientific values, accordance with moral values (especially by themselves) do not make a moral claim of fact true (e.g., a moral claim of fact such as “It is wrong to torture a child.”), but taken together, increase the probability of any given moral claim’s truth over a competing moral claim. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As is the case with science and scientific claims of fact, morality and moral claims of fact are chock-full of <i>values</i>. This does not mean truth is subjective or relative in morality, any more than entanglement with values means that truth is subjective or relative in science. It means there are useful value criteria (<i>values</i>) for determining which claims of moral fact are more likely true. And, as our certainty regarding scientific truth is heavily dependent on values, so is our certainty regarding moral truth<i>.</i></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conflating Human Psychology and Morality</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Added to the confusion of the false dichotomy between facts and values is the conflation of human psychology and morality. When we attempt to derive moral facts and values from human psychology, much as did David Hume and the British sentimentalists, we end up with personal or cultural moral infallibility and the countless contradictions that result from the wide variety of so-called “moral sentiment” among different cultures, people, and historical times. “Moral sentiment” arises in the form of racism, sexism, and speciesism to result in genocide, slavery, and oppression in some cultures. “Moral sentiment” is often nothing more than cultural prejudice combined with blind tradition.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What if we conflated human psychology with science in the same way? We should then say that evolution and intelligent design, while contradictory, are equally valid ways of viewing the world from the perspective of those who hold the respective epistemic values supporting each theory. We should maintain that we are infallible regarding scientific knowledge, and the resulting contradictions of scientific “fact” are acceptable. In other words, if we accept cultural and individual prejudices in morality, then cultural and individual superstitions ought to be accepted in science. After all, isn’t it merely a difference of values, moral or scientific?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Justification of Values</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why should we accept the scientific and moral values listed in the two respective sections above? How do we know that those values themselves are not a matter of superstition or prejudice? In both scientific and moral values, ultimately we can rely only on the values themselves (and reliance on our experience of the world is one of those values) to confirm the certainty of truth in each case – morality and science. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But isn’t relying on values to confirm the values a circular justification? Yes, it is; but we have no choice in science or morality. It is our intuition, rationality, and experience on which such values are based. Since we cannot transcend our intuition, rationality, or experience to confirm our intuition, rationality, and experience, we ultimately end up with a Quinean <i>web of entangled values and facts</i>, not a “foundation” on which we build values and facts. Our core scientific and moral values can be thought of as the strongest and most indispensable part of the web, since they provide most of the support for factual beliefs in the web. If we are to avoid internal contradiction, we must consider the implications of any adjustments to the web. As such, adjustments to core values will be the least likely kind of adjustments we should be comfortable making.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Moral Values Applied to Veganism</span></i></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #222222; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Accordance with the moral values of justice, fairness, empathy, integrity, and flourishing of all sentient beings is the reason abolitionist vegans reject animal exploitation. In addition to vegan food being delicious, there are no known nutrients in animal products that are not available from non-animal sources (including vitamin B12). There are viable and more effective alternatives to almost all (if not all) animal testing. It follows that at least 99.99% of animal exploitation is both <i>unnecessary</i> and harmful toward the innocent. Exploiting other animals flagrantly violates core moral values. From a moral standpoint, exploiting other animals is the scientific equivalent of preferring the theory that has been falsified, posits excessive explanation, and fails to explain or predict anything, while rejecting the theory that satisfies scientific values. Attempting to justify the exploitation of other animals is morally absurd.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-10666930546266048582012-01-05T12:15:00.001-07:002012-09-26T05:32:21.722-06:00Speciesism and Veganism: Transcending Politics and Religion<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This article was originally published November 10, 2011 on Care2.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>_______________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Although this may come as a surprise to some, there are ethical vegans across the political spectrum and in every major religion. Veganism transcends politics and religion because it is based on the simple matter of rejecting a particular form of prejudice: speciesism.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Speciesism, racism, sexism, and other prejudices rely on a morally irrelevant criterion (in this case, species) as the basis on which to deny the interests of an individual belonging to a different ‘group’, even if those interests are more significant than one’s own. As such, speciesism is simply a different form of the same underlying wrong at the foundation of all prejudices. It really doesn’t matter which morally irrelevant criteria we base our prejudice on – sex, race, skin color, age, sexual orientation, species – it is ethically wrong to use such arbitrary criteria to deny the rights of others.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Despite the cultural evolution that has brought humanity a long way from the ‘kill or be killed’ mentality of prehistoric times, the world today remains profoundly speciesist. The extreme prejudice of our cultural speciesism reaches far beyond disregarding an individual’s right to avoid persecution. It extends as far as absolute indifference to the right to be free from unjust imprisonment, mental and emotional torment, extreme physical violence in the form of mutilations and the infliction of injury and death. <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Owned as chattel property</span></a>, with no laws to protect their most fundamental rights, those who are not human are condemned to a life with no protection against the brutal and unremitting oppression from those who control their world: Us.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Animal exploitation is <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">perfectly legal and socially acceptable</span></a> everywhere in the world, despite the emergence of satisfactory alternatives to virtually all uses (not to mention those yet to be developed, once our society rejects our current speciesist practices). Although there is a growing movement drawing attention to the many brutal rights violations routinely carried out against nonhumans being used for human gain, we continue to confine, injure and kill animals of all kinds, maintaining unnecessary, antiquated exploitative practices for food production, research, fashion, and even entertainment.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The ubiquitous nature of this extreme cultural prejudice explains why speciesism (and the proper moral response to it: veganism) is unrelated to political leaning. Although social justice movements generally arise from the left, there are some political conservatives who are principled vegans, while some on the political left, sadly, continue to scoff at issues of animal rights. In fact, it is remarkable that the vast majority of those on the political left choose to remain uninformed and to deliberately ignore these glaring justice issues, including <a href="http://gentleworld.org/occupy-humanity/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">their own participation</span></a> in practices that would be rightly abhorred by anyone in touch with their conscience.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">As it is with politics, so it is with religion. Christians were strongly divided over human chattel slavery in antebellum America, with slavery proponents using Bible quotes to defend their “God given” right to own slaves. Opponents of slavery used different Bible quotes to point out that slavery was condemned by God. And so it is with regard to animal rights today. Those on both sides of the issue use quotes from religious texts either to justify unnecessary killing, or to validate the vegan ethic of nonviolence.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Eastern religions are no exception. Many of today’s Buddhists attempt to justify animal use, unnecessary killing, and speciesism by pointing to loopholes in the various contradictory writings about the Buddha’s teaching of universal compassion for all sentient beings. Other Buddhists choose instead to practice and promote veganism as the rational response to the essential Buddhist teaching of nonviolence. Presumably, having been liberated from their own speciesism, vegan Buddhists are able to see through such prejudiced rationalizations, and recognize the higher authority in the truth the Buddha was apparently trying to impart to his students.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">(In other words, if the Buddha wasn’t a vegan, as some people claim, then he wasn’t living up to his own teachings, which state very clearly that reverence for sentient life is a fundamental principle of a spiritual existence.)</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In any case, it is clear that politics and religion are irrelevant to rejecting our common prejudice against fellow sentient beings. Regardless of whether we are conservative, liberal, leftist, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or fall under any other category, we have the choice to acknowledge and reject the underlying cultural speciesism that we have all been conditioned to accept.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In fact, one might say that a deep-seated awareness of the essential rights and needs held by all sentient beings is the common ground that we every one of us shares. Despite our many differences and divergences, underneath religion, politics, worldviews, interests, personalities, shape, size, sex, color, and even species, underneath it all, every single one of us is made from flesh and blood. Or, as the Buddha himself is said to have taught:</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>“All beings tremble before violence. All fear death. All love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?”</i></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-20502545168364222062011-11-27T10:33:00.001-07:002012-09-26T05:32:38.041-06:00Taxpayers Fund Animal Cruelty and Environmental Devastation<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Georgia; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This article was originally published October 10, 2011 on Care2.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>_______________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; min-height: 15.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>“A new report finds that $62 of every $100 that U.S. farmers earn comes from one level of government or another. In 2009, that added up to a staggering $180.8-billion (U.S.).”</i></span></div>
<div style="color: #0e23a3; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
~ <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/for-us-farmers-subsidies-the-best-cash-crop/article1813425/"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px; text-decoration: underline;">The Global Mail, 2010</span></a></div>
<div style="color: white; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="color: white; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">As explained in <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-cruelty-who-is-to-blame.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Animal Cruelty: Who is to Blame?</span></a>, the atrocities of animal slavery are essentially consumer-generated. What this means is that not only are consumers responsible for the brutality that is inflicted on our behalf, we also have the power to actually put an end to widespread animal cruelty by refusing to purchase products and services that involve exploitation in any form.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But many people may not be aware of how much taxpayers are indirectly, but overwhelmingly, helping to fund this excessive and corrupt business in another way: government assistance. When you begin to investigate the huge excesses and waste associated with large-scale animal farming, it becomes clear that assistance from the government is an essential factor in helping this industry to stay afloat.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Because industry and investors are primarily business people, who are focused on making money by fulfilling demand for specific products, they would ordinarily be indifferent to whether they are selling apples or animal products. There are, however, two strong economic factors which cause industry to nurture the demand for animal products, and, on the flip side, resist efforts to promote vegan living.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The first economic factor is the highly profitable excesses of animal agriculture. Animals consume (in plant foods) multiple times the protein that they provide. Depending on confinement and feed factors, cows require 9 to 13 times as much protein as they provide; pigs 5 or 6 times; and chickens twice as much. This means that most of the crops grown in huge monocultures, such as soy and corn, are sold to animal agriculture.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">When you add the extra transportation, harvesters, and fuel to the high demand for crops fed to animals, along with the other resources required to raise, transport, and slaughter animals (and refrigerate them afterward), it’s easy to see why multiple large industries have a strong interest in the continued existence and growth of animal agriculture (and why socially responsible consumers should reject it outright, even without taking into account the deplorable rights violations to the individuals in question). With its extreme waste and inefficiency, animal agriculture makes all agriculture many times larger than it would otherwise need to be to feed its human consumers.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But how is it possible that such waste and excess should actually pay-off financially? The answer is that the animal industry (including the huge monoculture crops that feed it), is supported by tens of billions of dollars in annual farm subsidies and other government handouts that make it highly profitable to produce animal-based foods over plant-based foods. A <a href="http://www.pcrm.org/media/news/usdas-new-myplate-icon-at-odds-with-federal"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">recent article</span></a> from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine explains the extreme inconsistency between government nutrition guidelines and the subsidies they provide to suppliers.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Not only do such colossal government handouts artificially affect supply, these subsidies also lower the prices of animal products, which would be close to three times as high without subsidies. Considering the exorbitant costs of animal agriculture to the environment; and the costs of saturated fat, cholesterol, and excess sodium to human health, a responsible government would tax, not subsidize, animal products, even if the rights of animals were not an issue.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This is tremendously important because, according to the economic principle of “demand elasticity”*, the demand for animal products would likely decline to nearly half of its current level if the government simply stopped providing subsidies, since this would cause prices to rise closer to their natural level of 2.6 times current (subsidized) prices. If animal products were taxed to compensate for their disastrous effects on the environment and human health, prices would rise to multiple times current rates, dropping the quantity demanded to a small fraction of its current level – a boon for the environment, human health, and most important, the individual animals whose lives are discarded like one more waste product of this obscene business.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>* In economic terms, “demand elasticity” indicates the percentage change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent change in price. (Animal products likely have an average demand elasticity of -0.7, ranging from -0.01 to -1.7).</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In addition to subsidies, the animal industry receives various other government handouts which contribute to the deceptively low prices of animal products. These extra “sweeteners” are in the form of <a href="http://planetgreen.discovery.com/travel-outdoors/livestock-grazing-at-taxpayers-expense.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">extremely low costs for grazing animals on public land</span></a>, and <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/docs/misery_on_the_menu.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">the purchase of surplus animal products</span></a> for government activities such as the National School Lunch Program.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Given these huge economic gravy trains enticing Big Food to push animal products as relentlessly as Big Tobacco used to push cigarettes, it is no wonder they do so with such zeal. These powerful special interests are unlikely to be attracted to the strong market potential for environmentally-sustainable, healthy, and ethical vegan food. Indeed, we can expect them to use every trick in the book to thwart efforts to move consumers in such a direction.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">A large proportion of animal advocacy hours are currently dedicated to targeting the animal industry and the government with demands for greater social responsibility and tougher legislation. However, not only is it obvious that <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really-effective.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">this approach is heavily flawed</span></a> when examined according to the principles of demand and supply, but when you remember that Big Food – along with Big Oil and other huge corporate interests – control the government itself (including tax and subsidy policy makers), it becomes clear that we cannot influence such a powerful and heavily entrenched industry on any large scale – either directly or through government policy.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But again, there is one way in which we do have power over them. If we target our advocacy toward the consumers of animal products, by helping people to understand how and why to become vegan, we can actually help to shift demand toward vegan products and away from animal products and the extreme misery that they cause.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-83384546428391831782011-11-13T10:58:00.002-07:002012-09-26T05:32:51.272-06:00Animal Cruelty: Who is to Blame?