224:
Because people are focused on wanting they won’t listen to what we have to say - vegans can scream all they like, but we know we’re looking at a deep seated fear, often unexpressed, that illness awaits them. Yet they still prefer to live dangerously rather than give up anything. Take a person with heart disease who has to face surgery. They might have avoided the damage by not clogging up their arteries with fat-saturated food, but they didn’t. They continued as if nothing was happening, letting hospitalisation deal with the problems later.
So vegans have two jobs: to make plant foods attractive enough to live on without needing animal products, and to convince food addicts that prevention is better than cure. We need to inspire on the one hand and warn on the other.
Those people who are most obstinate are the most food-seduced, who’re unable to be without animal food. It’s not just a matter of nutrition, it’s the problem of getting out of the habit of it. It’s easier said than done.
For two whole decades, before reaching adulthood, most of us have been powerlessness to change our eating habits. In this respect most parents are guilty of feeding their children addictive, harmful and unethical foods. When kids grow up and start feeding themselves they soon get hooked on the fast-food version of what Mum used to cook for them. Weight creeps up and a ‘live-now-pay-later’ mentality sets in. Kids aren’t warned about the dangers of addiction, so usually Mum and Dad turn out to be the kids’ drug dealers.
Like the use of narcotics (or anything else that’s stimulating but difficult to give up), animal foods are in our daily lives from the word go. And with such a great variety of mildly addictive products on the market, many of them are as difficult to shake off as any of the classic abuse-substances. Once we’re in the grip of these products there seems to be no way out.
If animal foods are addictive, not in quite the same way as narcotics but addictive all the same, then these foods, the taste of them, the thought of them, the low cost of them, make people determined to get them. It may be a burger or chocolate or quiche, but every day that ‘hunger’ leaves its mark. For the wealthy Westerner there’s no thought of doing without these foods. The very idea of giving up a favourite food because of the link with animal suffering or ill health consequences is unthinkable. In fact even animal welfare, let alone animal rights, is something most people never give a thought to. It wouldn’t even be on their radar.
If it is … they’re probably already on their way to becoming vegan.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Momentous or mundane
215a
Why is everything so momentous when, at the same time, it’s also mundane? Sitting here, I can’t think of anything more momentous than writing about an animal’s right to a life when the humans have enslaved it. It’s surely momentous stuff - the very quality of our relationship with the world we live in. But how do we marry that with the mundane? The ordinary, routine, never-changing world which is the only reality for almost every human on the planet?
I’ve got no answer to that, probably because I know that most humans don’t give much thought to anything but ‘my own life’. Liberating animals is pie in the sky, since the animal trade is so entrenched in our culture. It seems absurd to try to interfere with it. But still I sit here wanting to interfere with it, to bring it all into consciousness, in order to set off a course-change in thinking - if such a change occurs it will only be brought about not by some physical improvement but by an attitudinal one, on a higher plane of consciousness.
A friend of mine, Tom, quotes Forster’s maxim “only connect”, and he goes on to say the he believes that what we are all trying to do is to connect with the people and the world around us and with our own true nature. I couldn’t agree more but in practice it may not work out that way.
The teacher, inspired by “connecting”, takes her students to the zoo, but by taking them she implies that it’s all okay. And what if the kids kick up a fuss about the caging of animals, what can the teacher say? Behind her stands the institution of the zoo which makes itself look as if it’s a conservation centre for endangered species. When kids ask questions about the individual animal’s life in this imprisoned state, when they ask some very fundamental things about freedom, how can their teacher respond ... to the children’s satisfaction? They may have to be fobbed off ... since she was inspired by her students’ need to connect with animals ... to see the animals who they feel part of. She inspired the zoo-visit.
Tom says, “I am fairly sure that you would dismiss a hunter’s professed “love of nature” as mere hypocrisy; a smoke-screen behind which he can continue to have his fun. I certainly don’t condone hunting, but I can believe them when they say this. I just think their impulses have taken a wrong turning. Indeed many ex-hunters now do their shooting only with a camera; their love of nature now having found a more positive outlet”. .
Would ‘people wanting to connect’ be the primary reason people go to the zoo? I’d suggested (in a previous blog) that they go to mock the caged lion - “me human: you animal ... me great: you nothing but a banged up prisoner” - but that was just me trying to sound cynical. I know the people walking around the zoo are not sadistically revelling in the animals’ discomfort, but at the same time they aren’t empathising with the animals either. They aren’t asking how the lion feels. And they may well say “who cares what the lion feels?” ... but there’s the rub.
How is it that we do something which hasn’t been thought through empathetically? In today’s consciousness-raised atmosphere why is an animal’s perspective not relevant and important?
If we can accept that zoo-prisons are okay places to visit, isn’t that rather worrying? Isn’t that a sign that we really ought to be trying to interfere with a culture that encourages children to accept one-sided connectiveness?
Why is everything so momentous when, at the same time, it’s also mundane? Sitting here, I can’t think of anything more momentous than writing about an animal’s right to a life when the humans have enslaved it. It’s surely momentous stuff - the very quality of our relationship with the world we live in. But how do we marry that with the mundane? The ordinary, routine, never-changing world which is the only reality for almost every human on the planet?
I’ve got no answer to that, probably because I know that most humans don’t give much thought to anything but ‘my own life’. Liberating animals is pie in the sky, since the animal trade is so entrenched in our culture. It seems absurd to try to interfere with it. But still I sit here wanting to interfere with it, to bring it all into consciousness, in order to set off a course-change in thinking - if such a change occurs it will only be brought about not by some physical improvement but by an attitudinal one, on a higher plane of consciousness.
A friend of mine, Tom, quotes Forster’s maxim “only connect”, and he goes on to say the he believes that what we are all trying to do is to connect with the people and the world around us and with our own true nature. I couldn’t agree more but in practice it may not work out that way.
The teacher, inspired by “connecting”, takes her students to the zoo, but by taking them she implies that it’s all okay. And what if the kids kick up a fuss about the caging of animals, what can the teacher say? Behind her stands the institution of the zoo which makes itself look as if it’s a conservation centre for endangered species. When kids ask questions about the individual animal’s life in this imprisoned state, when they ask some very fundamental things about freedom, how can their teacher respond ... to the children’s satisfaction? They may have to be fobbed off ... since she was inspired by her students’ need to connect with animals ... to see the animals who they feel part of. She inspired the zoo-visit.
Tom says, “I am fairly sure that you would dismiss a hunter’s professed “love of nature” as mere hypocrisy; a smoke-screen behind which he can continue to have his fun. I certainly don’t condone hunting, but I can believe them when they say this. I just think their impulses have taken a wrong turning. Indeed many ex-hunters now do their shooting only with a camera; their love of nature now having found a more positive outlet”. .
Would ‘people wanting to connect’ be the primary reason people go to the zoo? I’d suggested (in a previous blog) that they go to mock the caged lion - “me human: you animal ... me great: you nothing but a banged up prisoner” - but that was just me trying to sound cynical. I know the people walking around the zoo are not sadistically revelling in the animals’ discomfort, but at the same time they aren’t empathising with the animals either. They aren’t asking how the lion feels. And they may well say “who cares what the lion feels?” ... but there’s the rub.
How is it that we do something which hasn’t been thought through empathetically? In today’s consciousness-raised atmosphere why is an animal’s perspective not relevant and important?
If we can accept that zoo-prisons are okay places to visit, isn’t that rather worrying? Isn’t that a sign that we really ought to be trying to interfere with a culture that encourages children to accept one-sided connectiveness?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Queering the pitch
215
The real friction between non-vegans and vegans is that what they relish we avoid. They still enjoy animal foods and wearing animal clothing and we avoid it like the plague. We can speak-out about animal treatment but they can’t, even if they wanted to.
Our main difference concerns sentience - most people probably don’t even know what the word means or that it has any great significance, whereas if you’re sensitive to the plight of domesticated animals you’d know the word very well. To us, the mistreatment of an innocent, sentient creature is obscene. Human nature, animal availability and centuries of tradition have brought animals into slavery ... and omnivores don’t think this is bad. And even if they did they mustn’t, otherwise they couldn’t be omnivores any longer.
Omnivores sit in the ‘quiet corner’. The only satisfaction for them is to take full advantage of what’s on offer ... and I’d see that as being pretty much subservient to The System. It may give people lots of present-time enjoyment but it usually means a lot of chronic stomach and digestive problems. If you still eat animal produce you’re sure to be wrecking your body, as if by slow poisoning. And what a waste! To disqualify your body from working properly plus denying yourself the chance to be an agent of peace in the world. It seems sad, to hold back on both counts because of a food attachment or wanting to have your feet bound in leather.
To a greater or lesser degree most people have got blood on our hands and plenty of poison in their bodies, and maybe bruised souls too - simply by ingesting animals’ body-parts on a daily basis. By consuming the concentrated toxins from these foods plus the adrenaline surge at the point of an animal’s execution, our immune system doesn’t stand a chance. Vegans say “keep off the stuff and keep your health (and conscience)”.
I suppose it’s safe to say that by being vegan, I’d automatically be avoiding many of the crap foods and treats on the market ... and so it means I’m no longer living under a tastebud dictatorship. Personally I worry about the ethics of those who aren’t avoiding crap food, but it’s not only food but shoes and zoos and thousands of other goods and services provided by our animal slaves. By using animals we lose our best chance for a truly meaningful spiritual development ... we’re in very real danger of dying unfulfilled and with a stomach ache too.
The real friction between non-vegans and vegans is that what they relish we avoid. They still enjoy animal foods and wearing animal clothing and we avoid it like the plague. We can speak-out about animal treatment but they can’t, even if they wanted to.
Our main difference concerns sentience - most people probably don’t even know what the word means or that it has any great significance, whereas if you’re sensitive to the plight of domesticated animals you’d know the word very well. To us, the mistreatment of an innocent, sentient creature is obscene. Human nature, animal availability and centuries of tradition have brought animals into slavery ... and omnivores don’t think this is bad. And even if they did they mustn’t, otherwise they couldn’t be omnivores any longer.
