Animal Person

On The Respectful Emperor

I've been having a difficult time blogging both here and at Animal Rights & AntiOppression lately because I feel like my thoughts are like "Groundhog Day." Not the day, the film, where Bill Murray experiences the same day over and over again.

There are few animal rights stories in the news. We are not people who are interested in discussing animal rights, as in, the right of sentient nonhumans to not be used by humans for potential profit, for sport or for lunch.

That leaves us with animal welfare, which I do think we are genuinely interested in, mostly because of the myriad videos, documentaries, books and websites that have made it tough to avoid over the past few years. People are talking. And acting. Of course, what they are talking about and how they are changing their behavior is very frustrating for someone who doesn't believe we should be using animals at all. Most of the talk and the action is about treating animals differently---better, allegedly--while not addressing what is of paramount importance to all living creatures: staying alive.

When I think about the language that has been used by people who kill animals or have someone else do it for them, a couple of years ago the "compassionate" trend began. Farmers were bragging about how much they "loved" the animals they would soon betray and slaughter, and many omnivores who had discovered how animals are treated wanted to assuage their consciences a bit by "at least" giving the animals a better life prior to their untimely slaughter. I wrote often about such farmer/authors and found their rationalizations quite creepy. (Here's "On THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" from September of 2008.)

In short order it was clear that The Compassionate Emperor had no clothes, however. You didn't have to think too deeply about that one before you reached its fatal flaws. It wasn't long before The Humane Emperor came on the scene, and is still around, telling folks that with a little mental acrobatics you can include forcible breeding, captivity, separation of family, killing of day-old chicks, and of course, untimely death in the definition of "humane." The Humane Myth debunks any definition of humane farming you can create though, and it would help animals enormously if we coached more people in the deconstructing of the notion of humane.

Maybe "humane" is already on its way out for the folks trying to convince themselves and others that humane killing isn't an oxymoron. Yesterday I saw what could be the next such attempt in The Atlantic's "Last Clucks: The Death of a Chicken," by Sara Lipka. Lipka introduced me to the idea of killing "respectfully." There's so much to deconstruct here, but after this lengthy intro I'm feeling the need to go in the opposite direction and just provide the highlights. And by highlights, I mean sentences that made me want to scream.

• "Our friend Miranda had her eye on Tina, the only bird distinctive enough to be named." That one left me speechless.
• "My boyfriend, Daniel, wanted to kill his hen, quietly and respectfully, and eat it." Wanted? His? Respectfully? It?
• "Our friend James caught our hen and put it in a hay-lined waxed-cardboard box. It calmed down and sat quietly in the box, on the floor of my car's backseat." Our. It.
• "the chicken waited with me, its head sticking through a gap in the top of the box. It was funny, maybe even cute." Its. It.
• "We took the chicken to Daniel's parents' house and left it in the box in the garage overnight." It. Okay, I can't keep doing this. There are more than 15 more "it"s.
• "Blood splattered on my pants and on Daniel's face, which made him, in a hooded sweatshirt, look like a murderer." He had indeed just murdered a chicken.
• "Feathers: animal. No feathers: food. I didn't feel sentimental anymore." That's an honest observation.
• "I'm still glad we did it. I confirmed my weird personal right to consume chicken." I find it sad that Lipka views the killing as some sort of right of passage that gives her permission to pay to have others kill other chickens and who knows what other animals when she in fact does not need to eat (or wear or otherwise use) them.
• "Our little chicken was very much on my mind as we ate her." What was on her mind, I wonder?

The stories we humans create for ourselves to justify--or even glorify--our behavior are fictions. If we really want to respect chickens, and if we really want to be "mindful" of them, we would remove them from the table and allow them to live their lives. That's respect.

--Photo from Flickr user gunp0wder

On Animal Abuse Registries and Anthropolatry

This morning I posted "On California's Animal Abuse Registry Proposal" over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression and welcome any discussion about it. I should be able to watch the press conference about the bill this afternoon if a conference call doesn't take too long, and I'll update if there's anything new and exciting.

Also, I couldn't resist mentioning a word that was new to me until today, and it's surprising that it's new given what is is:

Anthropolatry: The productive suffix -latry (from Greek, meaning "worship") clues us up that this is a form of worship, and the anthropo- part means "humankind," as it does in many related words. The outcome: "worship of human beings." You don't hear much about it as a religious practice but it's probably what aliens would conclude about us after a stroll past department store windows!

What a fitting addition to discussions about speciesism!

On "Knockout Animals"

Today's New York Times gives us Adam Shriver's Op-Ed "Not Grass-Fed, But at Least Pain-Free," which presents its dilemma at the end:

If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.

