Animal Person

"Creature Quotes" Is Here!

"Creature Quotes: Advancing Toward Freedom For All Species," compiled and edited by SBH Clay, is now available.

From the Introduction:

"Humans are fascinated by animals. . . . For all our devotion, though, we sometimes seem not to recognize the needs and wants of animals. We unwittingly partake of activities that hurt, physically and mentally, the very creatures we admire and seek to protect from harm (5)."

. . . .

"The open-to-change reader who receives the transforming message in the following pages may find himself challenging thoughts, language, habits, deeds--his own, his peers' and those of society at large (6)."

. . . .

"The reader of Creature Quotes has a choice. Not open to change, he can sit back comfortably and wait for peace among all beings to arrive in a future generation. Or, open to change, he can take the message in the ensuing pages to heart, let it shift his mind and stir his soul, and thus begin, right now, his advance toward freedom for all species (7)."

This compilation is particularly important for people who believe in God and whose advocacy has religion or faith or spirituality as a component. Every person who claims that there is some kind of divine mandate that makes us inherently not only superior to nonhuman animals but permitted to do with them as they please, should experience Creature Quotes.

I'm reminded of Amy Gutman's Introduction to J.M. Coetzee's The Lives of Animals (a must-read, as is the related work and Nobel Prize winner, Elizabeth Costello):

Costello's lectures within Coetzee's lectures therefore ask their audience to "open your heart and listen to what your heart says." Do animals have rights? Do human beings have duties toward them regardless of whether they have rights? What kind of souls do animals have? What kind do we have? Costello does not answer these questions in her lectures, because they are too philosophical for the immediate task at hand. They presume that the mind can lead the heart, a presumption that Elizabeth Costello's experience has led her to reject after a long life of trying to convince other people of her perspective on animals (4-5).

Yes, there is a lot of "mind" in Creature Quotes. But there is also a lot of heart. There is story. There is passion. There is pain. And we need all of these entry points. We need all of the help we can get.

On Children's Books, Introverts & Films

First, Chris directed me to ePub Bud, which appears to be a timely and fantastic idea given my recent plea for more books for children about veganism. In addition, it looks like a great way to get your book into ePub form (and here's how to read it) no matter what age your audience is.

Next, a fellow introvert e-mailed me describing herself as extremely awkward socially as well as invisible and having social anxiety, and asking where/how she might be useful to the animal rights movement. Though I'm an introvert by nature, I am also someone who has no problem being confrontational (to a fault) in many cases and I will perform like an extrovert if I need to. So I wouldn't say we're similar in disposition.

What do you think? Letters to the editor, blogging/podcasting/vlogging all come to mind as they don't involve interaction with other people (that's the problem in this instance). If there's a local group that is in need of a skill that you have (grantwriting, newsletter writing, website development, photography), I'd imagine that's a possibility. Working or volunteering at an animal sanctuary or shelter or participating (or starting) a Trap-Neuter-Release effort, maybe?

My usual recommendation for general What do I do? questions is two-fold: What are you good at/like to do? and What does the market/world/animals need? Introvert or extrovert, the goal of time well spent is achieved by putting those two together.

Finally, two films. I wrote about "The End of the Line" over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, so I won't rehash. I also saw "What's On Your Plate?" which is a documentary co-produced by two young girls from NYC, one of whom was raised as a vegetarian. It's a very kid-friendly film about produce and where it comes from, as well as what our schools are feeding kids. The girls come to some of the same conclusions/face the same obstacles that Jamie Oliver did in his quest to change the school lunch program in Huntington, WV. There are factual problems with this film, such as the mention that most of the corn grown in the US goes to hug fructose corn syrup and fuel, and there's no mention of all of the corn that is fed to animals whom we create and kill for food. Another bit of misinformation is that when you get diabetes it's forever.

There are appearances by Chef Bryant Terry and Anna Lappe and it's interesting that though the girls focus on produce, at the end of the film, as well as on the website, there is evidence that animal farms were visited as part of the project. It's clear that the intention was to avoid the really controversial material. Also, as Deb first told me when she directed me to Just Food, local isn't the solution to everything and it isn't necessarily better all of the time.

But as a primer for kids and their parents about where we get fruits and vegetables and why our school lunch program is the way it is, it's great. And it also must be said that the parents of the girls (and perhaps also their teachers, I don't know) are to be commended for supporting and nurturing them to become tweens who were able to co-produce a full-length documentary film. Though directed and produced by a grown-up, the film doesn't have the fingerprints of grown-ups all over it. The girls talk through why they did what they did and what they were thinking and the mere fact that they are able to think critically about food makes me hopeful.

SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer, Part Deux

I realize that in writing about "old speciesism" I failed to define this term that Dunayer uses. I think of "old speciesism" as analogous to racism and sexism in that it is exploitation based on species. The advocacy component of old speciesism isn't the campaign to end that exploitation, however. Instead, it is the campaign to modify it. Meanwhile, "new speciesism" is the notion that within a paradigm where rights are included for nonhuman animals, some are more deserving of rights than others for any of a variety of reasons (e.g., intelligence, having a sense of past and future, having social ties, being a mammal or a bird).

Here are some of the my favorite quotes:

• In reality, species don't evolve toward greater humanness but toward greater adaptiveness in their ecological niche (105).
• No living group of nonhuman animals--no existing species of invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or nonhuman mammal--is ancestral to humans. No nonhuman alive today belongs to the same species as some ancestor of humans. Modern fishes radically differ from the fish who was the last common ancestor of fishes and humans. No frog, toad, or salamander ever was our forebear. Although we have reptilian ancestors, we didn't descend from reptiles or any species alive today (105).
• Today's nonhuman apes don't represent earlier stages in human development. Our common-ape like ancestor lived about 15 million years ago. About six million years ago, human and chimpanzee evolution parted. Chimpanzees didn't prepare the way to us any more than we prepared the way to them (106).
• Before African-American emancipation, a number of slaves sued for freedom on the grounds that they were white. Unable to prove whiteness, they had to demonstrate that they were so much like a white that they should be given "the benefit of the doubt" (109). . . . We react with revulsion to the idea of demonstrating whiteness. We should react with equal revulsion to the idea of demonstrating humanness" (110).
• Citing abilities such as nonhuman great apes' ability to learn human languages suggest that animal rights advocates seek nonhuman participation in human society. We don't. We're not asking that any nonhumans have freedom of speech or voting rights. So, what difference does it make if nonhumans can learn human languages or show other human-like capacities and behaviors? We don't want nonhumans to remain within human society (which invariably would keep them subservient). We want them to be free and independent of humans (119).

