Animal Person

On Discounts on Adoptions

Here's a Gray Matter for you (or maybe not): A humane society near me is doing a cat- and dog-adoption promotion this month. You can adopt a dog for $75 rather than $100, and if you adopt a cat for $50 you can get a second one for half the price.

With record numbers of animals being abandoned due to foreclosures and the economy, and let's face it, adopting a dog or cats isn't going to save you any money, do you think it is irresponsible to offer discounts? If someone is going to adopt because of the lower price, how on Earth are they going to be able to provide for the animal(s)?

This sounds like a short-term savings, and it is, but in the case of two cats, you've just doubled your monthly expenses. And I admit to having very expensive (care-wise) dogs, but I imagine that the average dog must cost at least $1,000/year, right?

Two questions:

1.    What do you think about discounted adoptions (or even giveaways)?

2.    If you don't mind sharing, on average, what are your "pet"-related expenses?

Does Vick Deserve a Second Chance?

Do you agree with the New York Times' William C. Rhoden in "The Case for a Second Chance for Michael Vick?" And I'm not just referring to Vick here.

Let's deconstruct the concept:

• Do you think that people who have spent their lives harming animals by eating them, just like I did and much of my family still does, deserve a second chance?
• Is fighting and killing dogs the same thing?
• Is Vick a special kind of creep for what he did?
• Is what he did like hunting?
• Like skinning a mink?
• Like clubbing a seal to death?
• Like "producing" foie gras?
• Like eating foie gras?
• Is it the dogs that are at issue? If they were pigs, would anyone care?

Do you have a personal spectrum of use and abuse or some kind of line in the sand that makes a certain use really deplorable? Do you distinguish at all among the various uses, or are they all as bad as the next in your mind?

On Surreal Lobster Advocacy

My self-appointed job in this blog is to think critically about how our human lives intersect with those of sentient nonhumans, in action and thought.

Yesterday I received an e-mail alert from the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida (ARFF) regarding "a coin operated game that uses live lobsters at the Royal Palm Ale House in Royal Palm Beach. In this game, the object is to pluck live lobsters out of the water with a joystick-controlled crane."

The e-mail continues:

"ARFF contends that lobsters suffer tremendously when they are relegated to tiny tanks and subjected to loud noises, prodding and pulling by a mechanical claw, and prolonged starvation. Supported by scientific evidence that confirms that lobsters feel pain—just as all other animals with sophisticated nervous systems do—ARFF has requested that the Royal Palm Ale House remove this atrocity from its otherwise reputable business immediately."

In the Palm Beach Post's article, "Animal rights activists appalled by Ale House's lobster game," the restaurant's owner says he has no plans to remove the game and says the patrons love the novelty.

"The restaurant doesn't offer lobster otherwise, so the game is a fun way to strive for a meal that would otherwise cost at least $15, said Jorge Cruz, 33, who has tried it a dozen times."

The final sentence of the article is: "It's no different than a lobster tank in a restaurant," said Palm Beach Ale House owner Jay Starr.

The ARFF want us to write letters to the editor of the Post.

Here's my concern: Though I think the game is disgusting and cruel, it sort of pales in comparison to what comes next for the lobsters. I don't agree that the game is "no different than a lobster tank" (at least conceptually--I haven't seen it), but "animal rights activists" should be campaigning for the cessation of the slaughter and consumption of lobsters, shouldn't they? If there is to be a demonstration on the 22nd (that's the threat), and if I am reading this correctly, those opposed to the situation are objecting to the game, and that seems a bit weak to me. If they want what's best for lobsters, they should be advocating for not killing and eating them at any restaurant (and then I guess the question becomes: why stop at lobsters). The message I hear is: tormenting animals before you brutally torture and slaughter them is wrong, but brutally torturing and slaughtering them without the preceding torment is okay.

What do you think of this campaign?

The (Re)Veganizing of the Greyhounds

I have fed Charles Hobson Booger, III and Violet Rays every type of diet from raw (as in, turkey necks and chicken backs) to pre-made raw (comes in patties with greens and bones and supplements in it), to homemade vegan to Evolution to pre-made vegan ingredients to a combo. And most recently, Organix (free-range chicken plus some organic ingredients).

Despite Violet's diabetes, she was never the problem. The problem child was Charles and his irritable bowels, which would make a meal of any kind into liquid in no time.

I'm not sure what happened, but for some reason I went back to Natural Balance's veg formula, supplemented with treats of bananas, strawberries, blueberries and pumpkin, and both hounds are thriving and Charles' poop is remarkably close to normal.

I would never say that vegans have an obligation to veganize their dogs or cats. If they don't thrive on a diet without animals, then they should eat some animal products. And Charles seemed to be a non-thriver each other time I transitioned to a diet with protein that comes from grains. But that has changed, for some reason. I'm choosing to believe I willed it to happen because I just couldn't take buying all of those animal products. But I'm pretty sure that's a bit delusional of me.

One thing that has always been true is that they love the taste of Natural Balance. I've tried other vegan foods and they sort of pick at it and eat it because they know they're not getting anything else. But they gobble up their Natural Balance, and of course any fruit I give them during the day.

I feel like my house is cleaner without the animal food in it, but that's probably another delusion (and I do plan to blog about that). And I certainly feel much better. One of the first things people ask me when they find out I'm vegan and I have dogs is "What do they eat?" Usually the people are trying to "catch" me being hypocritical, and now they can make no such claim (not that it was particularly valid).

And more important, Charles and Violet love their food again!