<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a <a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">vegan intentional community</span></a> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<i> </i><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>reasons for being vegan</i></span></a>, the benefits of <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>vegan living</i></span></a>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">_________________________</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">For many of us who are aware of the multitude of ways that animals suffer at the hands of humans around the world, this ubiquitous cruelty is the most pressing social justice issue of them all. From declawing to debeaking, ear clipping to tail docking, the suffering that human beings inflict on animals being used for food, clothing, research, ‘pets’ and entertainment appears to know no bounds, and the many brutal ways in which we force animals to succumb to our desires appear to be limited only by the scope of our imaginations.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But why does all this cruelty take place? And what can we do about this horrifying brutality as individuals? It’s easy to point the finger at the direct perpetrators of animal cruelty as being villains who need to be brought to justice. It’s much harder – and yet much more significant – to turn that critical eye inward and ask oneself, ‘What am I doing to contribute to this?’ But it is only by asking that question that the path toward emancipation from barbaric injustice becomes clear.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The vast majority of the time, money and effort of animal welfare organizations goes toward trying to develop new laws and regulations to address the many separate issues relating to animal cruelty, while at the same time trying to force the industry to adhere to those currently in place. As explained in <a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2011/10/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really_17.html">Are Anti-Cruelty Campaigns Really Effective?</a>, these efforts consistently fail to create any significant improvement for animals.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Behind these campaigns lies a hidden assumption that the animal industry is responsible for animal cruelty. But is this assumption warranted? Isn’t industry simply a middle agent put in place to do the dirty deeds requested by consumers of animal products? Although it’s true that the animal industry is an <i>eager and aggressive</i> middle agent, its role is only that of middle agent. As such, while institutionalized exploiters certainly have a lot to answer for, <i>it is consumers who are primarily responsible for animal cruelty</i> through their purchases of animal products.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Many people will likely respond that their concern is not with the rights of animals not to be enslaved and killed, but with the excessive brutality in the animal industry; gratuitous violence for instance, and the cruelty that is inflicted on animals along the way to being slaughtered and butchered – debeaking, dehorning, detoeing, mulesing, castration, tail docking, etc. But as long as our society continues to <a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2011/08/legal-slavery-in-21st-century.html">treat animals as property and economic commodities</a>, our legal system will continue to accept such mutilations as a necessary evil on the way to providing goods and services to a human population largely indifferent to what is hidden behind remote sheds and slaughterhouses.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In any case, even if we did find some way to eliminate every single practice involving physical mutilation, it’s impossible to make slavery and murder anything other than slavery and murder. We can slap fancy labels on the products of animal misery and market them as ‘humanely-raised’, ‘animal compassionate’, ‘ethically-produced’ or ‘guilt-free’, but needless killing is needless killing, and no amount of regulation can change that.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">It is understandable that individual stories of horrific suffering make people want to seek out the perpetrators, bring them to justice, and protect potential victims from experiencing the same treatment. But pointing the finger at institutional exploiters ignores the most significant issue – that no matter what the suppliers do along the way, consumption of animal products ultimately requires taking animals’ lives.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">How can we expect morally decent behavior from the people we ask to carry out the task of breeding, confining and ultimately killing and butchering the animals we choose to enslave and eat? These are innocent beings who most people would rather caress and embrace than hurt and kill.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">There is something very unjust about the fact that we delegate the most obscene work of our society to a select few who are emotionally hardened enough to carry it out, only to later denigrate them for their disconnection from their natural sense of empathy. When thinking about it honestly, most of us would be hard-pressed to find it in ourselves to slaughter an animal – or to rip off her skin, or slice open her body to remove the entrails, or butcher her flesh into supermarket-sized pieces… And yet, we continue to ask others to do it for us, while most people refuse to even watch these things on video or hear others describe them.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But our distaste toward being involved in such violent acts isn’t something that should be squelched and suppressed, as Michael Pollan or <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-11-24-julia-powell-cleaving_N.htm"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Julie Powell</span></a> would have us believe. No – we should be grateful for the revulsion we feel when we imagine what happens to animals in between being born and being on our plates. Our horror is a sane reaction to practices that are nothing short of horrifying.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">We cannot separate ourselves from depravity simply because we have found a way to tuck the dirty deeds out of sight – behind the walls of slaughterhouses and other obscure buildings. And all the disconnection and indifference in the world cannot change the fact that it is impossible to distinguish the immorality of a Pollan-style DIY approach from the immorality of any other act of unnecessary violence.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In any court of law, those who are complicit in a crime are considered to be responsible along with those who carry it out.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">As expressed so eloquently by Ralph Waldo Emerson,</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>“You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.”</i></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-54099200305399640592011-10-17T21:38:00.002-06:002012-09-26T05:33:05.101-06:00Are Anti-Cruelty Campaigns Really Effective?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">vegan intentional community</span></a></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<em> <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration: none;">reasons for being vegan</a></em>, the benefits of <em><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/" style="color: #5588aa; text-decoration: none;">vegan living</a></em>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><br />
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This article was originally published August 24, 2011 on Care2.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span>
</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">____________________________</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.”</span></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">~ Henry David Thoreau, Walden, Economy (Chapter 1-E)</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">For many activists confronting widespread animal exploitation and related cruelty – from food, to clothing, to experimentation and entertainment – it can sometimes appear as though there are so many issues to focus attention on that the situation becomes overwhelming.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When advocates are unclear about the best way to address these countless concerns, many choose to focus on one issue, such as eliminating battery cages or gestation crates. Others try to spend their advocacy hours doing “a bit of everything”.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As explained in <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Making a Killing with Animal Welfare Reform</span></a>, campaigns against specific practices of animal exploitation are lucrative for animal welfare groups, bringing in tens of millions of dollars into their coffers annually for acting as the large, non-profit “regulators” of industry. Such campaigns are known among animal advocates as <i>single issue campaigns,</i> or “SICs.”</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When you combine the financial motivation of large animal welfare groups and the besieged feeling animal advocates often experience from trying to tackle so many different issues, the result is the current dominant culture of the animal advocacy movement, where the efforts of countless individuals are scattered across countless different single-issue campaigns.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It certainly seems that such division amongst animal advocates must work strongly in the favor of the animal industry and the current cultural paradigm of speciesism. By contrast, a united front of widespread public education focused on <a href="http://gentleworld.org/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">why and how to become vegan</span></a> would address the root of the exploitation problem by challenging not only <i>all </i>of our uses of animals, but <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/are-anti-cruelty-campaigns-really-effective.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">our society’s decidedly speciesist attitude</span></a> in and of itself.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">To illustrate the point, it’s helpful to consider the analogy of a tree. The animal exploitation tree can be divided into several sections, including the roots, trunk, and branches.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The roots of the tree – mostly hidden underground – represent our society’s underlying speciesism; the cultural prejudice against all animals (other than humans) that makes it possible for us to ignore the basic needs of others in favor of our own trivial desires. Speciesism, like racism, sexism, and other oppressive cultural prejudices, ignores morally relevant characteristics (such as the fundamental interests of the oppressed or exploited), in favor of morally irrelevant characteristics (such as membership of a species, race, sex, and so on). When we eliminate speciesism (individually or as a group), we respect the interests of individual members of other species sufficiently to take those interests into account with our own, and everyone else’s interests. The behavioral result of such respect is veganism – avoiding animal products and uses in our lives as much as is reasonably possible.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The base of the tree trunk – located just above the surface of the soil, and the foundation for the rest of the tree’s growth – represents the property status of animals; the legal structure which makes it socially legitimate for us to treat other sentient beings as economic commodities. <i>(As explained in </i><a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>Legal Slavery in the 21st Century</i></span></a><i>, this legal status effectively keeps welfare reforms limited to those that optimize the economic efficiency of a socially accepted use, regardless of how cruel certain practices are.)<br />
</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><br />
</i></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The lower trunk of the tree, where the largest branches begin, can be understood to represent our uses of animals for food, as the food industry accounts for the vast majority of all animal exploitation. Growing out of this section of the trunk are the tree’s most substantial limbs – those that represent the production of dairy, eggs, and meat (including fish) – each of which leads to many smaller branches representing the specific rights violations associated with these industries, such as intensive confinement and the horrific physical mutilations that occur in all three. Other smaller branches that originate in the ‘food’ section of the tree could be seen to represent less common practices such as the force-feeding of geese to produce foie-gras.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">As we travel further up the tree, past the most sizeable branches of the food industry, the medium-sized branches represent the other major industries of animal use – experimentation, clothing, and entertainment. Growing out of these major branches are many smaller ones. For instance, the limb that represents animal-based clothing branches off into fur production (which branches off again into issues such as seal clubbing, fur farming, wild trapping, etc.) The entertainment industry branches off into (amongst many other issues) sport hunting, which branches off again into canned hunting and hunting of endangered animals. Another off-shoot from the parent limb of entertainment is the use of animals in circuses, which then branches off into the issue of using bullhooks on elephants.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">At the very edges of the animal exploitation tree, there exists a layer of ‘dead’ or ‘dying’ branches, which represent specific practices that are <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/making-a-killing-with-animal-welfare-reform.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">not economically optimal for industry to continue</span></a>. These practices include keeping sows in gestation crates, and killing chickens by electrocution (as opposed to Controlled Atmosphere Killing, which is celebrated by industry and advocates alike as being much more economically-efficient).</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 50.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 16px/normal Symbol; letter-spacing: 0px;">·</span><span style="font: normal normal normal 9px/normal 'Times New Roman'; letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Since the practices associated with animal exploitation exist solely to fulfill demand, consumers and users are the lifeblood of every aspect of the tree. Creating demand for these products and services can be compared to giving the tree water and fertilizer. Reducing demand with an increasing vegan population denies the tree of exploitation its essential nutrients, without which it will surely wither and eventually die.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">When we view the paradigm of animal exploitation in this manner, it becomes clear that the fatal problem with SICs is that they focus on the outer periphery, while ignoring not only the trunk and main branches, but the roots themselves, which are continually working to deliver vital nutrients to every part of the tree. </span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Pruning Makes a Tree Grow Stronger</span></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As a practical matter, SICs are focused primarily on clipping either small or ‘dead’ branches off the tree, obviously making the tree healthier. Even when animal welfare groups attempt to cut off a medium-sized branch, such as seal clubbing or fur production, they find that the tree is easily healthy enough to continue thriving despite the loss of a live (i.e. profitable) branch. If a part of the branch is cut or prevented from growing (as was the case with fur production in the 1990s) the tree is still big and strong enough that – down the line – such branches can actually come back with renewed strength (as the case has been with fur production since the early 2000s). Attempting to prune the tree not only fails to harm the tree in the long run, but <i>actually helps it to thrive</i>.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Branches Grow Back</span></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">In our global economy, another fatal problem with SICs is that, even if they were to succeed in cutting off small or middle-sized branches, new branches can grow in other areas to replace the branches that were cut. For example, if we eliminate horse slaughter in the United States (cutting a middle-sized branch); industry will simply ship horses to Mexico and slaughter them there (new replacement branch). As long as demand exists, supply and any profitable practices based on demand will shift to other jurisdictions as required.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Trimming Branches Helps the Roots to Thrive</span></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Because animals are property and economic commodities, we have a wide divergence of social acceptability regarding the treatment of animals. On one hand, the law permits extreme cruelty for the most trivial of economic benefits, as long as the end use is socially acceptable. On the other hand, most people would be horrified to see a dog – especially their own dog – endure what animals raised for food or used in experiments endure.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">SICs reinforce these irrational dichotomies by singling out specific uses of animals as though they are worse than others. When we campaign to eliminate one branch of the tree, such as the fur or seal-clubbing industries, while ignoring other branches, such as the leather, egg, and dairy industries, we send a message to the public that certain forms of exploitation are worse than others. The tremendously popular “Say No to Fur” campaign is a classic example. This particular campaign sends the confusing and false message that fur is somehow worse than other animal-based fabric such as leather, which is just as brutal in its production, yet much more widely used.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">SICs could avoid this problem by calling for veganism and an end to all animal use, but we almost never see a strong vegan message attached to SICs.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The Vegan Solution: Uprooting and Eliminating the Tree</span></i></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The animal exploitation tree exists solely because of consumers of animal products. Consumers and users are the lifeblood of every aspect of the tree. When we go vegan, we remove our contribution to the tree’s health. When we inform others about why and how to become vegan, we help others eliminate their contribution to the tree’s health. When we call attention to our society’s speciesism, we dig up parts of the tree’s root system and expose them to the light of day – eliminating one more source of nutrition for the branches.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">As more and more of us join in being vegan and encouraging and helping others to be vegan, the tree’s health will steadily diminish, causing the outer branches to naturally die off, until eventually the entire tree – and with it, the extreme cruelty it necessarily inflicts on the innocent – will no longer be able to survive.