Animal Person

On Timelines

The idea that each person has their own timeline for converting to veganism met with the following comment from All Means Justifiable:

"I have to say that writing "everyone has their own timeline" is a sentence I personally don't like to hear. Because even if it is true (in a way), its grounds are immoral."

I think this an important comment as it pits theory against practice, words against actions, and highlights the reality that humans can very well know something is wrong--or even not good for their own health--and do it anyway (and to remove the health debate with animal-eating, think smoking, or excess alcohol drinking, or some other action that's bad for you and you might proceed with nevertheless).

The fact that the concept of the timeline exists is simply an admission that human behavior is not necessarily aligned with what's in the head or in the heart. And as long as timelines do exist and we cannot guarantee that we can speed them up, the very least we can do is work to move them along. And I know that many people don't want to hear this, but moving others along, if done too harshly or abruptly, can backfire. Moving people along is more art than science, and for some people it's far more emotion-based than logic-based.

In my experience, knowing your audience and tailoring your approach (but not the substance of your message), is what converts people to veganism . . . when they're ready.

What are your thoughts?

Personal Changes Doesn't Equal Political Change

Derrick Jensen comes right out of the gate mentioning Hitler (as opposed to later as per Godwin's Law) in "Taking Shorter Showers Doesn't Cut it: Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," which might annoy some people. But what's more annoying is the reality that the personal choices we make and hold so dear, that we're so convinced are going to change the world, might not really be working as effectively as we would like.

Here are some highlights, just from the article (the comments are a bit of a maze, but if you can negotiate them I think they're worth reading through). They are all Jensen's words exactly, except what's in brackets (not parenthesis-they're him too).

• Consumer culture and the capitalist mindset have taught us to substitute acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment) for organized political resistance.
• People (both human people and fish people) aren’t dying because the world is running out of water. They’re dying because the water is being stolen.
• I don’t pretend that not buying much (or not driving much, or not having kids) is a powerful political act, or that it’s deeply revolutionary. It’s not. Personal change doesn’t equal social change.
• If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. 
• Simple living as a political act consists solely of harm reduction, ignoring the fact that humans can help the Earth as well as harm it. [And by the way, I would not have said that, necessarily, and perhaps this is a language issue here.]
• [Neo-Luddite] Kirkpatrick Sale . . . : “The whole individualist what-you-can-do-to-save-the-earth guilt trip is a myth. We, as individuals, are not creating the crises, and we can’t solve them.”
• [Capitalism] redefines us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming.
• We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

It's posts like this that make me feel like an ineffectual white, suburban elitist. I have such a difficult time giving up the notion that I can buy or not buy my way out of a problem, and that my one vote to buy or not buy really does count because if more people did it we'd develop the mythical critical mass that would indeed change the way things are or are done.

While I go to bed in my cushy home each night after a long day of blogging, reading, writing, working, baking vegan cookies, buying local, organic and vegan foodstuffs, recycling, taking short showers, driving very little, volunteering a lot, taking care of the creatures, wearing the same "Life is Good" T-shirts and flip-flops and trying to buy only what I need, and feeling like with each of those decisions--my decisions--the world gets better, I must admit that that last part just might be an illusion. It might be a lie I tell myself to make me feel like I have power to change the world and am changing it with my choices.

What are your thoughts?

On Conditional Love

Yesterday I promised to write about "Conditional" over at Alec's Story, and again, if you haven't read the blog I highly recommend it. The other idea that came out of it (perhaps for tomorrow) as well as my e-mails and conversations with another blogger, is the life of a person who cares for a special needs animal.

Nicole at Alec's Story writes:

One of my pet peeves, so to speak, is the concept of “unconditional love” as attributed to dogs by humans. It is a popular way of romanticizing dogs and while I am loath to be the Grinch who stole unconditional love, there are reasons why I think this “compliment” is over- and misused in the context of human-dog relations.

That's a pet peeve of mine, too, along with "children are so honest!" (If you've ever seen the Bill Cosby bit about that, it's hilarious!)

When we adopted Violet Rays we knew she was diabetic and we chose her because we were told she was unlikely to be adopted (and had already been returned) and was living in a crate all day and night, just like at the track but at someone's house instead. We didn't adopt her so we could spoon with her at night or cuddle on the couch with her or have her be our trusted companion. And it's a good thing we viewed her that way because it took over four years to get even an inkling that she cared if we lived or died.

And we're still not sure.

Charles Hobson Booger, III, on the other hand, hangs on our every word and stares at us constantly. He needs to be touched, when we walk him he stays at our side, and he brings us toys to toss at him (he catches them and makes a neat pile of them all for some reason). When you toss a toy to Violet, she promptly takes it into another room and plays by herself. She throws it, catches it, and leaps around joyously with the toy. But she's also an alpha dog and Charles isn't.

Though I test Violet's blood sugar several times a day and give her her insulin and glaucoma medication and eye drops and eye gel, she is only mildly impressed with my dedication. Meanwhile, Charles thanks me all day long just for patting him on the head. If you call Charles' name, his ears perk up into full wombat, and he waits patiently for his instructions. When you call Violet's name her ears do perk up a bit, and if she feels like paying further attention to you she'll let you know.

Charles wants us to be with him, and Violet simply wants to be. When off leash and permitted to do anything, Charles wants to play racing games. Violet wants to explore on her own, roll around, leap, and do a couple of figure eights. She'll let you know when she's finished.

My angle on this pet peeve is my observation that many people adopt or buy an animal to satisfy a need they have. They want love, companionship, snuggling . . . unconditional love. This is the ultimate insult about this type commodification: buying love by proxy. And if they're not satisfied, they can return the animal and say "we never bonded." Is there an unwritten law that animals we purchase or even adopt are obligated to shower us with their unconditional love, or we have every right to return them?

We take an animal in because they need a safe, loving home where their needs can be met and they can enjoy (or not, depending on their disposition) the rest of their lives in comfort, without fear, and with plenty of appropriate stimulation. Not so they can boost our self esteem. If you have issues with self worth and want to feel loved, get a therapist and work all that out. But don't require that the animals in your care give you the type and amount of love you want.

