Thursday, July 31, 2008

hope we aren't getting carried away!

Some, however, don’t accept the terms of carriage. We don’t trust the ‘carrier’. We choose not to travel on this train despite the fact there are virtually no other trains running. Society makes it difficult to jump off the train and they don’t allow us to change the route it takes, so we have to accept what we are given. Shape up or ship out. We have to accept the whole journey without question. We either commit to the moral norm or we abandon the whole thing altogether. If we leave, we then have to reappraise each moral code individually according to ethical instinct.
Ethics are like the rail network or rather the hills and valleys which determine the routes of the network. They may lead us towards the same end, but the difference is that we allow ourselves the opportunity to make our own choices - to take the fast route, a more scenic route, a low energy-consuming way or a less exploiting way. Each ethic is probably quite logical, otherwise it wouldn’t have survived for so long as a way to get to where we want to go to. Ethics are our compasses.
There are several ethical routes to choose from. The choice has to do with exercising free will. Morality deprives us of this element of choice. We are not meant to make judgments on nasty stuff we see. On the contrary, we should show obedience by smiling as we go about our business. Even when chewing the body parts of our beautiful brothers and sisters of the animal world. Morality demands obedience. It imprisons us, as it does the animals, on a one way, windowless, slow-moving train.

a slip in our brain function

We started to take advantage when we took to horses and chased the animals with guns. Now we’ve made it even easier for ourselves by herding them, capturing and breeding them in captivity in order to kill them and eat them. It’s brutal but it’s all done with minimum inconvenience to ourselves. It is a long way from the original fair fight or equal chase! In the age of factory farming, we’ve done a global warming job on our ethics. Even though it may merely be a slip in the brain function of the human, it is nevertheless a crucial one. We see our own vain image reflected back to us in various ways. We see it reflected in the panic we feel over the current ‘climate-change’ threat. In terms of our treatment of captive animals there should be a similar panic and a consequent massive reduction in our cruelty emissions. For that to happen the liberation of animals must be the first step, where we can start the practical implementation of rescuing animals from the dangerous clutches of the ‘users’. Some humans are convinced we should stick with convention and a traditional Western diet and lifestyle. Others say no, because we can no longer rely on society’s codes of morality to keep us ethical.
From the point of view of vested interests, morality has served a useful purpose. It has mobilised consumers into spending their money on goods - such as animal products. The animal industries have put their products out there, everywhere. The consumer uses them without a second thought.
On this train of plenty, people ride in complete confidence with the promise of better times ahead. As consumers, we’re not usually educated about food. We are lulled into a false sense of security by people who do what most of us would never do (for a job). They misinform, they spin and they sell. They make sure we are never morally challenged by using animal products. But by using them we each buy a ticket to ride. And so we all (nearly all) ride the same train as everybody else and know it will carry us all the way to our destination. The train driver seems to know where the train is going and for that reason alone it wouldn’t occur to most of us to get off and walk the tracks instead. If we keep our seat on this train, we believe we’ll be shown the way through, even though we don’t fully understand it. By accepting its authority, we agree with its version of right and wrong. Most people accept the given morality of their society, of their parents, of the majority with whom they identify. People follow morality as spoken by priests, politicians and teachers, even though it has been weakened by double standards. The driver of this train has well and truly lost his way.

enter the monster

Behaviour that isn’t obviously harmful, is different to behaviour that is. Sex outside marriage or homosexuality may be considered immoral in some societies but it’s hardly unethical. Rape and murder, however always is. It’s the authorisation of certain things as being morally okay when they’re obviously wrong, that makes us lose our confidence in authority and in society’s standards of morality. Watching chickens hanging upside down shackled to a conveyer which is taking them into the cutting blades is so obviously immoral, that for a society not to outlaw it makes people lose faith in its whole take on morality. Vested interests lay the rules it seems. People must eat chicken! In order to get people to cooperate, authorities convince them that what might seem unethical is in fact quite moral. For most people that’s the green light to go ahead, because it’s been morally okayed. Similarly when a society says that polluting the atmosphere or spoiling the environment is necessary for the progress of modern society, it becomes the norm and eventually it is no longer questioned. This is why thinking, caring people are beginning to turn their backs on their own society. Vegans, for instance, boycott all animal products. They reckon drastic action is called for in these circumstances. Animal Rights is a wake up call on an ethic, on a natural instinct gone awry. In the beginning, we may have hunted animals on foot, with pointy sticks. It wasn’t very efficient but it worked to some extent on the predator-predated principle. All animals, humans included, lived together that way. Then as time passed, humans overstepped the mark. We stopped being predators and became monsters. It’s this monsterisation of human nature that vegans refuse to be part of. The violence has gone berserk.

justifying the unjustifiable

Even though each of us would like to be known as a compassionate person, as soon as we consciously decide to buy something that is unethical, the game is up for us. It’s the same when we buy a ‘pet’ from a pet shop. It means another ‘pet’ will be bred to replace the sold one, so the cage is never empty. Whether first or second hand, whenever we buy an item made from animals, we create a vacuum for another item to be produced to take its place. To offset this is impossible. There are no carbon credits for animal use! Even when we think we’re being generous, in thinning out our shoe rack, we fall into the same trap. We give away a pair of shoes to someone who needs them: we leave a space on the rack which gives us an excuse to ‘go shopping’ for more.
The idea of "justified robbery", stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, may be considered ethical. Stealing from the poor to make the rich even richer, is never justifiable. In this way then, nor is stealing the life of a voiceless animal! We do it only to benefit ourselves, and to hell with the victim. This magnitude of thieving is no different to the exploitation of children or the desecration of a forest. It’s just that same old human habit - using our advantage to harm the harmless.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

what the eye doesn’t see …

In our society, we are encouraged not to know about animal issues. Factory farms, abattoirs and animal laboratories are closed to the public. But it’s unlikely the public are keen to visit them anyway because they are such ugly places. More importantly, it’s frightening to see how easily we kid ourselves. We reckon we can’t object to what we haven’t seen with our own eyes. We also reckon that if our educators thought we should know about all this, they’d have taught it at school. If we aren’t taught something then we reckon it’s probably not worth knowing about anyway. And if any of this warped logic doesn’t sway us, we can be sure that our own backup defence shield will swing into action, to act in our best interests. We know all too well that if we take on board issues concerning animals, we’ll be inconvenienced. One realisation would lead to another. For example, as soon as dairy products were implicated in the cruelty argument, everything made with milk would be ethically infected and our conscience would pressure us into avoiding dairy products altogether. That spells inconvenience big time. If vegans are left to say why they boycott dairy products, they will threaten our whole existence. If we let them show up our ethics we’ll feel compromised.
Imagine then what happens when the same arguments are applied to our wardrobes. Health arguments obviously don’t apply here. Leather shoes, for instance, are not "bad" for you, but they are hardly ethical items since they come from slaughterhouses just as meat does. (Leather is not so much a by product as a co product, since its production is very often on an economic par with meat). Our most fashionable attire is often associated with the ugliness of abattoirs. Even vegetarians who still wear leather can’t justify it and that puts them in a difficult position. If one is compromised, one can’t hold (let alone promote) an animal rights position. And so that is a problem for many people seeking liberation for animals who are still propping up the animal industries.

middle roaders

This great gulf of perception between animal users and vegans does have middle ground but it looks weak, compromised, convenient and hypocritical. The middle-road meat eater gives a bit by eating free range eggs or drinking organically fed cow’s milk, but essentially they continue being indifferent towards animals. A vegetarian avoids meat but still takes care not to go too far, for fear of becoming too radicalised, or being too different from friends. For them leather shoes are okay, as is wearing silk and wool or eating butter and eggs – “boycott all of this and you’ll go crazy”, they say. So, it’s the middle of the roaders, as distinct from the uninformed, who know enough but who are still unwilling to act and who (from our point of view) are ethically most at risk. We urgently need to make contact with them. But this is where things get tricky for vegan educators, because to the middle roaders the biggest threat to their self esteem comes from vegan argument.
If vegans want to entice middle-ground people to disassociate from animal slavery altogether, they must act as guides rather than inquisitors, educators rather than judges. Vegans need to be informers of details – about what happens to animals down on the farm, about the practicalities of applying vegan principle to daily life. It’s our job to show willing, to allow anyone who is considering change, to take the initiative of changing themselves without being shoved from behind by us.

poles apart (from a vegan view)

For vegans the perception is exactly opposite. But because we are in the minority and what we say largely ignored, for us it may feel as though we’ve moved to another planet, where the horror of animal life on the farm is highlighted, and we are tormented by thinking about it. ‘Our subject’ is unlike any other subject; it isn’t like a hobby or something we can be casual about, it’s a matter of life and death for us. For us it’s a matter of righting perhaps the most terrible wrong ever known to our society – the mass enslavement and brutal killing of innocent beings. For us, this is not an attitude we can agree to disagree about, because we see it as a dangerous attitudinal disease affecting our whole species. Our stand on animal slavery is something many of us feel must be argued strongly, so that we can drive our central point home - that animal slavery has got to end. If we are ‘abolitionists’ who think no animals should ever be used by humans, if we propose a total ban on animal food, we will almost inevitably come across as being unbelievably radical and confronting. But, to us, that position isn’t violent, it is simply a matter of passionate promotion. It’s as if we were selling soap powder, only unlike soap what we are selling is pivotal to future human development. In our eyes the changes we are proposing are essential. That’s our view.
However, we only need to hold that view, not necessarily force it down peoples’ throats every time we talk to them, or every time animals are mentioned. There a time and a place for our vegan voice. Just as much harm can be done by sounding off at the wrong time as good done by sounding off at the appropriate time.