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font: 16.0px Times; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Rather than contributing to the efforts of thousands in “hacking at the branches” of the tree (while at the same time nourishing it by consuming and using animal products and services), we ought to “strike at the root” by embracing veganism and encouraging others to do the same. </span></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-48297954225457373262011-09-22T15:38:00.002-06:002012-09-26T05:33:19.889-06:00Making a Killing with Animal Welfare Reform<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for Gentle World — a </span><a href="http://gentleworld.org/about/community/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">vegan intentional community</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and non-profit organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the<em> <a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/ethics/">reasons for being vegan</a></em>, the benefits of <em><a href="http://gentleworld.org/category/vegan-living/">vegan living</a></em>, and how to go about making such a transition.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This article was originally published August 8, 2011 on Care2.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">____________________________</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“When it comes to animal care policies and processes, count on us to lead the way. In fact, we’re recognized by the world’s foremost experts in animal well-being as setting the standard for America’s pork industry – and we’re applying those same best practices to our global operations.”</span></em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">~ <strong>Smithfield Foods: “Raising the Bar in Animal Care”</strong> <em>(Smithfield Foods is the world’s largest pork producer and processor, and kills almost 30 million pigs every year)</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em></em></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">During the past 200 years, animal exploitation – from backyard breeders to “factory farms” to circuses – has been steeped in the </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2011/08/legal-slavery-in-21st-century.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">animal welfare paradigm</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any large corporation using animals or selling animal products that does not boast of either their own high standards of animal welfare, or the high expectations they have of their suppliers. In short, the animal industry actually promotes animal welfare, and that is largely because the animal welfare model overwhelmingly benefits industry – not only by providing guidelines which help producers to adopt a more effective business model, but also by assuring consumers that it is possible to breed, raise, exploit, and slaughter animals in an ethical way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But what are considered “high standards” in animal welfare? High standards generally allow for any well-established industry practice that helps producers to exploit animals in an economically optimal manner, no matter how cruel, harmful, or painful. That is, any cruelty that promotes economically efficient use is acceptable (such as branding, castration, forced insemination, dehorning, detoeing, debeaking, mulesing, tail docking, teeth clipping, forced molting, and more); but cruelty above and beyond that which promotes economically efficient exploitation is considered to be a violation of industry’s “high” welfare standards. In other words, kicking and beating your animals because you enjoy doing so is not okay. Dehorning and castrating your animals without anesthetic because it makes them easier to manage is okay. This definition of “high standards” in animal welfare explains why industry can legitimately make such ludicrous claims in the face of cruelty so severe that most of us refuse to even </span><a href="http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">look at it.</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When prominent animal welfare organizations like PETA and HSUS propose animal welfare reforms, such as a move toward “</span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p144/analysis-of.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">controlled atmosphere killing</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">” or the elimination of cages and </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/links/p2018/elimination-of.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">gestation crates</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, their campaigns involve appealing to industry to recognize the long-term economic benefits of investing the capital necessary to make such changes. Such economic benefits include healthier animals who are less stressed, fewer worker injuries, less carcass damage, and greater consumer confidence that animals are treated “humanely.” And sure enough, such economic benefits obviously carry weight, as we can see by the fact that large factory farms like those owned by Smithfield Foods are “leading the way” in phasing out gestation crates over several years in all sow “farms” owned by the company. Think they’re doing this out of concern for the pigs? Think again.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From </span><a href="http://msnbc.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">msnbc.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“Smithfield is making the change because customers ‘have told us they feel group housing is a more animal-friendly form of sow housing,’ … Smithfield is still determining the cost of the changeover but does not expect it to dramatically affect prices for its pork products because the expense will be spread out over 10 years and will be <strong>offset by production efficiencies</strong>,’ Dennis Treacy – vice president for environmental and corporate affairs said… He stressed that the decision to change was based on what makes sense for the business.”</span></em><br />
<em><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></em><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This statement confirms that phasing out crates will make it easier for Smithfield Foods to conduct and grow their operations. And what are their operations? Confining and slaughtering animals – by the millions. Not an activity in which you would expect animal activists to be collaborating, right? And yet, rather than using the same time and resources to promote vegan living, animal advocacy organizations spent over $1.6 million and countless volunteer hours on the campaign to convince Smithfield foods to adopt this more economically-efficient business model.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As if that wasn’t bad enough, animal advocacy organizations also work side by side </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/partners-in-exploitation/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">with the animal industry</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> in developing and promoting “humane” labels for animal foods. Not only does this sort of “product development” consulting provide invaluable public relations assistance for these companies, but it also effectively gives these products the “animal people” stamp of approval when they reach the consumer. Although these programs may appear on the surface to offer greater protection for animals, it is painfully clear that they are designed as an (albeit very clever) PR campaign to increase sales, by making consumers feel better about using animal products. These labels, which include Certified Humane Raised & Handled, Humane Choice, Freedom Food and the Whole Foods 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards, could quite reasonably be viewed as the ultimate betrayal from the perspective of the victims.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The partnership between animal welfare groups and industry to promote economically efficient animal exploitation is considered a “win-win-win” not only for both sides of the partnership, but for consumers as well. Consumers are assured that they can be excused for their indulgences in the products of animal misery, due to these so-called “higher standards” of welfare, and welfare groups win by receiving tens of millions of donation dollars annually for acting as the industry “regulators” and the developers of these ridiculous labels.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the biggest winners, by far, are the animal exploiters themselves, who not only receive consulting advice by “welfare experts” and prominent animal activists, but are also given awards and special endorsement from advocacy groups. The payoff they receive in increased consumer confidence must have them laughing all the way to the bank. Meanwhile, the most basic rights of an increasing number of animals are still being sold out to fulfill the trivial desires of those who insist on consuming and using the products that come from their bodies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Almost everyone agrees that animals ought not to suffer any more pain or harm than is “necessary”, and that no one should inflict unnecessary pain or suffering on another. But what is considered “necessary” has historically and legally meant whatever is necessary to optimize the economic efficiency of any socially-accepted use of animals. It is still the case – as it always will be as long as </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2011/08/legal-slavery-in-21st-century.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">animals are property and economic commodities</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> – that animal welfare standards permit any cruelty, no matter how severe, <em>as long as it results in optimizing economic efficiency.</em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But times and circumstances are changing, and so are attitudes toward </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2011/08/importance-of-being-vegan.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the meaning of the word "necessary".</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Today, an increasing number of people are becoming aware that almost all of our uses of animals are for nothing more than our pleasure, amusement, or convenience – the habitual consumption of animal-based foods; the custom of wearing animal-based fabrics; the tradition of watching animals participate in trivial (and very harmful) activities such as racing or performing. None of these uses can be considered necessary according to any coherent definition of the word necessary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As more people become aware of how beneficial the dietary aspects of veganism are for our </span><a href="http://gentleworld.org/rewarded-for-being-vegan/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">health </span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and the </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-environmental-disaster-of-animal.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">environment</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, and recognize that being vegan is simply a matter of basic justice, veganism will be recognized more and more widely as nothing less than an ethical imperative and a moral baseline. Certainly, there will always be those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that our uses of animals require the violation of the most basic of rights, regardless of the scale on which these practices are carried out. But the abolition of animal slavery is nothing less than the most important social justice issue of our time. When this fact becomes widely recognized… <em>whose side will you be on?</em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-60338603380122216462011-08-16T18:25:00.002-06:002012-09-26T05:33:35.516-06:00Legal Slavery in the 21st Century<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for <a href="http://gentleworld.org/">Gentle World</a> – a non-profit educational organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the reasons for being vegan, the benefits of vegan living, and how to go about making the transition.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This article was originally published July 24, 2011 on <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/legal-slavery-in-the-21st-century.html">Care2</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">________________________</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While animal welfare has been a concern of many civilizations throughout world history, its beginnings in modern Western civilization can be traced back to early 19th century Britain with the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and the establishment of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824. Since then, there have been thousands of animal welfare organizations created, countless attempts and billions of dollars spent to pass laws and regulations to protect nonhuman animals from “unnecessary cruelty.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In 1975, act-utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer rejuvenated the 150 year-old animal welfare movement with his book <em>Animal Liberation</em>, which contrasts the stark, and often extreme differences between animal welfare prohibitions against “unnecessary” or “gratuitous” cruelty and the harsh realities of routine, systematic, needless cruelty inflicted on tens of billions of animals annually in agriculture, and millions of animals in experimentation, entertainment, and fashion. <em>Animal Liberation</em> was a call to take animal <em>welfare</em> – the regulation of industrialized animal exploitation — seriously.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the 35 years that have passed since<em> Animal Liberation</em> was published, organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have sought to diminish this huge gap between animal welfare goals and the reality of “unnecessary and gratuitous” cruelty so ubiquitous in our use of nonhuman animals. Their approach combines campaigns for various welfare measures with attempts to encourage the reduction of animal product consumption. Thus far, the results of these efforts have been devastating. From 1975 to 2007, the consumption of meat in the United States has increased from 178 to 222 pounds per person; an increase of 25%. During these years, no significant new welfare laws have been implemented, much less enforced, and there are countless <a href="http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php">videos</a> and eyewitness accounts of routine violations of existing laws. We torture and kill more animals in more horrific ways than ever in human history.</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Problem: Animals as Property and Commodities</span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nonhuman animals are legal property and economic commodities. As a matter of both legal theory and practice, owners of property are protected by property rights, which are among the strongest of rights in Anglo-American law; while the nonhuman animals owned as economic commodities are ostensibly protected by welfare laws, which are routinely violated and rarely enforced.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In his 1995 book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Property-Law-Ethics-Action/dp/1566392845/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311008452&sr=1-1">Animals, Property, and the Law</a></em>, legal scholar and philosopher <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/">Gary Francione</a> calls this approach to animal protection <em>legal welfarism</em>, of which Francione identifies four “basic and interrelated components.” (APL, p.26)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• Legal welfarism maintains that animals are property.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• Such property status justifies the treatment of animals exclusively as means to human ends.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• Animal use is deemed “necessary” whenever that use is part of a generally accepted social institution.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• “Cruelty” is defined exclusively as use that either frustrates, or fails to facilitate, animal exploitation.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Because nonhuman animals are not only human property, but also <em>economic commodities</em>, cost-efficiency in raising and slaughtering them (by the billions) is considered one of the most important factors when determining which practices facilitate exploitation. </span><em><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That is to say, if an industry practice, no matter how cruel, reduces the costs of production, such a practice is fully allowed and protected by the legal property rights of owners.</span></em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The upshot of legal welfarism is that we weigh even the slightest economic interests of owners, which we protect with powerful rights, against the crucial interests of nonhuman animals, which are protected with no rights. Considering the enormously competitive economic pressure to deliver the least expensive animal products to an ever-increasing public demand, it is no wonder that our society’s legal welfarism approach to animal protection has failed miserably to protect nonhuman animals from extreme cruelty. And it’s no wonder that the animal welfare movement has been unable to create any meaningful change.</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Solution: Being Honest about the Meaning of “Necessary”</span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There is only one way to reduce the vast quantity and severity of the cruelty inflicted on animals by human hand, and that is to change our concept of the word “necessary.” In direct opposition to the definition outlined by legal welfarism, this far more honest definition <em>rejects the idea that we need to exploit animals at all</em>, given the alternatives to animal use in all areas, not to mention the benefits of the dietary aspects of veganism for our <a href="http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357">health</a> and the environment. This crucial foundation – the willingness to accept the fact that we have no need to use animals at all – facilitates a whole new understanding, causing us to:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• reject the property status of animals and therefore reject the traditional moral status of animals as “things” or economic commodities,</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• see animals as persons within the moral community,</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>• demand personal veganism as the moral baseline of any movement that purports to take the interests of animals seriously.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nonhuman animals are just like the vast majority of us in every morally relevant way. And even in morally irrelevant differences — such as conceptual intelligence — they surpass infants and many mentally disabled humans. As anyone who has been around animals a lot can confirm, they are capable of experiencing terrifying fear, excruciating pain, extreme loneliness, tedious boredom, frustration, pleasure, joy, delight, curiosity, satisfaction, comfort, friendship, and apparently even love.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">While it’s true that nonhumans may lack the ability to imagine the concept of death as understood by an adult human of average intelligence, it’s painfully obvious that they have an overwhelming interest in continuing to live, and to live a satisfying life. This is made clear not only by the evidence of their sentience and emotional lives, but by the way that they struggle desperately to avoid death and remain alive, often even being willing to gnaw off their own limbs to escape from a trap.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is our speciesism that causes us to ignore in nonhuman persons those very characteristics that give rise to the most basic rights of all human persons, including infants and the mentally disabled. Speciesism is an exclusionary prejudice virtually identical to racism and sexism that denies the importance of morally relevant characteristics in order to oppress others. The only way to break free from such speciesism is to take the crucial interests of animals seriously and embrace veganism as a moral imperative.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As surely as the abolitionists of the past knew that no man or woman should be the property of any other, the abolitionists of today know that the legal property status of animals stands in the way of their ever receiving any meaningful rights or protection, let alone being granted the freedom to live according to their own needs and desires.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Embracing veganism is simply the logical response to understanding the fundamental truth that no sentient being – human or not — should be used solely as a means to the pleasure, comfort or convenience of someone else.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Widespread veganism is the only way for animals to achieve basic rights protecting their most crucial interests, and the only way to put an end to the legally-sanctioned slavery that is the foundation of industrialized animal exploitation.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-26781054745839149262011-08-04T07:39:00.004-06:002012-09-26T05:33:49.565-06:00The Importance of Being Vegan<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">I wrote this article with Angel Flinn, who is Director of Outreach for <a href="http://www.gentleworld.org/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Gentle World</span></a> – a non-profit educational organization whose core purpose is to help build a more peaceful society, by educating the public about the reasons for being vegan, the benefits of vegan living, and how to go about making the transition. </span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">This article was originally published July 8, 2011 on <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/the-importance-of-being-vegan.html">Care2.</a></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>_______________________</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>“If a man earnestly seeks a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from animal food.”</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">- Leo Tolstoy</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