On Dominance and Animal Birth Control

Yesterday, regarding being a minority within a minority, mikey commented (among other things):

While I am fairly new subscriber to this blog, therefore not knowing your particular stance, I've often felt like a minority within a minority for my stance on animal birth control. When taking the issue to simplest common denominator, spaying/neutering is essentially exercising human dominance over non-human animals. 

mikey, my stance can be seen in the posts about Project Treadstone (and if you type Project Treadstone into the Google Search box just below my half-blind, diabetic greyhound, Violet Rays, on the right, you'll get a dozen more posts).

But my stance is also categorized under Gray Matters because, in my perfect world, we wouldn't be spaying or neutering anybody. Meanwhile, I would love to be able to have some kind of law against human beings producing/reproducing more than one person per person. We are a far bigger problem on this planet than the (over)population of feral cats, elephants, Canada geese, or any other creature we "manage" or want to manage, "humanely" or otherwise.

But alas, we' re too important and special to "manage," and every human pregnancy is treated as a sacred, blessed event, while we kill the kittens inside pregnant feral cats every day without batting an eyelash, and in fact we're relieved when we can catch one who's pregnant, as that's x number of cats who don't have to come into this world.

How contradictory is that?

So mikey, I agree with you in theory. Yes, sterilizing someone--anyone--without their consent is an act of dominance. However, I don't think (and as you allude to) the situation is black and white. (Hence, it's a Gray Matter.) In my experience there are at least a handful of issues that involve compromise when the idea of veganism collides with real life. And this is one of them. We are making a decision for sentient beings that we think will be better for both populations. And when the option is rounding them up and killing them, TNR looks like an especially attractive option.

But who cares about me? What do you all think?

What Friends are For

 

So this was in my e-mail box this morning.

Now what? How ridiculous is it that "On the Psychological Continuum," to say nothing of an article against rabbit fur, is on the same page as Gabriella's Fur Den?

The ads I see today have nothing to do with animal cruelty--the opposite is true. Perhaps there is a filter of some find at work. Or perhaps it's my lucky day.

Either way, I will contact the kind people who asked me to be part of this venture, and inquire about the odd juxtaposition above and the possibility of it occurring again in the future. I shall let you know what happens.

Last time I brought up this issue I received comments and e-mails about those of you who stopped using Google's service (and whom does it serve?) because of precisely this. There's got to be a better way to generate income. One where there is not the appearance, albeit not intentional, of a profoundly contradictory message. 

I may have just gotten myself fired from Animal Rights Zone.

Here's my question for you. Is this a big deal for you? Is this like eating at a non-vegan restaurant, where by doing so you support animal use and abuse? Is it like buying those shoes that have no animal products but are made by a design house that uses animals regularly?

Is this a Gray Matter for you at all?

If it's a matter of not getting your message out or getting it out with this one, admittedly-enormous glitch that might not soon be resolved, what would you do?

Thanks.

On the Erosion of Personal Responsibility

In "Big Food is Copying Big Tobacco's Disinformation Tactics, How Many Will Die This Time?" Fen Montaigne writes about the similarities between how big food is denying its negative impacts on health to how big tobacco did the same.

What struck me was the section on personal responsibility. Montaigne interviews Kelly D. Brownell, researcher and author of Food Fight (and co-author of a paper about big food/big tobacco parallels). Brownell says:

People believe that personal responsibility should be the way we address problems. I don't have any quarrel with that. It's probably not a bad place to start, but when this industry behaves in a way that undermines personal responsibility, then we've got problems and that's usually a place where people feel government intervention is warranted.

So with tobacco, you had a clearly addictive substance. So, people would start when they were teenagers. Their ability to behave in a responsible way was being undermined by the marketing and of course the addictive nature of the product. So, that means government could step in and so what do we do? We pass clean air laws, we tax the heck out of cigarettes, we sue the tobacco industry. And society now accepts that as responsible behavior on the part of government because personal responsibility was being eroded.

So the question is, in food, does that same set of conditions exist and does that warrant government response? Well, everybody comes down in a different place, but there certainly are similarities, including very heavy duty marketing of these products, especially to children.

I don't want to say that personal responsibility is not important, because it certainly is. But in some cases we've decided that's not enough and then government gets involved. With tobacco, with drugs, with alcohol, with immunizations for children, with fluoride in the water, with mandatory airbags in cars, we've decided that if we're serious about these public health things, the government should be involved.

In the food arena, a great example of this would be in New York City, where the health department has banned trans fats in restaurants. So if you go to New York now, you can't get trans fats in the restaurants. Now you could try to solve that problem of people eating trans fats, and having heart disease as a consequence of it, by personal responsibility. You could say, "Okay, well, let's educate people about trans fats." But it's a pretty hard concept to understand. Restaurants would have to label them. People would have to have options within restaurants, trans fat versus no trans fat. And you see you'd have this complex, burdensome system that would never work. And so, that would be an example where personal responsibility wouldn't get the job done but government intervention would. And so, in New York City, they've decided that we can't default to personal responsibility there, we need to take action. And that would be an example of a real success story from a public health point of view.

I was once libertarian-leaning. And I think a perfect world might be more libertarian. But the reality that I have observed is that people cannot be trusted to do the right thing, particularly when the information they are being bombarded with is not accurate. Personal responsibility in this climate requires setting out to find the truth and that takes far more energy, time and commitment than sitting back and becoming the type of consumer (as in: one who consumes) our mainstream media and big corporations are molding us to be.

Personal responsibility is challenged as it's not on a level playing field with what Industry wants us to believe. But is more regulation and government involvement the answer?