I understand the logic of that last one, but I also appreciate the intention of many activists to have great apes be a gateway of sorts. I'm not saying it's not speciesist, but that I understand it. After all, many activists don't support the use of the same tactics they'd approve of to liberate human animals to liberate nonhuman animals. I think that's speciesist, too, but I understand why they take that position.

• There's no good reason to lack confidence that animals who possess a brain are sentient (134).
• In contrast to old-speciesist and new-speciesist advocacy, nonspeciesist advocacy advances the goal of emancipating all sentient beings from human abuse. It moves society closer to the view that all forms of speciesist exploitation--from dog breeding to commercial fishing--are morally wrong (151).

To combat speciesism and work toward justice for sentient nonhumans, we must change our minds, our language and our behavior. We must rethink what we were taught in school, on the playground and at home. It's quite a dramatic overhaul--an extreme makeover--but it's a necessary one.

On SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer

I finally read SPECIESISM, by Joan Dunayer, which was published a couple of years after ANIMAL EQUALITY, which I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.

This book has so many great quotes that I'm going to have to write a couple of posts about them. Off we go (and all of the below are exact quotes) . . .

• Whenever the media report that someone has killed "an endangered animal" or "an endangered species," they too confuse an individual with a species. Any animal threatened with a gun or arrow is endangered. Hunters kill members of endangered species. Conversely, animals who are personally safe are not endangered, even if they belong to an endangered species (14).
• To be consistent (and nonspeciesist) . . . "environmentalists" would have to value the life of an Atlantic salmon more than the life of a human because, in environmental terms, there are too few Atlantic salmons and far too many humans. But most so-called environmentalists make an exception for humans, even though human overpopulation causes environmental devastation and humans are the chief destroyers if species and ecosystems (14-15).
• To old-speciesists, nonhumans must justify their existence by proving useful to humans; in contrast, some or all humans have inherent value. Old-speciesists have a rights view of at least some humans but a utilitarian view of nonhumans (18).
• Despite human overpopulation and crowding, only nonhumans are said to "infest" an area (19).
• While calling themselves "the rational species," humans generally are quite irrational: bigoted, self-deceiving, self-destructive, passionate about trivia such as sports scores. Would intelligent beings riot over the out come of a soccer game? Smoke, eat, and drink themselves to death? Poison the water, soil, and air on which they rely? Believe that other religions are false but theirs is true? (25)
• In some sense, of course, many (perhaps most) humans don't know right from wrong. Society has told them that it's acceptable to harm other animals, and they've internalized that belief. Still, with regard to human victims, the law doesn't accept the victimizer's enculturation as justification. Defense lawyers don't plead that their clients should be excused for violence against women or people of color on the grounds that those clients have been brought up in a racist, sexist society (29-30).
• U.S. law is even more speciesist than the U.S. public. Most U.S. residents believe that it's wrong to kill animals for their pelts, but the pelt industry is legal. Most believe that it's wrong to hunt animals for sport, but sport hunting is legal. Two-thirds believe that nonhumans have as much "right to live free of suffering" as humans, but vivisection, food-industry enslavement and slaughter, and other practices that cause severe, prolonged suffering are legal (49).

And perhaps my favorite: "[I]f healthy, homeless humans were rounded up and killed, no one would call the killing facilities 'shelters'" (55).

Stay tuned for Part Deux, and more sentiments I could never have crafted better.

On "Pets" and "Its"

I went back to New York to the areas where I grew up and went to college and graduate school for a five-day weekend. I'd been longing for NYC and, as usual, thinking about moving back.

The Nor'easter cured me of that longing.

I visited my three godchildren and a handful of friends, and all but one friend has at least one child. As someone who's about to have a one-year old in her life, I was particularly aware of the part animals play in the lives of the children and how animals are talked about. Here are some observations:

• When reading a book about gorillas to/with a seven-year old, I was struck by the mixed messages the book sent. Here's the book, and in the preview you can see that in the beginning when the gorilla being described is male he is referred to as "he." So far so good. But what you don't see in the preview is that later on gorillas are referred to as "its," and when I was reading aloud and came upon that word I was unable to say it. I changed the word to whichever sex made sense--and one always did. So the children are being taught that gorillas can be inanimate objects or living beings based on pronouns alone.
• The reason we need to save the gorillas and their habitats (it's a book on gorilla "conservation") is--and this is from memory so there could be more--that gorillas have thumbs, just like humans do. Also, the have families (as if other animals don't). Meanwhile, gorillas don't live in a traditional human family structure of mom, dad and kids, but somehow their family structure is an important reason for us to save them. I'm sure intelligence was in there somewhere, but the fact is that gorillas are presented as more important and more human than other animals, therefore they are worthy of saving.
• While visiting another set of children who have a lizard in a tank as well as a dog, the dog is called "he" but the lizard is called "it." Meanwhile, the lizard has a male name so you'd think he'd be called "he." All animals except the dog are called "it" (I did a little experiment to see what would happen).
• When referring to cats, dogs and horses of unknown sex, the children would randomly assign sex, with the conventionally "prettier" animals being called "she." That makes sense to me. I remember that as a child I called all cats "she" and dogs "he" in the absence of a name. That made sense to me for some reason and nobody stopped me.
• "Nobody stopped me" brings me to the parents, who were all omnivores (though there were two ex-vegetarians) and who were all thoroughly unaware of the language the children were using to refer to animals. That makes sense, as it's not in their awareness, so why would they attend to it in their kids.

