181a
Cattle are exported from Northern Australia in massive container ships to feedlots in Indonesia. There they’re fattened for slaughter and then taken to abattoirs where they go, literally kicking and screaming, to their deaths.
We’d been warned it was coming up on TV. They’d promoted the programme heavily before it went to air. It was shown a couple of weeks ago, in vivid detail! There was outrage. It held the news for over a week. The government banned cattle exports to Indonesia, causing all sorts of political waves.
Watching TV at home and seeing this sort of thing happening obviously has a great impact on the general community. And it’s a double whammy - it’s the story itself followed by the wow-factor of all the interest shown, as the cruelty is discussed in the media.
What did we learn? That there’s a very different attitude-to-animals in other cultures, where ‘sentience’ isn’t considered and, in very practical terms, where refrigerators aren’t common. In Indonesia most people have no way to keep chilled meat chilled, so animals need to be freshly killed for the market. And for religious reasons the animals must be killed without pre-stunning, according to the rules of halal (or in other countries the rules of kosher-killing). It comes down to men with blunt knives wrestling huge animals to the ground and inflicting mortal wounds so they bleed to death ... and that episode is not a pretty sight to watch. They even let other animals, who are about to die the same way, look on.
In our culture that looks like torture or at least salaciously bloodthirsty behaviour . People were so offended that the government saw fit to legislate against it, by banning the export trade there, despite the huge negative reaction from the cattle farmers and the Indonesian government.
Now it’s stopped. Isn’t that great! ... but probably, once the dust has settled and the story is stale, it will all resume with a bit of sugar coating somewhere. The government will resume these cattle exports because it knows it has the blessing of the general population. The consumer is so fearful of a meat-less society that they’ll allow even the atrocities they saw on TV to be forgotten ... and do nothing to even indirectly endanger their own meat supply ... which means, saying nothing to offend our cattle farmers, whether they’re raising cattle for export or home consumption. No meat-eater wants to drive a nail into the coffin of meat-production.
As for the impact of this TV coverage, yes, it was a shock to everyone. But it will soon become an ‘un-remembered’ story ... about ‘an uncivilised people who barbarically kill animals’. The focus will return to the general fear of life-WITHOUT-plenty, particularly without meat. The specific fear - moving towards ‘vegan-thinking’; of veganism setting a trend; of people giving things up on moral grounds ... which is a discomforting thought.
As a vegan I see my job as trying to lessen that fear ... the fear of no more Cadburys Dairy Cream chocolate or hamburgers or cheese sandwiches ... so that everyone can look dispassionately at today’s situation and act accordingly.
If you’re going to change you’ll be wanting the full story? Fair enough. So I’d be wanting to explain the conditions down on the farm and how we can personally help them by boycotting their by-products. I’d also be wanting to describe how wonderful it feels to be actively boycotting.
Of course the live export trade has got to stop, just as the slave trade had to be stopped before the negro slave could be freed ... it’s the same with animals, it’s the slavery-consciousness of humans that has to end. All killing, not just the worst aspects of it.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Freewill
178:
I need to remind myself that free-will rules. If I’m persuading a free-willed mind to come down on my side I must strike a balance between letting it know itself and giving it a shove along. On the ‘shove’ side I might use a few well known mind-shockers, concerning animal cruelty and human health. They’re either big off-putters or big persuaders. My shove would be suggesting habit-change, specifically shopping changes.
My theory is that when people understand good reason for change, they’ll be more inclined to experiment, since it’s for constructive reasons we want to change after all. And today change is happening everywhere. Often we’re impelled to change to keep pace with others who’re already changing.
As a free-willed person, if I’m going to change (when something needs changing) I’d be wanting to do it voluntarily. And I’d want it to stick, to be long term. If I’m pushed, if I’m forced or manipulated my change probably won’t last - I’ll never know if it was really my change or someone else’s. On the other hand when change is inspired ...
If we’re attracted to any of today’s movements-for-change, like cruelty-free, veganism, liberation, planet-saving ... if we change in the right spirit we’ll never look back. On the other hand if I change out of fear it’ll turn into a nightmare - like when the doctor tells you you’re seriously ill and you make a dash into healthy eating, in terror of your life. There’s nowhere for the changes to get a grip ... when they’re hurried along or being over-examined for results. Whereas enthusiastic, passionate change is something else entirely.
When I started on any big life-changes, I always wanted to be sure not to revert back to my old ways, as soon as things got rough. In other words I always wanted to keep some sort of control of myself, to keep my free-will intact.
To me, freewill is the apex of human development. I don’t want to lose this great perk of being human. My free-will may be challenged by all the terribleness of the world but its strength comes from what I’m doing about it. I’d say that just by being vegan one can help to heal the world ... and of course, seeing everything through vegan eyes I inevitably want everyone to become vegan. And yet I’d hold back, because I know free-will mustn’t be underestimated. I know I mustn’t be disrespectful of someone’s free-will. For instance, I can’t be having a nice, casual conversation with you and then suddenly ask you, “What’s that in your sandwich”, pointing to the ham. I’d look like a vegetarian trying to pick a fight. You’d be offended and defensive ... and try to avoid such a rude person in future.
As a friend, if I think you should change I can only suggest it, mildly. The temptation is to be less mild! I can try to be forceful and I can try to manipulate you. But as a lover of free-will, yours and mine, whatever I suggest in terms of Animal Rights mustn’t trample your freewill. Anyway, you won’t let me. You’ll want to make up your own mind for yourself. If there are going to be any changes you need to know they’re safe ones ... which brings me back to the importance of people having confidence in what we, vegans, are saying.
Any suggestions I make to you have to be both convincing and enticing, and preferably at your behest. I’d rather have you dragging information out of me rather than me foisting it onto you.
I need to remind myself that free-will rules. If I’m persuading a free-willed mind to come down on my side I must strike a balance between letting it know itself and giving it a shove along. On the ‘shove’ side I might use a few well known mind-shockers, concerning animal cruelty and human health. They’re either big off-putters or big persuaders. My shove would be suggesting habit-change, specifically shopping changes.
My theory is that when people understand good reason for change, they’ll be more inclined to experiment, since it’s for constructive reasons we want to change after all. And today change is happening everywhere. Often we’re impelled to change to keep pace with others who’re already changing.
As a free-willed person, if I’m going to change (when something needs changing) I’d be wanting to do it voluntarily. And I’d want it to stick, to be long term. If I’m pushed, if I’m forced or manipulated my change probably won’t last - I’ll never know if it was really my change or someone else’s. On the other hand when change is inspired ...
If we’re attracted to any of today’s movements-for-change, like cruelty-free, veganism, liberation, planet-saving ... if we change in the right spirit we’ll never look back. On the other hand if I change out of fear it’ll turn into a nightmare - like when the doctor tells you you’re seriously ill and you make a dash into healthy eating, in terror of your life. There’s nowhere for the changes to get a grip ... when they’re hurried along or being over-examined for results. Whereas enthusiastic, passionate change is something else entirely.
When I started on any big life-changes, I always wanted to be sure not to revert back to my old ways, as soon as things got rough. In other words I always wanted to keep some sort of control of myself, to keep my free-will intact.
To me, freewill is the apex of human development. I don’t want to lose this great perk of being human. My free-will may be challenged by all the terribleness of the world but its strength comes from what I’m doing about it. I’d say that just by being vegan one can help to heal the world ... and of course, seeing everything through vegan eyes I inevitably want everyone to become vegan. And yet I’d hold back, because I know free-will mustn’t be underestimated. I know I mustn’t be disrespectful of someone’s free-will. For instance, I can’t be having a nice, casual conversation with you and then suddenly ask you, “What’s that in your sandwich”, pointing to the ham. I’d look like a vegetarian trying to pick a fight. You’d be offended and defensive ... and try to avoid such a rude person in future.
As a friend, if I think you should change I can only suggest it, mildly. The temptation is to be less mild! I can try to be forceful and I can try to manipulate you. But as a lover of free-will, yours and mine, whatever I suggest in terms of Animal Rights mustn’t trample your freewill. Anyway, you won’t let me. You’ll want to make up your own mind for yourself. If there are going to be any changes you need to know they’re safe ones ... which brings me back to the importance of people having confidence in what we, vegans, are saying.
Any suggestions I make to you have to be both convincing and enticing, and preferably at your behest. I’d rather have you dragging information out of me rather than me foisting it onto you.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Give 'em an inch
172:
Talking about goodness is dangerous. People think we’ve got tickets on ourselves ... and none uglier than do-gooders. ‘Being vegan’ might seem like self punishment ... in order to appear good - so for my part I have to be careful not to let my animal-liberation focus veer towards my own wonderfulness, in case people think I’m ‘in it’ for the wrong reasons.
I remember a famous actor coming to a rehabilitation unit for wayward teenagers, to present them, on behalf of the Actor’s Union, with a new mini-bus. His smile was as warm as toast – but he was passed off by one of the kids as “fake as a Chiko Roll”.
If Animal Rights advocates want to promote a high ideal, as high as vegan principle, we have to earn respect... so, no boasting or appearing fake, particularly acting out the High and Mighty criticising ‘The Unprincipled’.