Omnivores sit in the ‘quiet corner’. The only satisfaction for them is to take full advantage of what’s on offer ... and I’d see that as being pretty much subservient to The System. It may give people lots of present-time enjoyment but it usually means a lot of chronic stomach and digestive problems. If you still eat animal produce you’re sure to be wrecking your body, as if by slow poisoning. And what a waste! To disqualify your body from working properly plus denying yourself the chance to be an agent of peace in the world. It seems sad, to hold back on both counts because of a food attachment or wanting to have your feet bound in leather.
To a greater or lesser degree most people have got blood on our hands and plenty of poison in their bodies, and maybe bruised souls too - simply by ingesting animals’ body-parts on a daily basis. By consuming the concentrated toxins from these foods plus the adrenaline surge at the point of an animal’s execution, our immune system doesn’t stand a chance. Vegans say “keep off the stuff and keep your health (and conscience)”.
I suppose it’s safe to say that by being vegan, I’d automatically be avoiding many of the crap foods and treats on the market ... and so it means I’m no longer living under a tastebud dictatorship. Personally I worry about the ethics of those who aren’t avoiding crap food, but it’s not only food but shoes and zoos and thousands of other goods and services provided by our animal slaves. By using animals we lose our best chance for a truly meaningful spiritual development ... we’re in very real danger of dying unfulfilled and with a stomach ache too.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Animal ‘use’ is always abuse
214: Monday 25th
If we aren’t ready to move on, towards being vegan, we’re still lumped in with the meat heads - if we’re animal consumers we can’t condemn their abuse. If you don’t eat meat but still use animal by-products they’re still involved in the same level of cruelty and sometimes worse. Look at the egg-laying hen, for example, and what she has to suffer.
If you’re not vegan you can hardly advocate for animal rights, that is if you want to avoid sounding hypocritical. By the same token, the onus is on vegans to take up animal-advocacy ... and if we can’t buy cruelty-free we don’t buy at all.
If we aren’t vegan, we can never play a part in animal liberation, let alone the world-wide-awakening of consciousness. To rule ourselves out of that process might leave us with not a lot of meaning left in our life, simply because we’re still so subservient to The System.
If we can’t leave it, if we can’t change it, and if we’re unable to condemn it because we also condone it, we’re effectively hand-tied. Most people are still falling for second best, falling into the arms of what they now best, the-traditional-way. What’s left after you take that away, the escape, future prospects, expounding the future? Not much. We can only divert ourselves with things like entertainment and eating. The energy expended on seeking pleasure is absolute, pleasure, duty, sleep. And that very same energy could be used to help end waste and cruelty.
By doggedly remaining omnivores we’re blocking a better source of satisfaction. If we don’t advocate for animals (and boy, do we at least owe them that!), we’re effectively taking the part of ‘gaoler’, retreating back into childhood, into the fun world ... (keep the laughs coming) ... it’s probably a poor substitute for many better meaningful, passionate and goal-oriented activities. (Wow, it’s easy to sound pompous, ha, ha, ha.)
At the end of the day – bed time - imagine: a feeling that we couldn’t have done better with our day. We may not be experiencing pure ecstasy on a daily basis, but isn’t it better to lie down to sleep, knowing we’ve minimised harm.
If we aren’t ready to move on, towards being vegan, we’re still lumped in with the meat heads - if we’re animal consumers we can’t condemn their abuse. If you don’t eat meat but still use animal by-products they’re still involved in the same level of cruelty and sometimes worse. Look at the egg-laying hen, for example, and what she has to suffer.
If you’re not vegan you can hardly advocate for animal rights, that is if you want to avoid sounding hypocritical. By the same token, the onus is on vegans to take up animal-advocacy ... and if we can’t buy cruelty-free we don’t buy at all.
If we aren’t vegan, we can never play a part in animal liberation, let alone the world-wide-awakening of consciousness. To rule ourselves out of that process might leave us with not a lot of meaning left in our life, simply because we’re still so subservient to The System.
If we can’t leave it, if we can’t change it, and if we’re unable to condemn it because we also condone it, we’re effectively hand-tied. Most people are still falling for second best, falling into the arms of what they now best, the-traditional-way. What’s left after you take that away, the escape, future prospects, expounding the future? Not much. We can only divert ourselves with things like entertainment and eating. The energy expended on seeking pleasure is absolute, pleasure, duty, sleep. And that very same energy could be used to help end waste and cruelty.
By doggedly remaining omnivores we’re blocking a better source of satisfaction. If we don’t advocate for animals (and boy, do we at least owe them that!), we’re effectively taking the part of ‘gaoler’, retreating back into childhood, into the fun world ... (keep the laughs coming) ... it’s probably a poor substitute for many better meaningful, passionate and goal-oriented activities. (Wow, it’s easy to sound pompous, ha, ha, ha.)
At the end of the day – bed time - imagine: a feeling that we couldn’t have done better with our day. We may not be experiencing pure ecstasy on a daily basis, but isn’t it better to lie down to sleep, knowing we’ve minimised harm.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Abolitionism and greatness
213a
The very idea of putting another human into slavery is abhorrent but we do it to animals without a second thought. We empathise with other humans because they’re just like us, but animals ... they aren’t anything like us, so we don’t see them as individuals but like peas in a pod. We see them collectively. Each is part of a whole and not much more - the antithesis of the ‘great individual’ (exception: Inspector Rex). Animals are the great un-great. They’re furniture - beautiful to look at, useful, but of no importance beyond that. An animal doesn’t even have a soul ... so we say!
We’re so used to seeing animals in paddocks in the countryside or in cages at the zoo (both animal prisons) that we see no ugliness. In fact we see them in the opposite way - the countryside and the zoo are fun to go to. Kids love to see the animals - they ask to go ... and we don’t tell them there’s anything wrong with these places. Is it any wonder that abolitionism has to be invented, to prick or expunge this insane gaoling instinct humans have concerning animals?
So, what do we have here? What am I saying? That in some ways our attitudes have been high-jacked, that our thoughts are not our own, that all adults in every country (and that includes your mum, your friend, your doctor, your teacher, almost everyone) have lost touch with their very soul ... that they have no opinions of their own ... do I mean that everyone’s been manipulated?
It’s come to this - we accept the worst thing imaginable - the torture and murder of animals. We accept it as being okay. But, in reality, it’s rather like thinking child-molesting is okay, and everyone knows that’s one huge crime.
Animals-in-slavery number as many as humans. They’re our slaves. We’ve got used to that ... so used to it that we no longer know it ... that is, until we sit down and try to imagine a human being actually, deliberately hurting even one them. Wow! And for what? But to say this, to denigrate virtually everyone for this, makes me seem like one angry dude, as if I’m standing in the middle of a hundred thousand football fans and shouting at them, “Football stinks”.
What Animal Rights advocates are saying looks like one
gigantic insult, levelled at the hugest number of people imaginable.
So, I’m trying to turn that around by saying ... “Yes, it’s wrong, it’s all so unnecessary, the enslaving and abuse of animals ought to stop ...”, but I know this won’t attract anyone. I must come up with something more optimistic, about us all. So, here it is.
The meat-eating, zoo-visiting, ethically-challenged person is a mix. I’m a mix. It’s not about who is better than the other, it’s just that we each have sensitivities in different areas, and those who’re sensitive to the animals’ plight may be less sensitive in some other areas. None of us can afford to be smug. In my own personal mix there are stupidities and insensitivities mixed in with things no one would quarrel with.
I see greatness in most every person I meet (because I choose to go looking for it) but I don’t conjure it out of thin air, I actually see it. And I see it because I can’t miss it. Because it’s there and so common in all of us. But if you don’t consciously go looking for it, it goes unnoticed. I, like most others, employ modesty to hide it from myself (and so I should) but that hides it from others too. I don’t see myself as great and others don’t tell me so anyway, but when they do tell me I’m special, that’s a fantastic feeling. However, that’s how I might want to feel, to feel ‘special’, but that might be my biggest problem.
We want to be special. That is better or more outstanding than others ... as famous people seem to be. And we all know that famous people are few in number (at any given time), whereas the not-famous are many and very forgettable ... and we do so want immortality, to be remembered ... as if that could make us happy ... by helping us live longer in others’ memory of us. We want to be so ‘special’ that we’re unforgettable. That’s vanity gone crazy!
‘Great’ may be different, in that it’s a feeling of satisfaction which has some sense of motion about it, as if we’re ongoing, striving to be engaged in universal pursuits. The trouble is we want to be recognised for our greatness all the time. On the one hand we deny our own greatness and on the other we want it so badly. And it doesn’t come. And eventually we give up and settle for conformity - the big second-best. Our greatness is allowed to wither, or worse, become a need for ‘specialness’, for the preciousness of wanting-to-be-remembered-or-revered (read ‘immortal’). How stupid is that when we’re already as ‘great’ as ever great can be.
To those few individuals who might know us well, who like us, to them we may seem great - they possibly see it ... but not exactly in that way. When this same word is used to describe just about everything these days it becoems so watered down as to be meaningless. What is truly ‘great’ is something maybe too universal to be defined. ‘Great’ may not be in our lexicon, it being too overpowering a concept to contemplate. We may not feel adequate enough to acknowledge it, either in our self or in others ... and out of that comes a depreciation that is nothing short of wasteful.
I might be greater than I could ever want to be, but if I simply don’t see it I might instead, out of desperation, become narcissistic and ego-driven. Oh! And then the frustrations hit. Oh the agony! Then, certain of my more impressive attributes are concealed from me ... and a much more uncertain person-within pops up, who is swamped by past mistakes, saying, “I wouldn’t have done that if I were really great”. “Great people are like this ...not like me”, and in my own mind I string off a list of famous people I admire, and say, “I can’t identify with their greatness because it’s too different to any greatness I see in myself”.
When kids are asked what they want to be when they grow up they say “famous”, which probably means they just want to be thought of as ‘great’.
The hum drum world doesn’t recognise me because I’m not rich - we aren’t worthy to be rewarded for who we are. If we are nothing, and have nothing, it’s because we’re not special enough. And so eventually we give up on our own greatness and emulate the specialness we see in others ... who seem ‘much greater than me’. We lose touch with our own original thinking (based on instinct and personal experience) and say, “If ‘they’ do it, it must be okay for me to do it” ... but, as it happens, the ‘emulated’ are not very great at all - the ‘great’ people don’t set much of an example.
So we take the kids to the zoo, and parade them in front of majestic lions, locked behind bars, and say “me human: you animal ... me great: you nothing but banged up prisoners” ... then there’s lots of laughs.
