1555:
Here in our wealthy
countries, many years ago, if a child came from a poor family that child would
be sent to work to help feed the family. Protest groups were set up to protect working
children, but they didn’t necessarily argue that no kids should be put to work,
because that would mean families would starve. This exact same problem still exists in many
parts of the world today, where kids are working as nothing more than slaves. And that’s how it is for all domesticated
animals.
Animals will continue to be
slaves until people stand up for their right not to be. Those who say they are ‘fighting for the
animals’ are likely to be leading the way, setting the example, enough to fight
for their true liberation and not just for better conditions.
What ‘no-animal-use’ means is
doing without hundreds of commercial products, making ethical choices mainly
about food, but including many other animal-derived products and 'services'. The avoidance list is a long one, since it
includes everything from horse racing and zoos to meat and cheese and tins of
cat food. That’s one huge shift away
from today’s norms, but imagine the suffering we cause with even one decision
to exclude any animal from that list.
The most difficult problem
facing any animal rights group is a loss of financial support from its members.
If any group promotes a comprehensive
no-use-animal policy, they’d be in danger of alienating their core support,
simply because supporters would be unable to justify their own, albeit small,
use of animals. So these groups end up
watering down their policies to satisfy the majority of their supporters, who
anyway only represent a small fraction of the community in general.
Groups favour pragmatism. By using the smoke screen of targeting the
worst abuses, they can leave open the idea of non-use-of-animals. They want to be seen to be doing something
worthwhile, whilst not seeming to be total abolitionists. And that, I suggest, is how easily and how
dangerously we lose sight of ideals - when we engage in ‘sensible compromise’.
Our faith in our own
abilities to transform Society is low, whilst our need for recognition from one
another is high. Whether we are liberationists
or not, we don’t really show very much interest in the concept of true animal
rights. If indeed animals did have
rights, the first ‘right’ would prevent their being used by humans, in any way
whatsoever. It’s difficult to imagine
humans legislating to leave animals alone. It would be hard enough, for example, for any
of us to give up using paper to save the forests from being pulped, and that’s
just paper. When it comes to food and
clothing it would be that much more difficult, since being vegan would seem to
deny us so many conveniences.
So, it really boils down to
lifestyle (the life we’re used to) being more important than establishing an
ethical principle. Moving towards
liberating animals would be inconvenient, but freeing children from labouring
or freeing slaves from their masters, is no different from liberating animals
from humans - but it seems that we have a horror of the former but not of the
latter.
Having said that, I
acknowledge the danger of our being overrun by animals - we’ve bred vast herds
and flocks of creatures and, for our own protection, we would have to curtail
their breeding until numbers substantially diminished. Then there’s a question of their safety. These mutated and manipulated creatures would
have to be protected from exposure to Nature and predation, against which
they’d have no means of protecting themselves - they couldn’t survive in the
wild.
But bearing that in mind,
Animal Rights is a concept which animal advocates need to vigorously promote. It’s the starting line, after which we can
workout the logistical details. If we
trim the concept to make it more acceptable, there won’t be nearly enough
momentum to achieve any sort of rights for animals, and inevitably the whole
sorry business will only continue and get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment