Attack

763:

Whilst vegans are free to be open on this Animal Rights subject, non-vegans are not. I often expect people to be as open with me as I think I am being with them, but let’s be honest, non-vegans are in a tricky position, we know that. And we vegans, in our urgency to get essential facts across, can sometimes act like attack dogs. I have to NOT to drop bombs on people, when I speak to them about veganism. As soon as I start to explain my ethical position I find that I’m turning the screws. I can see the effect it has. What they hear isn’t necessarily what I think I’m saying – they often feel me getting ‘personal-by-implication’. If things deteriorate in conversation, they might feel me getting snippy about ‘differences of opinion’. They might hear familiar words and slogans they’ve heard before, and to them this sounds like quotes from Scripture. So they feel unsettled or bored by me, and I get frustrated with them, and then, effectively, our time’s up, and any chance of a useful dialogue is over.

If I can remain non-judgemental in my exchanges then I probably can’t go wrong; I’m more likely to be accepted as an approachable person, and what I’m saying felt as non-threatening.

Somehow, god-knows-how, we need to establish mutual respect by promising not to judge each other’s values. In fact I want to ooze non-judgement. I never want to be seen lunging at anybody with my spear of truth.

I’m better than you?

762: 

Self-righteousness is always ugly. Vegans who think they are ‘better than other people’ are deluded. Feeling superior shows-up. Being a vegan, principled, self-disciplined, etc, will never win us popularity, but we don’t need to be devil-may-care about being unpopular. I doubt if what we have to say is threatening, but the way we say it often is; so if omnivores want to dislike us for being ‘up’ ourselves they have every right. We’d do well to down-play the better-than-you image. I’d rather be known for igniting dangerous discussions.

Perhaps, as vegans, we are thought to be radicals, even anti-social. We are open to being misunderstood. If so, we should allow ourselves to be known as confronters but without aggro.

Before I step through your front door, before I enter your living room, before I launch an ethics attack on you, you must be able to trust me, to be sure that I’m not aggressive by nature. I might be confronting but never attacking because, bottom line, I will mostly want to be acceptable to you. You must know that I want you to like me and accept me for who I am. Without that, I can’t expect you to let me in through your door. And if I can’t make any sort of connection with you then I might as well be mute.

This is why I prefer NOT to shock you or drown you out with facts, tempting though it might be in the face of ignorance. I try, instead, to be thought of as a sort of handy-corner-shop-cum-library-conduit for ideas, a vending-information-on-request-machine. From my point of view all these animal issues are very clear, but I have to allow that YOU might not know what’s going on with animals, in which case you can’t be expected to question the animal-food you eat. I start from that basis, until I know otherwise. It’s possible that you DO know but don’t care anyway. But I need to be sure about that before I speak. These are two distinctly different positions that people could be in, and if I don’t know which of these positions applies to you I could be on dangerous ground.

At this point in time it’s relatively early in Society’s Animal Rights consciousness. As an advocate for animal liberation, some caution is needed. I try to restrain myself in order to find out where a person stands. It’s not that I’m embarrassed or ashamed or short on argument. In fact I’m happy to speak freely, as I might on any other social issue. But this particular subject is a ticklish one. Every day we literally eat our words, words which determine our view of animals (especially those used for food and clothing). There’s no other position we hold which is so regularly reinforced by our daily actions, than the food we choose to eat, or not eat. As soon as my position is known, that I don’t use animal-based foods, that immediately sets me up against your position; it’s therefore up to me to convince you that I DON’T think I’m in any way better than you.

Is it to be vegetarian or vegan?

761: 

I went to see an elderly friend today. She was telling me about a woman she knows who had a bad reaction to vegetarians - she’d apparently been to dinner with some and “All they ate was vegetables!!”. So then my friend told her about this vegan she knows (me), and she’d never heard of that. When it was explained what I didn’t eat (never mind what I wouldn’t wear!), the poor woman was completely nonplussed. “Is he all right ‘up-stairs’?”, she asked.