It doesn’t make us feel ‘great’ but at least, in the eyes of our children (who we’ve taken to the zoo and fed hamburgers) it makes us feel a whole lot better about ourselves. We’re momentarily popular with the kids ... ‘special’ to them.
The very idea of putting another human into slavery is abhorrent but we do it to animals without a second thought. We empathise with other humans because they’re just like us, but animals ... they aren’t anything like us, so we don’t see them as individuals but like peas in a pod. We see them collectively. Each is part of a whole and not much more - the antithesis of the ‘great individual’ (exception: Inspector Rex). Animals are the great un-great. They’re furniture - beautiful to look at, useful, but of no importance beyond that. An animal doesn’t even have a soul ... so we say!
We’re so used to seeing animals in paddocks in the countryside or in cages at the zoo (both animal prisons) that we see no ugliness. In fact we see them in the opposite way - the countryside and the zoo are fun to go to. Kids love to see the animals - they ask to go ... and we don’t tell them there’s anything wrong with these places. Is it any wonder that abolitionism has to be invented, to prick or expunge this insane gaoling instinct humans have concerning animals?
So, what do we have here? What am I saying? That in some ways our attitudes have been high-jacked, that our thoughts are not our own, that all adults in every country (and that includes your mum, your friend, your doctor, your teacher, almost everyone) have lost touch with their very soul ... that they have no opinions of their own ... do I mean that everyone’s been manipulated?
It’s come to this - we accept the worst thing imaginable - the torture and murder of animals. We accept it as being okay. But, in reality, it’s rather like thinking child-molesting is okay, and everyone knows that’s one huge crime.
Animals-in-slavery number as many as humans. They’re our slaves. We’ve got used to that ... so used to it that we no longer know it ... that is, until we sit down and try to imagine a human being actually, deliberately hurting even one them. Wow! And for what? But to say this, to denigrate virtually everyone for this, makes me seem like one angry dude, as if I’m standing in the middle of a hundred thousand football fans and shouting at them, “Football stinks”.
What Animal Rights advocates are saying looks like one
gigantic insult, levelled at the hugest number of people imaginable.
So, I’m trying to turn that around by saying ... “Yes, it’s wrong, it’s all so unnecessary, the enslaving and abuse of animals ought to stop ...”, but I know this won’t attract anyone. I must come up with something more optimistic, about us all. So, here it is.
The meat-eating, zoo-visiting, ethically-challenged person is a mix. I’m a mix. It’s not about who is better than the other, it’s just that we each have sensitivities in different areas, and those who’re sensitive to the animals’ plight may be less sensitive in some other areas. None of us can afford to be smug. In my own personal mix there are stupidities and insensitivities mixed in with things no one would quarrel with.
I see greatness in most every person I meet (because I choose to go looking for it) but I don’t conjure it out of thin air, I actually see it. And I see it because I can’t miss it. Because it’s there and so common in all of us. But if you don’t consciously go looking for it, it goes unnoticed. I, like most others, employ modesty to hide it from myself (and so I should) but that hides it from others too. I don’t see myself as great and others don’t tell me so anyway, but when they do tell me I’m special, that’s a fantastic feeling. However, that’s how I might want to feel, to feel ‘special’, but that might be my biggest problem.
We want to be special. That is better or more outstanding than others ... as famous people seem to be. And we all know that famous people are few in number (at any given time), whereas the not-famous are many and very forgettable ... and we do so want immortality, to be remembered ... as if that could make us happy ... by helping us live longer in others’ memory of us. We want to be so ‘special’ that we’re unforgettable. That’s vanity gone crazy!
‘Great’ may be different, in that it’s a feeling of satisfaction which has some sense of motion about it, as if we’re ongoing, striving to be engaged in universal pursuits. The trouble is we want to be recognised for our greatness all the time. On the one hand we deny our own greatness and on the other we want it so badly. And it doesn’t come. And eventually we give up and settle for conformity - the big second-best. Our greatness is allowed to wither, or worse, become a need for ‘specialness’, for the preciousness of wanting-to-be-remembered-or-revered (read ‘immortal’). How stupid is that when we’re already as ‘great’ as ever great can be.
To those few individuals who might know us well, who like us, to them we may seem great - they possibly see it ... but not exactly in that way. When this same word is used to describe just about everything these days it becoems so watered down as to be meaningless. What is truly ‘great’ is something maybe too universal to be defined. ‘Great’ may not be in our lexicon, it being too overpowering a concept to contemplate. We may not feel adequate enough to acknowledge it, either in our self or in others ... and out of that comes a depreciation that is nothing short of wasteful.
I might be greater than I could ever want to be, but if I simply don’t see it I might instead, out of desperation, become narcissistic and ego-driven. Oh! And then the frustrations hit. Oh the agony! Then, certain of my more impressive attributes are concealed from me ... and a much more uncertain person-within pops up, who is swamped by past mistakes, saying, “I wouldn’t have done that if I were really great”. “Great people are like this ...not like me”, and in my own mind I string off a list of famous people I admire, and say, “I can’t identify with their greatness because it’s too different to any greatness I see in myself”.
When kids are asked what they want to be when they grow up they say “famous”, which probably means they just want to be thought of as ‘great’.
The hum drum world doesn’t recognise me because I’m not rich - we aren’t worthy to be rewarded for who we are. If we are nothing, and have nothing, it’s because we’re not special enough. And so eventually we give up on our own greatness and emulate the specialness we see in others ... who seem ‘much greater than me’. We lose touch with our own original thinking (based on instinct and personal experience) and say, “If ‘they’ do it, it must be okay for me to do it” ... but, as it happens, the ‘emulated’ are not very great at all - the ‘great’ people don’t set much of an example.
So we take the kids to the zoo, and parade them in front of majestic lions, locked behind bars, and say “me human: you animal ... me great: you nothing but banged up prisoners” ... then there’s lots of laughs.
It doesn’t make us feel ‘great’ but at least, in the eyes of our children (who we’ve taken to the zoo and fed hamburgers) it makes us feel a whole lot better about ourselves. We’re momentarily popular with the kids ... ‘special’ to them.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The pleasure-heads
213:
Those who make a living out of animals aren’t likely to recognise animal rights. But for those who don’t, who’re simply held by food preference, there’s some hope ... and it’s from these the Animal Rights Movement potentially finds support.
If the hard-hearted animal abusers hate AR it’s because of the potential threat it poses to their livelihoods. They’re not only committed meat-eaters themselves but they get their wages from the Industry. Animals are economic concerns not ethical challenges. It’s bank accounts before moral accountability, pragmatics before ideals.
People who are more sympathetic to the liberation of animals, despite having a foot in both camps, are the ones we try to persuade. We suggest they boycott what the other lot sell. Change is very slow, but the tide is turning towards compassion for animals and better food. A better-informed, more sophisticated customer is less attracted to what’s on offer, because it’s looking dodgy on all counts.
Vegan principle and talk of animals having rights is not good for the Animal Industry, but it’s not only that customers are becoming more conscious of health and compassion, it’s that they’re getting weary of hedonism ... of using attractive-looking animal products. Today, as never before, we seek pleasure, but it’s a ‘Seconds-World’ pleasure. It’s as if we’re squeezing the last life out of the animal-machine, knowing it can’t last much longer, probably realising the time to change is fast approaching ... that ill-health and horror-stories about animal-torture aren’t going to go away. And if we don’t change for ethical reasons then surely economic and ecological factors will eventually force us.
So what have we got? There are vegans and there are ‘pleasure-heads’; while we’re mindful of what we eat, they still consume their favourite foods, undisturbed; we say what we say and they maintain a protective shield against it; they prefer their hedonist lifestyle and we can’t change that, which is why we must move on.
Our place is with those without vested interests, who’re more likely to listen to what we have to say, who’ll still think their food tastes good, but be more open to the suggestion … that other tastes and textures and richness exist in plant-based foods. On that basis alone they may be willing to listen, and once they know a few central facts, then it’s up to them to shop around and try new things.
It’s perhaps the first time the ethical dimension to shopping is considered. And when people realise, to their amazement, that non-animal foods are okay to eat ... or in fact better to eat ... they become open to eating ‘vegan’ all the time.
Those who make a living out of animals aren’t likely to recognise animal rights. But for those who don’t, who’re simply held by food preference, there’s some hope ... and it’s from these the Animal Rights Movement potentially finds support.
If the hard-hearted animal abusers hate AR it’s because of the potential threat it poses to their livelihoods. They’re not only committed meat-eaters themselves but they get their wages from the Industry. Animals are economic concerns not ethical challenges. It’s bank accounts before moral accountability, pragmatics before ideals.
People who are more sympathetic to the liberation of animals, despite having a foot in both camps, are the ones we try to persuade. We suggest they boycott what the other lot sell. Change is very slow, but the tide is turning towards compassion for animals and better food. A better-informed, more sophisticated customer is less attracted to what’s on offer, because it’s looking dodgy on all counts.
Vegan principle and talk of animals having rights is not good for the Animal Industry, but it’s not only that customers are becoming more conscious of health and compassion, it’s that they’re getting weary of hedonism ... of using attractive-looking animal products. Today, as never before, we seek pleasure, but it’s a ‘Seconds-World’ pleasure. It’s as if we’re squeezing the last life out of the animal-machine, knowing it can’t last much longer, probably realising the time to change is fast approaching ... that ill-health and horror-stories about animal-torture aren’t going to go away. And if we don’t change for ethical reasons then surely economic and ecological factors will eventually force us.
So what have we got? There are vegans and there are ‘pleasure-heads’; while we’re mindful of what we eat, they still consume their favourite foods, undisturbed; we say what we say and they maintain a protective shield against it; they prefer their hedonist lifestyle and we can’t change that, which is why we must move on.
Our place is with those without vested interests, who’re more likely to listen to what we have to say, who’ll still think their food tastes good, but be more open to the suggestion … that other tastes and textures and richness exist in plant-based foods. On that basis alone they may be willing to listen, and once they know a few central facts, then it’s up to them to shop around and try new things.
It’s perhaps the first time the ethical dimension to shopping is considered. And when people realise, to their amazement, that non-animal foods are okay to eat ... or in fact better to eat ... they become open to eating ‘vegan’ all the time.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The disconnect
212:
Because the law allows us to exploit animals it’s not a crime, whether it’s zoo-caging of exotics, vivisecting mice or factory farming.