And this brings me to two topics: parenting and publishing. All of the mixed messages or negative messages about animals that kids are surrounded with can be combatted/turned around by parents. And the reverse is true: If parents are unaware, it should be no surprise that whatever compassion or sense of justice a child has is not nurtured.

And if the messages a child is receiving in school and at home, via textbooks and library books, are speciesist and remain unchallenged, we would have no reason to expect the child to not grow up into a nonhuman animal-using speciesist.

Therefore, one of the many things we need, aside from the obvious of more vegan parents, is a line of nonspeciesist books for each age/stage. We need language that doesn't support a divide between "pet" animals and everyone else. We need to start referring to animals as "he" and "she," even if we might not be correct. We do that with cats and dogs already, right?

We can either bombard the publishing industry with proposals for books for kids, or we can create a publishing company ourselves for this specific purpose. There might be a handful of PeTA efforts around suffering, and there is "That's Why We Don't Eat Animals," but what we need is a series--a franchise that makes veganism appealing. If vampires or wizards can be "the rage," someone can make vegans just as popular if they can develop and write a great story with characters kids love.

I put this out there to you all because I'm not that person. I'm a terrible fiction writer. But someone out there isn't.

On ANIMAL EQUALITY, by Joan Dunayer

A handful Animal Person readers since May of 2006, when I started this then-daily blog, have asked me if I've read Joan Dunayer. And now that I've read Animal Equality and begun Speciesism, I think I know why.

My deconstructions of the language of our relationship with sentient nonhumans in this blog--and the way I approach discussing that relationship--is similar to Dunayer's.

It's enjoyable reading someone with whom I feel closely aligned philosophically, though I do think that in practice--and for practical purposes--I'm probably less strict now than I once was with my language. I used to be a stickler for using "enslavement," "flesh," and other accurate descriptors. But I found that if my goal was for my message to be received, I had to judiciously use accurate terms because there was an intense emotional reaction to them that prevented the message from being received intact, or unadulterated by the emotional baggage. Put simply, many people just can't handle the truth--or too much of it at once.

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 Talking With Veterinarians About Vegan Food

We have a request, and it's an issue I've written about a handful of times but never had this particular question answered by readers: How do you talk with your vet--who is against feeding your dog vegan food--about your choice to do so? What do you say?

I'm fortunate to have a regular (non-specialist) vet who has no problem at all with a vegan diet for dogs. I've never discussed that Emily the kitty eats one meal of Ami vegan kibble on most days (and one of canned, animal-based food). She is doing fine with that. No change in anything about her, though I do think she's a bit perkier.

Violet the diabetic greyhound does very well as a vegan as her recent blood work demonstrated. Charles the lame greyhound doesn't process grains well at all. He never has. He fares best (as evidenced by poop, energy, licking, scratching, and severity of limping) on food with no grains whatsoever and very high animal protein--almost carnivore level.

Home cooking for Violet was difficult because her carb/protein/fat ratios need to be consistent in order for her blood sugar to be predictable. I had to make exactly the same meal for her every day, so I moved to using Natural Balance Vegetarian kibble (note that the canned version is not vegan due to the animal source of Vitamin D3). I did try other vegan dog foods, but I like the ingredients in Natural Balance best. There are plenty of vegan treats on the market, but my hounds prefer bananas, strawberries, blueberries or broccoli.

Because Violet and Charles are chock full of medical issues, they have a handful of specialists. There's the acupuncturist/chiropractor, opthamologist, orthopedist, neurologist, physical therapist and the trainer. None of those approve of a vegan diet and all it took was one conversation, and me hearing that "they have to eat meat" from people who believe people "have to eat meat" to know that the issue wasn't ever going to be resolved.

My regular vet is a curious guy who doesn't think he knows everything and when something happens that he hasn't encountered (e.g., Charles had a corn on his pad), he's happy for me to bring him some research and for us to tackle the issue together (we did this with the corn and removed it together--and no charge, by the way). If he didn't know about feeding dogs vegan food, I might have brought him some of these articles and I would have referred him to Vegan Dogs: Compassionate Nutrition or to VegetarianDogs.com.

I'd question whether the vet needs to know what my dogs are eating or is in a position to judge as long as they are healthy. I recently told my osteopath that I'm a vegan and got all kinds of grief. Then she saw my fantastic blood work and vitals and didn't say another word.

Meanwhile, my husband, who has been vegan for less than 2 years (straight from omni), takes supplements sporadically, and had very low B12. I take fewer supplements and my B12 was high. The message here, like the message with the dogs, is that everyone is different and we don't respond uniformly to the same food or supplements. The ideal scenario is to establish a baseline, whether it's your blood work or your dog's, or other observables such as behavior, scratching, poop, breath, energy level, and then make the change (supplements, food, whatever) and retest in three months and six months to see the direction and progress. For all we know, my husband was B12 deficient as an omnivore. His levels are fine now, but if we didn't check them (and those of the creatures), we wouldn't have figured all of this out.

Back to the questions: Do you arm yourself with research and go to the vet to educate him/her? Do you not say anything at all or lie when they ask you what the animal eats? (My vet asks every time I go.) Do you politely say that you've done the research and are convinced that a vegan diet is perfectly appropriate for most dogs and has the added bonus of not putting you in a position where you're supporting the needless slaughter of other animals?

Join Us at Animal Rights and AntiOppression!

Just a note to those of you who might now know that I've been posting over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (http://www.challengeoppression.com) for a couple of weeks, so daily posting here doesn't mean I haven't posted. Today I wrote about John Perkins' new book called "Hoodwinked," and I welcome you to come over, check it out and say Hi!

There have been some fantastic, insightful and tear-jerking posts over at the new site, and great discussions have emerged. Chime in, and also any suggestions or comments about the site are appreciated!

On "That's Why We Don't Eat Animals"

"That's Why We Don't Eat Animals: A Book About Vegans, Vegetarians, and All Living Things," written and illustrated by Ruby Roth, has gorgeous and haunting illustrations. And it gently tells the story of why we shouldn't eat factory farmed animals. And there is a prominent pro-environment theme as well, in addition to the notion of choosing respect.