Instead of giving people guilt trips I prefer to keep whatever’s going on, in my mind, to myself. I try not to show my hand like that; just stick to business; just mention essentials without embellishment. When people are at the introduction-stage (and let’s face it, most people know very little about ‘food’ animals) they’re shy to admit how little they know. At this stage I don’t want to convert or educate but just talk ... without spooking them. Then, who knows, I might get a better reception?
If I can give you something ... something to hang on to ... a non-judgement for a start ... then you’ll see that I accept where you’re at. It’s possible you could be moving towards something better ... towards consideration, even to considering what I’m saying (about animal-use). If people can feel us trying to consider their feelings, they won’t mind what we have to say. So, mainly I want to give off an ‘I’m-on-your-side’ sort of feeling, and make a ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’ non-judgement of you. My interest isn’t about what people are doing now but what they could be doing later ... their potential. I want to believe that you are starting to consider certain things which you didn’t consider before.
This looks like a mild approach perhaps, but by addressing each other this way, there’s better mutual reception and a more honest reciprocation ... each listening, each giving the other the benefit of the doubt ... and on that mutual-regard footing each person feels freer to speak their mind and consider what each is suggesting.
On the other hand, if I seem unfriendly or fake in any way, it’s guaranteed my mission to get you chatting will fail. People want the easier way out - to NOT rebel, to NOT think and particularly NOT to talk about it. If I can’t jolly you along towards a mere chat, I fail.
But this ‘chatting’ - am I not just trying to get into your mind? ... while most people want to inch into this subject, at their rate not at mine. So, I’m carful not to throw people into the deep end, but instead let them keep control of their ‘squeamish’ button ... and yet, without making them feel uncompassionate.
If I seem unfriendly you’ll see a people-hating vegan before you. You’ll see someone loyal to animals, who hates those who directly or indirectly hurt animals. Then you’ll see someone so dazzled by their own righteousness that they can’t see other people’s wonderfulness. And as a righteous-hater of the harmers and eaters, all, I hand you on a plate the best opportunity for you to rubbish me and rubbish my arguments.
Whereas, if you like me, you’ll be more inclined ... etc
Talking about goodness is dangerous. People think we’ve got tickets on ourselves ... and none uglier than do-gooders. ‘Being vegan’ might seem like self punishment ... in order to appear good - so for my part I have to be careful not to let my animal-liberation focus veer towards my own wonderfulness, in case people think I’m ‘in it’ for the wrong reasons.
I remember a famous actor coming to a rehabilitation unit for wayward teenagers, to present them, on behalf of the Actor’s Union, with a new mini-bus. His smile was as warm as toast – but he was passed off by one of the kids as “fake as a Chiko Roll”.
If Animal Rights advocates want to promote a high ideal, as high as vegan principle, we have to earn respect... so, no boasting or appearing fake, particularly acting out the High and Mighty criticising ‘The Unprincipled’.
Instead of giving people guilt trips I prefer to keep whatever’s going on, in my mind, to myself. I try not to show my hand like that; just stick to business; just mention essentials without embellishment. When people are at the introduction-stage (and let’s face it, most people know very little about ‘food’ animals) they’re shy to admit how little they know. At this stage I don’t want to convert or educate but just talk ... without spooking them. Then, who knows, I might get a better reception?
If I can give you something ... something to hang on to ... a non-judgement for a start ... then you’ll see that I accept where you’re at. It’s possible you could be moving towards something better ... towards consideration, even to considering what I’m saying (about animal-use). If people can feel us trying to consider their feelings, they won’t mind what we have to say. So, mainly I want to give off an ‘I’m-on-your-side’ sort of feeling, and make a ‘benefit-of-the-doubt’ non-judgement of you. My interest isn’t about what people are doing now but what they could be doing later ... their potential. I want to believe that you are starting to consider certain things which you didn’t consider before.
This looks like a mild approach perhaps, but by addressing each other this way, there’s better mutual reception and a more honest reciprocation ... each listening, each giving the other the benefit of the doubt ... and on that mutual-regard footing each person feels freer to speak their mind and consider what each is suggesting.
On the other hand, if I seem unfriendly or fake in any way, it’s guaranteed my mission to get you chatting will fail. People want the easier way out - to NOT rebel, to NOT think and particularly NOT to talk about it. If I can’t jolly you along towards a mere chat, I fail.
But this ‘chatting’ - am I not just trying to get into your mind? ... while most people want to inch into this subject, at their rate not at mine. So, I’m carful not to throw people into the deep end, but instead let them keep control of their ‘squeamish’ button ... and yet, without making them feel uncompassionate.
If I seem unfriendly you’ll see a people-hating vegan before you. You’ll see someone loyal to animals, who hates those who directly or indirectly hurt animals. Then you’ll see someone so dazzled by their own righteousness that they can’t see other people’s wonderfulness. And as a righteous-hater of the harmers and eaters, all, I hand you on a plate the best opportunity for you to rubbish me and rubbish my arguments.
Whereas, if you like me, you’ll be more inclined ... etc
Thursday, June 23, 2011
The greater good & feeling good
171:
By avoiding animal products, by becoming vegan, I came to feel good about my decision. My stomach felt more comfortable, my conscience lighter and, of what little of it I have, my brain felt sharper.
This question of ‘good’, what is it? And especially what does it feel like, ‘working for the greater good’? I do things which make me feel good because they’re altruistically-intended – which means that, in some of the things I’m doing, I’m not in it for myself only. It’s like being actively involved in promoting non-violence – I’m starting ‘at-home’ by trying to see the best in others rather than their weaknesses, and breaking that bad habit I have of value-judging people who don’t agree with me.
I notice I’m not consistent about this - when I really like someone, all their virtues are great and all their bad points insignificant. How subjective is that? My aim is, anyway, to be sowing seeds that are going to flower later - I think that’s what I mean by working for the greater good. If I’d ever done anything good in my life, I’m sure the results wouldn’t show up till after I’m dead.
It might be like that for Animals Rights. Perhaps it’s an end-product of some as-yet-unspecified set of changes taking place in the human psyche. Animals-being-liberated might not come about until certain other preliminaries have been gone through ... and it’s likely those will take time - again, likely to be after many of us are dead. So, today is not about impatiently chasing change but about laying foundation stones for future change (of course, with no delay, for there are so many to lay). From the point of view of ‘The Greater Good’, it’s essential we act now for the sake of the future … but most particularly so we can start to ‘feel-good’ about ourselves … now.
If we don’t care about what’s coming (“I won’t be around to see it”), we won’t be interested in long term planning ... and we won’t be interested in the concept of altruism - it will be meaningless. Instead, self-image will be more important ... and that would include seeming to be good. But just seeming good doesn’t guarantee anything much, least of all being liked. I go around displaying lots of ‘goodness’ at every conceivable opportunity. To others it probably seems like I’m sub-consciously bragging or boasting about it … so, very sensibly, I’m someone to be avoided. At the other extreme is a person with genuine humility who does, overall, a much better job. But in the end, it’s the depth of our commitment (to being good) which will eventually be tested. As a natural boaster I should try to act more anonymously, whereas those who are not boasters are safer, but less visible. Neither look good on paper. Both are a BIG turn off. ‘Being good’ is either too long-term or goes too unnoticed. For many vibrant animal activists neither of these potted altruisms appeal. They don’t sit well with their own driving passion … in this case, to protect animals … which is why they take a more antagonistic, direct approach.
For most animal advocates I suspect it all starts with passion. It starts with deep emotions, like outrage, compassion, sensitivity, hatred. Some get loud. We boast. And we suffer for it later; some of us wrestle with faith, about altruism and never seeing the reward for it. Don’t we all go down these paths?
When taking the high moral ground, I try my best to keep myself out of the picture. I don’t want to be thought of as being up my self. But there again ….
By avoiding animal products, by becoming vegan, I came to feel good about my decision. My stomach felt more comfortable, my conscience lighter and, of what little of it I have, my brain felt sharper.
This question of ‘good’, what is it? And especially what does it feel like, ‘working for the greater good’? I do things which make me feel good because they’re altruistically-intended – which means that, in some of the things I’m doing, I’m not in it for myself only. It’s like being actively involved in promoting non-violence – I’m starting ‘at-home’ by trying to see the best in others rather than their weaknesses, and breaking that bad habit I have of value-judging people who don’t agree with me.
I notice I’m not consistent about this - when I really like someone, all their virtues are great and all their bad points insignificant. How subjective is that? My aim is, anyway, to be sowing seeds that are going to flower later - I think that’s what I mean by working for the greater good. If I’d ever done anything good in my life, I’m sure the results wouldn’t show up till after I’m dead.
It might be like that for Animals Rights. Perhaps it’s an end-product of some as-yet-unspecified set of changes taking place in the human psyche. Animals-being-liberated might not come about until certain other preliminaries have been gone through ... and it’s likely those will take time - again, likely to be after many of us are dead. So, today is not about impatiently chasing change but about laying foundation stones for future change (of course, with no delay, for there are so many to lay). From the point of view of ‘The Greater Good’, it’s essential we act now for the sake of the future … but most particularly so we can start to ‘feel-good’ about ourselves … now.
