Wednesday, July 4, 2012

The impact of what we say

515:



As an animal advocate, I try never to get nasty or insistent. The seriousness of the (animal) issue isn’t necessarily shared by everyone, so I keep the serious details tucked up my sleeve, in reserve. However, it’s the details that are important and it’s these details people don’t know about. Or say they don’t.

If I do get the chance to say something, what can I mention? There’s so much to say but it’s a matter of timing - the more impact we make the greater the risk of shocking, and then being totally rejected.

But if I ever do get to the details, here are three areas I think are worth expanding on:

Sentience - there’s a similarity between humans and animals, in the way we each feel and suffer pain. Even fish have a similar nervous system to ours, so when they are dragged out of their water-world and left to suffocate, they’re often crushed to death by the weight of other fish, piled on top of them. Ordinarily, fish suffocate in the air over a period of twenty minutes, a detail lost on most anglers. Whether creatures die on decks of boats or in abattoirs, every one of them suffers a terrible death. Each of us (who eat them) plays our part in these deaths. The ultimate detail is held in just one number – 250 – the number of animals each person consumes in one year.

The next set of details I’d mention would concern the long-term health effects of ingesting animal products. The foods and chemicals fed to farm animals together with the fatty, high protein content of the food itself, makes it unsafe, health-wise. The Animal Industries wouldn’t agree, of course.

The environmental impact of animal farming is the final matter to be spelt out in detail, with many compelling arguments for not farming animals, on this score alone.

For obvious reasons, none of this is talked about. My polished ‘details’ are usually surplus to requirement; clouds of obfuscation wash over this subject; none of the important details ever get discussed. And I think that all this reluctance represents something even worse, a social taboo. By not allowing free discussion and by pretending the problem doesn’t exist, we lose one of our most valued freedoms – free-speech. You and I might disagree about Animal Rights but if we can’t discuss it we have a much bigger problem on our hands. If we aren’t free to learn new things or talk about certain things what does that say about us? If we’re silent on this subject we are voiceless, just as the animals are. And that’s most embarrassing, to stay quiet when we should be exercising our freedom to speak out.

Our animal slaves on the farms have no freedom. I think that needs to be talked about, objected to and protested. We’ve taken their lives away from them so they have no purpose for living.

While animals can’t do anything about their loss of freedom, we humans can, since we have freedom of thought. But even for a free-thinking vegan, how much right do I have to speak freely? As yet, not much right since this subject is off-limits. I’m expected to skim over the surface but never to touch on any significant details. I can’t get ‘down to it’ with omnivores because I know how touchy this whole matter is for them.



2 comments:

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

The conspiracy of ignorance is indeed like Nazi Germany's response to the concentration camps. More people knew about genoicide than would admit to themselves that they were aware of and complying with the abuse, even if they did not directly particiipate. That is, they used the "I didn't know" response when confronted afterwards. They did know and chose not to join the dots or to respond: except for the remarkable Sophie Scholl and her friends. Thank goodness for such humans! Vegans have the same level of courage ... and it is painful to face the passivity of the general herd of omnivores. Being compassionate about their hypocritical decisions to avoid reality must be brutal. How you avoid exploding in firecracker fury is beyond me.