Why isn't more critical thinking and more attention to what's going on in the name of the products you consume the answer?

On Different Results of Direct Action

There is a profound difference between what Sea Shepherd does and what the Animal Liberation Front does, but there are also similarities, and those similarities increase in number if a direct action by the ALF (or anyone else) is an open rescue and therefore a direct defense of sentient nonhumans being attacked by humans. And I'm sure they see it as an attack. And an entirely unwarranted one, at that.

This year's carnage in the Antarctic was measurably smaller due to the interference of Sea Shepherd. According to Reuters:

Japan, which considers whaling to be a cherished cultural tradition, killed 679 minke whales despite plans to catch around 850. It caught just one fin whale compared with a target of 50 in the hunt that began in November.

That's one result.

Here's another direct action and its result, as described in an interview by Larry Mantle on KPCC Radio (it's the one called "Animal Rights vs. Animal Testing"). Dr. David Jentsch says to his colleagues "your silence will no longer protect you" and his community of vivisectionists has decided to have a pro-torture and slaughter (i.e., research) rally in defense of his community (he considers himself a proxy for the entire UCLA community). Jentsch talks about the cost ("it's hard to put a price tag on") of protecting those like him, so we definitely know that the tactics of those who seek to defend animals are working on one level (economic harm, though once removed at least in this situation).

He speaks of the "mixed message of the animal rights community" that animals are so much like us, yet not enough like us to experiment on. Then he and the interviewer describe some of the experiments. And it's a very dispassionate discussion, but that's what makes it sickening.

Here are some highlights:

Mantle: "How do you respond to: Yeah, you may find something that benefits humans, but it's not worth it and it's not ethically right?"

Jentsch says that this is an important issue that the entire community has to grapple with, and it seems like the broader community is in favor of research that gets at fundamental improvements in human health even though there is a cost of animal life associated with it. He then says he goes to "exceptional lengths" to make ensure the physical and psychological welfare of the primates he uses, "except when it's absolutely necessary" to harm them.

Then comes the introduction to Vlasak wanting to harm individuals who harm animals. And then comes a brief conversation about Singer and how we wouldn't use young humans, which Jentsch says is precisely why we should use primates. Jentsch is all about human exceptionalism. His rationale for using primates is that they are not on a "full trajectory" for becoming humans, like young children are. They are useful and they are not human, therefore it is okay to harm them. 

Wow.

And then comes Dr. Jerry Vlasak at about minute 17 of 27, who says Jentsch is "using the same arguments used when experimenting on black people" not so long ago. Of course, Mantle says, "but though they are high-level mammals, they're not humans." Deja vu.

Vlasak's main points:

• The money that Jentsch is wasting doing this should go to treatment programs. What Jentsch is doing is counter-productive.
• The broader community Jentsch talks about doesn't really know what he does. Jentsch says the community approves of what he does but they don't actually know what he does. They don't see the animals scream and struggle.
• (Re: Trajectory of humans versus primates. We wouldn't use a brain-damaged human, right? says a commenter on the journalist's blog).
• There have been peaceful efforts to dialogue about what's going on in the laboratories and look at alternatives, but they have been ignored. Peaceful protests were ignored, as well. Home protests were ignored also.
• AND THEN: Is it ever justified to use more violent means after peaceful ones have all failed? This is where Vlasak gets energized. A combination of tactics will force these people to stop torturing animals, he says, and even mentions an example of a researcher who took up non-animal alternatives as a result.
• Finally, the core question: Why do these "researchers" continue to use animals when there are alternatives and personal threats?

Guess what the answer is? Funding.

No surprise there.

Direct action is such a conundrum.

Another Painful Lesson at Project Treadstone

I keep thinking: Okay, I have experienced enough to write a thorough guest post for Stephanie at Change.org on feral cats and TNR. Then something else unexpected happens. I think I have to just write the post and leave it open for further discussion.

This is Little Gray, the thirteenth feral cat trapped for Project Treadstone. She is over six-months old but certainly doesn't look it. And she looked this terrified the entire time she was at my house, in a large dog kennel, hiding in the sliver of space behind her litter box filled with Yesterday's News.

In fact, I took a dozen photos of her, hoping to snap one that didn't look like I was coming at her with a blowtorch, but alas, they're all the same. That was the only time in my life I felt like taking someone's photo was cruel.

She is now back with the colony, which I cannot say about the fourteenth kitty, Brows. And note to self: Take pictures before the cats go to the vet, as they might not be coming back.

Brows was a very heavy for her size, which led me to believe she was pregnant. And she was. She also had what appeared to be singed facial hair but was actually scarring from chronic ringworm. She had ocular and nasal discharge and a fever. And she was very lethargic and the vet didn't think she'd survive her surgery. The vet tested Brows, who was FIV+, and then she called me to say that the protocol for this situation is euthanasia.

It's easy to say: Euthanasia for a cold? Euthanasia for ringworm? What? Aren't those treatable? Why is the cat now dead? This is where subjectivity and the judgment of an expert come into play and it's a Gray Matter, at least for me. We must rely on the vet to determine the severity of the illness(es) and also whether there is evidence that they are chronic. And we must also rely on her to say whether the cat would survive surgery. Brows was not euthanized because she was FIV+, but if she had the same combination of illnesses and was negative, would she have been euthanized?

I do know that if there is/are minor problem/s that can be easily treated, the cat would be sent back with me for treatment, and returned for sterilization after successful treatment. Minor illness does not equal death. Nor does it necessitate testing. So that's good news.