poles apart

There’s an enormous difference of opinion between the protectors of animals and the users of animals. Many of us who are animal (or environmental) activists have been involved for so long, that it’s possible we’ve forgotten how it felt when we still accepted things the way they were, living as an integrated part of the mainstream community. And now, all we know is how it feels to be part of a minority and to be shut out of discussing these matters that are so dear to our heart. But for non-vegans things are very different. On these issues they’ve always been part of the majority, a majority who eat any foods they like. Just to take one example of a routinely used product, cheese. To most people cheese is always just cheese. There’s as much thought given to the origin of it as one would give to the origin of sunlight, it just doesn’t enter the thought process. So when we say “no dairy products” (which includes cheese), the cheese eater cannot connect that food with something they do that’s wrong. We can talk all we like about animal slavery but to them cheese will just be cheese and vegans will just be weirdos.

ethics starts with non-violence

Apart from veganism being a great diet, it is also an ethical diet and has a double bonus in its non-violence principle. Animal activists may not yet realise how vital non-violence is.
If we accuse someone of being violent because they eat meat or dairy products, that accusation may be construed as a "violence" in itself and for that reason alone we should think carefully before making that accusation. Any hint of confrontation, aggression or violence loses us the valuable opportunity to discuss things rationally. Once someone feels they’re being attacked, they’ll counter attack, and so on. The discussion will go round in circles and central arguments will get lost. If we end up ‘shouting’ at people who disagree with us, they will simply walk away and their hostile attitude to animal rights will become even more entrenched. They’ll always be suspicious of our hidden agenda, that we want to subvert society by liberating all the animals. And, to them, this might seem destructive in the extreme. To them it may even be terrorism, an accusation of which would be the ultimate counter attack. And then it’s only a matter of time before denigrating food is written into a ‘patriot act’ and carry heavy penalties. The animal industries supported by consumers certainly already have the political clout to bring this about.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

nutritious arguments

In a debate the animal righters have a much bigger problem dealing with matters of vegan nutrition, making a case for the safety and healthiness of a plant-based diet. If, for instance, we say meat is bad for you, healthy young people may not agree since they’ve eaten meat all their lives and feel okay. They’ll likely hit back with “go talk to a sixty year old. Not me. I’m not interested in ‘the health repercussions’ of my meat diet”. Their fear of illness is still a lifetime away.
It’s easy for us to get bogged down in nutritional arguments (although obviously, nothing is lost by each of us learning as much as possible about vegan nutrition). We need to emphasise "ethics" and win people over this way, with one or two directives:
1: that plant-based diets are safe and all nutritional needs are met from plant food.
2: that vegans need to take about ten micrograms of Vitamin B12 every day for the rest of their lives, unless blood tests show that to be unnecessary.
For more information we can advise people to “Google” vegan nutrition or read Michael Klaper: 'Vegan Nutrition', and Gill Langley: 'Vegan Nutrition'. There really isn’t much serious disagreement these days ,that vegan argument is incontrovertible and vegan food is nutritious.

bring on the debate

If this were a debate, the subject might be as interesting as it is controversial. Two opposite positions. All very ordered. But in the real world outside the debating chamber, stereotypes, prejudices, half truths and misinformation abound. Before things can turn around, there are two things to get clear, activists must seem to be okay people (ie not aggressive) and the meat eaters must seem fair-minded (ie not dishonest). No progress can be made until people discussing these difficult issues know that we still "like" them and they are willing to “respect” us.
Because we are taking the initiative to draw the majority towards a minority view, initiating the debate, then ours is the responsibility to set the standards of behaviour. If we can get our non-violence across at the outset, then we establish a fair footing. We seem to be most confident when we are at peace with our position. We need to show faith in the power of logical argument so that we never feel the need to go on the defensive. And because we have such a powerful argument anyway, there’s no need for us to lose our advantage. But to get the pot boiling, we might need to be a bit cunning. We are after all coming from a minority viewpoint, so we need to find just the right opening for what we have to say. Demanding our right to speak isn’t going to do the trick. We have to let them want us to speak. Even to want to take us on. We can’t pick the fight. We can prod and kid and fool about with people’s sense of their own truth, but we can’t make them respond to us. It must come from them, this wish to talk about all the issues, including cruelty and animal slavery. However hard they try to defend animal use, however hard they try to argue that “it isn’t cruel”, their arguments ultimately fail on this one unsupportable premise – that animal use always involves violence and is therefore unethical. As soon as they engage us in discussion we don’t need to labour the point, merely mention it. Nothing much more needs to be said when they know we know they know!

Monday, July 28, 2008

confronting – does it work?

Unless vegans are asked to comment, it’s likely they’ll only impress the converted. Anything they say uninvited, about animal rights or vegan issues, is likely to set off alarm bells. People don’t like being morally confronted at the best of times, but they hate it when it concerns their meals! If vegans dare to question food choices, people will put us in the ‘whacky’ basket. They’ll feel justified in denigrating anyone who voices their opinions about another’s private habits. They’ll see it as excessive chutzpah. But for some activists that would be okay. They say these people deserve to be confronted … but the freewill of people allows them to walk away from confrontation. So, who wins?
The alternative to this bulldozer approach is for us to strike a balance when talking about Animal Rights. It depends on who we are talking to. Face to face we can soon judge whether there’s a genuine interest to hear what we have to say or if a person is building a brick wall against what we are likely to say. If we ignore the signs and treat everyone the same way, those who are in resistance to us will associate us with the stereotypical bully activist and have no trouble in pushing us away. And these are the very people we should be trying to reach.
Society is split on this issue, as to whether there should be rights for animals or no rights. The latter are in the vast majority. In most parts of the world this question is never brought up. But in those few countries where the question of rights for non-humans is widely discussed, no other subject hots up as quickly as this one! There are dramatic clashes shown on the TV news, between those representing the animal industries and animal activists. The activist tries a bit of moral bludgeoning, their adversaries denigrate them … and it’s been like this for decades, some progress is made but nothing in the deep psyche of the population is touched. There are still many people who have never even thought about these issues. And these are the ones who are more surprised than anything else when the subject is aired. For them, using animal-food is as natural as drinking water or sleeping at night time. A meal is never seen as an act of violence. In all innocence they might show some curiosity and ask us why all this fuss is being made. Maybe they learn something important. Maybe it shocks them so badly, their sky falls in. But enough for them to want to take up a vegan diet? Perhaps not. For those who are more familiar with the subject and our advocacy of animal rights, our arguments may be so familiar that their responses have already been rehearsed for maximum resistance. It’s likely they will avoid us and our arguments like the plague.
Animal Rights is never discussed willingly by anyone who uses animal products. This is the big stumbling block in animal advocacy.

nowhere to hide

“Coming, ready or not”! New attitudes are making us step outside our comfort zones. We’re hopefully trying to apply (non-violent) ahimsic principles to just about everything in sight. If we can achieve this we maximise energy all round, especially if we don’t squander it on those old habits of judging, disliking or disapproving of others. The focus needs to be positive, and by setting the standard that high we can drop the value judgments altogether. We’ll wake up one morning and like ourselves and our life the better for it. Even to the extent of liking those who don’t agree with us. We can plug the energy drain and then concentrate on getting good ideas across.

violence SOS

Violence would have been dropped long ago if it weren’t that humans are so quarrelsome. Our thirst for war and our need to practise domination over animals has been our undoing. In particular, this violence would have disappeared if we hadn’t become so hooked on yummy foods and a number of other comforts of life associated with products from the animal industries. But now we are having to face up to things like climate change, our own carbon footprint, mass starvation, high incidence of obesity and water shortage and each of them can be related back to decadent lifestyle and the enslavement of animals. We are beginning to reassess things, personal things, about on which side of the attitude barrier we stand. Climate change has been a jolt to our present complacent consciousness. We’re beginning to see the need for radical changes to our very thinking patterns. And if we are to eventually save the world we’ll be saving our souls at the same time. We can either do it easily or do it kicking and screaming. The choice is ours. The SOS is out and we can’t ignore it for very much longer.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

idealism goes a long way too

Ultimately, we need people to listen to us. We need to give them information about things they’d normally never listen to (like animal rights). We need to make them want to listen. Gone are the days of making people think our way by showing them ugly abattoir scenes.
A first introduction to the subject should include the “what’s in it for me?” factor. Interest will be ensured if we mention the good points about how things could be in the future and how we get from the present to the future (now to then). As activists, our only role in all this is to offer the complete picture of how things could turn out and how we as people could turn out.
If a picture of a better future isn’t included in what we say we’ll be regarded as bores and anything of value won’t be taken seriously. Instead we’ll be seen as anti-pleasure and anti-convenience. If we are passionate about creating a non-violent world, we have to sell the picture of how things might be WITHOUT a slave trade in animals or abattoirs or animal farms. We must allow people to create their own reality in the form of inevitable good times ahead . . . as if the ideal isn’t unattainable. And while altruism may seem like dull daily bread, if one day it becomes normal and natural to be so, then it will be only a matter of time before non-violence merges with non-judgment, and a mature human begins to walk the earth. Then we’ll all be able to breath freely, at last!