            After we’d had a good laugh about this, I got to wondering how many other people would find veganism completely incomprehensible. I guess many would. I also guess that many people would think vegans were backing a loser. I know vegans too, who often feel as though they are wasting their time, expecting such an apparently unlikely fashion to take hold.

            But I also know those of us who are not phased at all by the fashion of today’s attitudes, and can see that eventually people will come around to our way of thinking; they’ll be disillusioned with today’s realities and want to find a different reality. They’ll be wanting something to counterbalance the barbaric world they are part of, a less old fashioned, less violent way of conducting their lives.

            History is littered with examples of similar un-likelihoods that become the new custom, in a new age. So perhaps we should regard veganism, vegan diet and vegan principle as concepts which are in-waiting, preparing the way for another age. No one can know quite when it will become relevant to thinking people, who will be interested enough to want to understand ‘the difference between vegetarian and vegan’. When they do, consciousness will have taken a noticeable step forward, from indifference to being animal-conscious.

At present though, whether it be cutting down on meat or cutting out meat altogether, easing up on rich foods or supporting an animal welfare group, it’s all progress. And vegans, at present, can expect no better reaction than a “thanks very much but that’s as far as I go”, since for most people the idea of being vegan is far, far too extreme.

But for those of us who are vegan, it’s because we go to the extreme of not using any animal-based materials, that we are in such a totally different head space than most people around us. The danger for us is to either think we are better-than or to worry about being too-different.

More about bridge building and less about shocking facts

760:

If Animal Rights hasn’t touched enough people, it’s time to re-consider our approach. I’m into easing up on giving people ‘shocking-facts’. I’d rather concentrate a bit more on bridge-building. I say that not because the truth needs hiding but because we need to reform our approach.

Back in the 1980’s when the horrors of modern animal farming first came to light everyone was shocked, but soon enough it was ‘business as usual’. In 2013 things, down-on-the-farm, are worse and the horrors more widespread - there are more species of animal being abused and more individual animals being subjected to cruelty and indifference.

The brainchild of modern factory farming, in the 1940s, hit upon confining the movement of ‘moving animals’. It was a brilliant, if diabolical, idea – to treat animals as if they were simply production machines. The phrase ‘hens in cages’ came to represent the extent to which humans could beat and get the most out of Nature, despite the fact that the cage came to symbolise the extent of animal cruelty that would still be acceptable to the customer. So, where from there?

The facts have not frightened, inspired or induced people to boycott cruelly-produced, animal-based commodities. And that says something fundamental about human nature and how big a job vegans have in trying to reshape it.  

This is how it seems to me: Yes, people are genuinely shocked when they hear about cruelty. Yes, people shake their heads in disbelief. No, people will NOT boycott animal products and ruin the quality of their life.

It is true that being vegan reduces choices in the supermarket food department by about 40%. (In a survey I once did, in a supermarket, out of 7000 shelf choices some 4000 contained animal ingredients, all of which a vegan would boycott). You might be firmly against hens in cages but the question is whether you are ready to drop your favourite biscuits because they contain caged-hens’ eggs.

It seems that we humans are not yet willing to change the habits of a lifetime, unless we’re in personal health danger. We say, “Be kind to animals”, but that’s where it stops. It doesn’t extend to farm animals. And that’s inexplicable in the light of the fact that animal products are NOT essential to good nutrition.

For vegans, that is the point from which our whole ‘different lifestyle’ begins, and from that stems my suspicion, that humans are not to be trusted around animals, since we have such a rich history of abusing them. We dominate the animals, efficiently and in a cold-as-steel way, which is why animal advocates start from a ‘rights’ point of view and not one of ‘welfare reform’. I, like other vegans, only promote a no-use-animal policy.

This view, however, is a long way from how the majority of people see things. But here’s the funny thing. I often hear people say, “I agree with you … and that’s why I only eat free range”. The question is, should I point out to them that ALL farm animals are executed cruelly, and that these ‘free’ hens die in exactly the same way as battery-cage hens? Well, maybe yes, maybe no. The facts of life and death in modern animal husbandry need to be known about, but building bridges towards understanding might be more useful than rubbing salt into those old guilt-wounds. If I utter the word ‘battery-hen’, people think I’m only talking about how we produce ‘eggs’, while I’m really talking about the animal herself. She is only part of a much vaster picture of animal exploitation.