It's difficult being responsible for telling someone to end a life, even if that life probably wasn't all that enjoyable. It makes you wonder what a good life is and who gets to decide that (which is one of the main objections to Peter Singer's views on infanticide, and just for the record, Peter Singer has been a disaster for the animal rights movement in the past decade, possibly obliterating any early positive impact he had--take THAT, Young Master Dan).

Two New Peter Singer Interviews

First I have to again say that Peter Singer was influential in the veganization of Mary Martin: in my evolution from cat person to animal person during my college years.

For me and my delicate, cat-person sensibilities, college was a caustic, offensive world that compelled me to examine my relationship with animals wherever there was one, which turned out to be everywhere. And in case I forgot that tidbit of real life, or chose denial for a moment, there were plenty of belligerent, black boot-wearing, CBGB-going, no meat-eating, no drug-doing, Peter Singer-reading, pesky, activist types to remind me. 

Though I outwardly chided them for their distasteful techniques and relentless prodding, I credit them for the bulk of my transformation into an animal person. They thought it was their job to make everyone they came in contact with think about how their actions affected animals. They had perfected the art of raising awareness and educating potential animal people with learning tools including: pictures, trips to slaughterhouses (a.k.a., a one-way trip to vegetarianism), statistics, facts about how the animal industries abuse the earth, and of course, the names of famous people who are vegetarians (as a budding English major, I was particularly intrigued when they tossed out H.G. Wells, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Voltaire, and my personal crush, William Blake). They had something for everyone’s hot button.

I read Animal Liberation, probably in 1986, after already ceasing my use of animals, and what I recall as my aha moment was speciesism. I hadn't heard the word before and it helped me make sense of our relationship with sentient nonhumans in a different way.

Regardless of Singer's utilitarianism or his thoughts on infanticide or bestiality, no one can deny his impact on budding vegans and animal rights activists.

Both Shari Rudavsky's "Interview with Peter Singer" and Jill Owens' interview (at Powell's) are in promotion of his new book The Life You Can Save and its companion site www.thelifeyoucansave.com (where we learn that Singer is now on Twitter). I don't disagree with his premise, but it does smack of a pet peeve of mine: judging the philanthropy of others. Each of us is moved to address a unique combination of causes and issues, and I don't know if you can say that the 27,000 children who die, each day, from preventable, poverty-related causes are more important than (fill-in-your-cause), in point of fact. They're more important to Singer, but perhaps finding a cure for bone cancer is more important to you. Or combatting female genital mutilation. Or genocide.

I do agree that many of us can do without much of what we have and do in order to put a larger percentage of our disposable income toward charitable causes (and Singer proposes a very modest percentage allocated to extreme poverty, so it's tough to argue with that part of it). I'll read the book this weekend and give you some highlights/save you some time.

I like the way he talks about what we choose to do also makes a statement about what we choose not to do in this clip:

On Florida Legislation

Florida's legislative session began last week and some rather odd tax exemptions are now under review including:

•     nets used by commercial fisheries;
•     generators used on poultry farms;
•     fuel used to heat the huge warehouses in which chickens raised for meat (broilers) are confined;
•     bait used by commercial fishermen in the entrapment of lobsters, crabs and other crustacea;
•     feeds for poultry, ostriches, and livestock, including racehorses and dairy cows;
•     the sale of racing dogs by his or her owner/breeder.

And speaking of racing dogs, several bills were filed that will help them, if passed. 

• Senate Bill 2594/House Bill 1437: 

Provides that a greyhound permitholder who meets certain requirements may engage in specific wagering activities without meeting a minimum number of live performances. Imposes a moratorium on the issuance of new greyhound racing permits. Conforms provisions. Revises the number of live performances that a greyhound permitholder must conduct in order to renew a cardroom license.  EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2009. 

In other words, what currently ties greyhound racing to gambling activities unrelated to the dogs, is a certain number of live races. Without a minimum live racing requirement, fewer dogs will be forced to race, and the real profit-making activity can increase.

The sponsors of this legislation, are Senator Don Gaetz and Representative Mike Horner. Drop them a note or call them to thank them and mention either SB 2594 or HB 1437. 

Senator Don Gaetz:

850-487-5009
gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov
web site

The Capitol
Room 320
Senate Office Building
404 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100

House Sponsor, Representative Mike Horner:
850-488-8992
mike.horner@myfloridahouse.gov
web site

The Capitol, Room 323
House Office Building
402 S. Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300

Thanks, and have a greyt day!

On Diabetes and Autism?

I wrote a guest post about diabetes in "pets" at Paw Talk called "Lessons Learned" which was published over the weekend. I think it's important to reach out to the pet people, as many have already demonstrated their desire to see sentient nonhumans as more than just commodities. Perhaps with time and some exposure to a reasonable line of thinking regarding those they see as pets, progress can be made regarding those they see as food or clothing. After all, I was a cat person as a child. A cat person who liked the taste of chickens (though I later realized that fried batter was the taste I liked).

Diabetes is still one of the top five reasons readers come to Animal Person, and I understand why. Diabetes in humans is its own industry and it's out in the open and there are seminars and commercials and books about it, all of which encourage the person with the disease to take control of it.

But when it comes to "pets," it's all very cloak and dagger. You have to trust your veterinarian to do all of the work and then you just follow the instructions about insulin. However that doesn't educate you or put you next to the disease on a daily basis--there'e always a vet (/"expert") between you. Confidence in dealing with the disease comes from knowing as much as possible and doing as much as possible (i.e., testing, blood curves, taking lots of notes about how different variables affect the animal in your care).