Saturday, July 26, 2008

self deprecation goes a long way

We should do as comedians do. They risk everything by laughing at themselves to get their audience on side. They get the human dynamic working for them before doing anything else. As activists, we should try to be effective whilst appearing non-violent at the same time. We have to take a few risks in that same comedian’s spirit, by self-deprecation and being prepared to laugh at ourselves. In the hands of a comedian (whose jokes, shall we say, are being aimed at vegans) we would be portrayed as ‘bleeding hearts’, animal lovers, fussy eaters, tree huggers, etc. There’s no reason why vegans shouldn’t be able to laugh at all this; to enjoy the joke. In this way, we can show we aren’t afraid of being sent up. We can show we are confident of our facts and views, and it also proves we have a healthy sense of humour (without which animal rights advocacy doesn’t stand a chance)! By letting anyone who is interested see our naked side, we can show we trust them. And we can also show we don’t consider ourselves better than anyone else - vegan diet notwithstanding. If we can let others see our clowning mask, we’ll be better able to show our serious side too. If we come across as a bit weird - so what? As long as we have a sense of humour plus a clearly non-violent tone in our voice, then our words can fly free and we can’t do too much damage. What we have to say won’t be too drastically reacted against or too easily dismissed. Our message needs to be sung in much the same way that difficult-to-listen-to music is rendered; it’s done well but without need of apology.

a nice bit of violence

Violence is popular because it is low energy. All it needs is one snide remark or a punch in the face to get maximum effect with very little energy output. When we’re afraid to go the longer way round we resort to good old tried and tested violence. We become hard nosed to get a result, like the ‘sugar hit’ we get from being judgmental about someone else, making our values look better than theirs. We draw energy from feeling good about ourselves, in comparison to the guy who is bad-without-doubt, which in turn makes it easy for us to dislike the bad guy. When things don’t go right it feels so much better to have someone to blame. We use the judgment-pick-me-up all the time. But does any of it work? Maybe not, because our judgements eat us up. They make us sour and stop us looking for the best side of the people we are with. They consume energy we could be using more constructively.
To become both non-violent and non-judgmental, we need to be both selfish and unselfish at the same time. We need to balance our spending of energy with what we want to get back in return. If what we do is all selfless we’ll likely not be able to keep it up. Better to get this flow of energy from ourselves and to ourselves working nicely,so that we'll be less inclined to dip into violence.

affection & disaffection

The affection and intimacy we reserve for our much loved pet is the same affectionate interaction we’d like to have with our fellow humans, neighbours and work colleagues. But we haven’t quite got there yet. Haven’t quite got that level of intimacy where we can meet a new human and automatically tickle him/her under the chin or stroke his/her hair (as we do to dogs)! We are far more reserved! In our human relationships we don’t always act spontaneously. We pre-think action, perhaps because we are afraid of one another. “Shall I be firm with the child or draw out their inner kindness?”. “Shall I trust my neighbour or set up rules of engagement?”. It’s about safeguards. It’s about being prepared for the appearance of the nasty side in people. The most dangerous thing we can do is trust. A dog is so loyal and guileless that however friendly we are, it’s never enough. They always want more of the same. But with humans it isn’t so. If we get too friendly, people think we have ulterior motives. And we think that if we are too trusting, we’ll be taken for a ride. But trust is essential for non-violence to get a foothold. We can make a start by giving other people the benefit of the doubt. Looking for the good points, making what we do satisfying and if any sneaky violence creeps in, we overcome the worst of it with affection. But is all this approach a luxury? There’s so much work to do? So much need for efficiency? We fear wasting energy just as we fear lost time and when patience fails we go in hard instead. With that one decision, to no longer be intimate and affectionate, we behave coldly and in that way we step towards violence.

a personal code of conduct

Our own ethics have to be constantly upgraded to keep pace with the increasing levels of violence and the mirror-image vanity of today’s society. As complicated as it may seem, it really always comes back to the difference between an intelligent way to behave and an unintelligent way. All this would hardly be worth a mention if it wasn’t for morality imposing ridiculous codes of behaviour and making nonconformity to them almost forbidden. But in our western world, during the 1960s, a lot of the main moral codes began to fall apart. They were laughed at and to a certain extent the baby was thrown out with the bathwater and we did experience unnerving doubts about who we were, etc. But out of that something else appeared. We began to feel a certain independence from authority. Our instinctive feelings contradicted convention. Personal morality began to challenge authorised morality as contradictions became exposed. As we lost confidence in authority, so we began to question good, bad, right and wrong. Even though an ethics revolution didn’t exactly catch on (except in the expanded consciousness of hippy revolutionaries) the morality bubble was burst. Now, today, our choices are no longer automatically made in accordance with given morality, but by applying a personal code of conduct to our relationships, to our eating habits and to treading more lightly on the earth. It gives us some hope of making a breakthrough in our human conduct.

morals

In the morality-driven world we juggle with the absurd notion that, whilst thinking ourselves peace-makers we can still afford to continue with a few violent habits. The example has been set by the double standards of our educational and religious institutions. They advocate non-violence but come unstuck over this troublesome issue of animal exploitation. Our leaders know that it would be dangerous to encourage people to alter their food choices or to mess about with that one big resource at our disposal – animals! For them to advocate stoping using them, to liberate animals in fact, would threaten the stability of society, so the connection between animal cruelty and violence is underplayed. In fact they attempt to hide it from the public (especially kids who aren’t taught about what happens to the animals they are eating). This makes our society’s moral codes look decidedly dodgy. On top of this, the authorities say certain harmless behaviours (like protected fornication) are immoral whilst ignoring the immorality of routine attacks made on animals. That’s quite confusing! Even destabilising. Our general disillusionment with society’s moral codes encourages people to go back to basics, to their own instinctive assessment of what is right and wrong. For our moral guidance we can no longer trust people in authority. So the very idea of authority based upon tradition begins to look old fashioned, weak and therefore ridiculous, which it certainly shouldn’t be.
It seems that most of us want to see ourselves as ethical people. In most respects we may lead our lives ethically and feel pretty good about ourselves but not if it comes to the part we play in the imprisoning, attacking and killing of our fellow animals. Not if we take the trouble to examine what we do.
If anything that we do as a society is written up as being morally acceptable it must first undergo scrutiny, be taken seriously, debated and decided upon. But, on this thorny problem of using animals, that’s what people are reluctant to do. Morally and ethically speaking, our attitude to animals doesn’t stand up well and neither does our habit of trying to brush it under the carpet..
A personal ethic reinforces the connection between our principles and the practice of them. It gets us over the hump of where a new habit, like an animal product boycott, is helped along by reminding ourselves of the ethic from which it arose. A good ethic gels with instinct. Humans usually get excited by anything they do that feels like they’re developing some life force, as when dealing with birth, nurturing and caring. It’s this core attitude, core ethic, that shows us how to ‘attitudinalise’ our adult life to the point where we can work things out for ourselves by letting answers gradually fall into place.
Part of growing up is discovering that we have innate knowledge about what and who we are and from that we develop an attitude of which ethics is a big part. This isn’t an outer, mirror-reflected image of ourselves but a felt image that seems to come from inside ourselves. Our self-identification process is used to relate to the outside world. A combination of self-produced and society-produced attitudes provide a guideline, to let us function at our best. If we’ve lost faith in society-driven ethics maybe we fall back on our own. Our personal ethics should make us feel so good about ourselves that we can carry this over to working co-operatively with others. If we feel we’ve done that successfully then again it’s another ethic that comes into play, that prevents us getting cocky about ourselves. The "ethics-behind-the-person-behind-the-action", lets us resolve matters without being righteous or using violent methods. Ethics exert a constraining force whenever we’re tempted to take the easy way out. Ethics help us to apply the accelerator or the brake where necessary.

double think

Here we find ourselves seated in a comfortable armchair, scouring the newspaper for courses in violent survival & learning how NOT to listen to the nagging voice of non-violence. We find an advertisement in the morning paper, which reads:-

Try Double Think And Feel The Difference
Double-Think shopping makes sense and it’s not difficult to master.
Remember: Double-Think is twice as good and twice as easy.

Not knowing, not making it our business to know, not wanting to know – they’re all great assets when you’re out shopping. Perhaps a little dangerous, but necessary. Forget anything you’ve seen or heard, about abattoirs & factory farming. They’re not true! Enjoy a clear conscience. Start to shop with confidence. Don’t settle for the ignorance that poorly educated people have, get straight into denial. We’ll show you how!
Everyone is doing it, so public-wise you won’t need to feel embarrassed …. But, do it now, and do it boldly. Remember, "Guantanamo farms" don’t exist and even if they did, it’s quite acceptable to ignore them. If we knew what was going on behind the scenery, we’d never enjoy the play, would we?
If you’re out shopping and you buy forbidden items, don’t be hesitant. Make a firm decision. Be deliberate. Let your shopping define who you are. Let it help the animal industries grow. By supporting them everyone benefits. If we can all work together it’s twice as good and twice as easy. Consider Double-Think and believe us when we say that animal death camps are not in fact death camps at all but efficient and humane facilities, bringing the public the best food provision service possible.
Don’t waste your time contemplating pictures you might have seen, of animals being tortured and executed. Start Double-Thinking today and enjoy what life has to offer you, the choice of what to wear and what to eat. You deserve to wear fashionable shoes and eat exotic cuts of lamb. Don’t get highjacked by ethics - use Double Think to get yourself out of tricky situations and difficult conversations. It’ll help you find the best the market has to offer. It’ll give you back the life you deserve! Double-Thinking is the hallmark of a dual morality, which says that we must be kind to one another but it’s okay to murder animals.