Alec's Story

I don't usually do this, but you have got to go to the blog of Nicole, who has a PhD in Sociology with an emphasis on animal studies, and who works in the Animal Law Program at the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The blog is called Alec's Story, and though I was originally going to write about "Conditional," and I probably will tomorrow, there's so much going on in the story of Alec and Nicole that anything I could write wouldn't be nearly as important as reading the blog first.

Have a great Saturday!

On Vegan Grenades

You know those jokes that you get a minute later that are referred to as joke grenades? Well, I think the grenade metaphor also applies to conversion to veganism. There is often lag time between the critical mass event and its accompanying decision to go vegan--and the the actual doing: being a vegan. There's intention, then the becoming, then the vegan.

I don't personally know anyone who read a book or a pamphlet one day, became a vegan the next, and is still a vegan. I do know people who became vegan (also after watching "Earthlings") who are now vegetarians, pescetarians and run-of-the-mill omnivores.

What does this mean? Just that we humans can know one thing to our core, we can believe it entirely, and yet, we can do what basically is the opposite. Exhibit A: Mary Martin, PhD--Animal Person. Remember how I went vegan overnight in the 80s and then in 1998 ate filet mignon and salmon for almost two full years? Exhibit B: My animal-eating husband, who about six years ago said: "Trust me, I feel the same way you do about animals, but I need to do this on my time. If you push me, I'll be doing it because you want me to do it not because I'm ready." And four long years later he said: "The only reason I still eat animals is because you keep buying them and cooking them for me."

That was some very lengthy lag time. But he did it, seemingly overnight, but it really took years.

What happened in those years? Not one book, that's for sure (he reads about golf, history or the economy). Not even my abysmal brochure that I would do completely differently (I'd probably leave out the entire first page) if I had the inclination. And not even Earthlings.

He did see "The Witness" and a version of "Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home" just prior to the final cut however, and both reinforced his direction. And, most important, he has me. I'm no prize to be married to, but I do shop and cook and bake and forward links from The Discerning Brute. We go to dinner and events and he sees how I handle people's endless queries or even hostility to the way we live. We role play with questions or comments he gets at work. In short, though I'm just one person, I'm probably the most important person in his life and I support him.

And I don't judge him. Someone who goes from vegan to vegetarian to eating cows isn't really in a position to judge anyone.

My mother and sister have also had similar paths (to my husband) and have cut animals out of their dining habits almost completely. And shockingly, my dad intends to, but his wife is adamantly against the idea and is making it difficult for him to live by his newfound beliefs.

In short, just because you know that something is right doesn't mean you're going to behave accordingly. If it were so obvious that it can be easy and convenient and affordable to go vegan, we wouldn't have to constantly be showing people how easy and convenient and affordable it is to go vegan. Most people have had decades of indoctrination (that they haven't ever noticed) into a culture that assumes myriad uses of sentient nonhumans, not to mention our god-given right to do with them as we please. And then there's all that twaddle about it being "natural," which clearly isn't getting the deconstruction it's begging for as it's easily dismissed once you think it through.

When you've been vegan for a while, I'd say it becomes second nature, but really it's like becoming who you should be and are most comfortable being. But if you're like most people, that feeling didn't come easily (despite that you can't imagine feeling any other way now).

Vegan education, in my experience, is a multi-pronged, multi-year effort if it's going to be sustainable. You're not helping someone change their diet, you're helping them deprogram themselves of misconceptions and hypocrisy, and everyone has their own timeline and their own unique basket of objections and obstacles to sort out. The trick is to listen and hear what their issues are and guide them to responses to those issues rather than tell them what you want them to hear, and do it in the way they'd be most receptive to--according to the way they best learn.

And if you persevere, and their intentions are indeed to stop using animals, it'll happen. Maybe more like a grenade than a shot, but it it'll happen.

Deconstructing Spencer's Comment

As much as I don't like responding to comments that are hostile, they also demonstrate a lack of understanding/education/knowledge on the part of the commenter that perhaps, if remedied, might result in a different opinion.

Such is the case with Spencer R's comment from my brief post recommending The Botany of Desire. Spencer R writes:

Vegans sound exactly like religious fundamentalists. You can't pull the god card to claim superiority over the rest of us so you demonize the consumption of animal products. It's an absurd point of view that really has no logical backing whatsoever. Trying to convince people to go vegan is like trying to convince people to only reproduce once. Sure it would help the planet, but there is no way in hell it's ever going to happen.

It's an especially ridiculous concept because the vegans in modern western society would not be able to maintain their living standards without the exploitation of dirt-poor humans in third world countries across the globe. You purposefully choose to ignore facts like that though when citing the "cruelty and injustice" involved in the rearing and slaughter of animals. You're hypocrites essentially, and the worst kind in my opinion. Loud preaching hypocrites utterly convinced of their infallability.

There is a fine line between optimism and pessimism, it's called realism and (most) vegans have absolutely zero concept of what that is or how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles.

A few patient individuals chose to respond to Spencer R, and I'd like to deconstruct his comment and add my own response because what he writes isn't uncommon in its tone or its content.

• The first three sentences, unpacked, are: Vegans are like religious fundamentalists who act superior and demonize of the consumption of animals. Our beliefs and the way they are manifested are absurd and not logical.

We are people who believe that using animals when we don't need to, and certainly killing them when we don't need to, isn't right. It simply cannot be justified. Logically, it is a perfectly sound position.

• As for a world of vegans being improbable, I wouldn't disagree with that. However, we are not vegans because we necessarily think we're going to succeed in worldwide veganization. We are vegans because it's the right thing to do if we claim to believe that sentient nonhumans are not here to satisfy our wants, desires and profit motives. Should we all wage war because it's unlikely that there will ever be peace on Planet Earth? 
• Saying, "sure, it will help the planet," says that the planet isn't important enough to try to help, particularly if everyone's not going to do it (in the context of that paragraph). Who's not logical?
• The second paragraph, frankly, is a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure what being a vegan has to do with exploiting poor people in third world countries. Perhaps Spencer R would like to look into Eric Schlosser's work, such as Fast Food Nation, and also the recent "Food Inc.," not to mention read more writing by actual vegans. We are not ignorant of the exploitation of humans that often goes hand-in-hand with the exploitation of nonhumans. And we are also not ignorant of the fact that though slaughterhouses often employ unskilled and illegal immigrants, so do tomato farms and other fruit and vegetable farms, particularly right here in the Sunshine State (here's one of my favorite organizations that does great work). As for being convinced we are infallible, the great equalizer in the vegan journey is that no one who lives in mainstream American society can be 100% vegan. We avoid harm and exploitation as much as we can, at least for me with regard to people, the planet, and nonhuman animals. But to claim perfection or infallability--now that would be "absurd."
• Though this comment is riddled with hyperbole and judgment, the final sentence is the probably the worst offender. To say that people whom you do not know have "absolutely zero concept" of "realism" (and I'm assuming that means "reality") and "how it needs to be applied to our daily lifestyles," after calling us ridiculous, illogical, absurd, and hypocritical, is a strange way to make your point. So strange that I'm not sure what your point is.