…<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><br />
Intellectually, most of us agree that inflicting unnecessary harm is unjustified – whether the victims are human or not. Yet somehow, most of the same people who subscribe to this belief are willing to turn a blind eye to such harm when they themselves receive some kind of advantage from it – whether the benefits are in the form of food, possessions, vanity, or amusement.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Sadly, because widespread violence against animals in the form of ‘agriculture’, ‘research’ and even ‘entertainment’, is sanctioned by mainstream society and its legal systems, the majority of people tend to be unwilling to see this brutality for what it is, and to step outside of the pervasive conditioning that makes such atrocities possible.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">It’s true that more and more people are beginning to speak out about the many abhorrent abuses that occur within the animal industry, and the movement to ‘improve conditions’ for these animals continues to gain popularity. And yet, each one of the awful practices that animal advocates protest passionately against – intensive confinement, enforced insemination, separation of mother and child, castration, de-horning, tail docking, de-beaking, mulesing, de-toeing, live scalding, force molting – all of these horrific procedures, and many more, exist because an ever-growing number of human consumers continue to create demand for animal products. To an industry that views sentient beings as economic units – money-making machines – it is unavoidable that such violence will be viewed as an acceptable means to the end of delivering products that turn a profit.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In any case, even if every one of the aforementioned practices were abolished, it would still be immoral and inexcusable to use other sentient beings as resources. In today’s world, vegan alternatives are available for every single significant purpose for which we currently use animals*. Increasing numbers of people are embracing veganism as the solution to the problems we experience as individuals and as a society – from our many health crises, to our environmental emergency, to the issue of escalating violence – all of which have us living in some degree of fear for the future.</span><br />
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>*NB: Although animal products are used in certain items for which there currently are no consumer alternatives – such as computers and car tires – there are alternatives that could easily be used in their manufacturing.</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">As this movement for animal emancipation grows in size and strength, a powerful example is being set by the individuals who refuse to take any part in the brutal oppression of innocents that we call ‘the animal industry’. Men and women all over the globe –simply by living as vegans – are demonstrating that there is no moral justification for the harm we inflict on animals.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Some people might attempt to justify consumption of animal products for reasons of health. And yet, an increasing number of medical professionals are beginning to realize that not only are plant-based diets nutritionally complete, but they are actually more nourishing and far less toxic than their animal-based counterparts. In addition, the public is beginning to realize that many of the major dangers associated with diet – heart disease, cancer, stroke, obesity, diabetes, and many, many more – are exacerbated by the consumption of animal products, and can actually be avoided by adopting a vegan diet.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">According to the world’s largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, the American Dietetic Association (“the ADA”):</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><i>“…Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases… Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”</i></span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">In other words, the official position of the – very mainstream – ADA is that including animal products in one’s diet is not only unnecessary, but can actually be harmful to our health.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">What about our other uses of animals? Leather, wool, silk, down, fur, toiletries, cosmetics, entertainment, sport, the vast majority of our experimentation – all of these are also clearly unnecessary under any coherent concept of the word “necessary”, as there are vegan alternatives available for them all.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Veganism is not a fringe philosophy – it is a moral baseline that is consistent with beliefs that most of us already hold. Veganism is a simple matter of refraining from participating in unnecessary and harmful use of sentient beings. As most people are naturally opposed to unnecessary violence, becoming and staying vegan is not a matter of changing any of our basic moral beliefs. It simply requires us to be willing to change the habits we have developed that prevent us from living according to our principles.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Every one of us has been conditioned by the propaganda of a highly speciesist society – a worldwide culture that is extremely prejudiced against the interests of those animals who did not have the good fortune to be born onto this planet in human form. And yet, every one of us has the power to break free from this indoctrination. Becoming vegan is simply recognizing and admitting who we really are – it is the opportunity to become who we would be if no one had ever taught us that it’s okay to turn our backs on the needs and rights of our fellow animals, that it’s okay to ignore their pain if it leads to our pleasure.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Is veganism a sacrifice? Not at all. On the contrary, it is every non-vegan choice that sacrifices our own inherent goodness. Once you make the decision to live consistently with your values, the rewards – in the form of a healthier body, clearer mind, and more peaceful conscience – will be both profoundly apparent and a source of continuing joy.</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">But even if veganism does require us to<b> </b>give up some of our favorite foods, beloved items of clothing, and cherished habits, does that question really matter? The institution of slavery and the treatment of sentient beings as ‘things’ – whether human or nonhuman – are inherently and gravely unjust. The changes that veganism requires of us, and the rewards that veganism brings, are irrelevant to the true moral question:</span></div>
<div style="font: 13.0px Arial; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Is the taste of a particular food, or the way you feel in your favorite pair of shoes or your winter coat, more important than the life and freedom of another living, feeling being?</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-82045765322465475522011-06-20T23:03:00.005-06:002011-06-20T23:21:45.208-06:00How Should We Respond to Australia’s Live Export Ban or Its End?<div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The recent ban on live export of cows from Australia to Indonesia, due to some gory and disturbing video footage of “mistreatment” of cows in Indonesia, has been big news lately.</span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The unstated assumption supporting this ban is that cows aren’t “mistreated” (read: tortured) in Australia. But this assumption is absurd. Regardless of their species, beings who are considered legal chattel property and economic commodities will be “mistreated” as a matter of routine in every place where they are property and commodities. Do you doubt it? Then you should also doubt that human chattel slaves, who were also property and commodities, were “mistreated” as a matter of routine. (And perhaps adopt the view that slavery is generally a just and noble human institution, regardless of the species.)</span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Australia’s live export ban is equivalent to Alabama banning human slave exports to Mississippi in the 1860s. Alabamans in the 1860s would have rightly laughed at such a hypocritical ban, and Australians should laugh at today’s ban for its hypocrisy. </span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">What most Alabamans did not recognize was their own prejudice and injustice in supporting slavery, and most Australians won’t recognize their prejudice and injustice either. We see others’ prejudices and injustices quite well from a distance in culture or time, but we so often fail miserably to see our own prejudices and injustices or act sufficiently against them. </span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Speciesism, racism, sexism, and heterosexism are all different forms of the same underlying moral wrong of denying the (often crucial) interests of others on the basis of some irrelevant criterion such as species, race, sex, or sexual orientation.</span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 14.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></div><div style="font: 12.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">The appropriate response to the live export ban is to go vegan if you’re not already. And if you are vegan, encourage others to do so. There are so many excellent resources on the Web for information on everything from vegan cooking to vegan health and nutrition. There is really no excuse.</span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><br />
</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-21000495158581891942011-06-14T14:59:00.002-06:002011-06-14T16:22:56.548-06:00On Vegan Celebrities<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’m tired of seeing good, honest vegans embrace the incessant parade of celebrities who claim to be “vegan” only to be sadly surprised and disappointed when the celebrities reveal (as they almost always eventually do) that either they’re not vegan anymore, or never were vegan. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Celebrities -- the fickle charlatans of the entertainment industry -- usually make a living putting on a false persona, pretending to be someone they are not. Why look up to these flakes? Why expect them to have a moral backbone or any moral consistency whatsoever? Next time you hear about a celebrity "vegan," don't believe the hype. Know this person, just like a national politician, is very likely playing another fake role -- a con artist to the core. Like a large, amoral corporation in a free market society, celebrities generally reflect only the values of the majority of the millions of their consumer fans.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Don’t be fooled again.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-10619244600575806672011-04-08T18:39:00.003-06:002011-04-08T18:48:11.579-06:00On Equivocation Regarding “What Animals Care About”<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I often hear animal advocates, in response to a point made by another animal advocate, say or write “The animals don’t care about [what we think].” For example, “The animals don’t care that they are property.” (They just don’t want to be tortured and killed.) </span></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> </span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">On one hand, this is obvious. Nonhuman animals aren’t thinking about the legal and economic structures of their slavery, their moral status, or what plans human animals have in store for them, perhaps until they smell the stench of death and blood on the slaughterhouse floor. </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">On the other hand, it is stupidly disingenuous in that it equivocates between what the animals </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">are aware of</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> (i.e. “what they care about”) versus </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">what is in their best interest </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">(what they </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">would</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> care about if they were aware of our concepts and what we are thinking, which has </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">very </span></span></i><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">real </span></span></i></b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">consequences</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">). For example, “the animals don’t care” if everyone is vegan, or if they are property, or what their current moral status is, but that is </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">solely </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">because they don’t use our language or concepts. However</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">, it is in their best interest </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">if everyone is vegan, if they are not property, and if they are considered persons in the moral community.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">So, if you have been guilty of suggesting that nonhuman animals don’t care about . . . [what we think], please keep in mind that many of us can see through your bullshit. What matters is what nonhuman animals </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">would</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> care about if they used our language and concepts, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">not</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> what they are aware of regarding our beliefs, thoughts, and concepts. What matters is what is or would be in their best interest.</span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-74787887648747755592011-03-08T22:50:00.005-07:002011-03-09T09:25:45.367-07:00Ten Myths of New Welfarism<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">"It’s not looking good for animals, to say the least, when even vegans oppose</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">putting more resources into abolitionist vegan education.”</span></i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">~ Facts and Explanation 7</span></i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In discussions with new welfarists, I am repeatedly faced with variations on the same old myths about abolitionism. It will be the purpose of this essay to correct ten of these myths with facts and explanations.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 1:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists are apathetic about nonhuman animal suffering.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Corollary to Myth 1:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">want other animals to suffer as much as possible</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> so people are motivated to go vegan.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 1:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists care at least just as much, and likely more, about animal suffering than new welfarists do. We agree that less suffering is better than more suffering. We simply deny, from a rational and empirical standpoint, that animal suffering can be meaningfully reduced with welfare reforms and campaigns as long </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">as animals are considered legal property and economic commodities</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. For overwhelming evidence in support of this empirical claim, read </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Animals-Property-Law-Ethics-Action/dp/1566392845/ref=sr_1_5/103-8826183-2354255?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192223612&sr=8-5"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Animals, Property, and the Law</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. As additional overwhelming evidence, it is an uncontroversial fact that welfare reforms were just as useless to prevent or even reduce the torture and killing of human slaves in 19th century America as they are today for nonhumans. To deny this is to deny the severe torture and murder that was so prevalent in American human slavery right up to the complete emancipation of slaves.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists believe as many resources as possible should be directed toward vegan education, which will serve to 1) increase the vegan population, eventually building an abolitionist political base; and 2) increase care and concern about animals as sentient beings generally.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Contrary to the Corollary to Myth 1, abolitionists believe that animals (human </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">and nonhuman</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">) are harmed not only by suffering, but by painless exploitation and painless death as well. In other words, abolitionists believe people ought to be motivated to go vegan simply because</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> unnecessary</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> exploitation and killing are wrong, and that 99.999% of our uses are </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">unnecessary</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. It is the same argument used against human chattel slavery; and only speciesism, like racism did in much of human slavery in various societies, makes us morally blind to the atrocity of institutionalized exploitation and slaughter.