Its target audience is children 4-10, which I never understood as a category because 4-year olds are nothing like 10-year olds cognitively.

The significant problem with this book is that the solution to the problems posed (which begin with "On factory farms . . . ") could easily be some Farm Forward-endorsed small operation where many of the horrors of factory farming don't exist. There is no mention of that solution, but I worry.

Is a 4- or 10-year old going to say, "Oh these places sure are terrible, but is there any place where babies get to stay with their mamas and walk around? Because if there's one of those places, can we eat those animals?" Who knows. Okay, a 4-year old's probably not going to say that. But a 10-year old might.

And then what?

It is true that the vast majority of animals raised for their parts are factory farmed. But it would seem to me that, especially when it comes to children, a consistent message of respect and justice, emphasizing it's not okay to eat animals because it's not okay to eat animals, factory farmed or not, would have been a better angle.

Interestingly, the book begins with "Pets," explaining that "All animals deserve the care and protection we give our pets," which is a promising notion for the start of this type of children's book. I think I would have felt much better if Roth had developed that angle, helping the kids see that pigs and cows aren't that much different from dogs and cats, thereby providing logical building blocks for their thinking to develop.

But instead, we go in the treatment direction and develop a negative emotional connection to factory farming that can probably be ameliorated, if not extinguished, if we remove the factory. And I'd prefer a different message.

Which One Cookbook Do You Recommend?

A gaggle of people have asked me this question recently. They all have some sort of holiday list, money is tight, and if they could buy just one cookbook to help them in their conversion to veganism from their current omnivorous state, what should it be and why.

The why part is important, as some cookbooks are a bit junk food vegan-ish. And some people want that; they don't necessarily want to change their current calories or fat or sugar or gluten or cooking process. They want to eat what they used to eat, just sans animals. Others, such as raw vegan books, are likely to be quite alien. Then again some people are curious about raw food or agree that it's the only way to go and want to jump in.

Unfortunately, though I can find out more about the askers of this question, they are in a bit of a time crunch because people are buying gifts for them in the next couple of days. If I knew more, I could ask you a more specific question.

With all that said, which cookbook do you recommend to someone who is going to get only one, and why do you recommend it? My hope is that there will be enough suggestions that the askers will find themselves in the suggestions, and put the appropriate book on their list.

If there are any cons about the book you recommend, please let me know.

Thanks!

Ways to Promote Alliance Politics

You'll get the irony of this fuzzy bit of culinary activism (vegan vanilla cake with strawberry filling and vegan cream cheese frosting) taken in my suburban home with the reminder of ahimsa in the background if you choose to read the remarkably tame and informative "13 Ways to Promote Alliance Politics and Total Liberation" by Steve Best. No ad-hominem attacks, just useful action steps, some of which you've probably been taking anyway.

I've been engaging in some of the steps (for lack of a better word) for about a year, beginning with reading the books and blogs of people I have come to deeply respect and for the most part agree with. I also disagree with them. And I can. I can figure out where I stand without the risk of being shunned, Amish style.

Though reading's the easiest thing to do it isn't to be minimized as it's necessary to provide context and connections (to some of us insulated, elite, white people. At least I don't hang out at "trendy cafes, upscale malls and uptown and suburban comfort zones"). The books and blogs mentioned in the post aren't for everyone in style or substance, and for me style can be an enormous hurdle. Meanwhile, I'm sure that writers whose style I have a problem with will say, "I don't have the time or the inclination to write the sort of dispassionate, tepid prose you prefer while tens of billions of sentient nonhumans are being enslaved and slaughtered for no good reason." And I understand that point.

So if you don't like someone's style, see if you can look beyond or beneath that for the meaning (though sometimes it is admittedly difficult to separate the presentation from the substance). 

And though reading is the easiest thing to do, not everyone has access to books. Chris from Beijing works to get books translated for the groups he works with, and I can say for certain that you'd never take your access to books for granted again if you heard what he has to go through to get books to China.

And they have limited Internet access, so that's another obstacle.

And speaking of obstacles, some of the people I work with who live mere miles away but it seems like galaxies when it comes to services don't have a reading level beyond sixth grade, if that. And it's not because they didn't go to school; they were moved through the system and allowed to get much of the way if not all the way through high school despite their relative inability to read. They would be interested in the content of the books, for sure, but they have learned how to talk around the notion of books and don't easily ask for help. Leaflets and books aren't the ways to get to this particular population, at least not unless you begin with adult literacy (which is an area I think I'm about to get into so I'll let you know how that goes).

Furthermore, when you read, I recommend not using your disagreement with someone about, say, the definition of violence, stop you from going out into your community and building alliances. I have been building friendships with anarchists and other activists for about a year and I have yet to have a discussion about violence. Though I have expanded my contacts, most of my conversations are still in their infancy. Most people were like me in that they had "their" issue and saw addressing "my" issue as taking time away from theirs. Getting through that initial resistance takes a bit of time and energy and it can't be skipped or rushed because it's the foundation. I also find that to be the case within the community of nonvegan, pro-animal activists, such as greyhound advocates. They don't see veganism as related to their fight against dog racing, at first (or second . . . ).

If you get to #12 of Best's list, which includes: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and respond "I won't be doing any crime, thanks, and I don't support anyone who does" that doesn't negate the legitimacy of the other action steps, except maybe #11, which is to support political prisoners.

Finally, I appreciate this (the penultimate paragraph):

The alliances needed for a politics of the 21st century – the most crucial century in the history of humanity — will not be easy to form. It  is difficult to build a single-issue movement, to organize a local  group, and even to have a relationship with another person, let alone to build the complex alliances necessary to avert social and ecological catastrophe.

Don't let this become a discussion about what violence is or isn't (because it's not). It's about a broader and deeper vision of how we are going to succeed--if we are going to succeed.

On Changing Tastes

Our guest this weekend, Jackie, is transitioning to veganism. Her hurdle, you might not be surprised to learn, is cheese made from the milk of cows. She eats cow cheese daily.