Spencer R, here is a suggestion: Without calling me names, and without insulting me, tell me of this "realism." Explain it to me and please include how it needs to be applied to my daily lifestyle. And please don't include the tired argument about what is "natural." Is cooking food "natural"? Is marinating flesh "natural"? Is bread "natural"? Is people flying in planes "natural"? Are condoms "natural"? What does natural mean and what are the benefits of "natural"? And if you haven't, you might want to explore some sites that detail comparative anatomy and demonstrate how much more we are like herbivores than carnivores.

Thanks. You are welcome here any time, but not simply to rant. If you have something intelligent to say, we all welcome it.

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)?

Online Survey on Ethics and Animals

A new survey is getting the attention of many within the global animal protection community. Covering both moral and strategic issues, the "Ethics and Animals" survey will provide a snapshot of our movement as of the present moment.

Everyone is invited to participate and share their views on what's best for animals. The survey is at EthicsAndAnimals.questionpro.com, and its closing date has been extended to Monday, July 13, 2009.

For other information, such as banners and links to the survey in other languages, you may visit the blog of ethiQUEST Surveys, the survey administrator: ethiquest.wordpress.com .

The results will be first presented and discussed at the 12th International Vegan Festival, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 22-25, 2009 (more about it here). Later on, a report containing the results and relevant parts of that discussion shall be published at: ethiquest.wordpress.com.

Chime in!

On "Food Inc."

(Sigh.)

Here's the idea you have to get used to when it comes to Food Inc.: One message is that there's nothing wrong with eating animals, and in fact it's fantastic and thrilling and a win-win-win (people-planet-profits) when you eat animals that were "produced" by Polyface Farms. There's no remotely vegan or even vegetarian (though I'm not even sure what the latter would look like) message. We eat animals, and the CAFO system is an evil, filthy, cruel one, but it doesn't have to be that way. The moral of the story is that it's all about the way we farm animals, not that we farm them that is what needs changing.

Film is a visual medium and through direction, dialogue, editing, music and any effects, the filmmaker presents (in this case) his agenda. And though I left my notebook at home and was one of three audience members at yesterday's 12:10 pm showing and could easily have taken notes, I think I should be able to say what I need to say without exact quotes.

Everything you need to know about what director Robert Kenner wants to say about animals comes a bit more than half way through the film with what I can only describe as a giddy, ecstatic Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms. The tone of the film has just changed from here's-the-terrible-state-of-affairs to look-how-some-ingenious-individuals-are-doing-it-better, and enter Salatin, grinning ear to ear, as he and his family/friends toss chickens upside down into those cones where only there heads stick out so you can yank said heads and access the attached throats to slit. Then they yank the heads, slit the throats, and de-feather and gut the chickens. And all while inspirational music is playing and a breeze is blowing across the fields on a gorgeous, sunny spring day. They grill the chickens, and trust me when I say it's all presented as a peak spiritual experience.

Now, if you can get beyond that, and if you haven't read Pollan and Schlosser and seen King Corn and The Future of Food (both of which are far more thorough on gentically-modified food, corn and Monsanto), you might actually learn something. I tweeted that according to Grist's "Should You See Food Inc.?" quiz, I got a resounding No, so I did know what I was walking into. The film wasn't made for me, so it's almost unfair of me to critique it as I have considering I don't have the same beliefs as the filmmaker or his main sources when it comes to an enormous component of what/whom he calls "food."

Here's the lesson: We have all been lied to about where our food comes from and what goes into making it and who is running the show. We have (and this is true of so many things in this country) the illusion of choice when we go grocery shopping. We are made to believe not only that the tens of thousands of products available in the store come from different companies/sources, but that they are the result of good old fashioned farming that to this day we teach our children about in their books and their toys.

In addition, our system of subsidies has made it so that it is less expensive to exist on fast food than on fruits, vegetables and grains. And then the way we eat causes diabetes. And then the medication we must pay for costs so much that we have to continue to eat fast food rather than choose to eat well because the money that could have gone to eating better has to go to the medication for the disease caused by eating poorly. That's criminal.

Luckily, we know who the criminals are who have put us in this position: the politicians who either came directly from Monsanto or the poultry farmer's association to a position of making food policy, or who are simply bought by them. Our own legislators have put us in this position because they and their friends benefit from it. They are in league, also, with the people who continue to strike fear in migrant workers by performing regular arrests (not of managers, though, but of people more easily replaced), and keeping people with no rights terrified, at tremendous physical risk, and extremely poor.

We also know that many companies with admirable business practices have been bought by colossal corporations (e.g., Tom's of Maine by Colgate, The Body Shop by L'Oreal, Kashi and Mornigstar by Kellogg) and that if voting with your dollars means anything, you need to find out who really owns the food you're buying.

If you dare, check out this small chart and these diagrams, and also please let me know if you know of any from 2008 or 2009. If there's a lesson in Food Inc., it's that you don't know what's in your food or where it came from until you read the label, and then investigate beyond the label.

On Cat Killers and Mental Competency

People in South Florida are still in an uproar over the mutilation and slaughter of 19 house cats (allegedly) by 18-year old Tyler Weinman, who was declared mentally competent and not a danger to himself or others (!). There have been inquiries as to the possible relationship between his dissection of cats in school and the 19 counts of cruelty he is being charged with. (Felony animal cruelty is the cruel killing of an animal, and he is also being charges with 19 counts of improperly disposing of an animal body.) The four counts of burglary he is being charged with carry a heftier sentence than the animal killing. Weinman had participated in cat dissection in school, and that is being discussed as a possible trigger for his behavior.