At some stage in human history, every omnivore will either be so sick from eating high-protein and high-fat animal-based foods or the animals they eat will be so sick that they pass on their pathology to the people who eat them. At some stage, people will be forced to come to terms with the need to eat solely plant-based-foods. Which in turn will allow them to consider what we know today as ‘vegan principle’. As it turns out, they may find the finding-out interesting and eventually the most valuable discovery of their lives. But in the meantime that is not how it all looks; at present any information a vegan might impart will only ever seem like a propaganda rave.

Shocking facts and failures

759:

I’m a stranger to you, but what if I wasn’t, and you knew that I was a vegan and you knew me as an ‘animal activist’ - how would I come across to you? When I meet you in the street and we start talking. How do I seem? I might smile, I might know you well enough to give you a hug and ask you how you are, and this happens quite naturally, without thinking. Everything remains unselfconscious. But then the conversation moves on. It wanders towards dangerous territory. We’ve probably all learned that we shouldn’t talk about sex, politics, religion and the state of our bank balance. These are either impolite or dangerous topics. Likewise, when a vegan starts talking about food and animals. If I get onto this subject, you might want to send me a warning. I try to talk Animal Rights, you warn, I pick up, I react, you react. Suddenly the atmosphere changes. We are no longer unselfconscious. Perhaps I back off. But what if I don’t?

Maybe I walk into my own trap. I think to myself, “I’ve got lots to say on this subject. And who better than with a friend”. Perhaps I’m always waiting for an opportunity to talk about this Very Important Subject. But should I?

I might say something controversial, and see how you react (I’m assuming our light hearted chat is becoming more ‘deep and meaningful’). Let’s just imagine that the subject is aired. I could deliver my Animal Rights spiel. But I could also hold my tongue. How capable am I to keep control of such a conversation? This, if it happens, is no ordinary conversation; if it’s going to have a satisfying outcome it needs to be calm and strong, but not too calm and not too strong. It’s a balancing act. If I make a bad move it will show up in the direction you take. The last thing I want is for you to change the subject.

So, this is what I try to do: I avoid sermons. I avoid any hint of personal attack. I avoid slogans. I keep the tone of my voice calm, to show my good intentions and peaceful priorities. If I have anything to say I try to keep it short. I think more is communicated by understatement than diatribe. It’s easy to lecture someone but this is supposedly a friend, and how do we treat friends? If I deliver one of my favourite ‘shock-facts’, and if you’ve heard something similar before, it will seem stale, and be irritating.

We’ve met by chance (you aren’t attending a public meeting), so I have to remember not to act like a Bible-bashing, scripture-quoting sermoniser. If I try to persuade you, I fail, because I high-jack a perfectly normal talk and make it look like a conversion rally. You will refuse to think deeply about what you don’t want to think about.

But let’s assume your conscience is pricking when you see me and hear me ‘start-up’. You interpret what I’m saying as if I’m accusing you of being able to override your conscience, if it interferes with ‘important comforts’ and necessities-of-life, like acquiring animal food and articles of animal-based clothing. I’m seeming to stir your conscience, by encouraging you to think for yourself and not follow the fashion of others. Perhaps I’m suggesting that you can’t stop yourself from overriding your conscience. But will you thank me for drawing your attention to this?

Here’s an example. This overriding of conscience is shown when we buy eggs. Everyone knows about ‘Hens in Cages’, even kids know. But it’s not necessarily ‘thought about’, it doesn’t even reach our conscience, and so it’s not acted upon.