There’s a ‘disconnect’ between our own inner beauty and our base food cravings. Animal food is endemic to human lifestyle, to which most of us are addicted. It’s attractive to educated and rich in the same way as the uneducated and poor. We’re seduced by it (to the blood-salt-sugar-texture thing).
Our number one impulse is to find food that’s nutritious and enjoyable ... and hot on its heels, guilt, sends us to number two impulse. We hurry to justify eating ‘that type of food’. No problem ... because it’s justified simply by being socially acceptable. If we can afford to buy it, we can eat what we like, and be liked despite what we eat. And in reality, it’s made even easier for us - because rarely, if ever, do we have to justify ANY of it anyway, to anybody. It seems that, for almost all people, the (ethical) provenance of our food is not a problem - animal-eating doesn’t bother us.
But it does bother children. When kids first find out about bacon being a pig or tender mutton being a lamb, it’s disturbing. I doubt if most kids ever get their head around that one - the contrast between the indelible feeling of adult-love and what must seem to them like adult-cruelty, in regard to animals just like their own pets at home. They possibly feel conflicted - perhaps smelling breakfast bacon cooking, conflicted between their own salivating tastebuds and thoughts about ‘what happens to animals’.
As usual, reality wins. Kids mustn’t complain. If they don’t do what they’re told they starve ... or, more realistically, they’re denied lots of yummy things that kids like. Children are bribed with food. They’re indoctrinated, from birth, to conform to a ‘meat-and-two-veg diet. They must conform, otherwise their carers are put to all sorts of inconvenience.
Is it called ‘neotony’, when you carry something juvenile into adulthood? Do we secretly just want to suck at the breast and not have to bother about investigating everything we put in our mouths? This ‘provenance’ thing (over food) - what’s behind it? Is it really worth looking into? Isn’t it better just to ignore it altogether.
It’s 2011, and are we still stuck between being loving-responsible-adults and teat-hungry-out-of-controls?
Because the law allows us to exploit animals it’s not a crime, whether it’s zoo-caging of exotics, vivisecting mice or factory farming.
There’s a ‘disconnect’ between our own inner beauty and our base food cravings. Animal food is endemic to human lifestyle, to which most of us are addicted. It’s attractive to educated and rich in the same way as the uneducated and poor. We’re seduced by it (to the blood-salt-sugar-texture thing).
Our number one impulse is to find food that’s nutritious and enjoyable ... and hot on its heels, guilt, sends us to number two impulse. We hurry to justify eating ‘that type of food’. No problem ... because it’s justified simply by being socially acceptable. If we can afford to buy it, we can eat what we like, and be liked despite what we eat. And in reality, it’s made even easier for us - because rarely, if ever, do we have to justify ANY of it anyway, to anybody. It seems that, for almost all people, the (ethical) provenance of our food is not a problem - animal-eating doesn’t bother us.
But it does bother children. When kids first find out about bacon being a pig or tender mutton being a lamb, it’s disturbing. I doubt if most kids ever get their head around that one - the contrast between the indelible feeling of adult-love and what must seem to them like adult-cruelty, in regard to animals just like their own pets at home. They possibly feel conflicted - perhaps smelling breakfast bacon cooking, conflicted between their own salivating tastebuds and thoughts about ‘what happens to animals’.
As usual, reality wins. Kids mustn’t complain. If they don’t do what they’re told they starve ... or, more realistically, they’re denied lots of yummy things that kids like. Children are bribed with food. They’re indoctrinated, from birth, to conform to a ‘meat-and-two-veg diet. They must conform, otherwise their carers are put to all sorts of inconvenience.
Is it called ‘neotony’, when you carry something juvenile into adulthood? Do we secretly just want to suck at the breast and not have to bother about investigating everything we put in our mouths? This ‘provenance’ thing (over food) - what’s behind it? Is it really worth looking into? Isn’t it better just to ignore it altogether.
It’s 2011, and are we still stuck between being loving-responsible-adults and teat-hungry-out-of-controls?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Duped
211:
Even though conspiracy theories abound and we laugh at them and call them preposterous, somewhere in our mind we suspect we’re all being taken for a ride.
Those with vested interests, whose livelihoods depend on our buying the products of the Animal Industry, they neither care about animals nor our conscience. They’re buoyed by politicians, media and scientists, who know not to bite the hand that feeds them ... and, as shareholders in the Animal Industry, they’re confident of their backers. With each benefiting from the other, each plays into the others’ hands to make money ... out of the consumer. If they’re peddling unhealthy food, we the public let them. If they’re cruel to animals we the public raise no objection.
The consumer has a choice, albeit a seemingly difficult one. ... but has no incentive to choose wisely. The trouble is, it’s too tempting to make NO choice, since there’s nothing illegal in the Industry’s cruelty to animals nor in selling their health-damaging products. Consequently the chief animal abusers are getting richer by the minute.
But the strangest thing is this - these same people are falling on their own swords. The profiteers of the industry are wealthy enough to eat ‘well’ and usually that means rich food, and, you’ve guessed it, that includes a lot of animal product. It’s ironic that the same animals that provide their wealth break their health ... the big question is, why don’t they avoid these foods? You’d think they’d be advised by their food scientists. These highly trained men and women should know the dangers associated with animal foods, but if they do they’re not speaking. And you’d think the spiritual leaders of our community would pounce on the opportunity that the horror stories provide (of animal farms and abattoirs) to show the need to save our souls. But no. Nothing is said. Perhaps our leaders’ reputations rely too much on conformity, and to whistle-blow animal issues would mean social suicide.
For many reasons conformity is a must. If anyone in the Establishment spoke up, there’d be hell to pay - the scientists would lose their grants, the politicians their pre-selections and the priests their parishes ... which is why no one’s rushing to speak-up, to represent animal interests or promote vegan principles ... “Get real”. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
So, the habit of using animals continues ... with consumers numbing their feeling towards the edible animal ... and same consumers refusing to look at what’s going on.
Even though conspiracy theories abound and we laugh at them and call them preposterous, somewhere in our mind we suspect we’re all being taken for a ride.
Those with vested interests, whose livelihoods depend on our buying the products of the Animal Industry, they neither care about animals nor our conscience. They’re buoyed by politicians, media and scientists, who know not to bite the hand that feeds them ... and, as shareholders in the Animal Industry, they’re confident of their backers. With each benefiting from the other, each plays into the others’ hands to make money ... out of the consumer. If they’re peddling unhealthy food, we the public let them. If they’re cruel to animals we the public raise no objection.
The consumer has a choice, albeit a seemingly difficult one. ... but has no incentive to choose wisely. The trouble is, it’s too tempting to make NO choice, since there’s nothing illegal in the Industry’s cruelty to animals nor in selling their health-damaging products. Consequently the chief animal abusers are getting richer by the minute.
But the strangest thing is this - these same people are falling on their own swords. The profiteers of the industry are wealthy enough to eat ‘well’ and usually that means rich food, and, you’ve guessed it, that includes a lot of animal product. It’s ironic that the same animals that provide their wealth break their health ... the big question is, why don’t they avoid these foods? You’d think they’d be advised by their food scientists. These highly trained men and women should know the dangers associated with animal foods, but if they do they’re not speaking. And you’d think the spiritual leaders of our community would pounce on the opportunity that the horror stories provide (of animal farms and abattoirs) to show the need to save our souls. But no. Nothing is said. Perhaps our leaders’ reputations rely too much on conformity, and to whistle-blow animal issues would mean social suicide.
For many reasons conformity is a must. If anyone in the Establishment spoke up, there’d be hell to pay - the scientists would lose their grants, the politicians their pre-selections and the priests their parishes ... which is why no one’s rushing to speak-up, to represent animal interests or promote vegan principles ... “Get real”. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
So, the habit of using animals continues ... with consumers numbing their feeling towards the edible animal ... and same consumers refusing to look at what’s going on.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Between a rock and a hard place
210:
The horror stories about animals in farms and abattoirs horrify and confront all sensitive people, whether vegan or not. But for omnivores it’s a mixed message. “I love animals but I’m afraid of finding out too much.” As soon as we know what’s happening ‘down on the farm’ we realise that it implicates everyone, because of what we eat. We’re all connected, some more than others, in something so routine and on such a massive scale that it seems futile to try to fight it ... especially when it seems most people are either cold-hearted or burying their heads in the sand. ‘Most People’ just don’t want to know - the animal-holocaust being a daily event ... and yet, however horrific it is, it doesn’t make most-people step away from their eating habits.
Vegans have stepped away. As a vegan I, personally, seek to change everyone. A big task! To be an animal activist is to act solo, in defiance of family, friends and social pressure. To act independently takes courage. Some would say animal-activism is an impossible dream. But so what? What else can you do but try to change it?
Farm animals (‘food animals’) are badly used, and we know it. But even though every educated adult, in every part of the world, feels some guilt about it, they don’t shift. They possibly know ‘animal food’ isn’t healthy but don’t act on the advice. The reason for this may be obvious, but nonetheless it’s the never ending question vegans contemplate. Until we unlock that particular mystery - why some do respond, why some don’t - our collective-way-forward won’t be clear.
If you DO act, if you do respond, life changes quite radically. Then, intermixing with the rest of the world alters ... or at least it felt that way for me. By being an advocate for the ‘abolition-of-animal-slavery’, one is marked-out as an ‘all or nothing abolitionist’. And since you can’t be a little bit abolitionist anymore that you can be a little bit pregnant, once you’ve said “I’m vegan-on-principle”, in reality there’s no going back. Once you’ve faced your cravings (with me it’s still Mars Bars) you can step out of one world into another ... I don’t mean there’s a Vegan Club-of-Paradise, I mean ‘step-out’ mind-wise ... perhaps with a thunderingly altered perception of things, which, now, I, personally wouldn’t be without.
The horror stories about animals in farms and abattoirs horrify and confront all sensitive people, whether vegan or not. But for omnivores it’s a mixed message. “I love animals but I’m afraid of finding out too much.” As soon as we know what’s happening ‘down on the farm’ we realise that it implicates everyone, because of what we eat. We’re all connected, some more than others, in something so routine and on such a massive scale that it seems futile to try to fight it ... especially when it seems most people are either cold-hearted or burying their heads in the sand. ‘Most People’ just don’t want to know - the animal-holocaust being a daily event ... and yet, however horrific it is, it doesn’t make most-people step away from their eating habits.