The outrage I've been seeing and hearing is typical, as we like cats. We humans have decided that, for a combination of reasons that are important to us, cats are worthy of our respect. I do find it interesting that there is a subculture we've all seen via vicious bumperstickers that attest to the existence of people who hate--and I mean hate--cats and want to see them dead or dying. I also find it interesting that I've never heard of a woman among their ranks. I don't trust people who hate cats because there's something else going on there. Cats represent something: independence. Cats are slaves to no one, at least according to their reputation, which in my experience holds true. And people who want to kill those they cannot control scare me.

I can't think of another animal so hated by humans that they have actually created an industry to publicize their hatred and their wish to hurt and kill them. We don't say we hate cows. In fact we say we love them. Grilled. We don't say we hate pigs and want to see them writhing in pain and slaughtered. Pigs definitely don't get much respect from humans, but the evil (and I can't think of a better word and I don't mean it in a religious sense) I see around cat-haters is different. There's sadism there, and that's not good.

I don't know if dissecting a cat corpse can lead to the desire to steal and mutilate 19 live cats; that seems like a stretch. If someone had it in him to kill cats and cut them open and toss out their entrails, I'm fairly certain that cutting open a dead cat isn't the reason. At some point, he was going to kill cats and cut them open. What is most surprising is that he was declared mentally competent, as mentally competent people don't go around killing cats.

Or maybe that's not so surprising.

Mentally competent people, oddly enough, go around mutilating and killing deer and ducks and cougars, though, when doing so either is in season or some governmental body has decided their numbers need trimming. And mentally competent people slice the throats of flailing cows hanging by one leg. And mentally competent people chain calves to crates. And mentally competent people shovel hundreds of day-old male chicks at a time into what is basically a giant blender to be macerated. And mentally competent people tear babies away from their mothers, as both wail in distress and agony. And mentally competent people anally electrocute mink or skin them alive.

And some mentally competent people know that all of this occurs and they still eat and wear animals.

On Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal

Stephanie's post about "The Compassionate Hypocrite" on Saturday reminded me of what Catherine Friend and other "compassionate carnivores" are doing in addition to twisting the definition of compassionate beyond recognition. Their claim is that what has become the customary way to take sentient nonhumans from babyhood to untimely death is not humane. It's cruel. There's no "compassion" in the process. It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly.

No argument here.

However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. No factory farms, no large-scale operations where animals are crammed together under a roof, never to see the light of day. No hormones, no "feed" that is unnatural for them and/or genetically modified.

I'd say no argument here if this were some kind of sanctuary situation, and the animals were in need of a loving home for the rest of their lives. But the entire purpose, which cannot be glossed over with any amount of creepy love letters, is that Friend and her ilk are being kind to the animals because they believe animals who are less stressed are tastier, and because, just like the CAFO owners, they will profit from their efforts (and perhaps more, as they charge a premium).

Yes, I do think it's better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered.

But looking at it that way is allowing Friend and others to distract you from a far more important issue: none of this is necessary or justified. No one needs to eat sentient beings, so it's not as if these "farmers" are providing a valuable service to humanity. And regardless of how you treat someone when they're live and regardless of how you kill them, if you don't need to kill them and you're doing so merely to please your palate, how do you justify what you're doing? You can't (at least not in a meaningful way).

Getting people to move their focus from the final chapter of the story of the animals--and I don't mean how they died, but that they died--allows you to appear to be the good guy. It allows you to swoop in with an alternative to the disgraceful human behavior that is factory farming and provide a kindler, gentler way to partake of the flesh of others. And if those whom you're addressing are willing to drink the KoolAid you're serving, plenty of profit awaits.

But the real good guy is the one who, like Cheri and Jim and Howard and Harold says (and this is my paraphrasing of everyone): Yes, I have profited from the lives and deaths of sentient nonhumans. And now I regret that because I realize there is simply no way to raise an animal with the intent to kill that animal and call it anything but betrayal. I wouldn't do it to a dog, and I shouldn't do it to a chicken/sheep/cow/pig. It's just not right.

Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A treacherous giving up to an enemy. (Here, that enemy being Death.)

2. A violation of trust or confidence, an abandonment of something committed to one's charge.

Interesting definitions of betray include:

2. a. To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of.

4. a. To lead astray or into error, as a false guide; to mislead, seduce, deceive (the trustful).

There is no question about the motive here: seduce the sheep into believing you care so that they are easier to deal with and easier to lead to slaughter. At least CAFO owners don't use that kind of deceit--of their customers, the animals and themselves.

On The International and Father's Day

Someone on Twitter said The International was the best film he'd seen in years. I think it was in theaters here for all of a week, which is a good sign, as the better a film is, the shorter its tenure at the local multiplex in South Florida. But you only find out how long it's in the theater when it leaves, and by then it's too late to see it. Interesting quandary if you're playing the I'll-find-it-somewhere-next-week game.

Was it a great film, in my opinion? Not fantastic, but good. But what kept my interest was the topic, and how true it is (badly phrased--weapons sales aren't so much about controlling the war but controlling the debt). And there are loads of goofs that confused me and made me stop and rewind to determine if my eyes were wrong. Then there were the predictable twists.

And some of the dialogue was of on-the-nose variety that all screenwriting books tell you to avoid like the plague. But the dialogue I liked was of the Greek chorus-variety or even the "Confucius say . . .". My favorite lines were:

• I'm more comfortable tense.
• What you need to remember is that there's what people want to hear, what people want to believe, everything else, and then there's the truth. . . . The truth means responsibility . . . . That's why everyone dreads it.
• The difference between truth and fiction, is that fiction has to make sense.
• Character is easily kept than recovered.
• Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.

Thanks to my dad, on Father's Day, with whom we studied film as he studied film at Columbia when we were tots, for teaching me what to look for when I see, and listen for when I hear. And also for teaching me that just because a film or an idea isn't popular, doesn't mean it isn't great.

Happy Father's Day!

On a New Level of Absurdity in the Slaughter Business

Bea sent me a link to an article in Gourmet called "Humane Slaughterhouses," by Rebecca Marx, that is absurd. And the absurdity is in the reality that the author and the featured person who kills sentient nonhumans for a living, think they're onto something. And they were, before they stopped their train of thought prior to it reaching its most important station.