In the main stream media, hardly anything is ever mentioned about animal issues (because almost everybody is too busy eating them to want to make them into an issue). Most people are nowhere near boycotting animal products, and in reality, they buy things every day that, upon closer examination, they wouldn’t possibly approve of. But if that’s so, then nothing can be gained by me going around exposing peoples’ guilty habits. The only thing I can do is to get people used to thinking for themselves, from scratch, but without being pressured. I don’t need to cause embarrassment to them or myself. If I overstep the mark, if I make you feel uncomfortable or less unselfconscious about what you are saying during our conversation, then you might decide to dig your heels in. You might choose to be hostile to what I’m saying, even hostile to me. And I’ve succeeded in doing the very opposite of what I wanted to do, by talking this subject over with you without keeping it balanced.

Thinking for ourselves

758:

For the sake of complying with normality, wanting to be part of this very large system we live in, we don’t notice that we have started to think like a zombie. We start to believe our own rhetoric.

As we edge towards the zombie state we find ourselves believing in and following our TV-authorised instructions. Buy this, eat this, wear this. The provenance of commodities not questioned. And if there’s a whiff of the ugly behind anything, then the heart is hardened, shutting down what might be true for the sake of staying normal and acceptable to those around us. If it’s not a zombie state then it might be a juvenile state, because we are letting ourselves be led, like lambs to the slaughter. By simply doing what others do, or by not feeling the need to grow up into an independent thinker, we shirk our responsibilities. We ignore our innate guardianship nature which, in any other context, would never allow us to get mixed up in such an ugly business as animal abuse.

Growing up in the shadow of an abattoir

757:

The blasé omnivore passes the abattoir and remains un-shocked. Why? Perhaps because, in the weed patch of violence in which we all live, it’s difficult to separate problem weeds from relatively harmless weeds – the ‘holocausting’ of animals is not yet seen as a problem.

With all the violence going on about us, why don’t we deem this particular violence significant?

Well firstly, unlike meat ads on TV, it isn’t exactly ‘in our face’ everyday. And even if it does get a mention in the media one day, it’s easy to forget it the next.

Whenever violence against farm animals is shown, it’s thrust at the public too confrontingly. It produces fear and revulsion, but it doesn’t inspire me or shift my perception substantially enough to impel me to make a personal change to my personal habits. Confronting fails for most people.

When the Animal Rights message ever does get through, it is accompanied by a feeling of profound discomfort and a need to disassociate with the self-righteous and often angry vegan who’s speaking.

They see (in me, for instance) a confronting type of person with whom they have difficulty in identifying. I’m a type. A type they don’t much want to be like. Perhaps in the past, there is a memory of meeting someone who had said things and become pushy about it, and that made them feel uncomfortable.

So it behoves me to look at me.

In this context I’ve met a lot of angry evangelicals and I’ve never liked them. When I’m spruiking ‘vegan’, it’s the ‘evangelical in me’ I also don’t like. I don’t like me when I’m angry or spitting chips. Presumably it’s ugly for others to see me like this - the vegan doing his stuff.

By being so confrontational we make it easy for people to dislike us? Concealed and, deep down, I think omnivores really do loathe us and all we stand for, so I think we have to work on being liked. I do it by seeming a little weirder than I want to be, if only to appear less of a threat or less unattractive.

It could be true to say that, on this touchy subject of food and animal issues, public sensitivity is blunt. To some extent your ordinary Joe and Jo would not be able to admit the extent of their addiction to yummy animal-stuff.

Joe and Jo are not seriously aware of food attachments. It only arises when they have a dicky stomach or put on a bit of weight. Body changes are so imperceptible over the years. We hardly notice what’s happening. Even if we do want to be healthier we can’t identify with ‘health-nutter-dom’. So, ‘eat as you’ve always eaten’ sits well with their consciousness concerning food. It’s very possible we all act dumb when we purposely avoid certain difficult information, when we don’t want to put two and two together. Most of us don’t think about what happens to animals when they are turned into food. Therefore, unless we encounter a horrible vegan who wants to make us think, then the animal issue will remain a non issue.

And if ignorance is bliss then it’s best not to find out too much about modern animal husbandry. That’s made easy for us to some extent, since the most blood curdling details are always kept secret. They don’t build abattoirs near where most of us live, and usually the animal farms are well away from town, and what happens, happens behind closed and padlocked doors anyway. The ‘dark side’ is well hidden.