Friday, July 25, 2008

give peace a chance

In legend, the civilisation known as the Lemurians are said to have detested violence. They couldn’t face it. And they died out because they denied it. They became extinct because they weren’t dynamically non-violent. But the idea of non-violence didn’t die with them. It survived. And it is gaining prominence today if only because it is so badly needed in a world that is moving towards post holocaust, post atomic bomb, post factory farm and post animal experimentation. It suggests that we should give peace a chance.
Are we ready for it? Isn’t the world too violent for such ideals to survive, let alone grow strong? Maybe we should go the other way? We’ll never get our point across unless we hit people hard with it? It’s rather like a constant tussle between two personalities within us. The hard versus the soft. We know we have to survive in this harsh world, we have to make money somehow, we have to go shopping and buy things for our daily existence, we have to be a bit rough with the kids or they’ll take advantage of our kindness. The ideal gives way to pragmatism. We start to consider flirting with a little violence. A little corporal punishment might keep the kids from running riot. A few harsh words to our next door neighbour might quieten their noisy music! If others don’t like it, too bad! But, our ability to turn to violence is something we don’t like about ourselves and yet we don’t know how to do without it to achieve the results we want.
Violence is a close cousin of panic. When we are cornered, we search through the mad box for ways of making violence work for us, even without being fully conscious that that is what we are doing. It’s our safety valve and yet we don’t acknowledge it as such. We make a friend out of "double-think". Relief at last!! It’s like the unloved spouse we got married to, who we get stuck with, and there’s violence in our heart because we have to live alongside something unacceptable. We have to live with it as best we can. just so we can breath, so that our personality can justify itself. It might be ugly, it might be madness, but with a little mental gymnastics we achieve safety by forgetting about being the peace-maker and flirting with danger - the danger of double-think.

non-violent vegans

By making non-violence work on the habit level, we need to get used to it and acquire the habit of not faltering, not slipping back into violent ways even when we’re on the defensive. If we do still act violently then we still have attitudes we haven’t got to the bottom of yet. (We all find that one extremely embarrassing – our hard side being spotted).
Habits related to violence show up when we’re least on our guard. Often at home, where perhaps we are so well known that we don’t even try to impress. So when we roll out of bed and take our black mood to the breakfast table, things can fall apart quickly. Without considering the consequences, we say something hard, and with this one small violence the damage is done. It all happens so quickly, and then it’s hard to pull back. The atmosphere darkens. And we can’t take it back once our words come out of our mouths. We try to bluff it out, try to justify it, but whatever we say the feeling is left hanging, unresolved. Once the violent side of us is spotted, others remember we have a nasty side and from then on they avoid stirring us up. And so it goes … we begin to dislike ourselves ... then we resolve to become a truly non-violent person and to deny violence altogether. But good intentions may not be enough to deal with such a deeply ingrained violent past, which all of us have inherited from having grown up in a violent society. The nature of violence has to become a study in itself and habits need to be carefully readjusted if we want to acquire a truly non-violent personality … if that is what we really want. Being vegan is one thing, being a truly non-violent vegan is another!

yer on yer own, buddy

The phrase “blessed are the peace-makers” may not mean very much to people who are only interested in winning approval. But approval from whom? Being recognised by others could be great for the margibalised vegan … if other people’s recognition had currency. It might not, because most other people are ethically compromised and so their opinion of what we are might not be considered valid. If ‘they’ can’t be true leaders or role models, it means that peace-makers (vegans) must face being alone. They must survive and be strong enough to not need others’ approval. And they must be proactive into the bargain, strengthened solely by having found this one great cause and acted upon it. Thus becoming true peace-makers. For we vegans, simply by knowing that our habits have been remoulded for peaceful purposes, we should know we are ethically safe, relatively speaking. Feeling this sort of safety – is it enough for us?

motivation source

Perhaps I’m the sort of vegan who doesn’t want to speak about it. I just want to be accepted for my views. Then my only demand would be to feel as though I was doing something (by simply being vegan) to save the animals. But I wouldn’t be human if, on top of this, I didn’t want others to recognise me for what I stand for. Not for others to agree with me or admire me, but just to recognise that this is my way of being a peace-maker. Now that’s reasonable enough isn’t it? But if we expect that from others, we know it might be a very hard ask. Usually people’s reactions to veganism are neither logical nor kind – nor for that matter unkind. There is often simply a "non-response". A signal to say: “What might be important for you is not important to me and not worth talking about or responding to”. So for peace-makers, the very thing which is wonderful and brave and future-making in our own lives is, to others, not even worth noticing. Hardly very encouraging for us!
If there happens to be no kudos for a peace-maker, where do we find our source of encouragement? Perhaps from within. We need to tap into our sense of caring (in this case for the animals) and tap into our imagination, our faith, whatever it takes to replace the recognition we’re not getting from others. Beyond the rights and wrongs and injustice of all this, beyond the wobbly faith, the one true powerhouse of energy is seated in our own imagination. And that’s the point here. Maybe the catastrophe of our age is really only a crisis of "unimaginativeness". For vegans, we don’t tap into that energy source often enough and so we look outside of ourselves for motivation, find it in short supply and get angry about that.
But it’s much worse for our omnivorous friends who are even more out of the habit of working things out for themselves. They do what others do. Perhaps they reason like this: “others eat animals so I eat animals. Others don’t question so I don’t question”. But by not questioning or by not using imagination, none of us can develop our creativity – and so, we miss out on the golden chance of pursuing altruistic aims. Vegans may lead the way but any one of us vegans still keep hitting our own motivation crisis points.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

dynamic harmlessness

The dynamic doesn’t have to be mischievous. It might simply be the confident assurance of a person with a strong case which doesn’t need to be overstated. But whether full-on or underplayed, our arguments almost inevitably have the potential to stir the juices. As long as our dynamic side is founded on non-violence, we are safe, because it will be acting as a moment-by-moment checking system, making sure we don’t dip into warfare at the first sign of threat. Our communications need to keep up a dynamic theme devoted to generating interest in the subject we want to talk about.
If there is interest in what we have to say, we’re in luck! It’s like having an invitation to say what we want to say, to speak freely and let things rise to the surface naturally. That’s only possible, however, if we are given the invitation, so that we can make our point. Gate crashers beware!

making mischief

Even on such a serious subject as animal rights, there has to be a ridiculous side, the human side, which can always show us how absurd they are and how we are also capable of behaving absurdly. There’s so much scope for making mischief here and even more if we are poking fun at ourselves at the same time. If we can show that we value vulnerability in ourselves and in others, we can show that we are always on an equal footing with others and incapable of being spiteful, which makes us seem far less dangerous . . . and what we have to say that much more intriguing. There is so much material to send up in our fellow humans - the meat eater who doesn’t look carefully at his food, who doesn’t think carefully about its origin, who is the ultimate victim of circumstance. Then there are the activists who are focusing so intently on important issues, they forget how to communicate and become misunderstood and labelled ‘weird’ and made the target of parody. Anyone without ideals can be made to look like a buffoon and anyone with ideals and too much zealotry, is just as good for a laugh! And the ultimately shallow guy who follows the crowd, who has social cool but very little else. It’s all potentially laugh-at-able. This is mischief mixed with harmlessness. If we keep a light-touch to what we are saying, even when being critical, then we establish ourselves as having a sense of humour. We are seen to be taking ourselves not too seriously if only to let what we do have to say about the important issues be taken that much more seriously.
The light touch allows us to go further than any sermonising. The combination of dynamic mischief-making and non-violence lets us say almost anything we want to say - and get away with it. Point made: no hurt feelings. Just a few lightly bruised egos and some self-deprecation to release any tension. That’s one way of doing it.

going over the top

We mustn’t try to snare people or try to get them where we want them in order to more effectively inflict guilt, fear and shame, just to persuade them to our way of thinking. This approach has the whiff of aggression. When we’re on the receiving end we can get a premonition that cruelty is about to be inflicted upon us. For some animal activists, the handling of subjects so heavily charged with significant issues provides them with the excuse to "go over the top". When the subject matter is charged with passion, what follows almost bristles with inevitability, as if the decisive verbal blow has been rehearsed. Most of us have slammed our door in the face of the Jehovah’s Witness before he or she has even had a chance to get to this point. We have premeditated ‘the message’. Animal activists who try to use similar tactics meet the same fate and unfortunately "queer the pitch" for others who would never use such methods.
So is there a less direct way to talk about animal issues without World War Three erupting? Not so indirect that we don’t say what we mean, or so gentle that we can be easily brushed off? How can we be gentle AND dynamic at the same time? . . . Maybe by the use of mischief?

is our non-violence stable?