Some might consider this a false dilemma, as built into it is the presumption that "we cannot avoid factory farms altogether" when we easily can. It's a choice. Anyone can make it if they want to.

But let's say I have chosen to avoid factory farming, and in fact the consumption of animals entirely (to the extent that it's practical), while most people will make no such choice. Is it true that the least I can do is support the engineering of animals who experience less unpleasantness than they would have had they not been engineered that way?

Before you answer, here are some details to inform your decision:

• The first "knockout animals" were laboratory rats, whose anterior cingulate cortex have been damaged/blocked so that though they might still feel pain, they do not find it unpleasant. In other words, the perception of pain is affected. Now, any medication we take and surgical procedures we undergo also have a long line of breeding, enslavement, torture and killing of sentient nonhumans leading up to them, so objecting to "knockout animals" on those grounds is to stand on somewhat thin ice. My objection is: Why do such research when you don't need to? Why kill and maim and waste taxpayer dollars--or any dollars--on such things?
• Here's the part that either I'm misunderstanding, or makes one wonder what all of the buzz is about:

Because the sensory dimension of the animals’ pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured.

Like when they're about to be, say, slaughtered?

This is where I'm confused. This proposed measure would take away some of the perception of pain, but what about the terror? What about all of the elements of being confined and enslaved and killed and watching others meet their untimely demises? What about boredom and frustration? What about being torn from your family? What about being raped?

Here's what I see: Once again, as with attempts to convince the public that animal farming could ever be humane, humans are desperate to provide alternatives to consuming animals that don't include not consuming animals. This reinforces the notion that you have to have some kind of superhuman degree of willpower to decide not to kill anyone or have anyone killed for you (if it's not necessary).

I don't think that people who are going to eat animals no matter what care what degree of pain the animals are feeling because they're currently feeling more pain than any of us can imagine and those people are still eating them.

Not to mention the reality that there is so much more involved in being bred for slaughter than pain, and none of that is addressed. And of course, the reality that all of this involves using sentient nonhumans when that's unnecessary isn't even considered.

If a person cares about what "livestock" experience on their way to becoming "meat," there is one easy, inexpensive action that person can take to make certain s/he is not a party to the various kinds and levels of suffering and injustice the animals experience. That action is to opt out and go vegan.

On Why My Food Bill Just Got a Lot Cheaper

 Deb wrote "Do Food Miles Matter?" after reading "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, by James E. McWilliams last month. Shortly thereafter she visited and brought me the book, and as a result . . . my food bill just got a lot cheaper.

Why? Because I am now less convinced of the merits of organic food than I used to be (low-yield, high land requirements, confusion over whether the natural chemicals are any better than the synthetic ones as well as whether or not organic is actually healthier). And if you're talking about organic on a scale that would feed the planet, it's impossible. And regarding local food, though I was buying some in an attempt to support local farmers, I had to rethink the bigger picture and why I was buying local after reading McWilliams. As Deb writes, "food miles are the least important aspect to consider when looking at the most environmentally sustainable foods."

Here's what I like best about this book, and it might seem strange: His arguments don't hinge on animal treatment. His is a practical intention--an examination of how we might find a way to sustainably feed nine billion people (the population by 2050). And because that's his premise, he proceeds to investigate both factory farming and smaller operations that include grazing and allowing the animals to live a relatively natural life (after their unnatural beginning and let's not forget about their unnatural end). And he demonstrates that neither is sustainable. (Unfortunately, because this was a borrowed book I didn't mark it up. Nor did I take notes when I read. So I am unable to provide quotes and for that I apologize.)

In other words, McWilliams makes a fantastic argument for not eating land animals.

Which begs the question: What about sea animals? And herein lies the problem. Though the author does appear to care about the welfare of land animals a bit and takes for granted that factory farming is an odious practice, he doesn't seem to care about animals who do not dwell on land. So much so, in fact, that he calls them "floating protein" and speak of "growing protein." He believes that sea dwellers are a big part of the answer to: How do we feed nine billion people sustainably?

"Just Food" is a must read for information that will help convince environmentalists that eating land animals isn't good for the people or the planet. But if you give the book to an enviro for her birthday, and she agrees with McWilliams' conclusions, you could very well end up having created a pescetarian. I'm just warning you.

I recommend reading "Just Food" for the above discussions as well as the treatment of food subsidies, which I find particularly unjust, and genetically-modified crops, which could be the answer to feeding the developing world. The one conclusion you'll come away with for certain, is that once again, food labels and trends need far more examination, and many are downright misleading. What makes someone in suburban South Florida feel good buying at her local farmer's market, might, when all is taken into consideration, be not so great for workers or the planet, and needs to be reexamined.

On Deep Vegan Outreach and Dr. Ray Greek

This week I asked "Is this 'War'?" over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression and I welcome comments (and will respond to the current ones shortly).