Wrongheadedly, I was excited to make her nachos-her favorite snack-with Daiya cheddar cheese. I was completely confident that she'd instantly get over her desire for cow cheese. But my effort backfired and was met with either a "yuck" or an "ew" - I'm trying my best to wipe the disappointing moment from memory.

The texture apparently is "slimy" (which is true, mid-cook, which it wasn't when she tried it. Prior to that it isn't slimy, and after that it does congeal almost like cow cheese) and she says it doesn't taste like the cheese she eats daily.

In retrospect, and after Tweeting a bunch about it and getting some great thoughts from fellow tweeters/twitterers, going the route of replacing someone's favorite food with a vegan alternative designed to replicate it might not be a great idea. Instead, I probably should have made some food with nutritional yeast and other unlike-cow-cheese-and-having-a-completely-different-taste combos. Or just stayed away from the topic of cheese. That way, Jackie wouldn't be comparing what she was eating to what she ate 24 hour hours prior.

Later in the afternoon in the Twittosphere someone asked who likes nutritional yeast and I responded that at first I disliked it immensely, and now I have a shaker full of it (with ground walnuts and sea salt) in my refrigerator and I use it daily (it's cheaper than buying Parma, which I'm knocking off). This led me to research taste and taste buds a bit and unsurprisingly discover that they change with time.

I started thinking about what I used to think was tasty, and what repulsed me. Avocados, for instance, made me gag as a child, as did any type of olive. And I now have a dozen recipes, raw and not, that feature avocados, and I'm not above eating half an avocado smeared on a slice or two of Ezekiel toast for breakfast. And I thought about tofu, many vegetables, seaweed, and even grains that are staples of my diet now but I didn't enjoy them when I first stopped eating animals.

My tastes (and taste buds) have changed and now I look forward to the food I eat and can't imagine eating any other way. Food is enjoyable and makes me feel good. Meals aren't events I have to recover from or take a nap after. But they look and taste very different from my meals of 25 years ago.

There's no substitute for the time it takes to acquire the taste for foods you don't like or are just so different from what you're used to that you don't know what to do with them (mentally), which was the case for me with nutritional yeast. This isn't to say I consciously approach veganism as acquiring tastes--I hadn't thought about most of this until yesterday. But time certainly has worked in favor of my vegan diet, and I now know that not liking the taste of something the first time you try it doesn't mean you won't like it the second or third or twentieth time. Then again, after nearly 43 years I still can't stomach raw tomatoes and I do try them every couple of months.

Fortunately, this weekend we also made roasted vegetable baked ziti and not only did Jackie enjoy it for dinner, but she ate the leftovers for breakfast. And we made a cheesy, beany, guacamole dip from Alicia Silverstone's The Kind Diet, in addition to Silverstone's chocolate peanut butter cups (above), and no one (not even the omni who popped in for a visit) complained about the taste or texture of either.

Yes, those are black olives in the guacamole dip. I bought them at the olive bar at Whole Foods (in other words, they weren't canned and sliced and pitted) and I thought they tasted great.

And yes, I put chopped tomatoes on only half of it. Some taste preferences may never change.

On Not Eating Animals

Chris from Beijing wasn't able to comment (Animal Person is blocked in China) but he did write me to say he looks forward to Jonathan Safran Foer's sequel to Eating Animals . . . Not Eating Animals.

Though I haven't been able to surf the Internet that much recently, I have found it difficult to avoid discussion of Foer's book. That has to be good, I tell myself. At least they're talking.

It has to be good.

It has to be good.

It has to be good.

But . . . as I was running this morning, I couldn't help wonder what the difference is between his book and The Compassionate Carnivore and the myriad others written by people who despise factory farming, yet claim to love animals (and of course love their "meat," and find a way to get it while not feeling bad about it). The main difference is that Foer doesn't eat meat (though he does, as it turns out, eat some animal products) and he challenges the cultural assumptions that tell us that some animals are for petting and some are for eating. But the net message is the same: factory farming=bad, small farms=good. In fact, both books glorify small farms (though Foer is more selective), and both have the support of people who create and kill animals. And when you have people who slaughter animals for a living on your side, in my mind your pro-animal message loses credibility.

And when Foer writes that he approves of farms that treat their animals the way we treat pet dogs, that's his real message. It's okay to produce animals to use them and then kill them (or kill them to use their parts as food).

Here's the rub for people like me, which at the same time is what the majority of people like about the book: permission. Foer is saying that he made the decision to not eat "meat" for the various reasons he outlines, but you might make a different decision and that's okay. It's okay to choose violence when you don't need to. It's okay to choose enslavement. It's okay to choose betrayal.

This is the message of animal welfare--there is nothing inherently unjust about bringing animals into this world for your own use and/or profit. There is nothing inherently unjust about viewing sentient nonhumans as commodities. Compassion, as most people define it, is virtuous, but it smacks of mercy, which screams subjection. What animals need isn't our mercy, it's our defense of their right to their lives without our domination.

And once you are on the side of justice, it's impossible to present a rational alternative to animal farming. Once your priority is justice, your message isn't "eating animals" . . . it's "not eating animals."

On "EATING ANIMALS" by Jonathan Safran Foer

I immensely enjoyed "EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED" (even on the big screen) and eagerly anticipated "EATING ANIMALS" (Little, Brown 2009) by Jonathan Safran Foer. His writing is beautiful, though I do have to admit that I haven't seen "shit" and its variations so frequently in one printed piece in quite a while. Ever, in fact.

The good news is that if you know someone who needs to be schooled on all of the sordid details of factory farming, and appreciates good writing, this is a great book. Also, if, like me, you know someone who appreciates the things we do with language to mask the reality of our behavior, this is a great book. And if you know someone who still eats fish or anyone else from the sea, this is a fantastic book, as I don't recall anyone giving sea creatures the respect they deserve in a long time (and telling their audience the truth about their lives and deaths). Furthermore, if you know someone who is new to parenting and suddenly confronted with questions of what to feed a child and why, this is a great book. Finally, if you know someone who gravitates toward the philosophical issues around our use of animals, this is a good book. Not great, but good.