Unless we are under age or dependent on others to provide our food and clothing, it is our responsibility to make our own choices. They can’t be left to anyone else. We have to decide either to develop a hard nose or a soft heart. That central choice is relevant to just about everything we do. It’s our choice and it’s a private matter. But however soft hearted we are, say over the matter of animals, at some stage we’ll be asking if we are also soft hearted about people - especially when we are hoping to recruit them. However important we think a matter is, can we discuss things without getting heated? Can we remain friends with people who disagree with us? Can we be sure our non-violence is stable? Can we be effective without wandering into the minefield of proselytising and exhortation?
The reason for being dynamic in the first place is that life is about creating tension, stirring ourselves into action to get a reaction, and thereby bringing issues into focus. We might feel passionately about cruelty to animals and keen on being vegetarian, but as soon as we declare this (or let it be known that we think others should be vegetarians too) we are answerable for what we say and the way we say it. We might think we can tackle anything, including negative reaction, but we can never be sure if others can. If we are taking the initiative (for raising the subject) then we also have responsibility not to load on the shame, because there’s nothing like being accused of unethical behaviour to bring about a real humdinger negative reaction. This one subject, amongst only a few others, is an extremely sensitive one. When we criticise behaviour, we are really being critical of the person as well, and from their point of view this always feels threatening. Whatever we might say in public, we should think non-violence before we speak.

being non-violent through and through

Being non-violent is where no one need be afraid of us and therefore afraid of what we might have to say about non-violent food choices. In our conversations we should never go in for the kill. And, for exactly the same reasons, our food should never go in for the kill either, however tempting. The cruelty of imprisoning and executing helpless animals is something a non-violent person would never want to be party to. It isn’t a matter of safety or health; it’s a matter of the hardness of our hearts and the blinding of our eyes. A high price to pay for animal foods.
We probably, by now, know that plant foods are nutritious. We may also know that our food needs can be completely met by plant products because of the example set by millions of vegetarians and vegans around the world. That realisation undermines any justification for abattoirs and suggests the possibility of being able to lead a totally non-violent life. But because we know this and can apply it to our diet and wardrobe, is that where we stop? Hopefully not. A vegan might not want to go beyond food and clothing for fear of broadening the issues too far and becoming overwhelmed by the hugeness of their 'commission'. It may seem that there are too many changes to be made. But this isn’t a race to see who gets there first. There are many issues to consider and each one relates to the rest. Global warming, animal factories, relationship breakdowns, malnutrition; they seem to be unrelated and yet somewhere down the track they are destined to meet. Somewhere. If we want to see where the meeting point is, we need look no further than the daily presence or absence of non-violence. It’s a revolution in attitude, of which animal rights is but a part. Until one important idea meets another important idea, until we become sophisticated in our ideas, we won’t ever be able to understand what all the fuss is about. Non-violence seems to be a catch-all. When animal activists become involved in non-violent action, they see the connection between animals and humans, the environment and third world poverty. They realise that the connection between them all concerns the fostering of a peaceful relationship with everything. Our relationships, like our foods, must become cruelty-free. After that we don’t need to try so hard, things fall into place of their own accord.

Monday, July 21, 2008

non-violence

There are other, less energy-consuming ways to be effective. For example - In the world of politics, we only need to practise civil disobedience to effectively make our point. There’s no need for confrontation or swearing or hurling abuse. In the theatre, one gets more impact with satire than a bitter tirade. At home, a general stir-up is better than a family feud. If violence is always hovering like a bad smell, urging us to make threats or persuade people against their will, then non-violence is also present, advocating patience and promising even greater powers. We all have access to reasoned argument even though debating opportunities are still rare.
What is the main issue here, for Vegan Animal Activists? Is it about being non-violent or is it about not eating animals? These two issues should go hand in hand but they often don’t, because activists have a sense of urgency that overrides patience and non-violence. Yet non-violence is a more thorough way to bring about Animal Rights. It is achieved by attraction - through fashion. If Animal Rights becomes "fashionable", laws will follow. But . . . only when the people are actually cool enough to want the outlawing of animal exploitation. Non-violence allows us to take the heat off bad habits and thoughtlessness, to focus on intelligence. It’s our intelligence that lets us ask what we can do to reduce/stop global warming. Soon enough it will be intelligence asking what we can do to stop ‘animal warming’. The question we have to ask ourselves is surely: what position best promotes Animal Rights?

playing out violence

When humans ‘lock horns’ they don’t usually kill one another either, but they do a nice line in violent discussion! They bring out their sharp word weapons and engage their brutal feelings without realising what power they are exerting. By watching humans having a verbal stoush, you’d think they loved it! Once engaged in this way, their wish to be constructive soon gets lost in a sort of blood lust. When push comes to shove, humans become nasty. They don’t know how to be dynamically non-violent without becoming intimidating. Violence is so ingrained in us, that we go too quickly into that one particular high emotion. It saps our energy and frightens us into ever more violent and destructive behaviour.
If I’m a cruel person, violence comes easily to me. But it’s likely that most of us don’t want to be intentionally cruel. We’ll more likely regret becoming aggressive and yet once ‘done’ we can’t undo the damage. We don’t even try. Instead we let it fester - the air becomes charged with something uglier than we ever intended. It never occurs to us to use the emergency brake of "non-violence". Instead, we go further and further sliding deeper down into an energy drain only to find that we are making no progress at all. Panic!

human violence

Humans know how to be violent, but once violence is released does it then control us? Is this how we lose our real power? We think we are superior to animals, so anything they do is equated with inferior or weak behaviour. And yet they could teach us all about non-violent interaction.
Instead we stay violent, continue to exploit animals and non-violence is sidelined. The pressure of the competitive market ups the ante for the producers, specifically animal farmers, and forces them to be ever more violent to stay ahead of the game. For both producer and consumer the way animals are being treated is obviously obscene and any one of them may want "out", but the problem is, those who may want to stop the violence might not have resolved the violence within themselves. Humans can’t liberate animals until they learn to subdue their own violent natures. And so the whole sorry business just continues. What we do to them is bad enough, but it shouldn’t be too surprising to us. The way we treat each other when we disagree really shows us why we aren’t yet in a position to help the animals, even when we want to. The fact is, we don’t understand the peaceful nature of the animals we exploit and we certainly don’t understand how deeply violence is embedded in our own human nature.
We assume animals don’t think or speak. Nor that they have anything important to "talk" about. They just graze and doze. But we know well enough that they interact with one another and with great sensitivity. They can become passionate over sex and territory, but they also show remarkable wisdom in other ways that humans should (and can) learn from. When animals communicate and fight, what does it amount to? They face up to each other, they make their statement (they don’t usually violate each other) and then back off. Their aim is not to defeat or eliminate, but to lock horns. They don’t do violence because they have no need to. Nor do they need to "save-face". Animals don’t have gratuitously violent natures. Isn’t that something we humans can be inspired by?

Friday, July 18, 2008

fighting

But hey, it’s surely not about our own human sensitivities getting bruised. Is it? Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently living in Auschwitz conditions. Surely our own sensitivities pale to insignificance when compared to the suffering inflicted on animals. If we feel strongly about this, surely passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable? And wouldn’t it only be seen as a show of outrageousness, a bold move away from being Mr Nice Guy? But violence is violence. We are forced to ask if passionate advocacy can coexist with non-violence. If so, can we be sure our non-violent side is stronger than our violent side?
"Dynamic non-violence" is not the same as "not getting involved". It merely avoids our violent side being used for back-up. Take a nothing subject – the weather. We don’t need to get aggressive when discussing this, because the weather is out of our control. Animal treatment is different! We humans do control this, if not directly then indirectly. We do have a say in what happens to them. We help to keep them locked up. We are all involved. So it’s important to get this one right. The question is, how do we serve them in the best possible way? How can we act as their protectors? Humans, past and present, have subjected billions of animals to a barbaric existence. Many of us feel passionately about this, enough to "fight" for their case. But is the standard idea of ‘fighting’ appropriate or effective? Do we need to radically re-define ‘fight’, and therefore can effective advocacy be non-violent? Chinese proverb: When we fight it means we have lost our argument.

being opinionated, being violent

In this conversation we’re having, instead of cooling things down, perhaps I decide to go for broke. I dive down deeper. I get into the rough stuff. What started out as a robust discussion turns into a fight. The big question here is – can we afford to let this happen, between friends? Or indeed between anyone? When talk turns to fighting, our use of ‘dislike-tactics’ can win the argument. But at what cost?
Perhaps, the issue of Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone. If I think I’m right about an issue, I’ll want to defend my position, no matter what happens. I need to be true to my role as advocate, to defend the undefended. All very noble on the face of things, but the approach is often doomed to failure. This is where a non-violence policy enters the picture. If it can be part of our own approach to life, then it can also be part of our approach to others, especially when we’re talking "animals" with them.
If we understand the value of non-violence, we won’t get sucked into fighting. Instead we might decide to submit a little to restore good feelings. We might consider letting our feelings remain undeclared. But is that realistic or even honest? If we have strong views surely we shouldn’t pretend otherwise? And why should defending a position, a serious position, have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, provides the heady atmosphere that can blow cobwebs away, break a few barriers and let us re-examine attitudes. A frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable. Just by discussing it (Animal Rights) means we’re involved with each other. We are trusting each other. But are we? This subject is a classic divider, even between close friends. A vulcanologist never knows how big the eruption is going to be. Similarly, do we ever know exactly what will set another person off? Do we ever really know where their breaking point is or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them? How much can we trust another person even if we are certain we don’t want to hurt them or abort on them?