Vegans have stepped away. As a vegan I, personally, seek to change everyone. A big task! To be an animal activist is to act solo, in defiance of family, friends and social pressure. To act independently takes courage. Some would say animal-activism is an impossible dream. But so what? What else can you do but try to change it?
Farm animals (‘food animals’) are badly used, and we know it. But even though every educated adult, in every part of the world, feels some guilt about it, they don’t shift. They possibly know ‘animal food’ isn’t healthy but don’t act on the advice. The reason for this may be obvious, but nonetheless it’s the never ending question vegans contemplate. Until we unlock that particular mystery - why some do respond, why some don’t - our collective-way-forward won’t be clear.
If you DO act, if you do respond, life changes quite radically. Then, intermixing with the rest of the world alters ... or at least it felt that way for me. By being an advocate for the ‘abolition-of-animal-slavery’, one is marked-out as an ‘all or nothing abolitionist’. And since you can’t be a little bit abolitionist anymore that you can be a little bit pregnant, once you’ve said “I’m vegan-on-principle”, in reality there’s no going back. Once you’ve faced your cravings (with me it’s still Mars Bars) you can step out of one world into another ... I don’t mean there’s a Vegan Club-of-Paradise, I mean ‘step-out’ mind-wise ... perhaps with a thunderingly altered perception of things, which, now, I, personally wouldn’t be without.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Eating out
209:
I go to peoples’ places and I’m offered the usual snacks and drinks. “No thanks”.
‘Stunned’ is the best word to describe the reactions i often get. I’m met with utter incomprehension ... when I decline some ‘cheesy-bit’ on a plate. These are famous cheesey-bits which everyone else has dived for. What can I say? But if pressed, as soon as I give my reason I’m labelled weird. At a social event, someone might race around, to find me something I can eat. But most people are defenders of the faith and secretly resent my finicky eating habits ... for that’s what they turn this into.
From what could be a simple “ah, you’re vegan” and a recognition of the compassion-angle, we get to the other extreme, irritation ... at me being ‘fussy over my food’. I don’t get asked why I’m fussy. That steps into a dangerous area, knowing animal-cruelty is a public problem. They know to steer clear. In fact most people will only discuss it on their terms, with agree-ers, not with us. So, socially, vegans are a problem. They (that’s everyone, just about) knows it’ll lead to uncomfortable-ness.
Those ‘cheesey snacks at the party’ and me refusing to eat them and they wondering if it’s something to do with nutrition. You could call it the “It’s healthier being vegetarian”-angle. They might expect to hear about animal-food containing too much fat or sugar or being too high in protein, harmful to health … etc. What they may NOT expect is when the Animal Rights-angle. Talking ‘hens-in-cages’ spells feeling-uncomfortable.
So, as a vegan, as a potentially socially threatening person I’m not often asked out. Ouch! And when I am I don’t get asked for my reasoning behind my food choices. I don’t think I’m an especially unlikeable person but (in a potential talk-off) I’d probably be regarded as a social pariah. I hope they know me well enough to know I don’t go around looking for a fight ... not unprovoked in private situations ... whereas I’ll certainly do that in the public arena, given half a chance.
I’ll never be the one to bring the subject up ... and if they do, I’ll pursue it, with my reply, no longer than their interest is evident or they’ve finished asking questions. It’s easy to become a bore on the matter.
For my part I don’t see myself as a punch-bag, I wouldn’t let anyone get away with saying something outrageously contrary to how I see things. Also, for my part, I hope I’ll never merely be a dull reporter of facts. I’d much rather be a self-deprecating punch-bag if only to absorb some of the grief, that’s all ... because I know and you know what we’re really talking about here.
I know you know the nub of this matter, and the power in what vegans have got to say, regarding foods being eaten. However, releasing too much too soon too emotionally is a trap, in my opinion. My own private incredulity at all this (I never cease to be amazed!) must NOT be shown. On any account. I’d put it as strongly as that.
They know we know ... that their foods make them fat, and encourage heart disease, diabetes and sometimes cancer. Discussing this! No sensible person would go there. To talk about all this, to get to a point where the subject is about to be raised (meaning that to do raise it is really okay by you) I’d need to know one thing. One thing about you. That you could take the shock. If you allowed me to shock you, you’d be showing great faith in me as a friend, especially since this isn’t a permission you’d give lightly.
Wouldn’t it be awful if people were so naive that they didn’t know that vegans were NOT simply avoiders-of-meat ... and for them to wander into a minefield - to be blasted by our cannon. “Shock the bastards”.
No way, I’d say. Shocks like that are rarely forgiven. So, the non-violent way to do all this is - well, that’s the eternal question for the vegan animal activist.
My solution may go something like this:
I must have up my sleeve a couple of interesting points, facts, something to catch the attention. It’s what good teachers in classrooms have at the start of a lesson. We are attracting. We’re on the board-walk. We’re selling veganism. We’re trying to make it irresistible ... so attractive that they must TRY it. And ... in trying it of course they get hooked.
For the advocate, full of good intention, the traps are, in order of appearance: it’s too easy to show off; it’s too easy to make sweeping statements; it’s too easy to be outrageous. At this early stage in Animal Rights consciousness we probably don’t need to draw that much fire. We don’t need to make it too easy (for our good omnivore friends) to change the subject. I never like to get bogged down in fine details ... because it too nicely avoids dealing with ‘the more uncomfortable matters’.
As animal activists we won’t be able to satisfy every inquirer’s questions about diet and nutrition and health, although we should try. I reckon our best approach is to appeal to the heart. The kid in us, who wants to be doing stuff that makes us most happy, that’s our best draw card. Our job, as vegans, is to assure people of the general safety and health of a plant-based diet, and then move on to explain all that stuff about how animals are treated as machines, etc, sprinkling in instances of the fun of being a vegan. The main attraction boils down to this: “You’d be mad not to try”
I go to peoples’ places and I’m offered the usual snacks and drinks. “No thanks”.
‘Stunned’ is the best word to describe the reactions i often get. I’m met with utter incomprehension ... when I decline some ‘cheesy-bit’ on a plate. These are famous cheesey-bits which everyone else has dived for. What can I say? But if pressed, as soon as I give my reason I’m labelled weird. At a social event, someone might race around, to find me something I can eat. But most people are defenders of the faith and secretly resent my finicky eating habits ... for that’s what they turn this into.
From what could be a simple “ah, you’re vegan” and a recognition of the compassion-angle, we get to the other extreme, irritation ... at me being ‘fussy over my food’. I don’t get asked why I’m fussy. That steps into a dangerous area, knowing animal-cruelty is a public problem. They know to steer clear. In fact most people will only discuss it on their terms, with agree-ers, not with us. So, socially, vegans are a problem. They (that’s everyone, just about) knows it’ll lead to uncomfortable-ness.
Those ‘cheesey snacks at the party’ and me refusing to eat them and they wondering if it’s something to do with nutrition. You could call it the “It’s healthier being vegetarian”-angle. They might expect to hear about animal-food containing too much fat or sugar or being too high in protein, harmful to health … etc. What they may NOT expect is when the Animal Rights-angle. Talking ‘hens-in-cages’ spells feeling-uncomfortable.
So, as a vegan, as a potentially socially threatening person I’m not often asked out. Ouch! And when I am I don’t get asked for my reasoning behind my food choices. I don’t think I’m an especially unlikeable person but (in a potential talk-off) I’d probably be regarded as a social pariah. I hope they know me well enough to know I don’t go around looking for a fight ... not unprovoked in private situations ... whereas I’ll certainly do that in the public arena, given half a chance.
I’ll never be the one to bring the subject up ... and if they do, I’ll pursue it, with my reply, no longer than their interest is evident or they’ve finished asking questions. It’s easy to become a bore on the matter.
For my part I don’t see myself as a punch-bag, I wouldn’t let anyone get away with saying something outrageously contrary to how I see things. Also, for my part, I hope I’ll never merely be a dull reporter of facts. I’d much rather be a self-deprecating punch-bag if only to absorb some of the grief, that’s all ... because I know and you know what we’re really talking about here.
I know you know the nub of this matter, and the power in what vegans have got to say, regarding foods being eaten. However, releasing too much too soon too emotionally is a trap, in my opinion. My own private incredulity at all this (I never cease to be amazed!) must NOT be shown. On any account. I’d put it as strongly as that.
They know we know ... that their foods make them fat, and encourage heart disease, diabetes and sometimes cancer. Discussing this! No sensible person would go there. To talk about all this, to get to a point where the subject is about to be raised (meaning that to do raise it is really okay by you) I’d need to know one thing. One thing about you. That you could take the shock. If you allowed me to shock you, you’d be showing great faith in me as a friend, especially since this isn’t a permission you’d give lightly.
Wouldn’t it be awful if people were so naive that they didn’t know that vegans were NOT simply avoiders-of-meat ... and for them to wander into a minefield - to be blasted by our cannon. “Shock the bastards”.
No way, I’d say. Shocks like that are rarely forgiven. So, the non-violent way to do all this is - well, that’s the eternal question for the vegan animal activist.
My solution may go something like this:
I must have up my sleeve a couple of interesting points, facts, something to catch the attention. It’s what good teachers in classrooms have at the start of a lesson. We are attracting. We’re on the board-walk. We’re selling veganism. We’re trying to make it irresistible ... so attractive that they must TRY it. And ... in trying it of course they get hooked.
For the advocate, full of good intention, the traps are, in order of appearance: it’s too easy to show off; it’s too easy to make sweeping statements; it’s too easy to be outrageous. At this early stage in Animal Rights consciousness we probably don’t need to draw that much fire. We don’t need to make it too easy (for our good omnivore friends) to change the subject. I never like to get bogged down in fine details ... because it too nicely avoids dealing with ‘the more uncomfortable matters’.
As animal activists we won’t be able to satisfy every inquirer’s questions about diet and nutrition and health, although we should try. I reckon our best approach is to appeal to the heart. The kid in us, who wants to be doing stuff that makes us most happy, that’s our best draw card. Our job, as vegans, is to assure people of the general safety and health of a plant-based diet, and then move on to explain all that stuff about how animals are treated as machines, etc, sprinkling in instances of the fun of being a vegan. The main attraction boils down to this: “You’d be mad not to try”
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The consumer trap
207:
We are all consumers and we all need help to make the right decisions. One big help would be clear labelling of products - if something edible is suitable-for-vegans then a “this product is suitable for vegans”-label makes shopping easier. And incidentally it’s also a great advert for vegan food ... although, very likely, that’s the reason they don’t do it!