If we don’t care about what’s coming (“I won’t be around to see it”), we won’t be interested in long term planning ... and we won’t be interested in the concept of altruism - it will be meaningless. Instead, self-image will be more important ... and that would include seeming to be good. But just seeming good doesn’t guarantee anything much, least of all being liked. I go around displaying lots of ‘goodness’ at every conceivable opportunity. To others it probably seems like I’m sub-consciously bragging or boasting about it … so, very sensibly, I’m someone to be avoided. At the other extreme is a person with genuine humility who does, overall, a much better job. But in the end, it’s the depth of our commitment (to being good) which will eventually be tested. As a natural boaster I should try to act more anonymously, whereas those who are not boasters are safer, but less visible. Neither look good on paper. Both are a BIG turn off. ‘Being good’ is either too long-term or goes too unnoticed. For many vibrant animal activists neither of these potted altruisms appeal. They don’t sit well with their own driving passion … in this case, to protect animals … which is why they take a more antagonistic, direct approach.
For most animal advocates I suspect it all starts with passion. It starts with deep emotions, like outrage, compassion, sensitivity, hatred. Some get loud. We boast. And we suffer for it later; some of us wrestle with faith, about altruism and never seeing the reward for it. Don’t we all go down these paths?
When taking the high moral ground, I try my best to keep myself out of the picture. I don’t want to be thought of as being up my self. But there again ….
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Vegans starting out
169:
When I decided to do something, to protest, to speak out, to become vegan, the first thing I noticed was that my own self esteem received a boost, and that felt good. But then I made a mistake. I thought others would notice it. Notice me ...and want to follow suit. But no, it ain’t necessarily so. Just becoming vegan is all I could do at first, while waiting for the penny to drop with others.
You can’t just go up to people and suggest they change. There’s no direct action that shifts a mind-set. All I reckoned I could do was wait ... let them come to their senses in their own time. Nah, I can’t resist, as other vegans can’t resist, urging people to wake up. But it interests me that people seem to want to stay asleep over animal issues. Probably for safety reason? When any of us first contemplated a vegan lifestyle we probably considered all the obstacles first - and until these were cleared up to some extent, the mind, our minds, my mind certainly prohibited my taking such a radical step. I kept asking if it was safe? I eventually decided that it seemed to be so.
That’s what practising vegans look into. They read, they talk, they question and conclude ... that the risk is worth taking. In 1943, when all this started, it rested on a belief that one could physically survive on plants. It sounded bizarre and dangerous then, but in hindsight we can see that things today are very different, to what they were in 1943. We’ve made great advances in understanding nutrition, and we’ve been given lots of food choices which not so long ago people didn’t have. Now we ask what food and clothing can’t be manufactured from plants? Certainly egg white is valuable to the chef just as leather protects our feet in the rain, but apart from that the advantages of animal products are they worth torturing millions of animals for?
The reason why vegan thinking and vegan eating and vegan clothing is so important is that vegans are showing others that physical survival is possible without recourse to animals. Those of us on vegan diets, for instance, have found remarkable improvements in health and well being.
At first though, my experiments were glitch-ed - my body needed time to readjust and, on a social level, relationships needed time to acclimatise. I had to work on various levels simultaneously, until things were running smoothly. Vegan diets are not a complete panacea. Food, however good it is, won’t necessarily bring us any closer to loving or non-separation from others. But, for me, it did install non-violence into my thinking - and by doing what I was doing, by going vegan and avoiding all that nasty animal food, I was also avoiding the nastier side of my nature coming out.
When I decided to do something, to protest, to speak out, to become vegan, the first thing I noticed was that my own self esteem received a boost, and that felt good. But then I made a mistake. I thought others would notice it. Notice me ...and want to follow suit. But no, it ain’t necessarily so. Just becoming vegan is all I could do at first, while waiting for the penny to drop with others.
You can’t just go up to people and suggest they change. There’s no direct action that shifts a mind-set. All I reckoned I could do was wait ... let them come to their senses in their own time. Nah, I can’t resist, as other vegans can’t resist, urging people to wake up. But it interests me that people seem to want to stay asleep over animal issues. Probably for safety reason? When any of us first contemplated a vegan lifestyle we probably considered all the obstacles first - and until these were cleared up to some extent, the mind, our minds, my mind certainly prohibited my taking such a radical step. I kept asking if it was safe? I eventually decided that it seemed to be so.
That’s what practising vegans look into. They read, they talk, they question and conclude ... that the risk is worth taking. In 1943, when all this started, it rested on a belief that one could physically survive on plants. It sounded bizarre and dangerous then, but in hindsight we can see that things today are very different, to what they were in 1943. We’ve made great advances in understanding nutrition, and we’ve been given lots of food choices which not so long ago people didn’t have. Now we ask what food and clothing can’t be manufactured from plants? Certainly egg white is valuable to the chef just as leather protects our feet in the rain, but apart from that the advantages of animal products are they worth torturing millions of animals for?
The reason why vegan thinking and vegan eating and vegan clothing is so important is that vegans are showing others that physical survival is possible without recourse to animals. Those of us on vegan diets, for instance, have found remarkable improvements in health and well being.
At first though, my experiments were glitch-ed - my body needed time to readjust and, on a social level, relationships needed time to acclimatise. I had to work on various levels simultaneously, until things were running smoothly. Vegan diets are not a complete panacea. Food, however good it is, won’t necessarily bring us any closer to loving or non-separation from others. But, for me, it did install non-violence into my thinking - and by doing what I was doing, by going vegan and avoiding all that nasty animal food, I was also avoiding the nastier side of my nature coming out.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Comforts for the carnivores
168:
Unless we leap forward into herbivorous-ness we’ll continue to assault animals. We’ll risk everything for the sake of comfort food, none of which is nutritionally necessary, none un-replaceable by plant-based alternatives or, if clothing, with plant or synthetic fibres. And yet people still go for animal-based products. Perhaps that’s because there’s immense variety to choose from. But, for that little luxury we’ve paid dear. Mainly over food. We can’t knock off the pop-foods the ‘evil empire’ churns out.
We know that animals can’t hit back so we abuse them. We do it because we know we can ‘get away with it’. And it’s true, they can’t hit back, but there’s always a sting in the tail. Their edible body parts are toxic. By way of all that saturated fat and high protein, plus the adrenaline infusing into muscle tissue when terrified animals get to the abattoir, animals do ‘hit back’. It’s like Montezuma’s revenge. If we eat animals to feel good we end up NOT feeling so good – these are our just returns for what we’ve put them through ... our penalty for pretending NOT to know about it.
Until recently the mass of population has not been made aware there was any danger in eating animal foods (both from an ethical or health perspective). We’ve just mindlessly exploited animals, using them merely as an available resource. If we’ve been doing it for aeons it’s because there’s been no evidence that people ever related to animals differently, never in a non-violent way, although perhaps in a symbiotic way.
We’re a very utilitarian species. We’ve learned how to take advantage of anything that can’t fight back. Animals have always been easy pickings - we’ve caught them, kept them captive (and now today imprison them in some sort of cage to restrict their movement), efficiently bred them, extracted whatever we could from them and finally executed them. We’re pragmatic enough to design execution chambers for them, so they can be ‘killed humanely’! And then, for chrissakes, we EAT them. What sort of relationship is that, between fellow sentient beings?
The way animals are treated is so sad that I can hardly think about it. And thinking is the key here, the lack of which leads most poor suckers to the doors of the abattoir to buy their drug. And they’re willing to have large amounts of their money extracted from them to pay for what is essentially rubbish and what is definitely replaceable by a more humane and healthy alternative.
Unless we leap forward into herbivorous-ness we’ll continue to assault animals. We’ll risk everything for the sake of comfort food, none of which is nutritionally necessary, none un-replaceable by plant-based alternatives or, if clothing, with plant or synthetic fibres. And yet people still go for animal-based products. Perhaps that’s because there’s immense variety to choose from. But, for that little luxury we’ve paid dear. Mainly over food. We can’t knock off the pop-foods the ‘evil empire’ churns out.
We know that animals can’t hit back so we abuse them. We do it because we know we can ‘get away with it’. And it’s true, they can’t hit back, but there’s always a sting in the tail. Their edible body parts are toxic. By way of all that saturated fat and high protein, plus the adrenaline infusing into muscle tissue when terrified animals get to the abattoir, animals do ‘hit back’. It’s like Montezuma’s revenge. If we eat animals to feel good we end up NOT feeling so good – these are our just returns for what we’ve put them through ... our penalty for pretending NOT to know about it.
Until recently the mass of population has not been made aware there was any danger in eating animal foods (both from an ethical or health perspective). We’ve just mindlessly exploited animals, using them merely as an available resource. If we’ve been doing it for aeons it’s because there’s been no evidence that people ever related to animals differently, never in a non-violent way, although perhaps in a symbiotic way.
We’re a very utilitarian species. We’ve learned how to take advantage of anything that can’t fight back. Animals have always been easy pickings - we’ve caught them, kept them captive (and now today imprison them in some sort of cage to restrict their movement), efficiently bred them, extracted whatever we could from them and finally executed them. We’re pragmatic enough to design execution chambers for them, so they can be ‘killed humanely’! And then, for chrissakes, we EAT them. What sort of relationship is that, between fellow sentient beings?
The way animals are treated is so sad that I can hardly think about it. And thinking is the key here, the lack of which leads most poor suckers to the doors of the abattoir to buy their drug. And they’re willing to have large amounts of their money extracted from them to pay for what is essentially rubbish and what is definitely replaceable by a more humane and healthy alternative.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Survival and addiction
167
“What’s worse than vegan food? Imagine just eating that. I can’t stand vegans with their self-righteousness ... somehow it’s easy to feel hostile. Vegans set impossible targets and feel superior to anyone who can’t meet them”.
“What’s worse than carnivore food? Imagine eating meat. It’s their self-satisfaction that’s so ugly, their dominant, meat-eating, cleverest-being-on-the-planet attitude”.
These two perceptions always clash but in a way, the whole subject of what we eat and why we eat it is a private affair. It’s no one else’s business ... and yet, speak about it we must. Well, I must. I must try to engage others in dialogue, try to say ‘no-touch-animals’ as carefully as I can (along with my reasons if anyone’s interested). And say, in effect, that humans are not to be trusted around animals - they always take advantage of them. My bait is laid, and it’s meant to be taken, if it’s not then I’d say to leave it there and take it no further.
My main problem, in making any sort of statement at all, is that I don’t scare people off. On this tricky subject, I try to speak without any judgemental tone creeping into my voice, no trace of denigration, etc ... and yet anything I say, about animals and how humans treat them badly, is always going to sound denigrating ... which leaves me sounding self-righteous.
So, I start by saying something good and genuine, give some positive reinforcement (see below*). It helps me mix in a few hard and it’s all eased along by a little harmless self-denigration, which make me seem less serious-serious. I’d like to be saying something important, but in a rolling-along-manner, sweeping away judgemental-litter as I go along ... and all this, even if I’m only allowed to get a couple of points across. Believe me, I’m willing to debase myself to get a response. I’ll do anything at all, name yer price, for any sort of dialogue ... whilst remembering to respect private spaces. We all keep our privacy carefully protected.
Here’s my view: I don’t think humans hate animals; I don’t think many people are innately violent; I don’t think we have a blood lust; I, like most of us, don’t think I want to be cold-hearted or hard-nosed. *That’s how I see myself and my fellow Australians, anyway. A farmer out West or a pastoralist up North might disagree - if they weren’t cold-hearted they couldn’t kill their animals and if they weren’t hard-nosed they’d be put out of business by their competitors. But that’s their problem ... I’m more concerned with the millions of customers of The Animal Industries, who might privately want more out of life than just meat, and who want to find out who they are and the purpose of their existence.
I suspect most people identify with being a helping-guarding type, something of the explorer, and identify this way because that’s what we know we’re best at. Humans are born rescuers, protectors and ‘explorers’. Primarily, at heart, we’re wanna-be farmers. Within my own nature, never even having grown a radish, there’s nevertheless a strong link to the land. It’s the ‘creative farmer’ in me, whose purpose is to provide food, make peace and discover things. Human are naturally creative discoverers. And what I’m naturally NOT is destructive. Humans aren’t jailers or procurers. The way things are with animal farming and animal consuming today, you’d think the humans were pimps for a bunch of enslaved prostitutes.
I suspect no one actually likes being part of an animal-destruction industry. Who’d want to make a living out of betraying an innocent, peace-loving being, and trick them into believing you care for them and then to put a gun to their heads?
On the other hand I suspect anyone could be drawn to ethical husbandry - to the provision of basic needs, whilst remaining protective and empathetic to Nature. That’s why Animal Rights appeals to me, it makes me want to empathise with the many animals who are presently in-trouble. It also makes me want to support anyone producing the food I eat.
Why are people so hostile towards the idea of respecting animals? Perhaps because it means losing the animals-contribution in our diet. Oh!, the pleasures I have associated with certain delicious dishes. Great salivations!
A vegan regime, in comparison, looks as dry as dust. To some it must seem close to a living death. The hostility towards Animal Rights may be coming from a sort of ‘fight or flight’ imperative. We have to keep our self-protecting, blind-eye shut whilst keeping the other, supply-safeguarding one open. “Damn these vegans who want to close down abattoirs and animal farms, leaving everyone without their primary ‘items-of-supply’”.
Our omnivorous society has to protect its animal food supply chain. Here’s a massive industry, millions employed and many more millions are customers. Everyone is attracted to at least some of their produce. Taste-wise it works. Perception-wise animal foods are still considered good for health. “Meat makes us strong”. Importantly, we’ve been taught that our human strengths keep us in the dominant position - we use animals, they don’t use us. And this nod to self preservation and comfort is reinforced at mealtimes, confirming in us a strong sense of normality, which protects us from feeling guilty ... about animals. We believe that animal-foods are natural and eating them is normal ... and there’s no need to talk about it further.
This subject holds taboo status for obvious reasons. Obviously the guaranteeing of food supplies is important ... and therefore there’s no need to be throwing too much light on farming practices? And why would anyone want to go around, pointing out the unhealthy consequences of eating animal protein? Even doctors have a vested interest in nutritionally misinforming their patients, otherwise they’d be having to prescribe plant-based diets.
And yet, today, in spite of all the obstacles, things are changing anyway. Many consumers are more informed and consequently not too interested in being poisoned. And that ties in neatly with inner cravings for peace, empathy and compassion. These days ‘being normal’ is getting dangerous. Our hospitals are full of ‘normals’, and they’ve never been fuller. I say to myself, “Avoid the normal, trust your instincts”.
In my early twenties I noticed some unexpected deteriorations in my body, and I put this down to lifestyle abuses. Particularly my crap diet, specifically my use of animal products. That was my instinct anyway ... which proved, forty years later, to be spot on. At the time I couldn’t admit it, that my eating habits could so cloud my judgement ... and now I see they did, particularly my instinct for good nutrition. But luckily I stumbled across macrobiotics, and that eventually got me away from crap food and led me into the non-poisonous, plant-based regime I have now. Whilst I was growing up, back then, I could feel my taste for this sort of food growing. I actually liked it more than I thought I would. As I got over my cravings for ‘nursery teas’ and rich dinners and snack treats I came to feel tremendous gratitude ... for ‘stumbling’ on all this at a relatively early age. These days much younger people are introduced to plant-based regimes and there are even kids who’ve been vegan from birth. Lucky them. But I appreciate my own early exploring, and that I didn’t leave it too late to realise that something, in my life so far, was being spoiled. Something of my vitality and sharpness, which I thought I’d once possessed, was being affected by the ‘ageing process’. Alarm!!
I was school-teaching at the time and many of the kids came from overseas (this was London 1968). I saw kids who’d suffered serious malnutrition and who’d lost confidence because of it. I saw them now being poisoned by crap Western food and too much of it. When their bodies bloated out it was another blow to their self-confidence. Then, as they learnt about animals on prison farms I suppose it added to their sense of shame. In a short space of time I saw children, honourable souls, go downhill - and all because they wanted to enjoy eating crap food.
Because of our attachment to animal foods, and for generation after generation, we’ve grown accustomed to using it and grown into the normal adult’s hard heart, hardening with every crappy mouthful. In the flush of adult independence we get used to our own indifference and addiction. To economically-challenged animal farmers the eatables they produce are good for them. If you’re not a producer then they’re bad for you, the food being the very worst ingestion-matter you could indulge in.
All of it eminently give-up-able.
“What’s worse than vegan food? Imagine just eating that. I can’t stand vegans with their self-righteousness ... somehow it’s easy to feel hostile. Vegans set impossible targets and feel superior to anyone who can’t meet them”.
“What’s worse than carnivore food? Imagine eating meat. It’s their self-satisfaction that’s so ugly, their dominant, meat-eating, cleverest-being-on-the-planet attitude”.
These two perceptions always clash but in a way, the whole subject of what we eat and why we eat it is a private affair. It’s no one else’s business ... and yet, speak about it we must. Well, I must. I must try to engage others in dialogue, try to say ‘no-touch-animals’ as carefully as I can (along with my reasons if anyone’s interested). And say, in effect, that humans are not to be trusted around animals - they always take advantage of them. My bait is laid, and it’s meant to be taken, if it’s not then I’d say to leave it there and take it no further.
My main problem, in making any sort of statement at all, is that I don’t scare people off. On this tricky subject, I try to speak without any judgemental tone creeping into my voice, no trace of denigration, etc ... and yet anything I say, about animals and how humans treat them badly, is always going to sound denigrating ... which leaves me sounding self-righteous.