I say "if you know someone" because this isn't a book I'd recommend to vegans for their vegan education efforts. The vegans I know would probably find it a bit maddening, and here's why:

• We aren't sure whether Foer is a vegan. He never says he is. He always refers to himself and his wife and his child as "vegetarian." Yet he spends time describing the miserable deaths of day-old male chicks and understands what happens in dairy production, and I assume he doesn't partake of anyone's eggs or milk. But why does he say "vegetarian?" That bothers me, as there's a significant difference in motivation for vegans and vegetarians and he sounds like one, yet calls himself the other.
• Then again, he is not against the consumption of animals, "in general" (198). He is against it for himself and his family. There's not enough evidence for an accusation of moral relativism, but for me the message is a mixed one.
• And what follows, as you might imagine, is his support of "ethical meat" (for those who insist on eating animals). This should come as no surprise as he is on the board of Farm Forward-along with John Mackey and Bruce Friedrich-the latter of whom figures prominently in the book as does his employer, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
• This says it all: "[T]he vision of sustainable farms that give animals a good life (a life as good as we give our dogs or cats) and an easy death (as easy as a death we give our suffering and terminally ill companion animals) has moved me" (242). The Nimans move him, as do several other farmers, including one who "apologizes to his animals as they are sent off to slaughter" (244), as if that's any consolation to someone whose life you are about to take when you don't need to.

If you're a vegan and you read books by vegans and about our relationship with sentient nonhumans, there's nothing new in "EATING ANIMALS." However, I do like how Foer words some concepts that we all chat about regularly. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

• "For thousands of years, farmers took their cues from natural processes. Factory farming considers nature an obstacle to overcome" (34). Of course, the problem here, as in the entire book, is that factory farming is clearly the enemy, while killing animals unnecessarily isn't given any more airtime than Foer's personal, philosophical moments that he doesn't require of anyone else.
• "Imagine being served a plate of sushi. But this plate also holds all of the animals that were killed for your serving of sushi. The plate might have to be five feet across" (50).

• "Some have tried to resolve this gap by hunting or butchering an animal themselves, as if those experiences might somehow legitimize the endeavor of eating animals. This is very silly. Murdering someone would surely prove that you are capable of killing, but it wouldn't be the most reasonable way to understand why you should or shouldn't do it.

Killing an animal oneself is more often than not a way to forget the problem while pretending to remember. This is perhaps more harmful than ignorance. It's always possible to wake someone from sleep, but no amount of noise will wake someone who is pretending to be asleep" (102). I love that. However, in the context of his book I'd add: "SEE Compassionate Carnivore," and the only problem with that is that his argument, which sounds here like it's against compassionate carnivorism, is actually for it in the end.

• "[N]o fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did" (193). Note that the "it" after all of that stopped me in my tracks, but what with editors, Foer might not have had control over that.

This is not a book about animal rights, and some might say Foer gets animal rights wrong as his only reference is PETA. In all fairness, most people's only reference is PETA. However, Foer does claim to have spent a couple of years researching and it is odd to me that the only subject of animal rights discussion is an organization that is ambiguous, at best, in its message about animals.

What's most disappointing is that Foer is intentional in his message that eating animals isn't okay for him, but that he is excited to support people who kill animals when they don't need to. I have a difficult time understanding how someone has reached that conclusion after so much deliberation and research. I have a difficult time understanding his borderline fetishizing of several small farms (and a note to all of you as annoyed as I was with "Food, Inc." and Michael Pollan--Polyface gets some harsh criticism from someone Foer interviewed and is portrayed as a bit of a scam).

I simply don't understand the core message of this book--that eating animals can be wrong for one person, yet that same person supports the unnecessary slaughter of animals as long as it's done in a certain way.

Foer does have an answer to that, and it's that the vast majority of animals the average American eats came from factory farms, so if we convince them of the evils of that system they will eat more "vegetarian" meals (again, the focus on flesh bothers me) and they will seek out Farm Forward-approved sources. I don't know if the thesis of supply and demand is true but it sounds good. Meanwhile, Foer admits that the labels we find regarding the treatment of animals are "bullshit," so other than two or three farms that he personally approves of, the reader is left with being a "vegetarian," cutting down on "meat," or doing nothing.

In other words, "EATING ANIMALS" is a remarkably palatable book for the masses. In the end, they can still have their dogs and eat their pigs, without feeling that they are doing anything wrong by favoring one species over another, or taking someone's life when they don't need to.

For the Budding Vegan Author

I have an unusual number of e-mails from individuals who have written, are writing, or would like to write a book about animals and asked about various steps in the publishing process. Because I've been writing other people's books and helping them get published for 20 years, and I've written my own that I'm putting the final touches on, I'm in a decent position to deliver some advice. Please note that I run like the wind when someone asks me to help them with their novel. I don't work with fiction. I hardly read it, and wouldn't be good at writing it. Plus, selling it is a bit different as the quality of the writing and the story is of paramount importance.

• Books are obvious opportunities for advocacy and vegan education. How successful they are at creating new vegans or animal rights advocates depends on many factors. 
• The publishing business in the US is unfortunately celebrity-based. This simply means that you can write the same book as Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, but you might not be able to even get yours published, and they'll get a seven figure advance for theirs (not to mention someone else will probably write it). Celebrities also include people who are already franchises and can submit a manuscript--or even just an idea--that's not spectacular but it will get published because the author already has a fan base.
• Quality of writing or concept will get you nowhere with nonfiction unless you can demonstrate that you can sell 10,000 books (maybe 5,000, but 10 is a safer number) in the traditional publishing model. This makes the most important part of how you sell your book to publishers your platform (how you're reaching the people you reach).
• Nonfiction is usually sold on proposal, not the full manuscript, so get yourself a book on writing a nonfiction book proposal (here's a primer by Michael Larsen, the author of the most famous book, who is also an agent), and get to work. You'll need to know all of the information in your book proposal anyway in order to sell it, so forget carping about having to go through the exercise of a 50-odd page proposal (the bulk of which is your writing sample anyway).
• When your proposal is complete, query agents. There are entire books written about query letters. They should be about three paragraphs and are often the one chance you will have to create enough interest in your project that the agent requests a proposal (hence the proposal should be complete first, as you want to send it a nanosecond after you get word of its request).
• Querying agents should involve research. There are books and websites that list literary agents, and they are helpful to a point, but your first order of business should be to hit your bookshelves or the bookstore and find out who agented the books that are most like yours (and don't say there's never been anything like your book--you surely can find some similarities). Check the acknowledgments and then find that person's agency. They might not take unsolicited queries, but if they do, your first line of your query letter is already done--"I am writing you because you represented XYZ and PQR, which are two of my favorite books, and my book, ABC, is similar in topic and target market." Knowing what kinds of books someone is interested in and represents lets you know where you fit into their list and if you fit in.
• Despite the fact that nonfiction is sold on proposal, in my opinion, if your book is something you simply must write, then do it, and finish it. Many will say: Why write the book if all you need is the proposal and it might not get sold anyway? But I say: You only know exactly what your book says after you've written it. All kinds of things happen during the writing process because it is organic. The exception is how-to books and other nonfiction that is in some way prescriptive.