Let's deconstruct:

• The heading is: "Okay, so your steak comes from a cow that lived a happy life--but how did that life end?" It's a cow who--who--lived an allegedly happy life. And I guess this is where the pro-death penalty people might have an argument. They believe you can take a life that doesn't want to be taken in a humane way, and I don't agree. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
• The voice of Temple Grandin is of course the foundation. And when that happens, you know what direction you're headed: the justification of taking the lives of sentient nonhumans to please the palates of humans.
• The second paragraph needs to be looked at sentence by sentence. "While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter." It's not an ostensible paradox; it's an actual paradox. But of course the success of the author in manipulating the reader depends on the reader's belief that the paradox is indeed "ostensible."
• Interestingly, the campaigns of happy meaters are acknowledged for perhaps being somewhat of a scam with the next sentence. "Words like 'pastured,' 'grass-fed,' and 'free-range' are now synonymous with quality meat; they carry a potent if symbolic meaning that has eased many a consumer’s conscience and driven many a marketing campaign." Potent if symbolic? In other words, it's a scam.
• Finally, "But the idea of how an animal meets its ultimate fate is usually ignored—until, of course, we see YouTube videos of sick cows being hauled to their deaths on bulldozers." The animal is an "it," but I wouldn't expect anything more in this type of article. And though being hauled to their death on a bulldozer is terrible, any other form of slaughter at the hands of another, on that other's timeline and terms, is nevertheless slaughter. It is murder. But by presenting that example to the reader, the author positions herself to then present an alternative that is worlds better by comparison. And perhaps that "better" will distract the reader from the undeniable fact of the unjust slaughter.
• The featured slaughterer is Bev Eggleston of EcoFriendly Foods, who says, “My perspective of what is humane is broader than how you harvest a cow. It’s how we treat humans, too. . . . To treat animals fairly, he needs to treat his workers fairly." Wait . . . harvest?
  
• Here's where the train of thinking falls short of the station: "Because of his plant’s small size (it employs 15 laborers), his unwavering conviction that 'the animal needs to be respected,' and his concern for his workers’ welfare, Eggleston’s operation is an expensive and relatively inefficient one." Seriously, folks, if you are going to respect someone, you're not going to hold them captive and kill them. What kind of definition of respect includes: I don't need to kill you but I'm going to because it will make me money?
• The chef's perspective is represented by Dan Barber, who serves Eggleston's meat. "For him, the importance of humane slaughter manifests itself in the quality of the meat." The needs of the cow aren't even mentioned. That sounds a lot more honest to me.
• At last we come to Grandin's thoughts: "Ultimately, for Grandin, 'humane' is a loaded word. 'I’d rather say low-stress, painless slaughter,' she says—ideally as stressful as a vaccination shot. The biggest obstacle, she feels, is quantity. 'Quality and quantity are two opposing goals,' Grandin says. 'But there’s a sensible balance.'" Where to begin . . . All you need to know is one word: slaughter. The rest is just noise trying to distract you from what's really going on.

For all of the verbiage that is supposed to convey legitimate care, and care that is above and beyond the norm, one thing will always be true: these people are in the business of killing sentient nonhumans for profit. They have no moral justification for taking the lives of the nonhumans other than that certain humans like the taste of their flesh but don't want to do the killing themselves. 

It's absurd that this has to be said, but respecting the needs of cows is the same thing as respecting the needs of dogs. It involves not killing them. Not eating them. And there's no way around that. Even death by vaccination shot doesn't change that.

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.

On a Replacement for "Bullshit"

Here's an e-mail from a linguistics junkie for your consideration . . .

Is using the word "bullshit" un-vegan? Does it perpetuate linguistic-based speciesism? Ditto with horseshit, chickenshit, dogshit -- they're speciesist by default, if not always used in a speciesiest context.

I never associate the word with actually shit from a bull. BUT... we need new words that are cut free from exploitation. Just as people have chosen to jettison their slave names sometimes generations later, it's never too late to get the exploitation out of our words.

Also, I think it is easier than most people think to create new words. Especially if there's a need for a better word.  And everyone has their private vocabularies among their kids or friends.

I invented a word couple years ago, which quickly took root among friends: Whiffdoodle.

Here's the definition:

wiffdoodle - Also spelled "whiffdoodle." The iteration of an idea or plan (for an invention, business, civic improvement, etc.) which one knows he or she will never have the time, energy, or talent to execute. e.g., Chris: I had a high-quality wiffdoodle the other day.  Wanna hear it? Cindy: Chris, your entire life is a wiffdoodle.

In a very short time, it's become very natural to the friends of mine who use it. It works, has a Roald Dahl quality to it. And the meaning is clear.

The lesson: If you pick the right phonemes (memorable, fit with existing ways of making words, etc.), you can easily get new words into use.

So here's a whiffdoodle: A book or series of books (maybe just a wiki) of replacement words for speciesist terms -- of which there must be thousands.

For "bullshit," I'm still trying to find a substitute in my own vocabulary -- once I do, will let you know.

Any ideas? Any thoughts on the speciesism or un-veganness of "bullshit"?

Deconstructing Slate's "Pepper" Series

For those who didn't read the five-part Slate series "Pepper, the stolen dog who changed American science" by Daniel Engber, I recommend it for the history, but also for the misconceptions and assumptions that you might want to discuss on the Facebook discussion about the series.

Let's deconstruct:

• Part I: Where's Pepper? I addressed this one last week. Beloved family pet Dalmatian, Pepper, is stolen, and after several weeks of searching is discovered to have been experimented on at a hospital and died on the table when researchers tried to implant her with an experimental cardiac pacemaker. My fears about what the rest of the series would involve were all realized.
• Part II: Man Cuts Dog. This one gives us a look inside the mind of the vivisectionist, Daniel Engber. There's a vague sense that perhaps he cares about the dogs or thinks that what he does to them might present an ethical dilemma, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's all worth it. About cutting a dog open and stopping the flow of blood to her heart, he writes: "Remember to move quickly, as the dog can endure only a few minutes in this predicament. (You can buy some extra time by presoaking the animal in a basin of ice water.)" For Engber, who dispassionately describes procedures most of the time, the "advances" in the medical care of humans are all well worth what he and other vivisectionists do to dogs and other sentient nonhumans. He writes, "The dog remained a vital tool in biomedical research for more than 300 years and was the vehicle for a remarkable run of medical breakthroughs."
• Part III: Pepper Goes to Washington. The tiresome Hitler was a well-known vegetarian comment is included in this segment, but I found it irksome long before that. This morning, during the Facebook discussion, Engber writes (and the first sentence is reason alone to chime in):