don’t get personal (heavy)

We can converse, we can argue, we can debate our case patiently, point by point, but it may not touch others where it counts if they feel negatively about us. If we do get to discuss this subject and if things get heated, how do we stop them becoming personal or even violent? If we are the salesperson wanting results, we can expect our adversary to feel like a customer being railroaded
So, where does it come from, this determination to say our piece, to sell a belief, even to provoke someone in order to get a reaction? Why, when things aren’t going our way, will we confront aggressively? Or if the shoe is on the other foot and it’s us being confronted, what does that feel like and how do we handle it? If we do take our conversation out to the edge, how do we pull back in time? How do we let any bad feelings blow over, especially within that vital microsecond, before we’ve gone too far? Why would we even care? It comes back to things getting personal. Judging values. Becoming antagonistic towards someone because of the attitudes they have. This is why having a foundation of non-violence grounding everything we do or say is so important.

conversation and bossing people about

Conversing is what we do all the time. We enjoy chatting to one another. Conversations are useful for working out what we think and how others are thinking … and indeed how they feel about us. But if we are too intent on talking about one favourite subject, we might be regarded as a bore. Especially if we show no interest in what others are saying. When we are coming from a minority view, and a moral one at that, no one is going to be happy if we grab all the airspace. It will be noticed. As soon as we start criticising someone for eating meat or condoning animal cruelty, they will want to stop us. If we don’t stop at their warning there will be a flare-up.
A light hearted chat between two people with opposing ideas, can soon enough turn into a full blown fight. To avoid this happening we have to ask ourselves some honest questions. Did I come with an agenda? Was I trying to manoeuvre things in order to make my speech? Did I have any thought as to how it might feel to others when I am confronting them, or how the tone in my voice reinforces my attack? Do I expect them to listen to me?
However good my arguments may be, can I afford to be too cocky or too embarrassing when I know they will want nothing better than to burst my bubble? They’ll fight me if they have to, to defend themselves against my bullying. And even if I am not a bully, even if I’m as nice as pie, this subject (ethics, animals, animal food, farms, slaughtering) is not a lightweight subject. It’s about a whole way of life. If people feel generally okay about their life, they’re not going to give way easily or casually pick up this "good" idea, just because we’ve bludgeoned them with it. A good idea can often be what the boss thinks.

getting a reputation

These days in conversation, I can speak up about what I believe in. But just because I think I am right it doesn’t necessarily bestow any magical power on my arguments. As soon as I attempt to persuade people, I find they’re not putty in my hands after all. They can’t be moulded to my will. And just because I’m vegan doesn’t make everything I say be respected. Therefore by being fearless with my words won’t necessarily impress. More likely I will be simply irritating. If I’m too outspoken, I’ll either be ignored or have what I’m saying denied, if only to save face. If I mean to make people feel ashamed, that will lodge in their memory. It will act as a warning for them that I am prone to moral lecturing. I will be resented for trying to make them feel ashamed. To add to their own justification, they’ll not only see me as preaching but of boasting about my own achievements. Unless handled carefully, "animal talk" can be unnecessarily dangerous. As Robert Louis Stevenson says: “All speech, written or spoken, is a dead language, until it finds a willing and prepared hearer”.

FORCE

Everything that might have seemed clear about the idea is, in reality, not clear at all. It isn’t just about diet, health, leading a cruelty-free life or avoiding unethical products, it’s also about forcing people to change for their own good but against their own will. It’s likely that most people will dislike the feel of our force rather than the idea we are promoting, whilst for our part we’re likely to be convinced of the need to use force to push them past their own inertia.
Maybe we should merely suggest. Like any truly successful salesperson, we should never try to sell, only help customers make decisions for themselves. If vegans choose to talk the subject up, inducing guilt and fear, they won’t succeed in instilling new attitudes. If the sales pitch is aggressive or has a heavy moral overtone, we can be sure our ‘customer’ will feel as if he/she is being ambushed.
By the way we come across, we will be seen by others either as someone to be close to or to be avoided. When people clash with us it’s usually because of the feelings that accompany our arguments as if we are loaded with disapproving value-judgement. As soon as anyone feels their values are being judged, there’s trouble. So we need to unravel a lot of attitude before we can start to talk productively about this subject – of the use of animals. Just because I’m right, it doesn’t mean to say I’m right!

Thursday, July 17, 2008

vegan solution – is it so simple?

Perhaps we begin to listen to ideas that might deal with our most pressing problems. We project ‘the good idea’ and test it out by putting it into practice. If the problem concerns our long term welfare or the welfare of animals we may consider the idea of veganism. This idea is pretty neat in that it addresses ‘cruelty to animals’ and improved nutrition, so we can see that this particular ‘good idea’ allows the vegan to lead a much more ethical life and a healthier one too. But for those who can’t come at it, this very same ‘good idea’ scares them. They might prefer to just live with the problem. Veganism may seem like too high a price to pay for peace of mind and a vegan solution might be off limits for most people. They won’t consider it and therefore won’t discuss it.
So when is a good idea not a good idea? Perhaps when people refuse to take it seriously? It’s usually because this refusal-to-consider seems so illogical to them that vegans try to over-sell their animal-free ideas. When we try to talk it up, we really only talk it down. It’s very controversial and, for some, so cut and dried that it’s a locked subject. Just this one idea causes such different and extremely opposite reactions in people, that the last thing meat-eaters want to do is discuss it. While, of course, vegans very much want to discuss it. Given half a chance, vegans will do anything they can to help install the idea into someone’s life. Trouble is, their enthusiasm makes non-vegans go into reverse. A good idea is not good if you don’t want to hear about it. So how do we turn this around? Vegans believe that a vegan diet is good for health and good for clearing the conscience. They have weighed it, tried it, become convinced about it. Like when you first learn to ride a bike. Once you can do it you want others to come along for a ride with you and you can’t understand why they keep falling off their bikes. They aren’t as "passionate" as you are. They don’t try as hard. We try to win others over with our "vegan ideas", but we often meet with resistance even with people we think we know. "Veganism" (in its ethical sense) seems to be the one subject that can turn our "friends" "unfriendly". What seems so simple at first …

problems we can’t shake off

On what basis do we assess what is important and what is not? One person eats meat and thinks nothing of it. Another would sooner die than touch the stuff. We’re aware of these two extremes of view. We more or less know the reasoning behind each. So, do we consider morals, economics or our own image? Do we take our feelings into account? It’s no good giving up eating meat if we hate the idea of being vegetarian. We have to feel good about our choices, otherwise they won’t work. However the problem won’t vanish just because we want it to.
We have favourite problems that we enjoy trying to solve - like looking for healthier foods, making more money or deciding what to wear. But we also have other problems that we’re forced to face, which are hard to solve and which we’d love to be rid of. For instance, the nasty business of what they do to animals on factory farms to produce the foods we like to eat - that can make us feel uncomfortable. But usually we put this sort of problem into the too hard basket and as time passes, we convince ourselves that it is an "unimportant matter". We usually have the support of our carnivore friends in this. Eventually we don’t give it a second thought. We try to forget it for the sake of our own ‘peace of mind’. Yet it’s not that easy if we have a sensitive conscience or an inquisitive mind. There are problems about our world which just won’t go away - solutions are clear but implementing them make us uncomfortable.

happiness recipe number one (too corny?? maybe not)

When we look at things coolly and calmly, we can see what happens. The 50 billion domesticated farm animals who are alive today are all on death row. They have no quality of life. They have no purpose for living. They have no contact with the natural world. And we impose this on them, each one of us, to a greater or lesser degree, by what we buy and consume. Shopping for animal foods is therefore an act of violence. Now if we profess to "believe in non-violence", we have to put our money where our mouth is . . . and it isn’t only a moral statement we have to make because once stated we have to keep it up. We can’t sustain this behaviour just because it is ‘right’ behaviour, there must be some other force present to keep us on track. Perhaps it is not so much about what we should do, but about what we should want to do. The intelligent altruist isn’t a do-gooder but an explorer of their own hidden personal depths. We need to practice altruism to understand it and to let it filter into our own lives so that we feel comfortable with it. And so that we can be effective and not be depleted by what we do. We have to practise on one another - develop an interest in one another. Wanting to be useful is the same as wanting to be happy: our own happiness is linked to wanting others to be happy too.

harmlessness isn’t quite enough

How successful are we going to be, as liberators? If things don’t work out well for the animals (and they’ve had no luck with humans so far) things won’t progress for any of us. Humans have a tradition of treating animals barbarically. We now seem like barbarians. We want to see ourselves as humanitarians but until we change our attitude towards animals we won’t be able to move on. Until 50% of the human population realises there is an animal problem, the animal problem will remain. And we remain a barbaric species. We may eventually get the worst abuses fixed, we may swing over to becoming vegetarians but that will be nowhere near to inspiring the sort of voting support we need for true animal liberation to start.