I also saw two items of particular interest to the mission of Animal Rights and AntiOppression as well as Animal Person on the Interwebs: An introduction to "Deep Vegan Outreach" and an open letter from Dr. Ray Greek.

1)    "Introducing 'Deep Vegan Outreach': The Time for Change is Now" begins with photos of vegan and King of the Cage World Champion, Mac Danzig. I never understood the appeal of beating others or watching such activity, but I cannot deny the level of fitness that must be involved in reaching Danzig's position in that world.

But as far as the article goes, I particularly like:

• "a radical new vision is needed to rescue the importance of the vegan message for global crisis and situate it in its full social and ecological context."
• The General Principles of Deep Vegan Outreach, including addressing "Economically-disadvantaged individuals and families, and racially and ethnically diverse populations" and the enormous implications of the increase in animal consumption among developing nations.
• Immediate Projects and Short-term Goals include a letter writing campaign to policy experts "to encourage them to emphasize veganism as crucial for avoiding runaway ecological crisis and renewing the earth and all its inhabitants."

Of course, the name brings Deep Ecology to mind, which is a plus in my mind.

What do you think about Deep Vegan Outreach?

2)    If you live in Los Angeles, you are probably more aware of the goings-on around the panel discussion that will involve Dr. Ray Greek and members of the Pro-Test community at UCLA. Here's "An Open Letter from Dr. Ray Greek on the Feb. 16 UCLA Panel Discussion," which raises a handful of interesting issues about panels, debates, the importance of airing both on the Internet, and the realities of setting up a panel or a debate with people who are on the opposite side of your issue.

I recommend reading the entire letter. You don't have to have any prior knowledge of the controversy or live in LA to appreciate Dr. Greek's thoughts.

On Cannibalism

When we left off, the New York Times' Roger Cohen had eaten dog while in China, and wasn't thrilled about it emotionally. Logically, he admits it does make perfect sense to eat dogs if you eat pigs and cows. He writes:

There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.).

I'm intrigued by his mention of cannibalism, even if to set it aside. Why? Because his previous paragraph is:

But do pigs have any more or less of a soul than dogs? Are they any more or less sentient? Do they suffer any more or less in death? Are they any more or less part of the mysterious unity of life? I think not.

It's a bit difficult to take on the soul question for human or nonhuman animals, particularly for an atheist. I'm not sure what soul means or whether it can be physically located anywhere so . . . I'll set it aside here. But the other issues--sentience, suffering, being part of the "mysterious unity of life"--Cohen's own criteria for lumping anyone into one category, are all equally true for humans. His aside demonstrates how self-conscious he is about attributes shared by pigs and dogs, which he knows is also shared by humans.

What Cohen doesn't say, which is the real point of his quasi-lament over dining on dog, is that we don't eat humans because they are human. But in the nonhuman world, there's simply no reason to make any distinctions.

If sentience and suffering and "the mysterious unity of life" are really your concerns, you aren't going be eating anybody.

Roger Cohen Realizes Dogs=Pigs, Sort Of

"Dog Days in China" is a small piece with no gruesome slideshow. But it's also remarkable in that Roger Cohen, a 50-something man who writes for the New York Times, wonders:

But do pigs have any more or less of a soul than dogs? Are they any more or less sentient? Do they suffer any more or less in death? Are they any more or less part of the mysterious unity of life? I think not.

There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.).

I repeat: If you eat meat (I'd say: products that come from animals), you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (i.e., product that comes from an animal).

The theory is sound. There's no way out.

But as Cohen experiences, humans don't live "in theory." The theory that the mind finds inescapably well-formulated is often overwhelmed and overturned by human emotions.

I must confess I’ve been having a hard time. My bout of anguish began a few weeks back on a wintry night in central China, in the restless megalopolis of Chongqing. I was cold, wet and seeking refuge.

His "anguish" leads him to a dog restaurant where he dines on dog. His "refuge" could easily taken the form of the Sichuan noodles he likes, sans dog. Or pig, or duck, or fish. "Dog was not easy for me," he writes. "The memory has proved hard to digest."

When it comes to the legislation (which may or may not mean anything for dogs and cats), Cohen sides with the people who recognize that cats and dogs are no different from chickens and geese. He writes, "I’m not happy that I ate dog. But I’m happy China eats dog."

This is a good news/bad news story. It's great that someone realizes that there is no real difference between dogs and cows. However, remember that he understands that emotion ("the heart") is what ultimately governs what most of us do, and certainly what he does, so he won't be eating any more dogs.

And, presumably, he will continue to eat other animals. And that's the bad news.

Stay tuned tomorrow as I question setting aside cannibalism.