Next, I've always felt like I couldn't talk about why Temple Grandin's autism made her the spokesperson for a different way to kill because that would be politically incorrect. Her autism gives her a free pass of sorts, at least from me. But not from Jeffrey Masson and Jeff Nelson in "Temple Grandin: Using Autism to Make Money Killing Animals," who say what many of us have been thinking:

“Grandin’s autism gives her a special understanding of what animals, whether house cats or cattle, think, feel and—perhaps most important—desire.” The reviewer [who wrote that sentence] has bought into the myth that Dr. Grandin seeks most to instill: because she is autistic, she understands animals. All you need to do is say this aloud to realize how ridiculous it is. Try it in other ways: “I am depressed, so I understand dogs.” “I hear voices, so I understand birds.” We have never heard anyone describe an animal, any animal, as autistic, so why should somebody who is autistic understand animals better than anyone else?
 . . . .
Why would we need to have somebody self-proclaimed as autistic explain these emotions to us? All we need to do is live with any animal—dog, cat, parrot, cow, chicken, pig, sheep, goat, or even rat—to understand how deeply they feel emotions similar to ours.

Temple Grandin is the perfect spokesperson for animal exploitation industries because, like me, many people are loath to ask what could possibly make her more qualified than anyone else to talk about the thoughts and feelings of sentient nonhumans. I'm glad someone finally has.

Chime in on Subsistence Cultures

Here's a question from a new-ish reader. Chime in with your thoughts and help Newish Reader work through the issue.

I've been vegan almost 2 years and  . . . I consider myself probably an 'abolitionist' but I'm still learning a lot.

One area that seems troublesome to me for abolition that I don't see addressed much is: What about societies that subsist in environments relatively inhospitable to plant growth? At what point does the convenience or sustainability of obtaining food in those societies trump the immorality of taking sentient life? I tend to think the rules are different in different societies based on place. Whereas for Westerners and many others veganism seems the only ethical way of life, I'm not comfortable supposing I know what's right for all people, and particularly for those in subsistence societies.

And I'd like to add: Is moral relativity part of this question?

On In Vitro Meat: The Question

When I say: What are your thoughts? that's what I mean. And your thoughts lead in various directions and gel in those directions (or not) among us and also often reveal one particular question.

To recap yesterday and also to clarify my thoughts and intentions:

• I wasn't thinking any vegans would want to eat flesh grown in sheets in a laboratory. However, I was thinking non-vegans would, as some currently eat sphincters and lips and cartilage, not to mention kidneys and livers (do they not know what those organs do?), and you can't get that much worse than all that. I never underestimate the human willingness to eat anything, except perhaps Soylent Green. And that's only if they knew what it was. And maybe feces--that would be a tough sell (but Google "products made from feces" and see what happens).
• If you read the articles on the technology, you'll find that the ability to control which"type" of flesh (re: texture, marbling and all that) is a benefit. Also, it would be healthier, allegedly, as there would be no environmental toxins, growth hormones or antibiotics involved. Not to mention, as one of the farmers said, animals don't come in convenient shapes to make into meat. There's all that bone and tendon and the head and eyeballs, and it's a lot of work to get what you want. Cultured meat is just the part you want, he said.
• The aspects of environment degradation associated with CAFOs as well as small farms would be nonexistent.
• More people are eating animals than ever.

The angle my mind goes to is food supply. This is by no means the ideal solution, but if we significantly decrease the number of sentient nonhumans brought into this world only to be dominated, exploited and slaughtered for parts, isn't that good? Fewer animals will be bred to die. How do you argue with that?

Now, does it address speciesism or animal rights? I don't think so (does anyone disagree?). But I hope that there isn't anyone who will not support this effort simple because PeTA does. (And yes, they will claim victory, but it's going to take a lot more than $1 million.)

Considering that consumption of sentient nonhumans is on the rise, and if we could distill this down a bit as there are some unknowns and there's the factor of time (we don't know the ETA), here's the question: Do you think it is in fact ethical to support in vitro meat as a way to use fewer animals? That's what it does. A very thick steak hasn't been perfected, but thinner "cuts" have. People all over the world could have their taste for blood met without animals having to be brought into existence to satiate it.

When I say "support," by the way, I don't mean financial support. I'm pretty sure you all would rather give to a sanctuary or donate rice and beans to a food bank rather than invest in cultured meat (and if not, speak up!). Other than PeTA, the financial support allocated to this venture wasn't taken from the vegan education portion of any budget and moved to the culturing of flesh. Given that, and given that the goal of vegan education is to decrease the use of animals and in vitro meat does that, by definition, I think I'd have to say that I like the idea of a guaranteed decrease in the use of animals, and don't think supporting it for the purpose of the food supply is wildly at odds with being vegan. Would I rather there were no potential of cultured meat or live animals used for their flesh? Yes. But that's not the question.

On In Vitro "Meat"

Jason Matheny, lead author of a paper on "In Vitro-Cultured Meat Production" in the scientific journal Tissue Engineering, said (elsewhere):

“Consumers don't really have a sense of how meat is produced. They see the end product, which often bears no resemblance to the animal. What they care about is how the product tastes and whether it's affordable. When people ask me if consumers will accept this kind of meat, I think, ‘yes, look at what they already accept.’”

Good point.

I see no reason why people who already eat the flesh, hoofs, lips and sphincters of various nonhuman animals would have a problem eating a in vitro meat.