So, I start by saying something good and genuine, give some positive reinforcement (see below*). It helps me mix in a few hard and it’s all eased along by a little harmless self-denigration, which make me seem less serious-serious. I’d like to be saying something important, but in a rolling-along-manner, sweeping away judgemental-litter as I go along ... and all this, even if I’m only allowed to get a couple of points across. Believe me, I’m willing to debase myself to get a response. I’ll do anything at all, name yer price, for any sort of dialogue ... whilst remembering to respect private spaces. We all keep our privacy carefully protected.
Here’s my view: I don’t think humans hate animals; I don’t think many people are innately violent; I don’t think we have a blood lust; I, like most of us, don’t think I want to be cold-hearted or hard-nosed. *That’s how I see myself and my fellow Australians, anyway. A farmer out West or a pastoralist up North might disagree - if they weren’t cold-hearted they couldn’t kill their animals and if they weren’t hard-nosed they’d be put out of business by their competitors. But that’s their problem ... I’m more concerned with the millions of customers of The Animal Industries, who might privately want more out of life than just meat, and who want to find out who they are and the purpose of their existence.
I suspect most people identify with being a helping-guarding type, something of the explorer, and identify this way because that’s what we know we’re best at. Humans are born rescuers, protectors and ‘explorers’. Primarily, at heart, we’re wanna-be farmers. Within my own nature, never even having grown a radish, there’s nevertheless a strong link to the land. It’s the ‘creative farmer’ in me, whose purpose is to provide food, make peace and discover things. Human are naturally creative discoverers. And what I’m naturally NOT is destructive. Humans aren’t jailers or procurers. The way things are with animal farming and animal consuming today, you’d think the humans were pimps for a bunch of enslaved prostitutes.
I suspect no one actually likes being part of an animal-destruction industry. Who’d want to make a living out of betraying an innocent, peace-loving being, and trick them into believing you care for them and then to put a gun to their heads?
On the other hand I suspect anyone could be drawn to ethical husbandry - to the provision of basic needs, whilst remaining protective and empathetic to Nature. That’s why Animal Rights appeals to me, it makes me want to empathise with the many animals who are presently in-trouble. It also makes me want to support anyone producing the food I eat.
Why are people so hostile towards the idea of respecting animals? Perhaps because it means losing the animals-contribution in our diet. Oh!, the pleasures I have associated with certain delicious dishes. Great salivations!
A vegan regime, in comparison, looks as dry as dust. To some it must seem close to a living death. The hostility towards Animal Rights may be coming from a sort of ‘fight or flight’ imperative. We have to keep our self-protecting, blind-eye shut whilst keeping the other, supply-safeguarding one open. “Damn these vegans who want to close down abattoirs and animal farms, leaving everyone without their primary ‘items-of-supply’”.
Our omnivorous society has to protect its animal food supply chain. Here’s a massive industry, millions employed and many more millions are customers. Everyone is attracted to at least some of their produce. Taste-wise it works. Perception-wise animal foods are still considered good for health. “Meat makes us strong”. Importantly, we’ve been taught that our human strengths keep us in the dominant position - we use animals, they don’t use us. And this nod to self preservation and comfort is reinforced at mealtimes, confirming in us a strong sense of normality, which protects us from feeling guilty ... about animals. We believe that animal-foods are natural and eating them is normal ... and there’s no need to talk about it further.
This subject holds taboo status for obvious reasons. Obviously the guaranteeing of food supplies is important ... and therefore there’s no need to be throwing too much light on farming practices? And why would anyone want to go around, pointing out the unhealthy consequences of eating animal protein? Even doctors have a vested interest in nutritionally misinforming their patients, otherwise they’d be having to prescribe plant-based diets.
And yet, today, in spite of all the obstacles, things are changing anyway. Many consumers are more informed and consequently not too interested in being poisoned. And that ties in neatly with inner cravings for peace, empathy and compassion. These days ‘being normal’ is getting dangerous. Our hospitals are full of ‘normals’, and they’ve never been fuller. I say to myself, “Avoid the normal, trust your instincts”.
In my early twenties I noticed some unexpected deteriorations in my body, and I put this down to lifestyle abuses. Particularly my crap diet, specifically my use of animal products. That was my instinct anyway ... which proved, forty years later, to be spot on. At the time I couldn’t admit it, that my eating habits could so cloud my judgement ... and now I see they did, particularly my instinct for good nutrition. But luckily I stumbled across macrobiotics, and that eventually got me away from crap food and led me into the non-poisonous, plant-based regime I have now. Whilst I was growing up, back then, I could feel my taste for this sort of food growing. I actually liked it more than I thought I would. As I got over my cravings for ‘nursery teas’ and rich dinners and snack treats I came to feel tremendous gratitude ... for ‘stumbling’ on all this at a relatively early age. These days much younger people are introduced to plant-based regimes and there are even kids who’ve been vegan from birth. Lucky them. But I appreciate my own early exploring, and that I didn’t leave it too late to realise that something, in my life so far, was being spoiled. Something of my vitality and sharpness, which I thought I’d once possessed, was being affected by the ‘ageing process’. Alarm!!
I was school-teaching at the time and many of the kids came from overseas (this was London 1968). I saw kids who’d suffered serious malnutrition and who’d lost confidence because of it. I saw them now being poisoned by crap Western food and too much of it. When their bodies bloated out it was another blow to their self-confidence. Then, as they learnt about animals on prison farms I suppose it added to their sense of shame. In a short space of time I saw children, honourable souls, go downhill - and all because they wanted to enjoy eating crap food.
Because of our attachment to animal foods, and for generation after generation, we’ve grown accustomed to using it and grown into the normal adult’s hard heart, hardening with every crappy mouthful. In the flush of adult independence we get used to our own indifference and addiction. To economically-challenged animal farmers the eatables they produce are good for them. If you’re not a producer then they’re bad for you, the food being the very worst ingestion-matter you could indulge in.
All of it eminently give-up-able.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Up against a wall
159:
The reason I get angry with the world is because people are so reluctant to change. But why expect fellow humans to be more than they actually are? The disappointment and cringe I feel makes me want to fall out of love with people, not just because they’re oblivious to the suffering-of-animals but for continually missing the opportunity to change. They continue to eat rubbish foods, continue to get ill, continue to hold violent attitudes … and it seems such a waste of personal potential. That’s what makes me so exasperated ... and exasperated with myself too, for my inability to understand the workings of the minds of my fellow human beings.
Vegans who are active in Animal Rights invest their free time to fight for a great cause. It’s a big investment. So, when I think I’m getting somewhere and hit another disappointment … I never seem to get used to it. I never see it coming. Overall, the most depressing thing I experience is that no one is taking a blind bit of notice of what my colleagues and I are saying. Is it deafness? No. It’s reluctance. Reluctance to talk or discuss things like this - for why would good friends want to risk blowing it, by speaking their minds (notably, about my vegan views)?
Beyond all else, everyone values affection and friendship as well as the group-bond between any set of friends. Intimacy allows good friends to talk freely about anything … unless it’s ‘animals’. Other that the cute-and-cuddly animals are not a topic of converstaion. This is a subject known for bringing up deep issues, and because our arguments are so razor sharp people know there’s a risk of blowing a whole friendship ... over too much loose ‘animal talk’. All it takes is one comment … which is why I prefer NOT to try converting friends – they know I won’t be able to resist a dig ... and if my timing is out or I don’t round things off properly it goes down badly, particularly badly with close friends who’re already super-sensitive to my interest in ‘the animal-thing’.
Friends - I personally don’t have enough of them to go around losing them. A.R. is especially dangerous for that, in an ‘if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me’ sort of way … so, I prefer to talk outside. Any public arena will do. I can speak more freely there, knowing that it’s okay for me to get knocked down by people who aren’t close friends, or to be made to sound like a fool. My ego doesn’t bruise as badly ‘out there’ - so, it’s good for getting hardened-up.
Everything vegans stand for (the principle of plant-based diets, animal rights, non-violence) is purposely down-played by Society. It is given minimal press coverage. If we try to bring issues to public attention we’re prevented. We have to stand by, in silence, allowing blatant misinformation to mould even the minds of our best friends. After forty years of substantial exposure to Animal Rights, I can’t see much momentum building. I don’t see any real sign of people questioning or challenging what they’ve been taught. I get nervous about that. It seems zombie-ish to me. It makes me especially nervous seeing sadists near animals and the animals’ minds in a state of terror. For domesticated animals there’s nothing and no hope ... unless from those who want to save them. “Good luck!”, I say ... for luck might prove more reliable than people’s good nature … and good though it might be it is asleep on these issues ... which is why Animal Rights has to speak up so insistently about slavery, captivity, killing and in some cases animal torture. We shouldn’t have to. But it’s all happening so routinely by almost everyone that it has become accepted. It’s thought to be pragmatic reality - the Animal Industries do the deed then, at one stage removed, the compliant consumer supports it. It only gets worse, but affecting fewer total animals, at the vivisection laboratory, where animals are being used for experimentation. Again, a blind-eyed compact exists where the tick of approval is given by the consumer.
It makes me wonder why I’m saying such things. Am I being deliberately spiteful? Am I expecting more of people than they’re capable of? Without wishing to sound unnecessarily patronising or demeaning, I think it’s likely people are so weighed down with food junk and so groggy with tiredness from eating too much of it, that they can’t any longer face-up to a major shift of consciousness, however beneficial it might seem to them.