  Bring on the PETA hotties! Actually, I didn't quit neuroscience as a result of the experiences described, but I did quit working with animals. By the end of my time as researcher, I was performing behavioral experiments on humans. But that's neither here nor there -- I'm very supportive of animal research in principle. The point of my series was to introduce some of the difficult questions that don't often get asked within science, precisely because of what Alina has so aptly described as the "climate of fear" that pervades the lab. It's one that's brought on, no doubt, by the acts of vandalism and intimidation of radical animal-rights groups, but I think it also serves to insulate the research community from any responsibility it might otherwise have to increase transparency and public engagement with the work. I'm sure we could do a much better job of ensuring the humane treatment of our laboratory animals--but at this point it's very difficult even to start the discussion.

When Slate wrote me saying I might find this series interesting, what they don't know is that we who are invested in not torturing any sentient beings don't ask the same questions Engber is asking. "How long should one animal be used in the lab before it is euthanized?" isn't really on our list of questions (he asks that in the FB discussion).

I think he also doesn't know that not all of us think that chasing down Class B dealers is as important as working to shut down animal experimentation and create more alternatives. He's right with his implication that stopping the seizing of pets and strays simply created a more efficient, effective means of commodifying and torturing dogs and cats. But there is a significant contingent who is not as enamored with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act as he is. It "guarantees humane treatment?" Maybe on paper.

• Part IV: Brown Dogs and Red Herrings. This one addresses the decreasing number of dogs and cats being experimented on and, without mentioning it, discusses speciesism and our affection for dogs--pet dogs particularly (and especially purebreds)--which leads to our revulsion with the idea of snatching, vivisecting and killing them. Of course, "That's not to say dogs didn't have their niche in biomedicine. Medical schools, in particular, made ample use of them for education and research in surgery and cardiology." And thanks to the efforts of groups such as PCRM, that ample use isn't so ample anymore.

Engber mentions that in 1972, the USDA put into place "a special exemption for rats, mice, and birds, allowing scientists to treat them however they saw fit—in cages of any size, in experiments with any degree of pain and suffering. That exemption remains in force, despite Schwindaman's later attempts to overturn it. To this day, 95 percent of the animals used in research labs receive no federal protection whatsoever under the Animal Welfare Act." He differentiates those animals from what he calls "the cute animals" which is important and one of the few passages that I appreciated in this series. The fact that we care about--and fight for--animals based on how cute we have deemed them to be is disgraceful.

If Engber does a good job with anything, it's with pointing out the flaws in the strategies of pro-animal activists and in the outcomes of their campaigns. He concludes this segment with:

Meanwhile, rats and mice are subject to some of the most extreme and invasive experiments in biomedicine. By the early 1980s, we were spiking mouse DNA with cancer-causing genes; a few years later, we started to "knock out" specific lines of genetic code. (Scientists mapped out the entire mouse genome in 2002 and the rat genome in 2004.) We regularly subject rodents to pain, starvation, solitary confinement, and grotesque disfigurement. Whatever misery they endure is multiplied across the hundreds of millions of rats and mice used in labs every year.

The animal-welfare groups have failed in their most ambitious efforts to protect laboratory rodents. "We did and do strongly support the inclusion of rats and mice," says Cathy Liss, current president of the Animal Welfare Institute. "But the question is how can we properly address that? At this juncture, it's premature to go forward and rally support." With rodents off the table, though, it's not clear what's left for the activists to do.

• Part V: Me and My Monkey. This is where we get to see who Daniel Engber really is. He talks about "My research monkey," Clayton, and what he did to Clayton, and writes as if Clayton didn't mind at all. He was leashed, but didn't need to be, he recognized Engber and didn't want to kill him (until eight years later, which is very interesting), and he makes it sound like Clayton was having a good old time with his "2-inch titanium rod screwed into the top of his skull." He makes Clayton sound bored with his life of torment: "I remember the day he crossed his legs on the shelf of the chair and started strumming his fingernails against the wall."

Engber writes of experimenting on cats and on the "furtive language" vivisectionists use to decrease the emotional impact of what they do. "The word starving was replaced by fasting, bleeding by hemorrhaging, poison by toxicant; full-body photographs of lab animals were removed, and the pronoun it was subbed in for any use of he or she to describe them. Authors who referred to their animals by given names were instructed to use a string of letters and numbers instead."

Engber returned recently to the "monkey room" where Clayton was kept when Engber used him for research years ago and to his surprise, Clayton was still there.

If Clayton remembered me, it wasn't with fondness: He rose to all fours as I approached and grunted at me with his lips parted—an aggressive, open-mouth threat. There was little evidence of the adolescent who had cowered in the back of his cage eight years ago. As an adult, Clayton lingered near the bars, scowling. (I discovered later that he'd been separated from his old cage-mate Duper for fighting.)

I'd love to say that this was Engber's epiphany, and that he fought for Clayton's removal to a sanctuary and is now a powerful voice against the vivisection of sentient nonhumans. But that's now what happened.

Here's where we reach the point of the series:

Clayton was born in a breeding center; he grew up in metal boxes and spent his adolescence with a hole in his head and a coil around his eye. In 10 or 15 years of life, he suffered through multiple surgeries and infections and endless hours of restraint in a plastic chair. And for what? Pepper's death, at least, contributed to the development of the cardiac pacemaker—a revolutionary medical device that would prolong millions of lives. Every hour of Clayton's existence has been spent, and will continue to be spent, in the service of basic science.

"Yep, he's still going strong," my former mentor said when I returned from the monkey room. We stood outside a recording chamber, where another animal now sat in front of the monitor. Some people might not like the idea of a monkey working so long, he continued; they say it's better to use each lab animal for one experiment only or a series of related ones … but all the experiments in a given lab are at least somewhat related. "You could easily argue," he added, that the resources necessary to buy and train a new monkey would be a net minus for animal welfare. Why should we euthanize Clayton and start over? Isn't it better for science, and more humane, to use just one animal?