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 2:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Because countries with the best animal welfare laws have the most ethical vegans, animal welfare laws (and reforms and campaigns) </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">cause</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> people to become ethical vegans.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 2:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 2 has the railcar pulling the engine rather than the engine pulling the railcar. Vegan education </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">causes</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> 1) new vegans, and 2) increased care and concern about animals as sentient beings generally. Such increased care and concern </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">indirectly </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">causes more welfare campaigns, more welfare regulations, and more welfare marketing gimmicks by industry.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 3:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists are “seduced by a theory.”</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 3:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">All social justice advocates guide their actions with a theory, regardless of the theory’s effectiveness, and regardless whether or not such advocates are even aware they are following a theory. It is quite ironic to read welfarists’ rants against abolitionists and our theory, and then have them tell us that we are the ones “seduced” by a theory, when they are so engrossed in following and defending new welfarist theory that they’re not even self-aware enough to realize it.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So, let’s be honest: We all have a theory, and to claim another advocate is “seduced” by a theory is little more than a demonstration of one’s “seduction” by an opposing theory. The relevant question is: Which of two incompatible theories is correct and effective, and more importantly, why? What </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">reasons</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> do we have for accepting one theory over an opposing theory? What </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">evidence</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> do we have to support one theory over another?</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As many essays on this blog and other abolitionist blogs demonstrate (for example: </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2010/03/basic-economics-and-four-types-of.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">1</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/06/abolitionism-and-new-welfarism-contrast.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">2</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell/"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">3</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/picking-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">4</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/12/peta-corporate-tangle-of-contradictions.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">5</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/12/petas-undercover-investigations-another.html"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">6</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">), we have much stronger reasons to believe, and far more evidence for, the claims that 1) new welfarism has been an abject failure over 30 years (and over 200 years for traditional welfarism), and 2) if there is any chance of meaningfully reducing suffering and eventually ending animal agriculture, it will be due to a permanently growing, grassroots movement that embraces </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/mission-statement/"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">the abolitionist approach</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">creative, non-violent, vegan education</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Why new welfarists – who claim they want to reduce suffering and help eventually end animal agriculture – are so adamantly opposed to directing as many resources as possible to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">creative, non-violent, vegan education</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, is something that boggles the mind.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 4:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionist vegan education is “all or nothing.”</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 4:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">I’ve never known anyone, other than the leaders of the corporate welfarist movement, to perceive abolitionist vegan education as “all or nothing.” Indeed, my experience in communicating with the non-movement public has been that abolitionist vegan education leads to greater concern about the issue (with the rare exception of sadists and psychopaths). Whether such concern – in the face of abolitionist vegan education – leads to a new vegan or merely more concern about other animals depends on the person, but it almost never results in “nothing.” I’m basing this on years of experience communicating with people, but the claim that abolitionist vegan education leads to “either vegan or nothing” also strikes me as ludicrous.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 5:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">By criticizing welfare reforms, abolitionists effectively prevent future welfare reforms. (Or, even worse for new welfarists, abolitionists are a threat to the money-making potential of the industry-welfarist partnership.)</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 5:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As long as there are non-vegans, there will be welfare concerns over the resulting torture and death of other animals. And as long as there are welfare concerns, there will be welfare campaigns and attempts at reforms. Welfarism is a symbiotic phenomenon of modern, institutionalized human and nonhuman exploitation. That is, welfarism needs and feeds on institutionalized exploitation; and institutionalized exploitation needs and feeds on welfarism.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 6:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists 1) are lazy, 2) “don’t do anything,” and/or 3) advocate only on the Web.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(Blog author note: Shame on us for using the Web so damn much).</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 6:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Blanket statements like Myth 6 are nothing more than a demonstration of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">some </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">welfarists’ prejudice and ignorance against </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">most or</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">all</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> abolitionists motivated by their personal resentment over disagreement.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Let’s ask what would logically follow if it were true that “All or most abolitionists are lazy; don’t do anything; and/or are limited to Web advocacy.” Hmmm . . . given the growing number of abolitionists over the past four years, and given the strong welfarist response to “lazy, do-nothing abolitionists,” it seems that abolitionist theory, even if “only Web-based,” is amazingly powerful!</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The truth is that one cannot have the growth of, and reaction to, the abolitionist approach in only four years with both a “weak theory” and mostly or only “lazy do-nothings” promoting it. To explain the current success in four years, some combination of </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">strong theory</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">effective promoters</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> is necessary.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 7:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Welfare campaigns and reforms drive up the cost of production.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 7:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The welfare measures proposed by organizations like HSUS and PETA (such as cage-free, CAK, and gestation crate elimination) are presented to industry by HSUS and PETA </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">as ways to improve economic efficiency</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> in mass exploitation. That is, groups like HSUS and PETA act as free-of-charge </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">consultants to industry</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> on matters of economic efficiency and welfare. Indeed, many studies (some funded by industry) that show that the welfare measures proposed will not only eventually cover the capital cost of implementing them, but be highly profitable thereafter. Further, these welfare measures are a marketing boon, as industry can assure consumers that the animals are living much better lives than they actually are. And as industry gradually phases in these changes, HSUS and PETA can yell “Victory!” to their donors, increasing donations. HSUS and PETA also publicly praise industry for implementing the measures, further assuring consumers that everything is fine. So, industry wins; consumers win; HSUS and PETA win! The animals? Well, they’re still processed at the rate of 56 billion annually and climbing. If anyone thinks that we can raise and slaughter </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">anywhere near</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> the magnitude of over one billion animals weekly (over 100 million daily) without intensive farming causing massive suffering, they are deluding themselves; I don’t care how the victims are raised and slaughtered.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">In addition to all the benefits noted above that industry receives from welfarism, regulations further </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">strengthen</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> industry by adding layers of inspector jobs and bureaucracy, legitimizing and politicizing the institution. Industry is then more entrenched and politically powerful than ever.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Seriously considering the reality of the above points, the only thing that can possibly erode and threaten industry is a viable abolitionist vegan movement. But to be viable, according to political scientists, such an abolitionist vegan movement must make up at least 20%, if not 30% or more, of the electorate of a country or society. Right now, abolitionist vegans, albeit currently growing rapidly in number, make up only a fraction of vegans, and vegans make up such a small percentage of society that the statistical margin of error of even a very expensive survey would make the results meaningless. Welfarism, on the other hand, has almost everyone else in society on its side, including industry, despite its ostensible resistance to forced regulation.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">It’s not looking good for animals, to say the least, when even vegans oppose putting more resources into abolitionist vegan education.</span></i></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 8:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Abolitionists are “divisive,” and generate “infighting.”</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 8:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The accusation of “divisiveness” is nothing more than an attempt by the 30 year-old new welfarist establishment to stifle disagreement. Abolitionists are no more “divisive” than new welfarists.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 9:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We’re all on the same side, but abolitionists cause “infighting.”</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 9:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">First, abolitionism and new welfarism are two profoundly different philosophies with advocates engaged in very different activities based on deep philosophical differences. This means we are not on the same side. Since we’re not on the same side, there can be no “infighting.”</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Second, disagreement is not fighting, it is disagreement.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Myth 10:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nineteenth century American abolitionists were like today’s new welfarists, not like today’s abolitionists.</span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Facts and Explanation 10:</span></b></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Arial"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Nineteenth century American abolitionists were like today’s abolitionists, not like today’s new welfarists, or we might still have legal human slavery in America today. Yes, there were plenty of people who adamantly opposed abolitionists, and many of the same debates today are repetitions of the debates 180 years ago; but it was </span><a href="http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism/abolitionists.htm"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">abolitionists</span></i></span></a><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> who </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">called for the</span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> end of slavery</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">, not its regulation and continuation. It was people like </span><a href="http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism/abolitionists/Garrison.htm"><span style="text-decoration: underline ; letter-spacing: 0.0px color:#0e23a3;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">William Lloyd Garrison</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> who are most similar to modern day abolitionists; and who are to be credited for moving society away from slavery.</span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-26691966861072910972011-02-20T21:40:00.011-07:002011-02-21T13:51:08.311-07:00Killing by the Numbers<p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helveticacolor:#333233;" ><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px">The intentional, unnecessary deaths we inflict on sentient individuals of other species worldwide -- mainly for food choices, and <i>excluding</i> animals from the water -- is greater<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> in five days</span></i> than the deaths we’ve inflicted on humans in all wars and all genocides <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">in recorded human history</span></i>. Even if every non-vegan cut their current animal product consumption by 90%, it would take us only about 41 days to kill as many sentient nonhumans as we’ve killed humans in recorded history. [1]</span> </span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helveticacolor:#333233;" ><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Our treatment of individual sentient nonhumans as renewable resources -- as property, things, commodities -- is a moral blind spot. The reason for this moral blind spot -- the reason we contribute, individually and collectively, to this extreme and senseless violence -- is that we have been heavily</span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-indoctrination-and-education-part-1.html"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" > indoctrinated into speciesism</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;"> throughout our lives. Additionally, by nature, we often “rationalize” this indoctrination and ignore unpleasant facts for various reasons set forth in </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/03/rational-ignorance-and-rational.html"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >this essay</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">. I hope that the magnitude and severity of the atrocity of institutional animal exploitation will encourage readers who are not already ethical vegans to open their minds and hearts to learn about what speciesism is; the extreme and unnecessary violence speciesism causes in society; and to go as far as reasonably possible to avoid speciesist attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. The two links above are a good start. There are many other links on the side bar, including information about vegan food and nutrition. Keep learning; keep growing more just, more empathetic, and more courageous.</span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" ></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helveticacolor:#333233;" ><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >_____________________</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">[1] We intentionally breed, raise, and murder approximately </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/2007-glipha-stats.pdf"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >56 billion </span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">innocent <i>land</i> animals annually, worldwide. That’s about 1.07 billion <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">weekly</span></i>, or about 153 million daily. The total of the <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">highest estimates,</span></i> with some double counting, of all humans killed in all wars, all genocides, and all other human-caused atrocities in recorded human history is about 619 million. That means we kill as many innocent, sentient nonhumans in less than five days days (for food choices alone, excluding animals who live in water) than we have killed humans in recorded history.</span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span><br /></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >If we cut animal product consumption by 90% worldwide, we would murder about 15.3 million daily, and within 41 days, we would murder about 627.3 million (compare to the 619 million human mass-murder total in all recorded history).</span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 14px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span><br /></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">I intentionally used the <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">highest estimates and allowed double-counting</span></i> of human deaths to avoid doubts about possible inaccuracies in </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll"><span style="TEXT-DECORATION: underline;font-family:arial;font-size:100%;" >the source</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">. The highest estimates did appear too high in several cases, based on other sources I’ve read of those wars or genocides. If there is anything inaccurate about the above facts, it is that we kill as many sentient nonhumans in less than three or four days (for food choices alone) than we have killed humans in recorded history.</span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-66417720912027602562011-01-10T21:55:00.009-07:002011-02-21T13:52:05.346-07:00On the Environmental Benefits of Being Vegan<p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">While the </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-environmental-disaster-of-animal.