Ultimately, this is what makes us feel so afraid – the no-progress thing. We don’t seem to be dynamic enough when we just observe the principle of harmlessness. It feels as though we aren’t getting anywhere (as a species). On a personal level, most of us would like to save our own souls, but how can that happen until we know the animals are safe - from us! It’s as if a great ball is ready to roll but without just the right nudge, it won’t move. How can humans move on if most of us are still exploiting animals?

on side isn’t enough: agreeing isn’t enough

Animal rights is about developing a passion for non-violence, alongside an altruistic concern for animals (mainly those we eat). Animals and humans are inextricably linked. Their fortune is our fortune. Their plight and our own plight directly depend on our becoming protectors of them, the voiceless. The animals need us and we need to learn from them how to restore our own sensitivity. The need for human liberation is more urgent than animal liberation if only because it is here that initial repair work needs to start. Admittedly, over the past thirty years we have come a long way in developing awareness of and compassion for animals, but now we need to ask ourselves – “Has this been too shallow to be of much help to them?” – “Have we seemed to be too violent to inspire others?” For animals to gain liberation we have to first prove to ourselves that we are worthy to be their representatives.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

animal rights in yer face

Over the past thirty years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, it has had an aggro, "in-yer-face" image. We’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike us and therefore dislike what we say. Thus we’ve lessened our chances of being able to discuss issues concerning animals. Animal-people often look unapproachable. The prospect of having a low key, informative chat with them seems unlikely because they seem like people who are only interested in others agreeing with them. (that is, agreeing with us). In the presence of preachers, there’s little chance to form your own opinion.
In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to education. Our spokesperson-for-the-cause can sometimes look like the wrong person to be speaking, especially since our arguments are themselves so powerful they only need to be clearly presented without any added hype. Essentially, we need to believe that the story-of-animals will touch the hearts of people, and that the advantages of becoming vegan will seem attractive and that animal rights is an exciting prospect. If any of our message sounds hard and uncompromising it will be off-putting. It will all seem too difficult to try. It will be a case of either the back burner or the too-hard-basket.

don’t approach me, I’m an animal activist

Currently, animal activists are responding to animal abuse in the only way they know how, the only way they think will work - By Protest! Protesting that we strongly object to the use of violence against animals. Surely that’s unarguable. But we activists sometimes respond impulsively, even aggressively to non-vegans. Sometimes we respond in an unrestrained, intense, extreme, vehement manner to get our point across. We think it’s okay to be pushy if it’s for a good cause. We have a duty to be forceful. But how close is this to ‘fighting violence with violence’? Confronting their abusive language with sharp invective of our own? Animal rights activists believe they have won significant welfare reforms for animals by being non-compromising and sometimes outrageous. By using this approach they have brought issues to public attention and ended many of the worst abuses of animals. This approach of shaming the vivisectors and other animal exploiters has worked to some extent. But it has not convinced the majority of consumers. They haven’t felt the opprobrium personally and therefore they’ve not felt responsible enough to change their daily habits. We might say that the collective conscience has not been tweaked. Instead, an impression has been formed which is hard for most people to identify with. From that feeling alone springs an emotional disagreement with the arguments of the animal activists. Consumers have successfully convinced themselves that these are people you wouldn’t want to know. The vegan activist can’t afford to appear like this.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

boycotting the destructive system

If we disapprove of it we’ll want to help change it. If we don’t, then it’s likely we’ll feel guilty about our own involvement in it. It comes down to what value we put upon having a clear conscience as opposed to having a guilty conscience for giving support and encouragement to those who pollute the environment and exploit animals. If we buy unethical products, we are collaborating in the very thing we want to see changed. By promoting sustainable systems, by putting forward our arguments, we not only show concern for the planet and especially the animals but also for the easing of the human conscience.
Once we get this far there’s one further step to consider – how non-violent are we going to be? Whether we are compassionate repairers or enthusiastic advocates of a vegan diet, it matters not a jot unless we are already convinced of the effectiveness of non-violent repair. By having an even deeper principle to guide us, we can conduct ourselves with dignity. I don’t mean passivity, I mean dignified outrageousness!

Monday, July 14, 2008

becoming responsible for change

To choose to do something responsible we need a certain generosity of spirit. If we feel passionate enough, then our arguments about the no-use-animal principle will take us beyond just improving their welfare. We will begin to see them altogether differently, not as commodities but as irreplaceable individuals who need our help. If animals are to be released from slavery, it will only come about because we’ve been thinking about them and fixing things up for them on a permanent basis. They initially need to be released into a protected environment where they are no longer required to reproduce for the purpose of humans making a profit.
But how are free-willed, autonomous people ever going to be convinced of this principle? It’s radical, inconvenient and often advocated by righteous sounding people. To make the change of attitude seem attractive to them, advocates need to look carefully at how they communicate their message. First up, we need to stop haranguing people into agreement. Even if they begin to agree with us, they’ll always slip back to old habits after we’ve left, unless we’ve been able to convince them to make a permanent step forward. Becoming vegan is one big step, not merely in changing from a traditional diet to a plant-based one, but from a position of self-interest to altruism.
Out of respect for the difficulties of making such a change, we need to be honest and not hold back on the many personal and practical implications of such an attitude change. Swapping new habits for old ones starts with food because that’s the first thing on the mind of anyone considering this change. But we also need to talk about boycott and withdrawing support from a whole destructive society-based system. Stepping aside from the norm in order to help establish another normality.

altruism, working for us

In order for altruism to work, we must be able to develop optimism, so that we can say: “So what if all this damage has been done, it can be fixed”. Optimism "ups" the energy, which in turn ups our chances of making the transition successfully. We feel as though we are heading towards something worth reaching, not because it’s right but because it’s the most meaningful thing we can do. Ultimately satisfying.
"Satisfaction" and "meaning" are big drivers. As soon as we come to know that we are making a difference (in this case, that animals won’t be killed on our behalf) we can start to feel the effects of having taken a mature and compassionate step in the right direction. And if that makes us happier about ourselves, we can then go on to help others take the same step. And why would we want to do that? Because eventually there must be a majority who want animals liberated. Once we’ve cleaned up our own act we need to gain confidence in our communication skills. It’s natural for us to want to share what we’ve discovered and build a strong support base for animal liberation. It isn’t enough that we simply pass on information to others. We’re all information saturated today. There is so much misinformation in circulation today that what we have to say must be accepted as well as being informed, truthful and serious. The animal advocate must learn how best to be listened to and how to become approachable, so that he/she can better encourage others to change their attitudes. Vegans must become likeable people.

enjoying the process of change

With humility, we could admit that we follow fashion, then take the lead and go on to address what needs to be done in terms of repair. But however noble our repairs are, unless we find ways to enjoy the repair process itself, we won’t keep it up. It will look too much like hard work, and we won’t have enough motivation for the job.
By connecting personal fulfilment with practical repair work, we can make changes less painful and actually enjoy the work of it all. By deciding to become vegetarian, no longer using meat and products taken from animals’ bodies, we can improve our health and energy, but the big bonus is that we help animals get off death row. To achieve that, to be even the tiniest part of the eventual liberation of animals, this should be enough to make whatever we do satisfying. When we get serious about repair there are two things happening at the same time - we are doing something big for ourselves and we’re doing something even bigger for the greater good (which of course includes saving animals). It happens mainly by way of self-discipline and then, later, by enjoyment. It starts out as a selfless establishing of habit changes. Then, as we begin to feel the rewards of our efforts, the selfless becomes more clearly self benefitting, and with that comes a realisation that what we want for others is what we want for ourselves. Altruism is neither me-centred nor you-centred. It is really just a matter of striking a balance between common interests. Re-think altruism to make it fit the modern age and serve today’s biggest problems.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

the power of one idea

If, right at this minute, we aren’t yet vegan, then much of what follows will be an introduction to vegan principle. So for the record it needs to be simply stated that: vegans don’t use animals. This means vegans avoid thousands of products which society has become accustomed to using. We have to avoid, boycott, do-without and replace. It isn’t always easy and the replacing-products aren’t always available, but any difficulty we encounter is nothing compared to what the animals are going through. The suffering they endure makes any lifestyle difficulties we have pale into insignificance. Whatever we encounter, it’s hardly worth a mention if we are focusing on the grandeur of an eventually repaired system. Our difficulties might be overcome by using the power of the "idea of repair".
Everything the human race has so far achieved has grown out of "ideas". They fall into our heads, they explode, they feed our imagination and only after we’ve developed and implemented them do we see if they work. Only time will tell if they have been of any benefit. Sometimes they really do work and we benefit from them always. But sometimes ideas seem to work only for a time and then end up doing more harm than good. Like the internal combustion engine, which was such an asset at first but, a century down the track, is now heavily contributing to the death of our planet.
But good or bad, ideas have power and they can run out of control. A combination of these "out-of-control" problems makes us afraid and pessimistic. The future looks grim. It is all the more depressing to know that we, individually, are still cranking up the machine by our own daily habits. We are still too obstinate or too impotent to change, to listen to the warnings and to then act accordingly. We don’t want to make our living conditions any more uncomfortable than they already are … and we know this is all very selfish of course … but we keep the same lifestyle going and wait for others to do the changing first … after which we intend to follow suit! We follow fashions, we don’t lead them, and that has become a dangerous habit in itself. It’s up to each of us to initiate the ‘idea’ of vegan principle.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