I've heard people say that books are out and more immediate media is in. And I think that's true for niche audiences. But middle aged women (like me!) are still buying millions of books, and your real question for yourself regarding how to best present your message (traditionally-published book, ebook, self-published book, podcasts/series like an audiobook) is answered by: Who is my target market? If it's 20-year olds, you can forget about the traditionally-published book. Is your market vegans? Think about that. If what you're writing is about vegan education, the bulk of your market isn't vegans, and presenting statistics about the number of vegans in the US isn't all that helpful (but not useless, as some might buy it to give to others, but that happens with every book). In my experience, the biggest problem for prospective authors is that they don't know who their audience is and they say "everybody should read my book and can benefit from it." Wrong answer (though that might be true).

Finally, getting published the traditional way takes months and months. If you're a first-time author, you're not exactly a priority. So if you want your message out there now, do a podcast/audiobook or an ebook, or even a vlog series. If you can wait a month or maybe two and order at least a couple hundred books, start a publishing company and self-publish. Regardless, have a plan for the marketing and distribution of your project.

As I always say, as much as I like to imagine that what I do (writing) is valuable, it doesn't matter as much as the author's ability to get their book to its intended audience and get them to buy it (for my clients this is a profit-making venture, but you might not see your project that way).

I hope some of that helps.

On "The Botany of Desire"

This is coming very, very late, but part of why "Food Inc." wasn't impressive for me is because I'm not the target audience. I'd already read Pollan and Schlosser and seen "The Future of Food" and "King Corn." And though The Omnivore's Dilemma definitely promotes the eating of animals if those animals were "farmed" a certain way (and locally), there's so much helpful information in it about the food supply, in general, that it's tough to tell people not to read it.

Because The Botany of Desire doesn't address animals (Pollan discusses four plants: apples, tulips, marijuana and potatoes), there's no way for it to promote their consumption. I read this book over a year after The Omnivore's Dilemma, despite it having been published first, and I feel strongly about recommending it because of what it teaches about culture, greed, history, and . . . plants.

From John Chapman (Johny Appleseed) not eating animals or using horses in his travels (and the fact that apples originated in the forests of Kazakhstan) to the dotcom-like frenzy over the tulip in Holland to the evolution of cannabis to convincing me to never eat french fries at a restaurant (that's the only potato product I eat when I go out, and of course I inquire about what it is fried in), Pollan does a wonderful job of making the stories of the most ordinary plants sound like exotic adventures.

And of course, the entire book is a commentary on what happens when humans decide that a plant, for whatever reason, is desirable (or perhaps, as Pollan suggests, we have been set up by the plants to desire them).

On "Wild Justice"

 "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals," By Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is the most recent (for me) book that debunks myths about the differences between human and nonhuman animals. And those mythical differences, of course, have historically been used to legitimize our use and treatment of our nonhuman cousins. This particular group fits in with other Bekoff books as well as those by Jonathan Balcombe and Jeffrey Masson (see here for more on some of them from April of 2008).

Bekoff and Pierce (a philosopher) are the perfect combination to write this book because whenever you're presenting the similarities of nonhuman animals to human animals, a philosophical conundrum is created for humans, who like to think that we are worlds different, and above nonhumans. But as the frequently-invoked Darwin would say, those differences are of degree, not kind.

Just to be clear, this book deals with the nonhuman animals who are most like us: social vertebrates, and specifically social mammals (and there are a handful of references to cetaceans who behave similarly). "Morality is an evolutionary adaptation to social living" (45), and the hypothesis of Bekoff and Pierce is that "greater social complexity is linked with more complex and nuanced moral behaviors" (53). Also, Bekoff and Pierce present a descriptive view, not a normative view of morality. There are no judgments. They amassed an enormous amount of data, and then "allowed the data to do the talking" (151).

I'll get to what the data said in a moment, but first a few more clarifications.

• The authors make a distinction between narrative ethology and "'animal stories' that proliferate on the Web . . . . Narrative from seasoned ethologists provides interpretation informed by their knowledge about a particular species and its behavior, and their attention to context and individual peculiarities" (37).
• Bekoff and Pierce "advocate a species-relative view of morality. Each species in which moral behavior has evolved has its unique behavioral repertoire. The same basic behavioral capacities will be present--empathy, altruism, cooperation, and perhaps a sense of fairness--but will manifest as different social norms and different behaviors. . . . Despite some shared evolutionary history, wolf morality is different from human morality and also from elephant morality and chimpanzee morality" (19).
• "The scientific investigation of morality, in humans and nonhumans alike, is in its infancy" (39).
• Regarding accusations of anthropomorphism (which arise frequently and did in Bekoff's previous book, as well) and also evolutionary continuity, which provides for symmetry in comparisons, the authors write: "It isn't that we set out looking for humanlike traits in animals and hope to find some. Rather, we set out to understand what animals are like, and use the language and concepts that come closest to describing what we see" (41).

What did Bekoff and Pierce find?