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">environmental benefits of being vegan are tremendous</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">, and probably the single best thing one can do for the environment, the environmental benefits do not compare in importance to the moral reasons for going vegan. </span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 15px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span><br /></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Sentient nonhuman beings are just like us in all of the morally relevant ways. They value their lives. They strive as hard as they can to live. They feel pain intensely. It is wrong to breed, exploit, torture, and kill them for food or any other preferences.</span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 15px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span><br /></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Focusing on the environmental benefits of being vegan is therefore much like focusing on the environmental benefits of avoiding an unjust war. True, war and animal agriculture are both “tough on the environment” (to say the least), but to oppose an unjust war and the killing of innocent civilians, <i>or animal agriculture</i>, by appealing to environmental protection ironically misses the point in the same way.</span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; MIN-HEIGHT: 15px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"></span><br /></span></span></p><p style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT: 13px Arial"><span style="LETTER-SPACING: 0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">We need not be silent about the environmental benefits of veganism, but when we do address such benefits, we should imply or point out that, while great, they are very much incidental to the grave moral wrong of exploiting and unnecessarily breeding and killing the innocent.</span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-70630817446224238702010-11-29T07:29:00.008-07:002010-11-29T10:44:18.062-07:00On Ex-Vegans<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Calibri;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On Variety in Meaning</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As the word “vegan” has fully entered mainstream media during the past five years, it has come to have many different meanings for many different people. For some of us, “vegan” means a strong, lifelong, and morally internalized commitment to avoiding the use of animals and animal products as much as is reasonably possible in an extremely speciesist society that uses animal products ubiquitously. For others, “vegan” might mean avoiding animal products only in one’s diet for some period of time ranging from hours (“vegan before 6pm”) to days (“a vegan cleanse”) to a few months or a few years (a vegan fad diet). So, when someone says “I am vegan”, the statement by itself means virtually nothing without adequate definition provided explicitly or in context.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Likewise, the standalone term “animal rights” has become virtually meaningless, unless specifically defined or used in a well-defined context. To get an idea of just how meaningless the term “animal rights” has become, consider a quote in the recent book authored by Professors Gary L. Francione and Robert Garner entitled </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Rights-Debate-Regulation-Perspectives/dp/0231149557/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290968620&sr=1-1" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The Animal Rights Debate</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. On page 2 of the book, Professor Francione quotes Randy Strauss, President and CEO of Strauss Veal and Lamb International, Inc. a large American meat processor saying, in an effort to increase veal and lamb consumption, “Animal rights are important.” Animal rights has come to meaning everything from the right not to be tortured over and above the routine processing torture endured in a slaughterhouse (traditionally known as “animal welfare”) to the right not to be the property of another. Like the word “vegan”, when such a term has come to mean virtually everything, it has also come to mean virtually nothing, unless adequately defined explicitly or in context.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The point of addressing the variety in meaning of the terms “animal rights” and “vegan” is that when people claim they are no longer vegan or animal rights vegan, it has very little meaning outside of the context in which those terms are used. There may be a lot of “ex-vegans”, but when they were “vegans”, what did that mean? Did they go without animal products for several hours daily (“vegan before 6pm”)? Did they go on a “vegan health diet” for a few weeks, months, or years only as a fad diet right after their Atkins diet? If they were vegan for “animal rights” reasons, what did they mean by that? Are they referring to a concern about animal welfare?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We should be careful about the claims of people who currently call themselves “vegan” and those who call themselves “ex-vegans”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On Variety in Character</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Just as there is extensive variety in the interpretations of the terms “animal rights” and “vegan”, so is there at least as broad a variety in the character and type of people who identify themselves as “animal rights advocates”, “vegans”, and “animal rights vegans”. Indeed, they are likely as varied in character as the public-at-large: from moral exemplars and unsung heroes; to hard workers and good Samaritans; to moral cowards and liars; to attention-seekers and megalomaniacs; to criminals and con artists; and everywhere in between. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">So although we might expect to find the majority of people we meet who self-identify as “animal rights vegans” to be good, honest, conscientious people – solid, reliable, and stable people – we should also expect to find a minority who self-identify as such to be flaky, unreliable, dishonest (intellectually or otherwise), and self-absorbed. And so it should not surprise us that some people go “vegan”, but eventually succumb to weak character traits and become “ex-vegans”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The point here is that ex-vegans are at least partly a reflection of their own character traits at this point in their lives (character can be built and improved upon or diminish throughout life), not a reflection of veganism.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On Variety in Reasons</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Although we might expect to find the majority of self-identified “animal rights vegans” to be vegans for good reasons, we should also expect to find a minority who go “vegan” for poor reasons or who lack a sufficient understanding of good reasons to be vegan (and perhaps never were vegans), and then become “ex-vegans”.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The point here is that vegans often become ex-vegans at least partly due to the poverty of their reasons for previously being vegan, which is no reflection of veganism or the many excellent reasons for being vegan.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On Variety in Egos</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Regardless of whether the fall from veganism was a matter of poor reasons, a character flaw, or both, if ex-vegans liked a lot of attention when they were “vegan” (whatever that might have meant), chances are great that they’ll like a lot of attention when they go “ex-vegan”, so we shouldn’t be surprised when such people publicly showcase – often quite dramatically – their “justifications” for consuming animal products, often including “confessions” about how awful and intolerable it was to be vegan, how “self-righteous” they were as vegans, and how “relieved” they are to “come back home” to where they belong. As drama queens and kings are common in life generally, so are they common among self-identified “animal rights vegans” and “ex-vegans”. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Again, the negative grandstanding is a reflection of the ex-vegan’s ego and character at this time in life, not a reflection of veganism.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Combining Varieties</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">When we combine the above varieties in meaning, character, reasons, and egos, as well as the individual anecdotes and tales of drama, we see that the stories of ex-vegans can tell us nothing of significance or of any reliability about veganism, what vegans are like, what being vegan is like, or what good reasons there are for going vegan. For that kind of information, we should consult longtime vegans, unbiased dietetic professionals and vegan nutritional books and materials, abolitionist animal rights books and education materials, and most importantly, commit to veganism and vegan education ourselves.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">“Failure to Thrive”</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Since animal product consumption and use is virtually always unnecessary for humans and harmful to nonhuman animals, and unnecessary harm is wrong, it’s impossible to justify or even excuse animal product consumption outside of genuine need, such as survival. Because of this, one of the most common excuses for not being vegan or becoming an ex-vegan is that the individual needs animal products either to thrive or for a minimum standard of health. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This excuse plays on the problem of induction in science where we cannot “prove” that X is the case for 100% of a large population, even though all scientific reasoning and evidence to date on less than the entire population has show that X is extraordinarily likely the case for the entire population. Combine such doubt-from-inductive-reasoning with pseudo-science, false or mistaken inferences, anecdotal claims and exaggerations, drama and ego, and you have a recipe for the chaos of anything-goes regarding personal health claims. A recent </span><a href="http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/do-ex-vegans%e2%80%99-stories-make-the-case-against-vegan-diets.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">rebuttal written by a registered dietitian</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> of ex-vegans’ common claim that “vegan diets are not for everyone” displays the typical unscientific nonsense that is put forth as “evidence” by ex-vegans and non-vegans to “support” their claim. It is also worth noting here that the mainstream </span><a href="http://www.eatright.org/about/content.aspx?id=8357" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">American Dietetic Association’s position paper</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> on vegan diets concludes that well-planned vegan diets are appropriate for people of all ages and all stages of life.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Bad health is unfortunate, but what is much more unfortunate is blaming the bad health on the wrong cause, which is almost certainly the case when people blame it on being vegan rather than looking for the real reason (perhaps unrelated to diet) or the specific nutrients they’re lacking and can obtain from non-animal sources, if only they would conduct proper investigation and research into their particular case.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Failure to Justify</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As a way to activate the smoke alarm on the “failure to thrive” health nonsense, ask ex-vegans and non-vegans if they are still vegan </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">except for </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">the particular animal product(s) in the particular quantity that they cannot thrive without. I have asked this question to many who plea “failure to thrive”, and while I have received many different responses (usually some version of avoidance or silence), I have not yet received the response “Yes, I’m vegan except for that.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">If such ex-vegans are serious and genuine about a “failure to thrive”, we should expect them to continue veganism in every other way they are reasonably able, and to continue to fully support the ethical reasons and environmental benefits they previously did. If they do, and they are genuine and sincere about their health issues, and consume limited, prescribed quantities of animal products with the strong reservation that a person who was prescribed a highly undesirable medicine took the medicine, I see no reason why they should announce that they are no longer vegan. Inherent in the concept of veganism – the way genuine abolitionist vegans define it – is reasonableness: Vegans avoid using or consuming animal products to the greatest extent reasonably possible. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">While I’m almost certain that, based on significant reading of materials written by experts in nutrition science, absolutely no animal products are necessary for any human to thrive, I could believe in the sincerity of someone who embraces veganism in their lives as much as they believe they possibly can, even if they consume some “limited, prescriptive amount of certain animal products” with the regret and reservation of someone who undergoes a painful treatment to maintain their health. Sadly, I have yet to see one case among ex-vegans that would even remotely fit this description. What we have is not a failure to thrive, but a failure to justify.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Go vegan; learn what you need to learn about nutrition from reliable dietetic professionals; learn the best reasons for being vegan as a minimum standard of ethical behavior (i.e. reasons set forth in the </span><a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">abolitionist approach to animal rights</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">); and stay vegan for life.</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-30333358414613246442010-11-15T15:41:00.001-07:002010-11-15T15:46:10.438-07:00On Self Interest<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Occasionally, vegan advocates are accused by non-vegans of “promoting an agenda” or “forcing our desires on others.” The implication (sometimes made explicit) is that we are promoting “our self-interest.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The poor reasoning is that since vegans want a vegan world, and therefore strongly advocate for a vegan world, we are promoting “our self-interest” in a vegan world. What such “reasoning” fails to distinguish is 1) the vegan desire to see innocent others fulfill their crucial interests in not being intentionally bred, enslaved, harmed, tortured, and killed, from 2) the non-vegan desire to fulfill their own trivial and unnecessary preferences and bad habits regarding food and other entertainment options. The former interest is entirely <i>other-directed</i>; the latter is entirely <i>self-absorbed</i>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">And whenever vegans are accused of “</span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-imposing-beliefs-on-others.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">forcing beliefs on others</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">” and thereby violating the One Commandment of Moral Relativity; namely, “Thou shalt not judge or attempt to persuade others on moral issues”, we should remember who is forcing beliefs on whom.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Vegans are providing reasons for going vegan: 1) enslaving, exploiting, and killing sentient nonhumans is completely unnecessary under any coherent notion of the word necessary; 2) enslaving, exploiting, and killing sentient nonhumans is harmful; 3) unnecessary harm is wrong; 4) it follows from 1, 2, and 3 that enslaving, exploiting, and killing sentient nonhumans is wrong. That is not forcing any beliefs on anyone. It is providing reasons to go vegan.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">On the other hand, non-vegans force, in the nastiest and most violent, unjust, and insane sense of that word, their unjustified beliefs on innocent sentient nonhumans every time they consume an animal product.</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-24226287923997550482010-10-08T08:06:00.007-06:002010-10-08T08:17:49.403-06:00On Advocacy Media Preferences<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Absent any comprehensive studies on what media are most effective for persuading people to go and stay vegan, we are left with searching for reasons why one medium of advocacy might be more effective than another. Further, any reasons we do come up with for preferring one medium over another would likely be speculative (i.e. empirically untested) and depend more on personal preferences and learning styles than any obvious or universal advantage.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Of books, magazine articles, scholarly journals, blogs, forums, emails, street stalls, leaflets, event tables, speeches, presentations, casual discussion, and whatever other forms of communication might be effective, it seems to me that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">what</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> is communicated and </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">how</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> it is communicated is far more important than </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">where</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> or </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">through what media</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> a message is communicated.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We have reason to believe that, all other factors equal, books -- to the extent that they are read -- are the most effective media simply because of the time it takes to read a book compared to other media. Other than time spent, however, there is no reason to believe that, word for word, books would be any more effective than any other mode of written communication.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">It is likely true that our individual learning styles vary in many ways. For example, Alice might respond best to a well-reasoned argument supported by verified facts, while Bob might respond best to a video and a plea for empathy. Alice might be interested in reading a 250 page book written for academics, while Bob might not get past page 2 of such a book. Alice may cross the street to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">avoid</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> the vegan education table at the summer festival, while Bob may be drawn to a long chit chat session at the vegan education table.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The reason I’m writing about advocacy media is that I’ve seen many opinions, seemingly unsupported with facts or reason, that we “need to get out </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">in the streets</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">” or engage in some </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">specific </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">mode of communication, rather than another mode, if we are to move things along. This seems misguided.