The In Vitro Meat Consortium tells us "Why In Vitro Meat?" and the reasons are laudable. Humans aren't going to stop eating meat anytime soon, and the way it's currently "produced" is inefficient in several ways and of course terrible for the environment. New Harvest, an organization developing the technology, says:

"Because meat substitutes are produced under controlled conditions impossible to maintain in traditional animal farms, they can be safer, more nutritious, less polluting, and more humane than conventional meat."

Here are some FAQs, in case you're interested, and No, the process isn't animal-free, but no one must be killed for it. There has been debate about this for about four years, with animal welfare advocates pretty much coming down on the side of in vitro meat, and of course this includes PeTA, which offered $1 million to the first scientist to produce it and bring it to market." (Bring to market is a much higher benchmark than produce, by they way, which pushes the ETA for a reward a couple more years into the future, it would seem.)

The folks from Meat Alternatives do a lot of promoting of analogues, as you might imagine, but also in vitro meat (check out Future Food).

And I'm sure you've seen this by now, but if you're still anti cultured-meat, they take abolitionists to task with "Why Cultured Meat?" and link to Animal Rights sites and blogs (which does not include Animal Person, by the way).

What are your thoughts about in vitro meat?

On Pacifism

Please do something for me if you have the time. Please read the following and then go to the source (or not, that would be doing two things for me), and let me know your thoughts on the following quotes.

Vivisectors, animal researchers, factory farmers, furriers, and their ilk condemn their victims– living beings who feel and suffer, just as we humans do– to a life that is so “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” it would have appalled even Thomas Hobbes. Socially conditioned to believe that we are the master species, most people condone the exploitation of animals “for the good of humanity.” Others apathetically look the other way. Some, however, opt to oppose this abomination with tactics appropriate to the evils inflicted on animals, and yet they are as scorned by many in the animal advocacy movement in the same language and tone that one finds in the discourse of the FBI and SHAC’s prosecutors.
 . . . .

Ironically, the relatively few animal defenders who carry out the struggle against the monstrous animal-industrial complex through militant direct action (MDA), such as property destruction and liberating caged animals, often find that animal exploiters are not their only opponents. In a perverse twist, a surprisingly large number of people whom the casual observer would assume to be allied with direct activists often align themselves with animal oppressors in their rush to show they “reach across the aisle,” “remain civil,” “work within the system,” and above all, “adhere to non-violence.” They become perfect puppets of the corporate-state complex.
 . . . .

One can stop wondering why the animal advocacy movement is losing the fight, as meat consumption skyrockets, animal exploitation increases exponentionally, the sixth great species extinction crisis rapidly accelerates, and the planetary ecosystem irrevocably comes undone.
. . . .

For the state rarely lifts a finger to stop ineffectual forms of dissent, such as animal rights activists who do nothing but chant and hold signs outside of research laboratories. Thus, the provisional absence of such legislation hardly indicates successful tactics. Moreover, the original version of the AETA, the “Animal Enterprise Protection Act,” became law in 1992, 8 years before the SHAC movement crossed the Atlantic into the US, and so one could just as easily argue that it was legal and peaceful tactics that were the catalyst for state repression. In fact, any significant challenge to animal exploitation — legal or illegal, aboveground or underground – will provoke a harsh state response. So the question is not how to avoid state repression but how to break through it, using a variety of effective tactics without hindering the movement by fundamentalist fallacies and pacifist dogmas.

. . . .

While many non-violent, legal tactics are often necessary and useful to advance animal liberation, they are impotent without being supplemented by radical direct action, as they pose no immediate threat to the global capitalist system that enables the moneyed elite to prey upon billions of non-human (and human) animals each year to fuel growth and profits. CEO’s don’t lose much sleep over a student petition campaign, a weekly vegan outreach program downtown, or a Sunday potluck dinner with a vegan speaker, as these efforts barely break past 1% of the US population.
. . . .

“Pacifism is generally considered to be a morally unassailable position to take with respect to human violence. … While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world’s thugs. It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. … Here we come upon a terrible facet of ethically asymmetric warfare: when your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand.” Sam Harris
 . . . .

Today we lionize Nelson Mandela as a great hero, but he and the ANC used violence to win their freedom. People forget that the much-heralded Suffragettes in England and the US used arson and bombs to help win the emancipation of women. Few if any movements for social change have succeeded without a radical fringe, without civil disobedience, property destruction, and even violence — so why should one expect it to be any different with the animal liberation struggle?

It is incredibly naïve to believe that a revolution of the scale and complexity such as needed now can come about through education, legislation, and prompting veganism on a mass scale. From our pluralist, pragmatist, and contextualist position, we can surely see these as important tactics, but they need to be supplemented by direct action and, more importantly, by a revolutionary social movement propelled by numerous groups in an anti-capitalist alliance politics.
 . . . .

But if discussion turns to the use of property destruction or physical violence to liberate animals from oppression, suddenly there is outcry that this tactic is wrong, violent, and counter-productive. Appealing to critics to overcome the fallacy of speciesism and to think in a rigorously consistent manner, we simply ask: why? Why are the anti-Nazi resistance fighters heroes while the ALF are terrorists? Why is economic sabotage and violence acceptable to use in defense of human beings but not animals? This gross inconsistency ought to embarrass every unprejudiced and logical person and it is a scandal when paraded about by a so-called “animal advocate.” It is just a disguised form of speciesism whereby extraordinary actions are courageous and laudable if done on behalf of human animals but despicable and deplorable if taken for nonhuman animals.
. . . .

To be clear: We are not advocating the use of physical violence as a first strike measure or pivotal tactic for animal liberation, but nor are we taking it off the table as something that has to be dogmatically excluded on fundamentalist pacifist principles alone. We prefer not to disarm this struggle against monumental evil and destruction of life in any way.