It’s common in other countries but not in Australia. “Suitable for vegans”. When I want to buy a food product with several ingredients, I want to be sure it’s free from those ‘dreaded items’ To tell me it’s “okay” makes me friendly to that food company.
Government has legislated that all food goods must contain ingredients lists. That’s good. I go into a food store with my reading glasses in hand, ready to examine the microscopic print in the ingredient-list, to catch any listed animal product ... but I have to know that albumen is from eggs, that whey is from milk and gelatine is from hoofs, and there are many more sneaky terms used to hide abattoir items. If the product doesn’t contain anything objectionable, if it’s ‘vegan’, then I want them to make it clear, and better still put a tick next to the word ‘vegan’, on the front of the packaging.
We need good labelling so that we can make informed choices. If we’re eating food from abattoirs or using the co-products or by-products of animal farming, or ingredients containing these products, it should be clearly stated. We have the right to know what we are putting into our bodies ... or what’s in the shoes we put on our feet.
Vegans (and that includes me who’s too lazy to follow my own advice), should write letters and bombard the product manufacturers with emails ... if they make vegan-suitable products. “Thank you”. Tell them we appreciate their ingredients, and ask them to label their products “vegan friendly”, or some such. I am lazy ... I’m forgetful too. Struggling with ‘ingredients’ printed in font size 4, I realise too late I’ve forgotten my glasses, so of course I can’t read the damned ingredients list anyway. This is where I have to refrain from buying something ... because I’m not sure what’s in it. The trap, for me, is pretending I didn’t notice what was in fact in-evidence, for all good eyes to see. It’s the same sort of pretending that I find myself criticising omnivores of doing!
We are all consumers and we all need help to make the right decisions. One big help would be clear labelling of products - if something edible is suitable-for-vegans then a “this product is suitable for vegans”-label makes shopping easier. And incidentally it’s also a great advert for vegan food ... although, very likely, that’s the reason they don’t do it!
It’s common in other countries but not in Australia. “Suitable for vegans”. When I want to buy a food product with several ingredients, I want to be sure it’s free from those ‘dreaded items’ To tell me it’s “okay” makes me friendly to that food company.
Government has legislated that all food goods must contain ingredients lists. That’s good. I go into a food store with my reading glasses in hand, ready to examine the microscopic print in the ingredient-list, to catch any listed animal product ... but I have to know that albumen is from eggs, that whey is from milk and gelatine is from hoofs, and there are many more sneaky terms used to hide abattoir items. If the product doesn’t contain anything objectionable, if it’s ‘vegan’, then I want them to make it clear, and better still put a tick next to the word ‘vegan’, on the front of the packaging.
We need good labelling so that we can make informed choices. If we’re eating food from abattoirs or using the co-products or by-products of animal farming, or ingredients containing these products, it should be clearly stated. We have the right to know what we are putting into our bodies ... or what’s in the shoes we put on our feet.
Vegans (and that includes me who’s too lazy to follow my own advice), should write letters and bombard the product manufacturers with emails ... if they make vegan-suitable products. “Thank you”. Tell them we appreciate their ingredients, and ask them to label their products “vegan friendly”, or some such. I am lazy ... I’m forgetful too. Struggling with ‘ingredients’ printed in font size 4, I realise too late I’ve forgotten my glasses, so of course I can’t read the damned ingredients list anyway. This is where I have to refrain from buying something ... because I’m not sure what’s in it. The trap, for me, is pretending I didn’t notice what was in fact in-evidence, for all good eyes to see. It’s the same sort of pretending that I find myself criticising omnivores of doing!
Saturday, July 9, 2011
A special type of non-exploitative energy
204:
Our society admires people who get ahead, and that includes those who squeeze the land or the people or the animals, or anything else they call a ‘resource’. How they do it, this squeezing, isn’t usually seen. But the results are ... and the consumer very much appreciates the results. (Today, in the West, we’re so well resourced in every imaginable way).
The ‘admired ones’ are often loving people and kind to their families and friends ... but they nevertheless can be ruthless, concerning their source-of-income - what I’d see as the ‘advantage-takers’, these are the ones who’ve learnt to numb their feelings, and just ‘do it’ ... get on with making a living by way of enslaved animals. It’s ‘living-wages’ versus ideals here.
Their livelihood contradicts everything the idealist stands for. My rule number one is don’t get mixed up with anything or anyone involved in the cruelty trade ... and that includes all animal farming (and please let me know if there’s any non-cruel or non-abusive animal farming).
The pastoralist or the factory farmer can earn big money. Their businesses boost the country’s economy ... and these people, by dint of ‘feeding the masses’, are warmed by Society’s approval. In contrast the idealist is left out in the cold – given no encouragement and shown even less interest ... and that’s from pretty much everyone.
As yet, there are so few ‘idealist-animal-advocates’ that it’s open slather on the insulting-front - anyone can say anything and get away with it. I’m supposed to be a ‘bleeding heart’. It’s hard to take. But it’s not exactly a mortal blow.
As vegans we have a great advantage over those who aren’t, so why begrudge someone’s small pleasure in making fun of us? For them ... what is it? Perhaps a giggly, nervous, nagging guilt? I don’t know ... but for us, we have the advantage of having a special goal ... an idealist’s goal, with extra topping. It comes with an ever-inspiring energy, in the form of ‘guardian-consciousness’. Anyone can feel it. Anyone can use it. It’s the same for everyone ... like when we’re feeling protective towards children or forests. I feel it as a type of energy that ‘comes over me’ when I’m in a protective role. Anyway, whatever it is seems to compensate the idealist.
In our sad, ideal-poor Society, if you’re a non-idealist, if you don’t see stars in your children’s eyes or glory in the bushlands, then you’re not aware it even exists ...and it follows that you can’t miss what you haven’t had. If it’s not known to you ... if you don’t get it (the reasoning behind idealism) ... it’s likely you won’t ‘get’ why idealists work tirelessly for no obvious reward ... and seem to thrive on it.
Idealism’s not so very different to being selfish. However, it’s far enough away to see the prospect of another sort of energy, full of motivation-factor, and a self-perpetuating one at that.
I’ll attempt to explain: This energy. This energy is a bit too lofty for some people ... they think it leads to arrogance ... and very true, it does. Seeing myself as an idealist I could easily disappear up my own fundament ... but that wouldn’t be because of ideals themselves. They’re golden. They’re the stuff of life. In my own (fantastically, socially-isolating world of) idealism, I have one wish, a selfish wish. That I’ll always perhaps-foolishly see better things ahead. Isn’t idealism merely the up-take of pro-active, harmlessness-centred human activity. It could lead to perfection or it could lead to ‘repair’. Same thing really ...?
Whew! All this altruistic, idealistic talk is making me thirsty. I need a drink ...
One nutshell of an idea, a germ within a simple ideal is a machine, with its own, inbuilt, self-perpetuating, energy production unit ... and I’ve got one and you’ve got one and we’ve all got one ... and it’s at our immediate disposal (no training needed). It’s a machine which is suitable for travelling to ... well, I’m not quite sure where, but I do know it’s a very handy sort of energy to have and to use. It was probably invented by humans for humans ... and the design for this ‘energy-machine’ must have come from: ‘the more energy you put out the more energy you get back ... or, the more energy you get from life the more of it you want to put back’.
I suspect this machine (or energy) operates independently. It has nothing to do with being good, or with making money, or inflicting self-punishment. It’s designed specifically not for repair but for fun ... and if used beyond the mistake-zone of waste or cruelty then it IS pleasure itself. And the energy for this machine is a particular energy. You can get it from, for instance, any money-making scheme which isn’t exploitative.
Our society admires people who get ahead, and that includes those who squeeze the land or the people or the animals, or anything else they call a ‘resource’. How they do it, this squeezing, isn’t usually seen. But the results are ... and the consumer very much appreciates the results. (Today, in the West, we’re so well resourced in every imaginable way).
The ‘admired ones’ are often loving people and kind to their families and friends ... but they nevertheless can be ruthless, concerning their source-of-income - what I’d see as the ‘advantage-takers’, these are the ones who’ve learnt to numb their feelings, and just ‘do it’ ... get on with making a living by way of enslaved animals. It’s ‘living-wages’ versus ideals here.
Their livelihood contradicts everything the idealist stands for. My rule number one is don’t get mixed up with anything or anyone involved in the cruelty trade ... and that includes all animal farming (and please let me know if there’s any non-cruel or non-abusive animal farming).
The pastoralist or the factory farmer can earn big money. Their businesses boost the country’s economy ... and these people, by dint of ‘feeding the masses’, are warmed by Society’s approval. In contrast the idealist is left out in the cold – given no encouragement and shown even less interest ... and that’s from pretty much everyone.
As yet, there are so few ‘idealist-animal-advocates’ that it’s open slather on the insulting-front - anyone can say anything and get away with it. I’m supposed to be a ‘bleeding heart’. It’s hard to take. But it’s not exactly a mortal blow.
As vegans we have a great advantage over those who aren’t, so why begrudge someone’s small pleasure in making fun of us? For them ... what is it? Perhaps a giggly, nervous, nagging guilt? I don’t know ... but for us, we have the advantage of having a special goal ... an idealist’s goal, with extra topping. It comes with an ever-inspiring energy, in the form of ‘guardian-consciousness’. Anyone can feel it. Anyone can use it. It’s the same for everyone ... like when we’re feeling protective towards children or forests. I feel it as a type of energy that ‘comes over me’ when I’m in a protective role. Anyway, whatever it is seems to compensate the idealist.
In our sad, ideal-poor Society, if you’re a non-idealist, if you don’t see stars in your children’s eyes or glory in the bushlands, then you’re not aware it even exists ...and it follows that you can’t miss what you haven’t had. If it’s not known to you ... if you don’t get it (the reasoning behind idealism) ... it’s likely you won’t ‘get’ why idealists work tirelessly for no obvious reward ... and seem to thrive on it.