Having said that, I realise that beyond the 99% of whacked-out consumers is the other 1% - the human monsters, the most outrageous of whom profit from harming creatures, as if they couldn’t feel the harm. For example, someone who takes an immobilised and terrified rabbit and squirts corrosive chemicals into its eye, to test shampoos for eye safety. This animal doesn’t stand a chance. They can’t do anything to protect themselves from this sort of torture.
Whether the suffering takes place on a vivisector’s slab or on a farm or in the abattoirs, the coldness with which animals are treated is a frightening reflection on human nature. What routinely happens to billions of them is something no sentient creature should have to experience, and no human should be capable of doing. The perpetrator is not only insane to do it but dangerously insane for trying to influence ordinary people to think that what they do is acceptable.
The reason I get angry with the world is because people are so reluctant to change. But why expect fellow humans to be more than they actually are? The disappointment and cringe I feel makes me want to fall out of love with people, not just because they’re oblivious to the suffering-of-animals but for continually missing the opportunity to change. They continue to eat rubbish foods, continue to get ill, continue to hold violent attitudes … and it seems such a waste of personal potential. That’s what makes me so exasperated ... and exasperated with myself too, for my inability to understand the workings of the minds of my fellow human beings.
Vegans who are active in Animal Rights invest their free time to fight for a great cause. It’s a big investment. So, when I think I’m getting somewhere and hit another disappointment … I never seem to get used to it. I never see it coming. Overall, the most depressing thing I experience is that no one is taking a blind bit of notice of what my colleagues and I are saying. Is it deafness? No. It’s reluctance. Reluctance to talk or discuss things like this - for why would good friends want to risk blowing it, by speaking their minds (notably, about my vegan views)?
Beyond all else, everyone values affection and friendship as well as the group-bond between any set of friends. Intimacy allows good friends to talk freely about anything … unless it’s ‘animals’. Other that the cute-and-cuddly animals are not a topic of converstaion. This is a subject known for bringing up deep issues, and because our arguments are so razor sharp people know there’s a risk of blowing a whole friendship ... over too much loose ‘animal talk’. All it takes is one comment … which is why I prefer NOT to try converting friends – they know I won’t be able to resist a dig ... and if my timing is out or I don’t round things off properly it goes down badly, particularly badly with close friends who’re already super-sensitive to my interest in ‘the animal-thing’.
Friends - I personally don’t have enough of them to go around losing them. A.R. is especially dangerous for that, in an ‘if-you’re-not-with-me-you’re-against-me’ sort of way … so, I prefer to talk outside. Any public arena will do. I can speak more freely there, knowing that it’s okay for me to get knocked down by people who aren’t close friends, or to be made to sound like a fool. My ego doesn’t bruise as badly ‘out there’ - so, it’s good for getting hardened-up.
Everything vegans stand for (the principle of plant-based diets, animal rights, non-violence) is purposely down-played by Society. It is given minimal press coverage. If we try to bring issues to public attention we’re prevented. We have to stand by, in silence, allowing blatant misinformation to mould even the minds of our best friends. After forty years of substantial exposure to Animal Rights, I can’t see much momentum building. I don’t see any real sign of people questioning or challenging what they’ve been taught. I get nervous about that. It seems zombie-ish to me. It makes me especially nervous seeing sadists near animals and the animals’ minds in a state of terror. For domesticated animals there’s nothing and no hope ... unless from those who want to save them. “Good luck!”, I say ... for luck might prove more reliable than people’s good nature … and good though it might be it is asleep on these issues ... which is why Animal Rights has to speak up so insistently about slavery, captivity, killing and in some cases animal torture. We shouldn’t have to. But it’s all happening so routinely by almost everyone that it has become accepted. It’s thought to be pragmatic reality - the Animal Industries do the deed then, at one stage removed, the compliant consumer supports it. It only gets worse, but affecting fewer total animals, at the vivisection laboratory, where animals are being used for experimentation. Again, a blind-eyed compact exists where the tick of approval is given by the consumer.
It makes me wonder why I’m saying such things. Am I being deliberately spiteful? Am I expecting more of people than they’re capable of? Without wishing to sound unnecessarily patronising or demeaning, I think it’s likely people are so weighed down with food junk and so groggy with tiredness from eating too much of it, that they can’t any longer face-up to a major shift of consciousness, however beneficial it might seem to them.
Having said that, I realise that beyond the 99% of whacked-out consumers is the other 1% - the human monsters, the most outrageous of whom profit from harming creatures, as if they couldn’t feel the harm. For example, someone who takes an immobilised and terrified rabbit and squirts corrosive chemicals into its eye, to test shampoos for eye safety. This animal doesn’t stand a chance. They can’t do anything to protect themselves from this sort of torture.
Whether the suffering takes place on a vivisector’s slab or on a farm or in the abattoirs, the coldness with which animals are treated is a frightening reflection on human nature. What routinely happens to billions of them is something no sentient creature should have to experience, and no human should be capable of doing. The perpetrator is not only insane to do it but dangerously insane for trying to influence ordinary people to think that what they do is acceptable.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Engaging in conversation
152:
If I say you should stop eating animals, I propose a major change in your lifestyle and eating habits. I’m not only alluding to the wrongness of animal slavery, I’m also saying animal food is crap food. You don’t necessarily want to hear this, but that’s what I want to talk about.
So, I want to stimulate debate, encourage others to discuss these issues. I want: they don’t want ... which means I’ve got a big job on my hands. I’m doubly careful that my motives seem genuine, that I’m not into self aggrandisement or wanting to score points by being clever. All I need to do is convince you I’m only wanting to engage you, on this subject, NOT to win an argument with you. To me it’s only your benefit that interests me. For me it’s not a win-win game. I’m not trying to get the first punch in. I don’t want to force a submission ... quite the opposite. My interest is in listening to people’s genuine concerns and, beyond that, to find out how to talk matters through without too much high emotion.
I won’t be coy, it is an emotional issue ... therefore I want to see a free flow of ideas and opinions flying around. Each idea, flowing on by developing out of the previous comment. (Surely, any good conversation develops that way). So, if we’re ‘discussing’ Animal Rights we’re all learning something. Importantly we’re also learning how to listen to each other.
Since it’s not a ‘win-win’ game it has to feel a bit vulnerable - for my part, I don’t want to look too alert in case you think I’m eagle-eyeing for you to make a mistake ... which I can then correct. No, I don’t want to prove anyone’s opinion is wrong. And I don’t want you to think I’m just waiting for my turn, to jump in, to say what I want to say.
Even if I’m feeling personally (or we vegans are feeling collectively) marginalised, it’s no surprise, or it shouldn’t be. We are, after all minor players with, what are regarded as, minor issues, in a sea of major players (all of whom are omnivores). I feel especially isolated when I merely mention the ‘v’ word. I feel so utterly out-gunned by the confidence they have by simply being in the majority. For that reason alone I never try to crush the opposition view ... because, as sure as hell, when I try they fly. Because they can. Conformity is always safe.
Vegans - we’re up against an impenetrable wall of opinion and attitude ... so, we have to be a bit ‘canny’, not get too pushy ... even when ... especially when we can - not to be too quick to say something irrefutable. It’s so subtle, especially when we’re talking to a friend, and they may already know where we stand.
I find in an ordinary, everyday conversation I’m largely unselfconscious, in as much as I speak spontaneously. When you think about it, it’s incredible - you say something and before I’ve thought up a reply I’ve already replied. In less ordinary conversations, where I know I’m not so confident on contentious subjects, I still need to be speedy, otherwise you’ll think I need time to make up my mind, but I know my agenda will light up to make me more confident but also to let me think, “Ah, I can get the animal thing in here”.
When I say something provocative, and Animal Rights is redolent with provocation, I might express an opposing view, but by expressing it too hard I can strain my relationship or friendship. And it works in the opposite way too. I hate offending anyone least of all friends, but I don’t like inhibiting my freedom of speech. I don’t like walking on egg shells. with everything becoming too tentative. Nothing useful is being achieved.
My sister is a parent of adult children and I think she has to hold her tongue sometimes, to minimise any strain on her relations with her over-confident offspring - if an argument arises, and the younger person’s defence barriers go up too quickly, the parent ‘smells’ danger. They’re obliged to back off.
So, what I’m saying is that it’s rather the same when trying to talk (to the uninitiated) about animal rights or vegan principles. I get into scrapes. I forget I’m in a delicate position. Then I realise, usually too late, I must defuse the situation before it flares up. I’m only mentioning this because I know things can get dangerous ... when discussing Animal Rights.
If I say you should stop eating animals, I propose a major change in your lifestyle and eating habits. I’m not only alluding to the wrongness of animal slavery, I’m also saying animal food is crap food. You don’t necessarily want to hear this, but that’s what I want to talk about.