For more (a lot more), go to Thomas Paine's Corner's new home.

On Organizing. Again.

First let me say I understand anyone's wariness regarding large animal rights groups. Mission creep is their middle name, due to a need for the victories that bring the donations, and due to the desire to appeal to a broader base.

No one wants what happened PeTA to happen again. But why can't we learn from that? Why does organizing = PeTA and all of its shortcomings? Why jump straight there?

We don't have anywhere near the quantity of PeTA supporters, and there's already a place for those people to go, so why is it that anyone equates the idea of us organizing with what happens to "large organizations?" Why is not organizing at all better than giving it a go?

I'm one of those experience-type people. I'll try pretty much anything just to have the experience. I've jumped out of planes and bungy/bungee jumped and traveled to foreign countries by myself and, as I've said before, in my nonvegan days I'd try human steak if given the chance. I do things and fail all the time, but at least I do them (can you say wrote a book about animals that I can't get an agent for?). I'd love to experience pregnancy and childbirth.

Our mission and objectives and programs (education, outreach, specific campaigns that would end the use of an animal or group of animals) would be different than PeTA's, and I don't understand why there's such resistance? Are we more powerful as individuals than as a group? Or is it that we have so many among us that are anarchists and think that means they cannot be a member of an organization of any kind? Is it that if there's hierarchy you don't want any part of it and you don't see a way to do it without that?

From what I've seen, there are many creative, outside-the-box thinkers who are vegans. And there are many people (but certainly not everyone) who crave a group that is aligned with their beliefs. Organizing locally is a fabulous idea, and I was thinking that the larger group could help individuals organize locally. So there would be a local--> larger, larger<-- local movement/progression. Each would inform the other.

What's great about PeTA is it's a fantastic, 25-year model to study of what not to do (but from good intentions at the beginning). It's like process of elimination. We know that some things were a disaster and we wouldn't do them. Others were less disastrous. Some ideas or executions were great.

There are some things we can tackle ourselves. A 40-count feral cat colony, for instance (okay, I definitely needed help, but at least I could start). Getting local restaurants or animal groups to introduce veganism. Community outreach. But individuals can only do so much and their reach is limited. Less so these days because of the Internet, but still limited as opposed to a worldwide network (or something like it).

And I don't mean this facetiously, but not everyone knows that Responsible Policies for Animals exists, or that Friends of Animals exists. Check them out and see if they're a good fit for you if a group is what you want.

There's always Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, but I have a feeling it's not exactly what people are referring to when they talk about what they want in a "movement." And Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary serves animals directly as well as provides educational material. And HumaneMyth is a great place to go to delve into the issues and needs support, as does Tribe of Heart.

And none of those provides you with what you want, what do you want? Or what don't you want? Both are good places to start.

Finally, I'm no people person, and I'm not someone who wants to belong to a group, but I do have knowledge and experience in/of the nonprofit that might be useful and all I want to do is help. That is my motivation.

On Learning From "Eating Animals"

Did you see the mayhem over at Change.org's Sustainable Food page with Natasha Chart's "Eating Animals?"

I'm writing about it because I'd like to learn any lesson I can to prevent parts of it from happening again (you know, the parts that happen all the time and will probably continue to). There has got to be some way to have things turn out differently. Or at least progress differently.

Natasha isn't like Mary Martin at Animal Person. Though of course she's an individual with an individual blog, I assume that the the blogs over at Change.org are supposed to be about information and serious discussion and that there's some kind of responsibility to not be rude or intentionally antagonize anyone, and Natasha went the latter route. That smacked of an etiquette disorder to me, but I could be wrong in my assumption about the tone of Change.org blogs as I don't have too much time to spend on blogs and the like.

Also, though I started this blog being far more obnoxious and offensive than I am now (and you thought it wasn't possible), and that kind of ranting does indeed have a place in the blogosphere, I made a conscious decision to go in a different direction--more often. And I think that decision has worked for me and for the animals, as more people will read if I don't rant all of the time.

Question #1: When someone goes right for the "tasty" button, essentially mocking the suffering of another being, do you write them off as callous and impossible to reach and not even bother with trying to reason with them? They're not making fun of me (though that will likely come later), they're making fun of the fact that someone is killed for their flesh. That's just not right.

And then there's the inevitable mention of "humane" farming, and though I did link to HumaneMyth.org in my comment, my comment disappeared and gave me an "oops" as there were server problems yesterday (several times). That's legitimate, as most people do indeed neglect to think through the concept of farming to the part about taking someone's life when you don't need to, and of course many of the other hideous aspects of animal husbandry simply aren't widely known. We need to point that out once and leave, thereby not giving someone like Natasha undue attention and time. She doesn't appear to care, but some of her readers might.

Next, the pedophilia argument, which invariably results in comments like one on Natasha's blog:

[A commenter] is still comparing meat eaters to pedophiles. His argument is this:  Vegans = normal but meat-eaters think like pedophiles. It is a facile and inflammatory argument, and used by prosthletizers [sic] everywhere to shame people into believing like they do. How do prosthletizers [sic]for other causes that you don't support fare in your world view when they use this argument? I thought so...

I have never, ever seen this go well. Is your goal to enrage the person you're trying to convert, thereby closing their mind completely? Because that's what happens. How about going with something they might be less triggered by, such as comparing cows to dogs? Favoring cows over dogs as food is an accident of birth and geography. And yes, there are cultures where having sex with and marrying young girls is acceptable, but why go there?

Finally, and I welcome suggestions for getting around this . . .