They found a "suite of behaviors" including cooperation, empathy and justice, and various intelligences that make those behaviors possible. Each behavior comprises a "cluster" of behaviors that may or may not be considered moral, and also aren't necessarily defined as you would imagine. And therein is the necessity to pay close attention to the language in the book, although that is useful only to a degree as "not all ethologists and biologists agree that cooperation among animals is really cooperation . . . . [T]hey may be acting independently and simultaneously, without any cognitive decision to work together" (64). Furthermore, "We need to be careful about language and remember that [for example] altruism has a specific meaning within biology and isn't synonymous with morality" (82).

The authors discuss the three clusters of behavior (cooperation, empathy and justice) and the kinds and degrees of intelligences necessary for them to be present, with justice being the least certain of the three. But whether of not there is wide agreement on the existence of wild justice within social mammal communities (there isn't), we do find that the cognitive, social and emotional lives of these animals are far more developed and rich than most people are willing (or educated enough to) admit.

And therein lies one question the authors pose: Now that we are delving into the lives of animals in this way and are finding that they are not beings who are completly driven by instinct, never thinking about the future or past, and incapable of acting in a way that is good for others, particularly if there is a cost to themselves, aren't we obligated to seriously "[reconsider] the uses to which we put animals in research, education, and for clothes and food, among other things" (137)?

Note to Those Wanting Promotion: Pay Attention

We bloggers often get e-mails from individuals and organizations in search of promotion. And that's fine, as we all want to spread the news of fantastic work that needs support. Case in point: AnimalEquality.

But there are two types of requests that are irksome to me:
1.    People I hear from only when they want me to promote them, and I have never asked them to promote me (I'm terrible at that) nor have they ever done it of their own accord. I should recognize their work, yet they won't recognize mine. And though it's not a colossal problem by any means, it's annoying for a moment, and with the world being the way it is, I have enough to be annoyed about.

2.    People who want me to promote them but they clearly haven't spent any meaningful time reading what I have written. They probably have a list of people whom they blast an e-mail to, changing only the field after the Dear in the letter, and they hope some of them will stick. And that's when I get e-mails like this:

Dear Mary
 
I’m Caroline and I’m one of the Supporter Services team members for Compassion in World Farming.
 
Having read your blogs I thought you might like to hear about Compassion in World Farming’s Bake with Compassion fundraising week.
 
From the 6th -10th of July we are asking everyone to get their aprons on and bake with free-range or organic eggs.

By encouraging people to bake with higher welfare eggs (as well as organic milk, butter and chocolate) vital funds will be raised to campaign against battery cages. We are hoping you might be interested in spreading word of the event to readers of your blog, or may know someone who would like to blog about this fundraising event.

Now, I'm the first one to say that when I began blogging I thought the end of the use of animals would never come, so in the meantime, welfare reforms could at least be supported. But that was back in 2006. And if Compassion in World Farming wanted to see if I knew of their campaigns and might want to support them, they could have easily Googled CIWF right at Animal Person, at which point they'd find:

• On Compassion in World Farming
• Eat More Veal? How About Be More Honest
• On Graphic Images We DON'T See
• The PeTA I Knew and Loved, Sort Of
• On Egypt's Pig Cull

When someone takes the time to write a personal e-mail and it's obvious they've interacted with me and readers or at least know what I stand for, and their cause is aligned, I'm always happy to oblige. It's not as if I have an enormous readership, and certain folks stay away because it's not in my nature to travel with any flock, but if I can make even a small contribution to someone who does great work, I'm thrilled.

Note to Compassion in World Farming: I want to see the end of farms that use sentient nonhumans. An end. Not a change in the way they do things. An end.

The Book That Saved Derrick Jensen's Life

The book, which I have not read, that saved Derrick Jensen's life is called The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability by Lierre Keith, who was a vegan for 20 years, suffered serious medical problems, and started feeling better when she recommenced eating animals. Here's a review by vegetarian Mark Hand, who still eschewed "meat" even after reading the book. Here are some tidbits:

• Keith believes humans need to embrace the consumption of animal products, including beef, or else face severe and chronic health problems. “All the friends of my youth were radical, righteous, intense. Vegetarianism was the obvious path, with veganism the high road alongside it. And those of us who did it long term ended up damaged,” she writes.
• Some might argue that Keith has simply become an advocate of “happy meat”—local, grass-fed, sustainably produced, and humanely raised meat. But that would be unfair. If there were ever a movement devoted to the principles set out in The Vegetarian Myth and if it proved successful, such a movement would easily result in a spectacular reduction in the suffering and torture of animals, compared to what they experience today in factory farms and due to ecosystem devastation.
• Throughout the book, Keith mocks vegetarians and vegans. She portrays them as adolescents. “In the narrative of my life, the first bite of meat after my twenty year hiatus marks the end of my youth, the moment when I assumed the responsibilities of adulthood,” Keith writes. “It was the moment I stopped fighting the basic algebra of embodiment: for someone to live, someone else had to die. In that acceptance, with all its suffering and sorrow, is the ability to choose a different way, a better way.”
• Clinical studies, according to Keith, have found that low-fat diets increase anger, depression and anxiety. Low cholesterol levels occur more often among criminals, individuals diagnosed with violent or aggressive conduct disorders, and homicidal offenders with histories of violence and suicide attempts related to alcohol.

Keith's argument is not alien to vegan-environmentalists, and it of course ends at places like Polyface Farms (according to Hand's review).

I'm going to see if my library can get the book because I am curious about why Keith would consider vegans "naive, unhealthful and destructive," and I'm interesting in her explanations/rationalizations. I think there are people (and dogs) for whom veganism is nutritionally difficult and who have to work hard at getting and assimilating what they need due to their own unique constitutions and combination of health challenges. But to generalize that humans should be consuming other sentient beings because of that is, I think, a stretch.

Hand isn't convinced, but does steer us to happy meat in the event of health problems caused by our veganism. And with regard to killing in order to survive, there's a difference between "killing" a carrot and killing a cow, whom you know is just as sentient as your dog or your child.

If anyone has read the book, let me know your thoughts.