First of all, whether someone was born in a breeding center, under a porch or in my living room doesn't make them more or less entitled to a life free of enslavement, torture and slaughter. It does not make them more or less a "tool."

As an aside, each time I read the word "mentor," I got chills. To view someone who spends their life starving, piercing, mutilating, terrifying and killing others as a mentor is shocking. At least Engber was shocked to see Clayton. But not shocked enough.

Next, to say that the monkey is "working" is absurd and incorrect. Last I checked, work is something you consent to. You decide to do it, usually in exchange for some kind of payment you have agreed to. If not, you are volunteering. Neither of these words apply to Clayton or any other animal in a laboratory.

Finally, what Engber doesn't entertain is the notion that no animal--not one--needs to be in a laboratory and above all not one should be in a laboratory. He writes as if what he used to do--and what he defends--is morally justifiable on its face, and it's just the details that might be questionable. But the entire industry is questionable. The entire idea isn't justifiable.

Just because men did something that ended up helping people doesn't mean they should have or it was worth it. Engber is fond of listing all of the advances that came out of the vivisection of nonhumans, and my only question is: What if all of those researchers used retarded babies in their experiments? Or babies who weren't retarded? Or mute babies? Or they used blind babies for experimental blindness treatments? And what if there were plenty of cures and vaccines that came from all of that? Would you advocate for continuing to do such research just because it yielded results? Wouldn't you at some point say: That's not right--we need to stop that immediately and put our money and energy into finding alternative ways of performing medical research.

For me, and others who respect the lives of sentient nonhumans, experimenting on those nonhumans isn't right. We need to stop it immediately and put our money and energy into finding alternative ways of performing medical research.

See Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for more on alternatives, and chime in on the Facebook discussion or e-mail Daniel Engber with your thoughts. If you want to tweet about it, use the hashtag #whpep.

On Why I Pick on The Left . . . and Cookies

Sometimes I get comments that make me realize I wasn't clear about a fundamental point, or I assume everyone remembers other posts or has even been to Animal Person before. That hit me with a comment by Hoofenhoffer regarding "Steve Best on The Left's Ignorance of Cognitive Ethology."

Hoffenhoffer writes: "For starters, I don't really get his gripe with 'Leftists' in particular. Why are Leftists to shoulder the blame for the exploitation of animals simply because of their tardiness in arriving on the animal rights scene? Too many people are pointing fingers at the wrong folks these days."

I have the same gripe Best has with Leftists, hence my affection for this piece. And though I don't think they should "shoulder the blame," I do think that because their ethos has always been one of championing the downtrodden, the exploited and the voiceless, and pointing out how the system is set up to most benefit those few who are in power, animals would be a natural fit as a major cause for them. But they apparently don't think animals are important enough to stand up for, as they're not part of the platform of the average Leftist.

And I think they should be.

I think that it's odd, for instance, that someone so ensconced in human rights does not notice the parallel when she grabs her grilled chicken caesar salad for lunch. It smacks of compartmentalizing, or perhaps just plain denial. And Leftists are supposed to be the people who do notice where, how and why various kinds of oppression and exploitation cross paths. They're supposed to be the people who have figured out that the entire system is rigged against the weak and less wealthy. And those unable to speak for themselves.

I also liked Best's article because, though we all may have read Bekoff (and I'll write about Wild Justice soon!) and de Waal, I don't think the average person has. So while Hoofenhoffer may have found that part yawn-inducing, I think that because the writing isn't over-the-top, and because it quickly reminds us of (and dispenses with) arguments of human exceptionalism, it's a great piece for someone who is not Hoffenhoffer. For instance, I'm circulating it to some friends who are Leftists who give me the same tired reasons (excuses) for continuing to use animals.

As for cookies, well, I am at the end of week one of gluten-reduced week, and my two favorite parts were, of course, desserts. Brownie bites by Babycakes (but with date sugar and agave nectar instead of granulated sugar) . . .

And here are "Gluten-Be-Gone" Chocolate Chip cookies from Dreena Burton's "Eat, Drink & Be Vegan."

Have a great day!

Steve Best on The Left's Ignorance of Cognitive Ethology

Steve Best's verbal presentation of his ideas sometimes irks me. It's over-the-top, for me, and I often resent the time I must spend working through the ranting. But "Minding the Animals: Ethology and the Obsolescence of Left Humanism" is a different read and a great look back at how we humans have managed to always find a way to consider ourselves unique, despite what the reality of the nonhuman world tells us. If you haven't appreciated Best's style in the past, give this one a try. Here are some of my favorite passages . . .

[S]ince the opening of modernity five centuries ago, human beings have had to confront (for starters) four major discontinuities which problematized their alleged radical uniqueness and special status in the universe. In each case, "rational man" had to rethink human identity ¯ his species identity common to all other humans, or rather, all those counted as "human" and as part of the valuer´s community. In quick succession, the reflexive members of Homo sapiens had to overcome scientific and philosophical false dichotomies and illusions of separation from the infinite cosmos, the animal world, the unconscious, and machines. Humans had to engage, even if to deflect, the theoretical developments that increasingly decentered their place in a Platonic perfect unchanging universe allegedly constructed for them to lay down culture and "civilization" over nature, which has meaning only when seized for human purposes.
. . . .
Having misled us for so long about animals, science is initiating a revolution in our understanding. Through evolutionary theory, genetics, neurophysiology, and experimental procedures, many scientists are providing strong evidence that animals feel and think in ways akin to us.
. . . .
With traits allegedly unique to humans running out, philosophers and scientists claimed that only humans have minds complex enough to allow a sense of self-consciousness or self-identity, but, alas, chimpanzees and other animals demonstrated significant degrees of self-consciousness too.
. . . .
The praise of humanity´s multi-faceted achievements is well-deserved, but this stunning radiance also has a macabre and dark side that is an inseparably part of human history and nature; it involves an equally long history of violence, warfare, massacres, genocide, hierarchy, domination, colonization, environmental destruction, and extermination of other species.
. . . .
If humans have for so long failed to understand animal minds it is because their own stupidity, insensitivity, and deep speciesist bias have for so long blinded them. But now the blinders are coming off, and it is time Leftists take their own off and wake up to the fact of the ethological revolution and its profound implications for human identity, our moral relationships to nonhuman animals, and to politics. While it took the Left a good century to catch onto the importance of ecology, and to begin merging concerns such as justice and autonomy to sustainability and ecology, the Left has consistently devalued or ignored the plight of animals, failing to understand this as a profound moral issue in its own right, and as an indispensible lens for understanding the current global social and ecological crisis.