Question #2: What about the notion of choice? It is indeed our choice to not kill when we don't need to. And the person who eats animals is choosing to kill and choosing to harm. And though harm to sentient beings might indeed be an unintended consequence of, say, growing soybeans, it's not the purpose of growing soybeans. When you choose to eat somebody's flesh or secretions, you are choosing to hurt them. You intend to kill them, right? Or am I wrong? I mean, how can you intend to eat a steak and not intend to kill a cow. And if you know what is really involved in the production of cheese (like, for instance, the mucous lining of the fourth stomach of the calf--the veal calf), how can you say you're not intending to hurt someone? How can you separate the two? Can you?

Okay, question #2 was way more than one question, but I'm stuck here. I don't see a way that the conversation can ever land the animal-eater in a position where they're not extremely defensive because I just told them they want to hurt and kill animals. The choice discussion, which animal-eaters are so fond of, is quickly and easily turned against them. But if they bring it up, they should be able to deal with that.

But they can't. They get defensive because I've just "attacked" them when I'm merely moving the discussion along, beginning with the word they just brought up: choice. It's almost too easy, but winning the logic part of the argument (or the linguistic one) only makes them more angry and likely to jump right to "fundamentalist," "extremist," and "fanatic," and then it's all over because it has spiraled into ridiculousness.

I comment at Grist, and sometimes Ideal Bite, because they have big audiences and I might make a dent. Even when the word "tasty" is present. But then I think that someone so committed to justifying what they like to eat and closing their eyes and minds to the moral argument is probably better left to their delusions (meaning my energy is better spent elsewhere).

But then I remember that we were all those people once (okay, maybe not exactly like them, but we did have plenty of reasons for eating animals) and we changed, so I can't help but hope that they might too. And of course, now I'll be accused of being self-righteous.

And around and around we go.

On Animals, Pregnancy and Parenting

This unbelievable article in the Palm Beach Post, by one Dr. Berry Brazelton, advises a grandmother-to-be that: "It would be better for the baby if your daughter would rid herself of [her] cats. If not, the cats must be kept away from the child for the infant's protection." (Because of the potential for toxoplasmosis and because "Some cats will seek out the infants' mouths and noses and lie on them to smother them.")

The columnist can be reached at nytsynfamilies@nytimes.com and the editor of the Palm Beach Post can be sent a letter through their site with this form.

This wouldn't be so alarming if I didn't personally experience that people do believe cats are life threatening and will actually give their cats away after becoming pregnant. Yes, it's time for your partner to take over litter box duties if you get pregnant, or to use gloves and wash your hands often, but all of this hysteria over the jealousy of cats and the dangers they pose is irresponsible.

I must confess that I don't know one cat-owned woman--not one--(and you know I asked) who handed the litter box duties over to her husband or partner or who even owned litter-box gloves, and none had problems (and all but one had children, and there was that one that gave her cats away--to a loving home). But that's all anecdotal. What I want to see is Brazelton's evidence for the significant danger of cats in the home simultaneous with baby humans.

We should be teaching our children that when we adopt a "pet," we do so for their entire life. Whether they start peeing in the house after they were house trained, or somebody gets pregnant, we work with the animal (who was there first--I'm just saying . . .), not against her.

Also, I have seen people have several children, and when they do, they feel terrible that their animals aren't getting the attention they used to get, so they give the animals away! (Hence the well-trained senior dogs in shelters.)

What we need, I suppose, is education that must take place prior to the adoption of an animal that discusses the future plans of the adopter and how the animal will fit into the family. For instance, we will not get another cat or dog because we might become the parents of a human child and I personally think that caring for 2 people, 2 large dogs and one cat is my limit without anyone being neglected. Any more than that and I'd need to outsource some of what I do. And that's fine for things like housekeeping and shopping and cooking, but it's not fine for spending time and caring for human or nonhuman animals.

Though we desperately want to find homes for homeless cats and dogs, the thorny question is: Is it better to have a home for a little while, or even years, and then be homeless again and perhaps killed, or do we want only people who can care for an animal for her entire life to be able to adopt her, which is an unrealistic expectation? (Of course, vegans aren't unacquainted with such things.)

What are your thoughts?

On Death and the Worst Thing That Can Happen

Yesterday, Parke commented: "One difficulty I have with the moral hard-line is that it generally assumes that death is the worst thing that can happen to something (or someone) and inadequately acknowledges the natural cycle of life-and-death: that death enables life, and life entails death."

I'd like to deconstruct, as this comment brings up (initially) three things for me that I'd like to share:

1. I don't believe that death can happen to something, as a thing does not have life to begin with. But maybe I'm missing something here.
2. I think of death as neutral. But we're not talking about death here. What's objectionable is not death. Taking the life of another when you do not need to is what is objectionable. Slaughter, murder, killing, whatever word you use, that's where my issue lies.
3. I'm not sure anyone is saying that death is the worst thing that can happen to anyone. I think that someone taking over:

• my life
• my reproduction (i.e., raping me and then taking my children from me and either killing them immediately, such as in the case of baby male chicks, or torturing and killing them in a couple of weeks or months such as in the case of male and female dairy calves)
• my physical freedom
• my sense of security
• what I eat for dinner (and feeding me what they need to feed me to maximize my use)
• and maybe even cutting off my tail, my ears, my teeth, my claws, or another part of me that's making it difficult to effectively and efficiently get what they want from me . . .

 is right up there with them killing me.

Finally, I don't think any of that qualifies as the "natural cycle of life-and-death."

What about you? Do you think death is the worst thing that can happen to someone?