On Wearable "Roadkill"

Angus sent me a link to "Animal Parts: High Style of Just Plain Beastly" wherein Zosia Bielski reports that "hipsters are going whole hog, donning road kill as accessories and cow hooves on their feet."

Several designers, one of whom is a vegetarian, are using parts of dead animals they found on the side of the road to make everything from shoes to hats to cufflinks, which evidently are difficult to produce because "[f]inding two animals who have little heads roughly the same size is just a nightmare.”

The underlying philosophy is that the dead animals "should be used in their entirety." (Used in their entirety by humans, thereby ignoring the reality that the carcasses play in the lives of other creatures, such as scavengers.) The garments and accessories are considered ethically sourced because no one was intentionally killed for them (although sources include "critters fallen victim to pest control," which sounds pretty intentional to me). However the designers also use discarded parts of animals killed by butchers, to "give new life to something that would normally be thrown away." A significant amount of mental acrobatics is involved in convincing yourself that you are not in some way an accomplice to the killing of sentient beings and then profiting from them when you take their parts after they've been slaughtered and you use and profit from them.

There's a lot of talk of whether or not this is morbid, yet no acknowledgment that every animal part we wear comes from an animal who died. This isn't about what's morbid or what's not, and what's art and what's not. This is about using animals and presenting yet another variation on the theme of humans believing they have a right to make food, clothing or art from the bodies of other animals.

The final paragraph of the article is perhaps the most cringe-worthy. Sarah Jay, the fashion director of Fashion Takes Action, an organization that promotes green methods and materials, says:

 “To wear the life of another animal is a very special thing and it's a very sacred thing.

It's giving the animal purpose after life. We should all be so lucky.”

Meanwhile, it's death they're wearing--not life. And making it into some kind of spiritual experience is offensive. Nonhuman animals are not here to be purposeful to humans.

On "Cheating" and Cookbook Authors

There was nothing surprising about Oprah's most recent show about food. It was full of Michael Pollan, Food Inc., the way we treat animals, and the way we turn food into food facsimiles with unusually long shelf lives. Recommendations included: know the people who produced your food, get out of the supermarket (go to a farmer's market), and cook at home more (especially junk food, as if you had to make your own french fries you'd eat a lot fewer of them). Nothing wrong with any of that.

You wouldn't expect Pollan or Oprah to deliver a vegan or animal rights message and they didn't. Fine.

Alicia Silverstone was on the show as a spokesperson for the health benefits and other benefits of veganism. She had one perfect opportunity to present herself as pro-animal rights when Oprah (laughingly) asked: But what if the cows and the chickens are treated really, really nicely . . . (would you eat them)?

Alicia (laughing): Well, I'd have to see the cows and the chickens.

First of all, I don't see what's so funny. But I get that this is entertainment and the mood was light. And people often giggle when speaking of things that make them feel uncomfortable. It's true that there was a tiny opening for a real message, and we'd all like to think that in a similar position, we'd be able to articulate one. Silverstone let the moment pass her by.

The more controversial moment was when Oprah asked Silverstone if she ever cheats and Silverstone admitted to eating some cheese. Why is that an issue? First of all, she's not evil because she eats some cheese. That's not the point. And I won't say she's not a "real vegan," as I'm not the vegan police. (Also, her response seemed  like the eating of cheese was sort of an accident anyway--she didn't order something with cheese.)

This moment was significant because if you "cheat," it is presumed that it's either very difficult or very unappealing to be a vegan. There's so much sacrifice or bad analogs or whatever that lead you to crave and succumb to "the real thing." It's largely about willpower, cheating tells me, and once in a while it's too much to expect yourself to not want to eat (fill-in-the-blank) while you're on the diet known as veganism. And that's not a message I want to send the millions of people who watch Oprah.

In addition, talk of cheating creates a space for omnivores to pounce, "A-ha! I knew she couldn't do it! Even the great vegan cookbook author/actress can't go without cheese!" And a similar pouncing has come from some vegans. It was all just an unfortunate moment in an unscripted interview.

I enjoyed every recipe I tried from Silverstone's The Kind Diet and though I might not be a fan of the way she does her activism (PeTA, etc...), a book by a vegan that helps other people go vegan (she recommends taking baby steps and calls it "flirting," which I suppose could be viewed as an innocuous, fun way of easing into veganism) can't be a liability for vegans or veganism. Or can it? I'd imagine that the more resources available to the mainstream about going vegan and cooking/preparing vegan food, the better the odds that more people will go vegan.

I am aware that many vegans won't buy Silverstone's book because they don't agree with her on some important issues. 

What do you think? Are there vegan cookbooks you won't purchase or vegan food bloggers you don't support because you don't agree with them on issues other than veganism?