Idealism’s not so very different to being selfish. However, it’s far enough away to see the prospect of another sort of energy, full of motivation-factor, and a self-perpetuating one at that.
I’ll attempt to explain: This energy. This energy is a bit too lofty for some people ... they think it leads to arrogance ... and very true, it does. Seeing myself as an idealist I could easily disappear up my own fundament ... but that wouldn’t be because of ideals themselves. They’re golden. They’re the stuff of life. In my own (fantastically, socially-isolating world of) idealism, I have one wish, a selfish wish. That I’ll always perhaps-foolishly see better things ahead. Isn’t idealism merely the up-take of pro-active, harmlessness-centred human activity. It could lead to perfection or it could lead to ‘repair’. Same thing really ...?
Whew! All this altruistic, idealistic talk is making me thirsty. I need a drink ...
One nutshell of an idea, a germ within a simple ideal is a machine, with its own, inbuilt, self-perpetuating, energy production unit ... and I’ve got one and you’ve got one and we’ve all got one ... and it’s at our immediate disposal (no training needed). It’s a machine which is suitable for travelling to ... well, I’m not quite sure where, but I do know it’s a very handy sort of energy to have and to use. It was probably invented by humans for humans ... and the design for this ‘energy-machine’ must have come from: ‘the more energy you put out the more energy you get back ... or, the more energy you get from life the more of it you want to put back’.
I suspect this machine (or energy) operates independently. It has nothing to do with being good, or with making money, or inflicting self-punishment. It’s designed specifically not for repair but for fun ... and if used beyond the mistake-zone of waste or cruelty then it IS pleasure itself. And the energy for this machine is a particular energy. You can get it from, for instance, any money-making scheme which isn’t exploitative.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Cows and their milk
The following blogs are connected - it’s a 2000 word read.
189:
Milk - what is this white liquid?
Milk is a big issue. It’s highly down-played but not by vegans. It represents infantile associations, sucking at the breast, comfort, stomach-filling, and with additions deliciousness. So why is it so wrong?
Empathy switched off in regard to cows, yet we value them for so much of our food. Cow is machine not sentient animal. If the empathy in us HASN’T been switched off we’ll feel for the cow. We don’t need to understand her psyche to guess how she feels, when her calf is taken away? (Cows are allowed to spend very little time with their calves these days, before they’re removed). Anthropomorphically-speaking, we rely on our instincts to tell us what we can’t provably ‘know’ … like knowing how this cow feels. We can safely say she feels badly, because she’s captive and powerless and she’s forced to lose her offspring.
If we take away an animal’s freedom we may be taking away her very soul; loss of freedom is inimical to all wild creatures, and humans too. Once we grant animals their freedom and look after them in sanctuaries, then, perhaps, we can restore relations with them. And however it is, when we’re with them, as long as we aren’t violating them or disregarding them or treating them as if they were inferior, then we’re mending. Then all the main repair is already happening ... and therefore we can enjoy being close to them.
It’s just this very human trait of wanting-to-be-close. We do it best. We like it most. The buzz we get from animals is not so very different from the buzz we get from kids. Unfortunately, for some people, they’re not familiar with that sort of closeness. To them animals mean very little. They see them as objects, certainly not as equals. They’re there to be exploited.
Animals all over the world are in a parlous situation because there are humans with attitudes like this.
190:
I’m from a dangerous species
Humans might think they’re free of fear but fear is my main driver. I’m forever shoring up the banks of a raging river that flows through my life, which threatens to flood my very soul. It’s because I fear losing my freedom.
To prevent this loss we acquire power, enough to feel safer. We build up stocks of money. To that end we exploit resources, and that includes animals. We’re good at being guardians, but even better at raising money. Money is our main security-in-life.
I’m careful with money ... but not so careful elsewhere. I can be clumsy and cruel - I’ll push you aside if you’re in my way or I’ll exploit you if you happen to be useful. I don’t care if I damage the environment or hurt the feelings of an animal, just so long as it makes me more money … so I can feel safe. In my quest for security I squash my sensitivity and put on my hard skin of pragmatism. I adopt a coldness of heart.
I desensitise further ... until all traces of compassion and imagination are gone. That’s when I’m ready to take on the animals and exploit the bejesus out of them. I’m from a dangerous species.
191:
The cow
Humans will manipulate anything to gain personal advantage. We exploit resources to strengthen and protect ourselves, and especially when there’s no danger in it for us (like using captive animals). Our advantage-taking inspires systems like slavery, so that our food and clothing taken from animals is available on tap. By putting animals to work for us our livelihoods can be provided. We put them to work for us because we can, because there are no negative repercussions. (Or so we think!)
Take the cow for instance. She is the victim of theft and assault on a daily basis. Her fate is in the hands of humans who want to get 20-40 litres of milk from her every day. The new-born is pushed aside so that we can get its milk We’ve always stolen it for ourselves and now we hardly notice it, and we see no reason to stop it.
On the farm, the calf is dispatched as quickly as possible, having served its chief purpose in embryo - as a foetus, having stimulated its mother’s mammary glands, there’s no pint keeping it alive. Often calves are shot on day one. One or two female calves (of the five or six born to a cow) are sent to ‘calf prison’, until they’re ready for dairy duties, or for fattening purposes.
It’s a sad thought that we abuse such a peaceful creature. Anthropomorphically, we can guess that both cow and calf are unhappy about all of this. But the whole thing is still legal, so there’s not much anyone can do about it. The milk is drunk, the profits made and the cow enslaved.
Am I unhappy about this? Ashamed? Not exactly, because most people have never even thought about it, or if they have they’ve chosen to ignore it. Humans have been nicely brainwashed. Our desensitisation has reached the point where considering ‘the rights and wrongs of dairy farming’ has never entered our heads.
192:
Companion animals and the fate of others
Our attitude to animals in general is a paradox. It’s curious how we humans can be close to our cats and dogs, even sometimes closer than with human companions. We might do everything for them to make their lives happy, despite the fact they only offer us companionship (‘only’!) and produce no useful products for use. We call them pets or companion animals and value them. Mind you, when they no longer fulfil their role as ‘companions’ they may also be shot, well, ‘shot’ full of lethal chemicals to ‘put them to sleep’. But when they’re alive, living with us as working companions, we often try to give them the very best. We give them love, food, shelter and expensive medical care.
But not so other animals, who are valued not as companions but as property and edible property at that. These animals enjoy no quality of life whatsoever; a life of perpetual torture in fact.
193:
Animals wild and enslaved
If an animal is wild (and not regarded as a pest to humans) we study them, marvel at them, protect them . . . although sometimes we hunt them. But if an animal is docile and edible or can make useful products for us, then we put them into the ‘domesticated-animal’ category. They are put into service. Their freedom to escape is out of the question. Usually their bodily movements are restricted. We take these animals very seriously indeed because they aren’t meant for entertainment or for studying but play an essential role in human-lifestyle. It follows then, that if an animal is not for cuddling or admiring it must be there to be enslaved.
It’s best, emotionally, if humans try not to get too close to these particular animals, since they’re going to be murdered when they’re either big enough or exhausted enough. We can’t get too friendly if we’re going to make them so unhappy. Their happiness is that last thing we need to be concerned about ... when we’ve got them banged up in prison. When the time is ripe ... when they arrive at their unhappiest last day, they are to be traumatised. (Perhaps it’s their happiest day, since it brings them blesséd relief from having humans torturing them).
194:
Economics of Farms
Perhaps humans have no sadistic need to harm animals for the sake of it. It’s just that economics dictates how we keep them whilst alive and how we bring them to their deaths. We do what we have to do, to get what we want from them, without spending too much money. Since the world is a very competitive place, it all has to be low cost. Those with lowest ethical standards set the benchmark. For example, eggs. ‘Cage-eggs’ are cheap, so every egg farmer in the world must cage their hens or go out of business. It’s the same with all commodities. If milk is cheaper to ship in from Singapore, then it will come from there … and Australian dairy farmers eat your heart out!
To get milk (her milk) and sell it for a profit (our profit) a cow must be cheap to produce and cheap to keep. Oceans of milk are made at a minimum cost. Rivers of milk supply maximum numbers of consumers. If this is how milk works then it’s the same for all farmed-animal produce. We want it so they have to die for it.
It’s unusual, the idea of being compassionate enough to not want it, refusing to be the cause of harm to these animals. In our culture we are so used to animal products that to voluntarily deny ourselves of them seems absurd. In our culture, the enjoyment of food is everything, especially if we think animal cuisine is an art form. The enjoyment of animal food is greater still if we think it makes us strong. It’s unimaginable to reverse all this (on the basis that these products are unhealthy and represent human cruelty).
And likewise, omnivores can’t imagine animal products being satisfactorily replaced by plant-based products. They just don’t believe it’s possible. And because they can’t imagine it (whereas of course vegans can) they continue to demand these products and, in consequence, deprive animals of their lives.
195:
Milk
So, many people today are realising that cow’s milk is not nutritionally essential, and even that it’s unhealthy. Because there are thousands of different products made with it, almost all people still continue to buy it or foods that contain it.
There’s a tendency for us humans to insist on getting what we want … perhaps it’s a ‘dominant species’ thing - we want it and prefer to get it without struggle – milk, for example, is legal, cheap (subsidised) and plentiful. It is therefore the favourite ingredient by many food manufacturers. It is a truly struggle-free product. Fresh supplies are available everywhere. We often need to go no further than a few meters down the road, to the nearest corner shop, to get our milk … at which shop they sell many other products, also made with milk (as a chief ingredient). As consumers we almost fall over ourselves to get milk, because we can only contemplate our tea and coffee with some in it (and therefore unable to imagine life without it!). Everyone has a carton in their fridge (except vegans and lactose-intolerants). There is no more prevalent consumer item on the market, and therefore milk is a guaranteed money spinner for the industry. They’ve turned it into something as natural as fresh air. They say it’s essential to human life, making the use of milk an entrenched consumer habit.
We forget that whenever we buy milk we help to finance cow prisons.
196:
Cow prisons
Why should we care about cows living on prison farms? Surely cows are the living example of how we’ve made a machine out of Mother Nature. We’ve harnessed Nature to supply our needs and insured our future survival by having so many animals ‘on tap’. Consequently we can guarantee our major food supply. We’ve done it by using our brains.