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We very much need to 1) get our message right, 2) deliver our message in a palatable manner, and 3) target the appropriate audience (i.e. non-vegans), but it really doesn’t matter whether we choose popular non-vegan forums on the Internet or the library or the table at the summer festival to communicate our message. Chances are excellent that vegans are a proportionate cross-section of those non-vegans we wish to educate. As individuals, if we focus on the media in which we are most comfortable communicating, and the media to which we would personally be most receptive, chances are that, collectively, we will have all bases covered regarding the non-vegan public in proper proportion to their preferred media.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In other words, focus on the modes of communication in which you prefer to communicate, and to which you would be most receptive, and let others focus on the modes they prefer and to which they are receptive. If you like spending time educating on Internet forums, then educate on Internet forums! If you like to chat with random people in the city or at the festival, do that! Both? Fine. Just don’t make unsupported statements that either one or another is ineffective or that your preferred mode of communication ought to be the preferred mode for everyone.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Most important is that we should get the message right. Very briefly, 99.999…% of nonhuman animal exploitation and harm is unnecessary. Unnecessary nonhuman animal exploitation and harm is wrong. Therefore, 99.999…% of nonhuman animal exploitation and harm is wrong. Therefore, avoid it by going vegan and encouraging others to go vegan. Being vegan is far from the most we can do; </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/02/veganism-as-minimum-standard-of-decency.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span style="color:#0000ff;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">it is the least we can do</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">.</span></p></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-84353645892250271572010-09-22T05:42:00.005-06:002010-09-22T05:50:49.999-06:00On Indoctrination and Education (Part 2 of 2)<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Part 1 of this essay defined indoctrination, contrasted it with education, and briefly described the indoctrination process from early childhood through our teenaged years.<span> </span>Part 2 continues with the on-going indoctrination we receive as adults and concludes with vegan education as the antidote to indoctrination at any age.</span></span></div><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span><br /></span></i></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span>Indoctrination as Adults</span></i><span></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">As we enter our adult years, the indoctrination and pressure to conform continues relentlessly throughout our lives. From working and business relationships to friendships to family and romantic relationships, most of us have far more contact with people who have never questioned the speciesist indoctrination of <i>animals-as-things </i>than people who have rejected speciesism in favor of <i>animals-as-persons</i> [1] to be respected. Not only have most people not questioned it, but the indoctrination is so entrenched that they are likely to find our rejection of speciesism odd and even <i>personally threatening</i>. As such, depending on the relationship, we will usually find reactions to our sane, nonviolent views ranging from evasive to defensive to passive-aggressive to hostile.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Indoctrination also continues heavily in entertainment, news media, and advertising. Virtually everywhere we look in our commercial society, we are constantly bombarded with the speciesist assumption that animals are things with <i>only</i> instrumental value, and no more intrinsic value than dirt. </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Indoctrination is even strong in religious and other groups known for promoting nonviolence, justice, and compassion “for all sentient beings”, such as Buddhists. Animal exploitation, animal product consumption and the adamant “defense” of them are almost as common within such groups as in the general public.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Can we look to large animal “protection” groups, such as PETA and HSUS, to challenge our indoctrination in any meaningful way? No. Instead, they send us a </span></span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/12/peta-corporate-tangle-of-contradictions.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span><span style="font-size:100%;color:#0000ff;">mixed message</span></span></a><span><span style="font-size:100%;">: “animals are <i>not</i> ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use or entertainment” mixed with “animals <i>are</i> ours to eat, wear, experiment on, and use for entertainment, <b><i>if </i></b><i>we win this welfare campaign or single issue campaign. So send us your donation today, and then it’ll be okay.”</i></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">The speciesist indoctrination is a self-perpetuating vicious circle, similar to when child abuse continues to occur across generations, in which formerly abused parents become child abusers themselves, perpetuating the cycle indefinitely until some strong, educating agent breaks one or two generations free of it.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">As individuals, can we overcome such indoctrination? Many of us who have overcome speciesist indoctrination provide conclusive evidence that it is possible through <i>vegan education.</i> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span><br /></span></i></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span style="font-size:100%;"><i><span>Vegan Education</span></i><span></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Vegan education seeks to inform people about why and how to avoid animal products and use as far as is reasonably possible, and does so <i>without </i>the use of undue influence, power, coercion, or appeals to authority or tradition. It is generally one-sided because the opposing side is already overwhelmingly present in speciesist indoctrination. It is also “one-sided” in the same way that racial tolerance education is one-sided: racial tolerance education does not promote racism or unjustified and unnecessary harm and killing of people of other races or it would not be racial tolerance education. </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">The reasons to avoid animal products and use include the fact that more than 99.999% of nonhuman animals we exploit have the same </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/10/cultural-prejudice-sentience.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span style="font-size:100%;">morally relevant characteristic (sentience)</span></a><span style="font-size:100%;"> as we do when it comes to a fair assessment of inherent value, as opposed to instrumental value. Just like certain abilities – such as abstract reasoning – do not count when it comes to assessing the inherent value of a <i>human</i> being, such abilities do not count when assessing the inherent value of a <i>sentient nonhuman</i> being. Another way of saying it is that if sentient nonhumans do not have inherent value, then neither do any humans have inherent value. To think any other way is pure prejudice: it is no different from denying a sufficiently-abled human a university education or vote based on her sex or race. Speciesism is the same underlying wrong of favoring morally irrelevant characteristics over morally relevant characteristics that is found in sexism, racism, and heterosexism.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">The way to avoid animal products and uses is to learn all you can about animal ingredients and vegan alternatives to your food, drink, clothing, personal care products, and entertainment choices, and act accordingly. </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">A well-planned diet free of animal products is very healthy. Also, like any other kind of diet, planning should include both the nutritional profile of various foods and an individual’s particular needs. Fortunately, there are plenty of vegan cooking, baking, and nutritional resources available in books and on the Internet (see the side bar of this blog for links). Also, consider seeking out other vegans, either on the Internet (forums and social networking sites), and/or, if you live in an urban area, vegan social groups. It is much easier, especially as a new vegan, to socially identify with others who have rejected the violence and injustice of speciesism.</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span></span></p><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">Finally, as a new vegan, constantly remind yourself why you are vegan to offset the incessant speciesism that you will encounter in your everyday life. Remind yourself that, as a vegan, you are one of the strong, independently-minded people <i>who has made their own choice</i> -- despite being heavily indoctrinated otherwise for years or decades -- to reject the blatant injustice and unnecessary violence of speciesism and animal exploitation, and embrace </span><a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/02/veganism-as-minimum-standard-of-decency.html" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 204); "><span style="font-size:100%;">veganism as a minimum standard of decency.</span></a></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span></span> </div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span>_________________________</span></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span></span> </div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em><br /></em></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><em>Note:</em></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></span> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span><span style="font-size:100%;">[1] Many people get confused when they hear or read animals referred to as “persons”. This confusion stems from two misunderstandings. First, in a speciesist society, animals are defined, referred to, and thought of, literally as <i>things</i>, both legally and in common language use. Second, people get confused between the words “people” and “persons”, which have very different meanings. “People” is a synonym for “humans”, plain and simple. Animals are not people. “Person” has a much broader meaning, both legally and in common language use, but especially in law. A <i>person</i> is an entity due moral or legal consideration, and can be a human; a legal entity, such as a corporation, foundation, or trust; or a nonhuman animal. Animals are persons.</span></span></p></span></div></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-63302336382782147602010-09-21T21:35:00.010-06:002010-09-21T22:10:10.090-06:00On Indoctrination and Education (Part 1 of 2)<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Introduction</span></i></div><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Indoctrination and education are similar processes except for two differences: one conditional difference, and one crucial difference. The </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">conditional difference </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">is that indoctrination is one-sided and uncritical, while education is multifaceted, allowing for free and critical evaluation of at least two perspectives, either intentionally or by default. This difference is “conditional” (a difference depending on circumstances) because education can be entirely one-sided </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">in an environment of indoctrination</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> and still be education, since the existing indoctrination serves as the strong presentation of the other side of the issue.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">crucial difference</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> is that indoctrination necessarily involves some sort of influence, power, coercion, or appeals to authority or tradition to maintain a monopoly or similar control over information, and thereby control agreement or consensus; while education shuns influence, power, coercion, and appeals to authority or tradition of any kind as a method of controlling agreement or consensus. It is this difference that </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">essentially</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> distinguishes indoctrination from education.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The influence, power, coercion, or appeals to authority or tradition that defines indoctrination can come in many forms, and does </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not necessarily</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> use any kind of violence or threats to maintain agreement and consensus. For example, the power inherent in financial or economic control over mass media and what information mass media presents is the kind of power that does </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> involve any violence or threats whatsoever against the public, but it is extremely effective in maintaining control over public opinion. Similarly, parents’ sheltering of their child from information and reasoning that encourages the nonviolence of veganism can be entirely free of any violence or threats of violence. Even the momentum of mass market economics and widespread cultural prejudice itself is a form of domination, undue influence, and power over belief that qualifies it as a strong – and perhaps the strongest – mechanism of indoctrination.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Our Speciesist Indoctrination</span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We live in a society that heavily indoctrinates us, throughout our entire lives, to accept the widely shared </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">dogma </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">that animals are things, property, and commodities here for us to use, consume, and exploit in virtually any way we desire, as long as we do it “humanely”. (“Humanely”, as used in this context, is so inaccurate and misleading from a practical point of view as to be close in meaning to its antonym. See Note [1] at the end of the essay for an </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">important elaboration</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> on this point.)</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The remainder of this two-part essay will focus on how, and how much, we are indoctrinated, in the hope that seeing the power-based, one-sided, and uncritical nature of such indoctrination, along with vegan education as an antidote to indoctrination, will help in overcoming it. </span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Indoctrination in Early Childhood</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Our indoctrination begins when we are, as infants, fed certain foods before we have any idea what (or whom) we are eating. When we find out as children that we are eating the bodies of dead animals, many of us are uneasy about our new-found knowledge. Our parents or guardians, heavily indoctrinated for decades themselves, try to assure us that some animals are “meant” for us to eat, and that we “need” to eat animals to be healthy. Many of us continue to question such assurances, but even the most precocious of us will generally get no more of a “reason” from the adults in our lives than some form of “that’s just the way it is” (e.g. the Bible says so; God put them here for us; they had bad karma in previous lives; they’re not rational like us) or false statements to ease our consciences (e.g. they don’t mind being our food; they couldn’t live comfortable lives if we didn’t eat them, and so on). Either way, the vast majority of us are forced – whether by threats of punishment for not eating our meat, or by duress in wanting to please our parents and siblings – to accept that animal products </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">will be</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> what we eat, </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">whether we like it or not</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">. Note the influence and power differential involved in, and uncritical nature of, our “learning” about animals-as-food, and how our concerns are almost always dismissed out of hand by the vast majority of non-vegan parents.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Indoctrination in Youth and at School</span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">From pre-school to high school, the indoctrinated beliefs formed in our early childhood are further reinforced by teachers, other students, the school lunch menu, the “food pyramid” and nutritional “education” (formed by a political process heavily involving animal agribusiness interests), and a constant bombardment of advertising by industry on television, radio, billboards, and in newspapers. For the vast majority of us, there are no alternative perspectives. Our society and the institutions of which it consists have an extremely powerful monopoly on the information and perspectives we receive. Not only that, but almost without exception, the influential people in those institutions have been heavily indoctrinated themselves, whether or not they are aware of it.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">We are to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">uncritically accept</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> the claim that dairy, eggs, and meat are “necessary” for our health. We are to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">uncritically accept</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> that there are no satisfactory alternatives to animal products. We are to </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">uncritically accept</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> that killing, enslavement, and exploitation is “humane”, necessary, and morally acceptable. </span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Most of us, if we critically challenge or reject animal products in our diet and life as school-aged youth, are swimming upstream against an overwhelming current of parents, teachers, other students, the school lunch menu, and relentless advertising. Critical challenges of society’s dogma regarding animal product consumption and animal use are often met with hostility and even ridicule. The exception is when we have parents who either are vegan or strongly support our decision to be vegan. Even then, however, indoctrination and hostility from non-parental sources is strong, and our sense of independence must be equal to the task. Again, the power differential is strong, and the nature of the reinforcement of the paradigm of animals-as-things is almost always blind and uncritical.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Indoctrination as Teenagers</span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">As we enter our teens, the same indoctrination continues from the same sources as when we were younger, but there is perhaps a shift from parents and teachers to advertisers and our peers being the most influential on us. Most of us start attempting to create an identity for ourselves, and often choose role models to assist in this process. Our peers and potential role models will rarely, if ever, be vegans who have rejected the cultural prejudice of speciesism. In fact, as victims of powerful and heavy indoctrination themselves, they are just as likely to be as deeply prejudiced regarding species membership as anyone else.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Even if we are exposed to a positive vegan role model as a teenager, indoctrination from other sources continues, powerful and uncritical, and again, our sense of personal independence from those speciesist sources must be equally strong.