So, I want to stimulate debate, encourage others to discuss these issues. I want: they don’t want ... which means I’ve got a big job on my hands. I’m doubly careful that my motives seem genuine, that I’m not into self aggrandisement or wanting to score points by being clever. All I need to do is convince you I’m only wanting to engage you, on this subject, NOT to win an argument with you. To me it’s only your benefit that interests me. For me it’s not a win-win game. I’m not trying to get the first punch in. I don’t want to force a submission ... quite the opposite. My interest is in listening to people’s genuine concerns and, beyond that, to find out how to talk matters through without too much high emotion.
I won’t be coy, it is an emotional issue ... therefore I want to see a free flow of ideas and opinions flying around. Each idea, flowing on by developing out of the previous comment. (Surely, any good conversation develops that way). So, if we’re ‘discussing’ Animal Rights we’re all learning something. Importantly we’re also learning how to listen to each other.
Since it’s not a ‘win-win’ game it has to feel a bit vulnerable - for my part, I don’t want to look too alert in case you think I’m eagle-eyeing for you to make a mistake ... which I can then correct. No, I don’t want to prove anyone’s opinion is wrong. And I don’t want you to think I’m just waiting for my turn, to jump in, to say what I want to say.
Even if I’m feeling personally (or we vegans are feeling collectively) marginalised, it’s no surprise, or it shouldn’t be. We are, after all minor players with, what are regarded as, minor issues, in a sea of major players (all of whom are omnivores). I feel especially isolated when I merely mention the ‘v’ word. I feel so utterly out-gunned by the confidence they have by simply being in the majority. For that reason alone I never try to crush the opposition view ... because, as sure as hell, when I try they fly. Because they can. Conformity is always safe.
Vegans - we’re up against an impenetrable wall of opinion and attitude ... so, we have to be a bit ‘canny’, not get too pushy ... even when ... especially when we can - not to be too quick to say something irrefutable. It’s so subtle, especially when we’re talking to a friend, and they may already know where we stand.
I find in an ordinary, everyday conversation I’m largely unselfconscious, in as much as I speak spontaneously. When you think about it, it’s incredible - you say something and before I’ve thought up a reply I’ve already replied. In less ordinary conversations, where I know I’m not so confident on contentious subjects, I still need to be speedy, otherwise you’ll think I need time to make up my mind, but I know my agenda will light up to make me more confident but also to let me think, “Ah, I can get the animal thing in here”.
When I say something provocative, and Animal Rights is redolent with provocation, I might express an opposing view, but by expressing it too hard I can strain my relationship or friendship. And it works in the opposite way too. I hate offending anyone least of all friends, but I don’t like inhibiting my freedom of speech. I don’t like walking on egg shells. with everything becoming too tentative. Nothing useful is being achieved.
My sister is a parent of adult children and I think she has to hold her tongue sometimes, to minimise any strain on her relations with her over-confident offspring - if an argument arises, and the younger person’s defence barriers go up too quickly, the parent ‘smells’ danger. They’re obliged to back off.
So, what I’m saying is that it’s rather the same when trying to talk (to the uninitiated) about animal rights or vegan principles. I get into scrapes. I forget I’m in a delicate position. Then I realise, usually too late, I must defuse the situation before it flares up. I’m only mentioning this because I know things can get dangerous ... when discussing Animal Rights.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Vegan principle
149:
Meaning no harm to animals - this is at the heart of vegan principle, and it occupies my thoughts every day because I keep seeing harm being done everywhere ... to animals.
It’s mostly shielded behind the doors of farms and abattoirs but the harm jumps out at me, when I see it represented in animal products ... everywhere, being pushed on TV, weighing down supermarket shelves. We’re awash with the stuff. They’re in-your-face reminders ... of what we don’t get to see but what we do know about.
Because of this daily holocaust of animal-killing going on all the time, it’s going to be on my mind ... unless I can smother my thoughts. If one is an eater of animals then thought-smothering takes place many times a day.
When I decided to stop eating all this stuff out of animals’ bodies (out of murdered animals’ bodies I should say) I knew it would mean me giving up my favourite breakfast. No need to mention what it was. It wasn’t an unusual dish, and I liked it very much.
The idea of going vegan was a huge step, but actually taking the first step wasn’t as hard as I’d expected. I anticipated ‘huge’ but it wasn’t so hard at all. The hard thing was meal-making. Without the huge variety of quick-to-cook or ready-to-eat foods, bummer!, I’d have to get used to bringing things up from raw (although today, at least here in Sydney, there’s a lot of vegan ready-mades available, and not too costly, even better for vegans in UK, Europe, USA). But even there, vegans have nowhere near the same variety and choices that omnivores enjoy.
Going vegan costs time, effort and convenience. It means missing many heretofore-available treats, plus, plus, plus. So why is it that most vegans I've met consider ‘going back to being non-vegan’ a bizarre idea? It’s not because they’re extra nice people or extremely disciplined but because the plant-based-food-benefits are just too good to be true. To experience this sort of plant-driven energy each day is ... well, indescribable - I can’t even begin to describe it. It’s like trying to explain ‘red’ to a blind person.
It isn’t just about food, it's the whole lifestyle and thought process that goes with it. It’s what Jeffrey Masson calls “a somersaulting-forward process”. If you decided to try to become vegan, you’d be opening up to an entirely new experience of your world, and that’s just on the personal side. The experience I have, in my own life, is one of usefulness, or at least of non-destructiveness. I don’t feel as though I’m acting against my world.
What ‘going-vegan’ implies is global health. This principle of harmlessness doesn’t necessarily make things easier and it’s true, for me, that I don’t connect with others too well, unless on a superficial level. Also I don’t feel any less frustrated than I did in my carnivore days, but the significance of this principle (vegan principle) is that it makes me feel like I’m dancing with angels – for me it’s like flying alongside some very great ideals and ethical principles which are like updraughts, uplifting, inspiring me ... and it grows, this feeling. It gradually taking the place of my previous love of Mars Bars ... but … there’s always a ‘but’.
I daily fall to the ground with a thud, as I’m flung back into the reality of being vegan in a non-vegan world. The hardness of people. I see this and want to try to change them - they react badly - I resent them for reacting badly - I (albeit very subtly) condemn them - they see through any amount of subtlety ... and they hate it - they give me the impression I’m being aggressive - I counter attack by making some small-but-sharp value judgement (never of course expressed as sharply as I’m thinking it - like, “all omnivores are hypocrites”). It shows, they pick it up telepathically ... something in the air changes. And so it goes on. I attack, even when I know it puts people’s backs up.
So I must be careful, like a card player, not to use all my trump cards too soon.
Where’s all this going? Me talking to you, you reacting to my tone, my words, my looks, my arguments. You see me trying to provoke an argument? I look like I’m on the attack.
What happens? I lose any advantage I might have had. I lose control of my ‘vibrations’ - you see through me. My thinking and feelings are being read ... and it happens precisely at the moment I choose to talk ‘Animal Rights’.
When I get to these ‘time-points’ I try to remember (usually only in the nick of time) that I am NOT trying to change anyone’s mind. That’s something they might want to do for themselves, in their own good time. I’m here, trying to get a little useful information across, preferably quick and to the point ... and sometimes not too pointedly either, since the sharper my words the more my inner ‘vibration’ will give me away.
This is how I see it: talk is a two way road, listening is part of talking, I’ll wait till it’s my turn to speak. I’ll expect a response not altogether-to-my-liking ... my main concern is NOT to take umbrage. I say something ‘vegan-inspired’ and they rubbish it ... you know the pattern. My ego gets bruised, inevitably, and I remember at that point in time NOT to get offended (either by their poor response or anger or ridicule). Hardened activists are surely immune to any of these inevitable surface tensions.
I like to think of these interactions (we get ourselves involved in) as Big Events. However they’re probably not big events to those we’re speaking with - they don’t realise why we’re getting excited over this animal thing. They won’t necessarily realise that we’re ‘being urgent’ both on the animals’ behalf and for them too. Vegan advocates, me included, only want to prevent life-threatening dangers visiting otherwise safe souls.
The logic behind vegan principle is like the fascinating and memorable events you enjoy about a good book, a good story. It’s all in the detail - details we think about when we’re alone with our own private thoughts.
I hope whatever I have to say on this subject will just seem like a good story. But knowing me, I probably end up coming on too strong. And when I’m trampling the roses, getting confrontational or personal, that’s when I start to seem unfriendly - as soon as I withdraw my affection it shows. Every one of us, from babyhood to old age is hard-wired to spot this danger in others, spotting that they may have a nasty side ... and then, bang-o, we start to pick up a whiff of judgement in the air.
It stops people listening. It slows down the changing-of-views-process.
Meaning no harm to animals - this is at the heart of vegan principle, and it occupies my thoughts every day because I keep seeing harm being done everywhere ... to animals.
It’s mostly shielded behind the doors of farms and abattoirs but the harm jumps out at me, when I see it represented in animal products ... everywhere, being pushed on TV, weighing down supermarket shelves. We’re awash with the stuff. They’re in-your-face reminders ... of what we don’t get to see but what we do know about.
Because of this daily holocaust of animal-killing going on all the time, it’s going to be on my mind ... unless I can smother my thoughts. If one is an eater of animals then thought-smothering takes place many times a day.