Again, it’s illustrated best by the cow. With our useful knowledge of the biology of this animal we have taken control of her, body and soul. Keeping a cow as a milk-producing machine involves forcibly impregnating her, letting her carry a calf to term, letting that biological process take its course, to stimulate her mammary glands to produce maximum milk. We also very cleverly manipulate her genes too.
By disposing of the newly birthed calf, in order to draw off milk for us, we arrive at a perfect example of slavery. Certainly in Nature ants enslave aphids and terrible predatory things happen between creatures, but everything, predator or predated, is always allowed its sense of being part of the natural world. But not cows nor any other farmed animal. They are enslaved, shut up in cages or enclosed by concrete, and in constant contact with cold hard steel. They’re attended by cold hearted humans who, when they deem fit will have their animal executed.
Something in our instinct should tell us this is profoundly wrong. But for most of us our instincts, in this regard, have been cauterised … so we see no wrong in it.
189:
Milk - what is this white liquid?
Milk is a big issue. It’s highly down-played but not by vegans. It represents infantile associations, sucking at the breast, comfort, stomach-filling, and with additions deliciousness. So why is it so wrong?
Empathy switched off in regard to cows, yet we value them for so much of our food. Cow is machine not sentient animal. If the empathy in us HASN’T been switched off we’ll feel for the cow. We don’t need to understand her psyche to guess how she feels, when her calf is taken away? (Cows are allowed to spend very little time with their calves these days, before they’re removed). Anthropomorphically-speaking, we rely on our instincts to tell us what we can’t provably ‘know’ … like knowing how this cow feels. We can safely say she feels badly, because she’s captive and powerless and she’s forced to lose her offspring.
If we take away an animal’s freedom we may be taking away her very soul; loss of freedom is inimical to all wild creatures, and humans too. Once we grant animals their freedom and look after them in sanctuaries, then, perhaps, we can restore relations with them. And however it is, when we’re with them, as long as we aren’t violating them or disregarding them or treating them as if they were inferior, then we’re mending. Then all the main repair is already happening ... and therefore we can enjoy being close to them.
It’s just this very human trait of wanting-to-be-close. We do it best. We like it most. The buzz we get from animals is not so very different from the buzz we get from kids. Unfortunately, for some people, they’re not familiar with that sort of closeness. To them animals mean very little. They see them as objects, certainly not as equals. They’re there to be exploited.
Animals all over the world are in a parlous situation because there are humans with attitudes like this.
190:
I’m from a dangerous species
Humans might think they’re free of fear but fear is my main driver. I’m forever shoring up the banks of a raging river that flows through my life, which threatens to flood my very soul. It’s because I fear losing my freedom.
To prevent this loss we acquire power, enough to feel safer. We build up stocks of money. To that end we exploit resources, and that includes animals. We’re good at being guardians, but even better at raising money. Money is our main security-in-life.
I’m careful with money ... but not so careful elsewhere. I can be clumsy and cruel - I’ll push you aside if you’re in my way or I’ll exploit you if you happen to be useful. I don’t care if I damage the environment or hurt the feelings of an animal, just so long as it makes me more money … so I can feel safe. In my quest for security I squash my sensitivity and put on my hard skin of pragmatism. I adopt a coldness of heart.
I desensitise further ... until all traces of compassion and imagination are gone. That’s when I’m ready to take on the animals and exploit the bejesus out of them. I’m from a dangerous species.
191:
The cow
Humans will manipulate anything to gain personal advantage. We exploit resources to strengthen and protect ourselves, and especially when there’s no danger in it for us (like using captive animals). Our advantage-taking inspires systems like slavery, so that our food and clothing taken from animals is available on tap. By putting animals to work for us our livelihoods can be provided. We put them to work for us because we can, because there are no negative repercussions. (Or so we think!)
Take the cow for instance. She is the victim of theft and assault on a daily basis. Her fate is in the hands of humans who want to get 20-40 litres of milk from her every day. The new-born is pushed aside so that we can get its milk We’ve always stolen it for ourselves and now we hardly notice it, and we see no reason to stop it.
On the farm, the calf is dispatched as quickly as possible, having served its chief purpose in embryo - as a foetus, having stimulated its mother’s mammary glands, there’s no pint keeping it alive. Often calves are shot on day one. One or two female calves (of the five or six born to a cow) are sent to ‘calf prison’, until they’re ready for dairy duties, or for fattening purposes.
It’s a sad thought that we abuse such a peaceful creature. Anthropomorphically, we can guess that both cow and calf are unhappy about all of this. But the whole thing is still legal, so there’s not much anyone can do about it. The milk is drunk, the profits made and the cow enslaved.
Am I unhappy about this? Ashamed? Not exactly, because most people have never even thought about it, or if they have they’ve chosen to ignore it. Humans have been nicely brainwashed. Our desensitisation has reached the point where considering ‘the rights and wrongs of dairy farming’ has never entered our heads.
192:
Companion animals and the fate of others
Our attitude to animals in general is a paradox. It’s curious how we humans can be close to our cats and dogs, even sometimes closer than with human companions. We might do everything for them to make their lives happy, despite the fact they only offer us companionship (‘only’!) and produce no useful products for use. We call them pets or companion animals and value them. Mind you, when they no longer fulfil their role as ‘companions’ they may also be shot, well, ‘shot’ full of lethal chemicals to ‘put them to sleep’. But when they’re alive, living with us as working companions, we often try to give them the very best. We give them love, food, shelter and expensive medical care.
But not so other animals, who are valued not as companions but as property and edible property at that. These animals enjoy no quality of life whatsoever; a life of perpetual torture in fact.
193:
Animals wild and enslaved
If an animal is wild (and not regarded as a pest to humans) we study them, marvel at them, protect them . . . although sometimes we hunt them. But if an animal is docile and edible or can make useful products for us, then we put them into the ‘domesticated-animal’ category. They are put into service. Their freedom to escape is out of the question. Usually their bodily movements are restricted. We take these animals very seriously indeed because they aren’t meant for entertainment or for studying but play an essential role in human-lifestyle. It follows then, that if an animal is not for cuddling or admiring it must be there to be enslaved.
It’s best, emotionally, if humans try not to get too close to these particular animals, since they’re going to be murdered when they’re either big enough or exhausted enough. We can’t get too friendly if we’re going to make them so unhappy. Their happiness is that last thing we need to be concerned about ... when we’ve got them banged up in prison. When the time is ripe ... when they arrive at their unhappiest last day, they are to be traumatised. (Perhaps it’s their happiest day, since it brings them blesséd relief from having humans torturing them).
194:
Economics of Farms
Perhaps humans have no sadistic need to harm animals for the sake of it. It’s just that economics dictates how we keep them whilst alive and how we bring them to their deaths. We do what we have to do, to get what we want from them, without spending too much money. Since the world is a very competitive place, it all has to be low cost. Those with lowest ethical standards set the benchmark. For example, eggs. ‘Cage-eggs’ are cheap, so every egg farmer in the world must cage their hens or go out of business. It’s the same with all commodities. If milk is cheaper to ship in from Singapore, then it will come from there … and Australian dairy farmers eat your heart out!
To get milk (her milk) and sell it for a profit (our profit) a cow must be cheap to produce and cheap to keep. Oceans of milk are made at a minimum cost. Rivers of milk supply maximum numbers of consumers. If this is how milk works then it’s the same for all farmed-animal produce. We want it so they have to die for it.
It’s unusual, the idea of being compassionate enough to not want it, refusing to be the cause of harm to these animals. In our culture we are so used to animal products that to voluntarily deny ourselves of them seems absurd. In our culture, the enjoyment of food is everything, especially if we think animal cuisine is an art form. The enjoyment of animal food is greater still if we think it makes us strong. It’s unimaginable to reverse all this (on the basis that these products are unhealthy and represent human cruelty).
And likewise, omnivores can’t imagine animal products being satisfactorily replaced by plant-based products. They just don’t believe it’s possible. And because they can’t imagine it (whereas of course vegans can) they continue to demand these products and, in consequence, deprive animals of their lives.
195:
Milk
So, many people today are realising that cow’s milk is not nutritionally essential, and even that it’s unhealthy. Because there are thousands of different products made with it, almost all people still continue to buy it or foods that contain it.
There’s a tendency for us humans to insist on getting what we want … perhaps it’s a ‘dominant species’ thing - we want it and prefer to get it without struggle – milk, for example, is legal, cheap (subsidised) and plentiful. It is therefore the favourite ingredient by many food manufacturers. It is a truly struggle-free product. Fresh supplies are available everywhere. We often need to go no further than a few meters down the road, to the nearest corner shop, to get our milk … at which shop they sell many other products, also made with milk (as a chief ingredient). As consumers we almost fall over ourselves to get milk, because we can only contemplate our tea and coffee with some in it (and therefore unable to imagine life without it!). Everyone has a carton in their fridge (except vegans and lactose-intolerants). There is no more prevalent consumer item on the market, and therefore milk is a guaranteed money spinner for the industry. They’ve turned it into something as natural as fresh air. They say it’s essential to human life, making the use of milk an entrenched consumer habit.
We forget that whenever we buy milk we help to finance cow prisons.
196:
Cow prisons
Why should we care about cows living on prison farms? Surely cows are the living example of how we’ve made a machine out of Mother Nature. We’ve harnessed Nature to supply our needs and insured our future survival by having so many animals ‘on tap’. Consequently we can guarantee our major food supply. We’ve done it by using our brains.
Again, it’s illustrated best by the cow. With our useful knowledge of the biology of this animal we have taken control of her, body and soul. Keeping a cow as a milk-producing machine involves forcibly impregnating her, letting her carry a calf to term, letting that biological process take its course, to stimulate her mammary glands to produce maximum milk. We also very cleverly manipulate her genes too.
By disposing of the newly birthed calf, in order to draw off milk for us, we arrive at a perfect example of slavery. Certainly in Nature ants enslave aphids and terrible predatory things happen between creatures, but everything, predator or predated, is always allowed its sense of being part of the natural world. But not cows nor any other farmed animal. They are enslaved, shut up in cages or enclosed by concrete, and in constant contact with cold hard steel. They’re attended by cold hearted humans who, when they deem fit will have their animal executed.
Something in our instinct should tell us this is profoundly wrong. But for most of us our instincts, in this regard, have been cauterised … so we see no wrong in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)