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">This concludes Part 1 of this two-part essay. Part 2 will continue with the on-going indoctrination we receive as adults and will conclude with vegan education as the antidote to indoctrination at any age.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">____________________</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Note:</span></i></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "> </p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0in; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">[1] “Humane”, under the law, means no more pain, suffering, and torture than is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">approximately</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> deemed “necessary” </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">by the owner of property</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> to achieve the instrumental goal in question; therefore, enslavement, solitary confinement, burning, torturing, beating, rape, stabbing, shooting, bone-breaking, electrocuting, inducing psychosis, inducing drug addiction, inducing severe mental illness, severe psychological torment, electrical shocking, and just about any other form of torture you can think of is perfectly legal, as long as it achieves legally established industry-specified or owner-specified instrumental goals set by animal experimenters, hunters, trappers, family farmers, dog owners, or any other industry or adult human. Even when the torture can be shown to be “gratuitous” or “unnecessary” for achieving the owner’s goal, and violates a welfare law, the animal is still property, and therefore the legal consequences are trivial enough to almost never act as a deterrent to the cruel behavior. Consider reading </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Animals, Property, and Law </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">(see recommended books on the side bar for a link</span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">)</span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> by Professor Gary Francione for more details on why legal welfarism protects, and will always protect, almost every kind of torture imaginable.</span></p></span><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-22484661014666491542010-06-14T13:58:00.012-06:002011-11-28T16:56:42.540-07:00On Cruelty VideosAt least a few times every year, an animal welfare organization sponsors an undercover investigation and generates a “cruelty video” showing the torture that various innocent nonhumans endure in slaughterhouses, feeding operations, laboratories, rodeos, zoos, circuses, or various other locations of animal use. I covered a classic case of an undercover investigation and the resulting video in a blog post entitled, <a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/12/petas-undercover-investigations-another.html">PETA’s Undercover Investigations: Another Example of the Welfarist Business Cycle</a>.<br />
<br />
As I noted in the blog post on PETA’s investigation, undercover investigations (and the related cruelty videos) don’t seem problematic from an animal rights point of view. After all, human rights organizations routinely investigate, report, and promote videos depicting severe human suffering to bring the public’s attention to a problem and garner political support to end such abuses. However, when human rights organizations depict cruelty toward humans, they are sending an unequivocal message that the rights violations – slavery, exploitation, and killing – are wrong and should end. In contrast, animal welfare organizations (PETA, HSUS, et al) object only to how the slavery, exploitation, and killing are carried out. They do not object to the unnecessary slavery, exploitation, and killing, <em>per se</em>. The animal welfare organization’s call to action is for the viewer to send a donation to the organization and usually a letter to an industry executive or governmental official either to enforce existing regulations or to adopt new regulations or methods.<br />
<br />
In contrast to an animal welfare organization (e.g. PETA, HSUS, Mercy for Animals, et al), an animal rights organization might show the video; but if it did, the message would be first, that all institutions of animal use are unnecessary and harmful, and therefore wrong and should end; second, that the viewer should therefore go vegan as a <a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/02/veganism-as-minimum-standard-of-decency.html">minimum standard of decency</a>; third, how to go vegan by providing information on vegan recipes and nutrition (perhaps in the form of Internet links to various sources of information); and fourth, perhaps consider a donation to help our work in providing vegan education to the public.<br />
<br />
Cruelty videos are considered essential for animal <em>welfare</em> advocacy because it is the <em>treatment,</em> not the unnecessary <em>use</em>, to which welfare organizations take exception. Cruelty videos are nonessential, and possibly even detrimental, for an animal <em>rights</em> organization because it is the unnecessary <em>use</em> alone to which the animal rights organization takes exception. The reason that cruelty videos can be detrimental to an animal rights organization’s mission is that such videos inherently focus on treatment, not use, even though the cruel treatment is an inevitable symptom of the disease of use. By focusing on treatment, such videos do not suggest that use ought to end, but that use ought to be regulated.<br />
<br />
Given that cruelty videos focus on treatment instead of use, a question arises as to whether it is ever appropriate for an animal rights organization or advocate to use cruelty videos in vegan education. On one hand, Professor Gary Francione <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-blood-and-guts-advocacy/">provides good reasons</a> to consistently avoid cruelty videos in vegan education. On the other hand, there have been many people who have become vegans as a result of the <em>emotional impact</em> that such videos can deliver. Some of these vegans have later gone on to become <em>abolitionist vegans</em> after hearing or reading the overwhelmingly strong evidence and cogent arguments supporting <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/mission-statement/">the abolitionist approach</a>.<br />
<br />
Is the emotional impact of cruelty videos strong and effective enough to justify occasionally showing or linking to them, despite the confusion that may arise by the focus of such videos on treatment rather than use, and <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-blood-and-guts-advocacy/">other good reasons</a> to avoid them set forth by Professor Francione? The best answer appears to depend on the circumstances.<br />
<br />
Since cruelty videos are essential to animal welfare organizations and provide big fundraising opportunities, animal welfare organizations will continue to generate these videos and the big news stories that usually accompany the initial publication of the videos. At times when these videos are in mainstream news, abolitionist vegan advocates should at least have a response to the videos that includes, but goes beyond, the legitimate complaint that they focus on treatment, not use. A more effective response would be that all commercial use is cruel, and that virtually all cruelty and use, illegal and legal, is unnecessary, and therefore gratuitous.<br />
<br />
There is no meaningful difference between the <em>legal </em>use and cruelty that is required to process animal commodity units efficiently versus the<em> illegal </em>so-called “gratuitous cruelty” that is not required to process animal commodity units efficiently. As Professor Francione has correctly stated, 99.999% of our uses of nonhumans are for pleasure, amusement, or convenience. None of those uses are necessary in any coherent sense of that word. Therefore, whether the pleasure and/or amusement is that of the non-vegan’s preference for animal products or the slaughterhouse worker’s preference for a diversion from the boredom and frustration of processing sentient commodity units, it is all gratuitous, and the “legal cruelty” is often far more severe than the “illegal cruelty.” The difference between legal and illegal treatment is whether or not the cruelty results in efficient processing. The severity of the cruelty is irrelevant in the eyes of the law, and always will be irrelevant as long as nonhumans are legal property. [1] And as long as people are not vegan, nonhumans will always be legal property.<br />
<br />
Aside from responding to such videos by explaining that all use and cruelty is unnecessary and should be abolished, not regulated, abolitionist vegan advocates should be careful about sharing or promoting such videos while they are headline news. If the videos are shown at all by abolitionists while the videos are headline news, the abolitionist message should be front and center: that use must be abolished, not regulated; that people must go vegan to end the torture and unjustified use, not choose animal products with a vacuous feel-good label. These videos are already getting plenty of viewing attention; the problem is that the associated message is predominately for enforcement, more regulation or more efficient methods, not a call for veganism and abolition.<br />
<br />
During quieter times when such videos are not in the news, they might be effective for emotional impact. If the video has an explicit regulationist message, such a message may override any benefit derived from emotional impact, despite an advocate providing a contrary abolitionist message, and the video should therefore be avoided. If the video has no explicit welfarist message, and a strong abolitionist message is presented both before and after the video, the video’s treatment focus may be overcome sufficiently to justify the option of its presentation for the purpose of emotional impact.<br />
<br />
Finally, cruelty videos are always, at best, optional tools for abolitionist vegan advocates to generate an emotional impact. The abolitionist message does not depend in any way on how animals are treated; only that they are used, and that all of our uses are for unnecessary pleasure, amusement, or entertainment. When in doubt, it is best to avoid such videos.<br />
<br />
______________<br />
<em>Note:</em><br />
[1] Professor Gary Francione provides overwhelmingly strong evidence in case law and legal theory that anticruelty laws are based solely<em> </em>on maximizing the efficiency of animal exploitation and have nothing to do, in any practical sense whatsoever, with the type or severity of the cruelty or maltreatment. Moreover, since humans have respect-based legal property rights of which the object of that right protection is nonhuman animals (who have no rights), the most trivial of human interests will always trump the most crucial of nonhuman animals’ interests. Our legal system strongly resists punishing rightholders in the least for violating even the most crucial of interests of their property. Consider reading 1) <em>Animals, Property, and the Law</em>; 2) <em>Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement</em>; and 3) <em>Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog</em>, all by distinguished law professor and philosopher Gary L. Francione for detailed analyses and numerous case law studies supporting these claims. (Note: There are links in the side bar to Amazon.com for <em>Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement </em>and<em> Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog.)</em>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4465671015683129768.post-2418349032329696402010-05-24T09:03:00.007-06:002010-05-24T09:23:40.114-06:00On Various Religious and Secular "Justifications" of Unjustified ViolenceAbolitionist vegans vary in their religious beliefs from “atheist activist” to “spiritual” to sincere adherence to any one of the five major religions of the world. The philosophy of abolitionist animal rights and veganism seeks the end of unnecessary violence, killing, and harm inflicted on innocent sentient nonhuman beings. As such, there is nothing inconsistent about combining such a wide range of secular and religious beliefs with a strong belief in abolitionist animal rights and veganism. Indeed, the idea that <em>unnecessary</em> intentional violence, killing, and harm are wrong and unjust is a widely accepted principle across all religions and secular moral belief systems. Abolitionist animal rights and veganism consistently extend this widely agreed-upon principle to all beings who can and should benefit from it, specifically sentient nonhuman beings. Logical consistency in moral thought is part of the essence of abolitionist animal rights and veganism, regardless of the religious or secular background surrounding it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, however, there are many people who have used their religious or secular beliefs to “rationalize”, or attempt to “justify”, unnecessary violence, and often extreme violence, against both innocent human and nonhuman animals.<br /><br /><strong>Religion-Based Violence Inflicted on Innocent Humans<br /></strong><br />Examples of religion-based violence inflicted on innocent humans include the notorious Inquisitions from about the 1200s to the 1700s, which authorized torture in investigating heresy and execution by live burning of convicted heretics; related witch burnings in the 1500s and 1600s; religious colonialism; religious wars of all kinds; and religious and biblical “justifications” of human chattel slavery.<br /><br />When we look at religion-based violence against humans, we see that it is <em>usually </em>[1] not the religious beliefs <em>per se</em>, but aggressive people and groups <em>violently</em> forcing the religious beliefs on others that are the problem.<br /><br /><strong>Secular-Based Violence Inflicted on Innocent Humans</strong><br /><br />Examples of secular-based violence inflicted on innocent humans include violent uprisings in support of political ideologies from the far right (fascism and Nazism) and the far left (Soviet and Maoist Communism); violent uprisings in support of liberalism (secular and economic colonialism against indigenous people); human chattel slavery in agriculture-based economies; and morally questionable wars fought for mostly economic interests, rather than for legitimate national defense, <em>per se</em>.<br /><br />Again, as with religion-based violence, when we look at secular-based violence against humans, we see that it is <em>usually</em> [2] not political ideologies <em>per se</em>, but aggressive people and groups <em>violently</em> forcing the ideologies on others that are the problem.<br /><br /><strong>Religion-Based Violence Inflicted on Innocent Nonhumans</strong><br /><br />Examples of religion-based violence against innocent nonhumans are manifested in people’s consumption of lactation products, eggs, and flesh; use of leather, wool, and fur; attendance at rodeos, zoos, and circuses; and support of animal experimentation, etc. The idea is often stated that God “put” nonhuman animals here “for us” (<em>which is remarkably similar to the religious justification of human chattel slavery</em>). Another idea is that God granted rights to humans, but not nonhumans (<em>or white humans in slavery days, but not nonwhite humans in slavery days</em>), so that we are justified in inflicting unnecessary and intentional violence on them in the form of slavery, exploitation, punishment, and death.<br /><br />If we give this notion that God has sanctioned unnecessary violence toward the innocent any thought at all, we see that the religious beliefs themselves become ludicrous. The notorious “Problem of Evil” in justifying a morally decent god’s existence in light of evil so ubiquitous in the world becomes absolutely insurmountable. After all, any god who intentionally created innocent, <em>sentient </em>beings for the <em>purpose</em> of food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation is certainly a monster worthy of the strongest contempt. We may fear such a monster dreadfully, but it is insane to worship such a morally repulsive entity. Obviously, the same goes for any god who would sanction torture and live burnings. We might fear such a nasty, powerful entity, but we cannot coherently worship one. On the other hand, if a god desires nonviolence toward all sentient beings as manifested in veganism, <em>only</em> then is the god good and worth worshiping. To believers I ask, <em>“Which is it? Is God good or monstrous?”<br /></em><br /><strong>Secular-Based Violence Inflicted on Innocent Nonhumans</strong><br /><br />Examples of secular-based violence inflicted on innocent nonhumans are again manifested in people’s consumption of lactation products, eggs, and flesh; use of leather, wool, and fur; attendance at rodeos, zoos, and circuses; and support of animal experimentation, etc. Secular speciesists generally use Darwinism and Hobbesian social contract theory as their “justification” for inflicting unnecessary, intentional violence, killing, and harm on the innocent.<br /><br />They claim superiority over other species on the basis of their supposed “rationality”, “empathy”, and ability to enter into an imaginary “social contract” with those people whom they presumably would otherwise exploit, harm, or kill (good thing for that imaginary “contract”); but in a spectacle of self-contradiction, adjust themselves to the level of supposedly “non-rational, non-empathic, amoral” animals in exploiting, harming, and killing other species. One might think I was referring to people who lack self-control and emotional development in describing such irrationality, but no, I’m talking about supposedly emotionally mature human adults with fully-developed prefrontal cortexes. It boggles the mind how strongly irrational cultural prejudice and, in some cases, social pressure, can completely dominate otherwise intelligent, independently-minded people. For a brief analysis of such irrationality, see my essay entitled “<a href="http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/03/rational-ignorance-and-rational.html">Rational Ignorance and Rational Irrationality</a>”.<br /><br /><strong>Stop the Unjustified Violence<br /></strong><br />There are no excuses for unnecessary violence, exploitation, harm, or killing inflicted on innocent human or nonhuman animals. All of the “justifications” rooted in various religious and secular beliefs are really a reflection of the nature and cumulative environment of the <em>individuals who espouse violence</em>. But many individuals can, to a large extent, overcome their past environment by willingly committing themselves to nonviolence and nonviolent environments.<br /><br />Veganism, by definition, is the <em>rejection of unnecessary, intentionally-inflicted</em> violence, harm, exploitation, or killing regardless of the species membership of the innocent sentient being who would be the victim of such violence. If you are not a vegan, learn how to go vegan starting today (see some of the links in the sidebar for information about how to go vegan). If you are a vegan, encourage others to go vegan by informing them on why and how.<br /><br />________________<br /><br /><strong>Notes:<br /></strong><br />[1] The exception to the religious beliefs themselves being violent or harmful is that of specific chapters and verses in holy books that promote violence (whether it be killing, slavery, rape, war, torture, or any other form of violence).<br /><br />[2] The exception to the political ideologies themselves being violent or harmful are doctrines of violent revolution in some left-wing ideologies, and implied or expressed social Darwinism, and greed, and self-absorption lurking behind many right-wing ideologies.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com