Check out the rest and let me know what you think.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rooks can use tools 'just like chimps' (guardian.co.uk)
• Why can we talk? 'Humanized' mice speak volumes (scienceblog.com)
• Chimp 'showed malice aforethought' (guardian.co.uk)
• Mockingbirds bear a grudge against particular people (guardian.co.uk)

On Responding to Jokes that Feature Animal Abuse

Here's the problem: A friend doesn't respect my veganism. My evidence? She jokes about it. She jokes about eating animals. And then I get this . . .

Here's something to think about.

I recently picked a new primary care doctor.  After two visits and
exhaustive lab tests, he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age. (I
just turned 57.)

A little concerned about that comment, I couldn't resist asking him,
"Do you think I'll live to be 80?"

He asked, "Do you smoke tobacco, or drink beer or wine?"

"Oh no," I replied. "I'm not doing drugs, either!"

Then he asked, "Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?"

I said, "Not much.... my former doctor said that all red meat is very
unhealthy!"

"Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf,
sailing, hiking, or bicycling?"

"No, I don't.", I said.

He asked, "Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?"

"No.", I said.

He looked at me and said, "Then, why do you even give a shit?"

Yes, we all get it. What good is life if you're not taking advantage of all it has to offer. But I don't see it that way. My goal is to be the best human I can be and make the world a better place and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. It's alien to me to view life as about my own pleasure primarily, and I guess that's where this particular friend and I differ.

I'm fairly sure that if I raise this topic it won't go over well, and outside of this issue there are no problems, but it's a big one for me. Though I don't ever equate veganism with religion, let's just say I were a practicing Orthodox Jew (is practicing Orthodox redundant?). Would anyone (particularly a non-Jew) ever think it's acceptable to tell me jokes that featured mockery of my beliefs? Do I just have no sense of humor? Should I be laughing?

Why is veganism . . . let me rephrase . . . Why is the torture and slaughter of sentient nonhumans to satisfy one's taste buds so easily made into a joke by some people? (She recently joked that Charles' tail would make a tasty soup--which I actually saw as progress because a "pet" was being viewed as food and that's usually taboo.) It might be true that first unconventional ideas are ignored, then mocked and ridiculed, then finally accepted, but the mockery part can be very disappointing at times. Particularly when it comes from a friend . . . who's a veterinarian.

On What the Animal Ag Alliance Thinks of Us

Through all of the damage control and message-neutralizing I have to do due to PeTA campaigns or someone lumping me with PeTA--or the HSUS, for that matter--I always remember that the real enemy of my cause is someone who wants to convince the world that there is nothing wrong with using animals when we have no need to and who profits from the "production" and slaughter of sentient nonhumans.

Bea directed me to an interview with Dr. Elizabeth Parker, the "chairman" (my emphasis) of the Animal Agriculture Alliance at CattleNetwork, which apparently is "The Source for Cattle News."

Let's deconstruct:

• The interview reminds me of how the industry views us and how little they know about the community of people who care about the lives of the animals brought into this world for one reason only: to kill and eat them.
• The industry calls us all "animal rights activists" and of course uses the ridiculous "extremists" (read: a person with a principle manifested in her actions) and the Communications Director of the AAA, Philip Lobo, says of extremists, "many of whom are vegans, who are willing to use drastic measures in their attempts to impose their dietary choices onto others." Of course, Lobo is missing the point entirely. If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others. Are we pinning people down and force-feeding them vegan burritos? 
• According to Parker, here are the threats: the ALF, the ELF, SHAC, PeTA and the oddest member of the group, the HSUS. "The Humane Society of the United States is the big bully on this strange playground. Often confused with American Humane Association, they raise tens of millions, not to ‘save the animals’ as most people assume but to further the causes of vegetarianism and ending animal agriculture." I wish their mission was to end animal agriculture. But I see no evidence of that and I'm not sure how Parker comes to that conclusion. They do appear to wish to put an end to what they believe are the worst abuses of institutionalized animal agriculture, such as gestation crates and veal crates, but that's hardly a call to end animal agriculture. The HSUS isn't even anti-hunting!
• Parker uses the term "anti-modern farming activists," which is new to me. I prefer "anti-unnecessary slaughter of sentient nonhumans" and it has nothing to do with perceived modernity. Besides, is the "modern" veal crate something to be proud of? It's a great spin, though, making us appear like we're somehow way behind the times. Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times.
• Here's the part that's most frightening if Parker really believes it (and I assume she does): "I would say most of the anti-agriculture/activists groups that exist are a tremendous danger, not only to agriculture, but also to the United States and our world. 'Activist' has become a profession in itself. Most exist as self-serving entities to solely keep themselves in existence. It’s not really about the issues, being constructive, or improving the world." The exact opposite of this is true, however. Our intentions and actions move us toward our goal of making the world a better place. And of course what we do is about the issues. The choices we make each day reflect our believes. We live our issues.
• Finally, there is some truth in this, but for reasons Parker is not aware of: "Millions of dollars have been raised by these activists groups under false pretenses, with the very real result of causing harm to animals. In the bigger picture, it is dis-heartening that these activists groups cause so much harm to the very animals they profess to be “defending”. Many of them have the real goal of abolishing animal agriculture. Amazing isn’t it? It’s sad that so many well-meaning people, who genuinely care about animals, are giving money to these groups, not knowing what it’s actually being used for. Just think of all of the positive things that could be accomplished with that energy and money." It is true that millions have been raised under false pretenses, but the reality is once again the opposite of what Parker believes. Vegans give money to organizations that they think are going to further their vegan cause but that's not what ends up happening with all 100% of those donations (let's assume some goes to vegan education or animal rescue or even open rescue). "Just think of how much vegan education and animal care could be accomplished with the money in those large organizations" is what I would say to Parker.

This was my reality check for today: someone who defends animal agriculture as a tradition (i.e., we did it yesterday so we should do it today) and because there's profit in it. Perhaps "modern" should instead be defined as: ceasing to do what we did yesterday because we realized it was wrong.