When I decided to stop eating all this stuff out of animals’ bodies (out of murdered animals’ bodies I should say) I knew it would mean me giving up my favourite breakfast. No need to mention what it was. It wasn’t an unusual dish, and I liked it very much.
The idea of going vegan was a huge step, but actually taking the first step wasn’t as hard as I’d expected. I anticipated ‘huge’ but it wasn’t so hard at all. The hard thing was meal-making. Without the huge variety of quick-to-cook or ready-to-eat foods, bummer!, I’d have to get used to bringing things up from raw (although today, at least here in Sydney, there’s a lot of vegan ready-mades available, and not too costly, even better for vegans in UK, Europe, USA). But even there, vegans have nowhere near the same variety and choices that omnivores enjoy.
Going vegan costs time, effort and convenience. It means missing many heretofore-available treats, plus, plus, plus. So why is it that most vegans I've met consider ‘going back to being non-vegan’ a bizarre idea? It’s not because they’re extra nice people or extremely disciplined but because the plant-based-food-benefits are just too good to be true. To experience this sort of plant-driven energy each day is ... well, indescribable - I can’t even begin to describe it. It’s like trying to explain ‘red’ to a blind person.
It isn’t just about food, it's the whole lifestyle and thought process that goes with it. It’s what Jeffrey Masson calls “a somersaulting-forward process”. If you decided to try to become vegan, you’d be opening up to an entirely new experience of your world, and that’s just on the personal side. The experience I have, in my own life, is one of usefulness, or at least of non-destructiveness. I don’t feel as though I’m acting against my world.
What ‘going-vegan’ implies is global health. This principle of harmlessness doesn’t necessarily make things easier and it’s true, for me, that I don’t connect with others too well, unless on a superficial level. Also I don’t feel any less frustrated than I did in my carnivore days, but the significance of this principle (vegan principle) is that it makes me feel like I’m dancing with angels – for me it’s like flying alongside some very great ideals and ethical principles which are like updraughts, uplifting, inspiring me ... and it grows, this feeling. It gradually taking the place of my previous love of Mars Bars ... but … there’s always a ‘but’.
I daily fall to the ground with a thud, as I’m flung back into the reality of being vegan in a non-vegan world. The hardness of people. I see this and want to try to change them - they react badly - I resent them for reacting badly - I (albeit very subtly) condemn them - they see through any amount of subtlety ... and they hate it - they give me the impression I’m being aggressive - I counter attack by making some small-but-sharp value judgement (never of course expressed as sharply as I’m thinking it - like, “all omnivores are hypocrites”). It shows, they pick it up telepathically ... something in the air changes. And so it goes on. I attack, even when I know it puts people’s backs up.
So I must be careful, like a card player, not to use all my trump cards too soon.
Where’s all this going? Me talking to you, you reacting to my tone, my words, my looks, my arguments. You see me trying to provoke an argument? I look like I’m on the attack.
What happens? I lose any advantage I might have had. I lose control of my ‘vibrations’ - you see through me. My thinking and feelings are being read ... and it happens precisely at the moment I choose to talk ‘Animal Rights’.
When I get to these ‘time-points’ I try to remember (usually only in the nick of time) that I am NOT trying to change anyone’s mind. That’s something they might want to do for themselves, in their own good time. I’m here, trying to get a little useful information across, preferably quick and to the point ... and sometimes not too pointedly either, since the sharper my words the more my inner ‘vibration’ will give me away.
This is how I see it: talk is a two way road, listening is part of talking, I’ll wait till it’s my turn to speak. I’ll expect a response not altogether-to-my-liking ... my main concern is NOT to take umbrage. I say something ‘vegan-inspired’ and they rubbish it ... you know the pattern. My ego gets bruised, inevitably, and I remember at that point in time NOT to get offended (either by their poor response or anger or ridicule). Hardened activists are surely immune to any of these inevitable surface tensions.
I like to think of these interactions (we get ourselves involved in) as Big Events. However they’re probably not big events to those we’re speaking with - they don’t realise why we’re getting excited over this animal thing. They won’t necessarily realise that we’re ‘being urgent’ both on the animals’ behalf and for them too. Vegan advocates, me included, only want to prevent life-threatening dangers visiting otherwise safe souls.
The logic behind vegan principle is like the fascinating and memorable events you enjoy about a good book, a good story. It’s all in the detail - details we think about when we’re alone with our own private thoughts.
I hope whatever I have to say on this subject will just seem like a good story. But knowing me, I probably end up coming on too strong. And when I’m trampling the roses, getting confrontational or personal, that’s when I start to seem unfriendly - as soon as I withdraw my affection it shows. Every one of us, from babyhood to old age is hard-wired to spot this danger in others, spotting that they may have a nasty side ... and then, bang-o, we start to pick up a whiff of judgement in the air.
It stops people listening. It slows down the changing-of-views-process.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
The all-important human
148:
Humans are the most important beings on earth and that’s why we have dominion over all the rest and why we can do what we like with animals … which means we can put them in cages, mutilate them and generally control them. It’s to our advantage to do so. In this highly competitive animal-food market it makes economic sense to keep animals in slum conditions, and to kill them with speed and efficiency, without considering their feelings.
How do we justify it? By thinking that “animals lack self awareness so can’t foresee their coming execution ... so they don’t suffer until the very moment of death”. And anyway, since we don’t ever get to see them dying we don’t have to experience their reactions ... so, since we aren’t haunted by what happens it leaves the way clear for us to enjoy eating them. For those on the front line there’s another factor making it easier to keep them and kill them - they know that they can get away with it since it’s all legal. Animals can’t fight back so there will be no repercussions.
On a smaller scale we’ve all experienced a similar detachment and de-sensitisation - when we drown ants in the kitchen sink or crush a cockroach under foot. There’s no danger of being troubled by this because we don’t really experience the dying; they show no sign of suffering because they’re so small and make no audible noise ... which is more or less what the closed doors of the abattoir do, when there are killings of larger and more vocal animals.
By not having to think about it the irritating ‘pest’ is destroyed or, in the case of the no-longer-economically-viable dairy cow, her death is not seen. Separation neutralises empathy.
It’s the same when we separate from fellow humans in order to treat them in a way that benefits us. Racism helps us to separate from our coloured neighbours. By regarding them as ‘pests’ we more easily establish our superiority over them. We don’t have to be too obvious about it either because they’ve probably experienced racism before in their lives - so all we have to do is not get too friendly. We show we’re not interested in them as individuals, thus maintaining an advantage over them.
Whether it’s animals or humans, by making them feel inferior or frightened of us they can be handled more easily, made more useful. The first rule of racism is to never treat our inferiors as our social equals.
Vegans who refuse to enjoy taking advantage of exploited animals are probably acting more sensitively, and they may have a similar attitude when they see the forest as a thing of beauty rather than a collection of log-able trees. With people of other cultures or with trees or animals, or with children, it comes down to marvelling at their innocence and beauty without ever intending them any harm. And disregarding the all-important human.
Humans are the most important beings on earth and that’s why we have dominion over all the rest and why we can do what we like with animals … which means we can put them in cages, mutilate them and generally control them. It’s to our advantage to do so. In this highly competitive animal-food market it makes economic sense to keep animals in slum conditions, and to kill them with speed and efficiency, without considering their feelings.
How do we justify it? By thinking that “animals lack self awareness so can’t foresee their coming execution ... so they don’t suffer until the very moment of death”. And anyway, since we don’t ever get to see them dying we don’t have to experience their reactions ... so, since we aren’t haunted by what happens it leaves the way clear for us to enjoy eating them. For those on the front line there’s another factor making it easier to keep them and kill them - they know that they can get away with it since it’s all legal. Animals can’t fight back so there will be no repercussions.
On a smaller scale we’ve all experienced a similar detachment and de-sensitisation - when we drown ants in the kitchen sink or crush a cockroach under foot. There’s no danger of being troubled by this because we don’t really experience the dying; they show no sign of suffering because they’re so small and make no audible noise ... which is more or less what the closed doors of the abattoir do, when there are killings of larger and more vocal animals.
By not having to think about it the irritating ‘pest’ is destroyed or, in the case of the no-longer-economically-viable dairy cow, her death is not seen. Separation neutralises empathy.
It’s the same when we separate from fellow humans in order to treat them in a way that benefits us. Racism helps us to separate from our coloured neighbours. By regarding them as ‘pests’ we more easily establish our superiority over them. We don’t have to be too obvious about it either because they’ve probably experienced racism before in their lives - so all we have to do is not get too friendly. We show we’re not interested in them as individuals, thus maintaining an advantage over them.
Whether it’s animals or humans, by making them feel inferior or frightened of us they can be handled more easily, made more useful. The first rule of racism is to never treat our inferiors as our social equals.
Vegans who refuse to enjoy taking advantage of exploited animals are probably acting more sensitively, and they may have a similar attitude when they see the forest as a thing of beauty rather than a collection of log-able trees. With people of other cultures or with trees or animals, or with children, it comes down to marvelling at their innocence and beauty without ever intending them any harm. And disregarding the all-important human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)