going-vegan – it’s almost like falling in love

This is where the idea of the "complete repair" comes in. Logically, if the world were to stop eating and farming animals, many of our major problems would disappear. On a personal level, where it must begin, there is a chance to make a break with one set of habits and to set out towards eventually restoring our damaged selves. The decision to "go-veg" is the essential first step in repair. By withdrawing our support for the animal industries and freeing ourselves from the addictive grip of their products, we do a repair job on ourselves and help liberate the animals at the same time. And since this boycott and consequent lifestyle-change flies in the face of traditional social behaviour, this is a badge we can wear proudly. It makes us more attractive to ourselves and provides the motivation we need, to go forward and make many, much needed repairs, including the big three: human starvation, animal exploitation and environmental destruction.
But this habit switching is no light matter. If we give up eating meat one day, the next day we’ll be questioning the whole ethical basis of animal farming and nutrition! So what starts out as just a change of diet, now opens up some big-time changes of attitude. Many people see the advantages of a plant based diet but they are fearful to take the first step to change. The idea is exciting in theory but in practice the changes look scary.
If we do want to make the move, we must be ready to surprise ourselves, by taking up the passion of it. Going vegan is almost like falling in love! The big thrill comes in the idea itself. In this case "to not make use of animals". It’s a two-way bonus of liberating animals and strengthening ourselves at the same time. We need courage and commitment to carry it through, but by carrying it through we develop the very courage and commitment we need. Once we are established in this direction it’s a piece of cake. When the logic falls into place we see how this habit change contributes so neatly to the greater scheme of things, significant both for the future of the planet and for ourselves personally. A no-touch-animals policy.

addiction

Let us say that millions of people realise what they do when they eat animals and yet have decided to continue. Why don’t they stop? Why are we allowing such a vast assault on animals to take place right under our noses? Certainly not to ensure good nutrition. Animal foods are the chief destroyers of health. No, we allow this to happen wantonly. We kill them and eat them mainly to titillate our tastebuds … and because we think we will experience painful withdrawals if we don’t. We get hooked, unable to stop eating animal products (and the many items using them in their ingredients). These meals and snacks, comprising meats, cheeses, eggs and fats, not only implicate the consumer in animal slavery but are the main cause of our ill health. But still we continue what we are used to doing because we don’t think we have enough willpower to alter the habit. Neither logic nor ill health, guilty conscience, environmental impact of animal farming, the chance to feed a new plant diet to the starving millions - nothing will convince us to stop. We act like junkies ruled by a self destructive habit.

manipulating the conscience

Despite the fact our taste buds and memories of favourite foods give us pleasure, they also weigh heavily on our conscience. And that’s in addition to many other habits which persuade us into damaging our world. The waste and pollution we cause every time we drive the car, our lack of generosity that allows kids to starve in Africa. We feel guilty. But we also feel fully extended. We can’t spare any more room in our conscience for animals! There’s a sort of numbness that comes over us when we try to think of sentient animals suffering. We try to pretend that none of it matters - ignoring the fact that the animals (kept alive only to be eaten) are presently living in terror and dying the most ugly death anyone could imagine, in order that we humans can feed our habits. We may say it is “outrageous” but we still don’t feel it personally. We still allow it to happen.
By continuing to spend money on animal products, we participate in the death-camp treatment of animals. We try to ignore it, and by way of some nifty mental gymnastics we can relax at our table and eat what we’re given. We let this most damaging habit continue, minds shut off: mouth open. How can we allow ourselves to be manipulated in this way?

changing our personal habits

Anyone who instinctively sees the urgent need to do something about the way we treat food-animals, must ignore what they have previously been taught about eating habits. They must go against their own tastebud-advice, against the advice of corporations, governments and educational authorities, and turn to themselves for advice and to those who have already gone against their own self-interests. People like vegans who have stopped sponsoring the use of animals in the food and clothing industries.
The issue sits like a lead weight on our collective conscience. What we do to animals makes us feel like monsters. Any sensitive and well informed person must be ashamed of the practices we are condoning. Any example is enough to illustrate why we should take this matter seriously. The way animals are slaughtered, the imprisonment of hens in tiny cages, the theft of their newborn calves from dairy cows, the sow stall, the mutilations of cattle. The list of horrors goes on and on and each one reflects on the human consumer who supports abuse by buying the produce from the animal industries. It is likely the sickest of all our habits, responsible for killing us by the death of a thousand cuts. But perhaps we can’t talk about it because we want the subject neglected by governments and ignored by everyone. It throws up just too many problems. To repair any of the damage we do with respect to exploiting animals seems as though we are going to have to make too many changes of habit, more than we are capable of. But there are, nevertheless, many examples of people doing just that. They have established these changes in their lives and are now helping others to understand and carry out similar lifestyle and attitude changes.
They are reacting positively to this need to alter attitudes to animals. They want to show that humans are capable of this level of change, that we all can possess the self discipline and good intentions needed to change the daily habits we grew up with. That is what vegans are doing.

getting the ball rolling

Today, in a world run largely by the irresponsible, we need more people who take leadership seriously and who see the need for repair. People who won’t give up on the job.
Repair was never going to be easy. On the one hand our destructive habits and violent attitudes are obvious and deeply entrenched. On the other hand, repair faces no particular obstacles until we try to put theory into practice. Repairs never look very inviting. They seem like hard work and any repairs we make won’t at first be appreciated. They need to be established in our private lives first, then communicated to others. Once taken up as new habits by the majority, legislation occurs. So, if we are going to start the ball rolling on repair, we need good motivation to keep us on track. If we can approach repair the right way, it will not only be effective but become the most attractive thing we could be doing for ourselves.
We’ve only recently become aware of the threat of climate change; but to some extent it is being addressed. We are slowly becoming environmentally aware. Another damage, the spending of trillions of dollars on weapons of war, is getting publicity. The huge number of children dying from malnutrition, is being exposed. These problems are hopefully being addressed and will influence the way responsible voters vote and decent governments act.
But there is another major level of damage that is still largely ignored - The enslavement of non-human animals by humans. It gets little publicity and never appears on the list of ‘greatest threats to civilisation’ because governments consider the topic "not in the interests of voters" and will not address it. Therefore few people have seen the damage it is doing. A different way of spending our money combined with a change in our eating habits will alleviate this particular damage. As soon as we stop participating in the mass killing of animals we open a new front of awareness. It has to start with individuals doing what they think is the right thing, other individuals will follow and the ball will start rolling. At first, repair won’t be popular because of the restrictions it seems to lay on one’s lifestyle. Thus only the courageous can start the ball rolling. We can’t expect governments to spring up overnight and act on such an unpopular topic. Because to ban the killing of animals would be political suicide for any government. Any major breakthrough has to start at the grass roots level. Individually, we are each at the grass roots level.

Friday, July 11, 2008

altruism and effectiveness

It's not solely in our own interests that we act.
Assuming we do have a touch of faith about us (in the power of change) we should seize every opportunity. We can’t expect our leaders to lead us. It’s up to us, ordinary people, repairing things wherever we can. We should not doubt our own power to make a difference. The changes we might make are not always about ‘me’ anyway. The difficulty we have, isn’t in not knowing what to do; but in not daring to do it! It’s about the interests of others as well as our own - altruism and effectiveness. We want both, but they seem to be opposed. So how can we marry them? How do we make altruism effective and effectiveness altruistic? Perhaps the answer lies in the examples we set as individuals. As we let an example define who we are, we help to bring about the collective ‘good example’ that encourages others to follow, setting up a self-perpetuating impulse throughout our society. By sowing seeds and encouraging growth, people-powered change will occur. We're doing it for the greater good.

vegan, grasping the nettle

It's the first big change we all need to make.

The human capacity to act destructively can take us into the diabolical zone. We are all part of the collective impact and fear there’s nothing we can do personally, as an individual, to change things. It’s as if we are part of something so big and so fast moving, that it continually overtakes any effort to stop it. So, we have to stand by and watch ourselves trashing the environment, as we progress towards the ultimate calamity of climate change. Our personal ethical standards couldn’t be lower either. Just look at the way we have let our animal farms become modern day death camps! And our bodies are going haywire. We are losing control of our health because of the rich foods we eat and the over indulgent lifestyles we lead. We continue to over-consume goods and squander resources - and we still won’t check it! We see millions of kids dying for want of food, while we have too much to eat. We in the West are literally dying from the shame of letting all this happen.
It’s not as if we don’t realise the connections between our own actions and the consequences. But we stand transfixed like a rabbit in the car’s headlights. We know we must change (should change) but we’re discouraged by the expectations of family, friends, society and our own belief that whatever we do we can’t alter the course of events. We live in a world where millions of children die needlessly and millions of animals are killed shamelessly. Yet we continue on about our business as if nothing bad is happening. It’s almost as if we dare not think about the psychological impact it could be having on us. Our leaders show no leadership either. They’re probably as nonplussed as we are.
So, it comes down to two things: One - The need to believe in the power to change and Two - That we can each be effective in setting off a chain reaction of change. It just depends on belief ... and grasping the nettle. It starts by becoming vegan.