We all see what’s happening in our world through TV. Into the bright lights of TV comes the attractive side of the animal story. We see it every day. We see it as yummy food, advertised by experts in the trade.

TV today is made up of ten minutes of programme followed by five minutes of advertising. Billions of humans simultaneously scream when their programme shuts down and soap powder appears on the screen. Most of us are confronted and insulted by ads, and yet we are sometimes attracted by the lovely-looking people who promote products. And they’re using lovely-looking products. We think, “If such lovely people say the product is okay, that’s surely good enough for me since I want to be part of this person’s good-looking world”.

We fool ourselves to suit ourselves. “I get one main thing from the ad. I accept that the information is more or less true ... because it is being importantly broadcast nationwide. For me that spells success. Cool. The product is likely to be safe and almost certainly satisfying, even efficacious” .

We’re easily swayed. We buy what others buy. 

Indifference and reluctance to change

756:

We’ve nearly all grown up with an omnivore’s indifference towards the animals we eat, because we are so used to eating animal-based foods. Adopting a herbivorous diet is quite a big step.

            Once I became a vegan I began to have problems, but surprisingly enough not with diet and certainly not with my first-time-clearness of conscience. The biggest problem was in finding hands to hold. Fellow but few vegans were invaluable, but I was and am still conscious of how hard it must be for people living in regions where fellow are a rarity. It’s scary out there alone, living in a non-vegan world.

            In time, settled in and learning more and more, going deeper and deeper into the rationale of it, I tried to get others to join me … but that’s where I struck real problems, problems I’d never expected. Shock number one: me, as a declared vegan, was being pushed away like a dirty smell, especially if I attempted to talk about Animal Rights with friends and acquaintances. I realised my approach was fraught with danger, by my not knowing how to talk.

            These days, having thought so hard about food and what we put into our mouths, my interest is more about what comes out of our mouths.

The standard animal rights-protest-approach has always relied heavily on evoking shame and guilt in people, for not being more aware of how their food comes to them. And while my outrage was sincerely felt I used it as an excuse to hit out. And the response I got back was usually defensive. People, characteristically, always want to fall back on the norm and being a member of the Vast Majority. Any attempt on my part, to shame people into compassion, always failed miserably; the attitude amongst most people is human-based. They feel that if they are kind to children, companion animals and people in general, it makes them compassionate people. Few believe there’s any need to go much further, to extend compassion to ‘food’ animals.

The omnivore is like a major river with omnivorousness flowing like water. And the more one stands in the way of it, the more the water will finds ways of flowing around the obstacle. If our vegan information is ever appreciated, it is usually only by those who already want to change. We can’t alter the mind-set of the resolutely unwilling. They’ll always find ways of ignoring what they don’t want to hear. But, what is the nature of change, especially concerning something as personal as food choices.

            This subject exploded into peoples’ consciousness some forty years ago, when the book Animal Liberation was first published and The Animals Film came out. The shock was fresh then, but now most people, if they know what’s going on, eventually make a conscious decision to ignore it. “It’s too complicated”.

In consequence our voice is not heard. Our campaigns seem to agitate or antagonise people rather than inspire them. All of our detailed facts and shock-horror is old hat. Even back in the eighties, the ‘latest information’ about factory farming alarmed a lot of people but it failed to suggest the need to observe vegan principle. That was considered too radical. Each person chose a cut-off point. Momentarily meat-eating slowed and there was a quickening of vegetarianism. But few came across to veganism. Lately, with a different generation, fashion is changing, animal-eating is considered un-cool, but largely, across the whole of Society, there is a massive ethical indifference. I suppose it’s that way because there’s such a deeply ingrained attitude towards farm animals in our collective psyche. We are precious about food. Food is life, and food must include animal-based products. That’s a ‘given’. We fear altering our food habits more than we fear being identified as an animal abuser.

Picking-up on vegan

755: 

I’m suggesting, especially for long term activists, that the good old standby of ‘shock-horror’-protest needs a fresh look. Maybe in the past it’s been a lot of fun, out on protests, with mates, screaming about the horrors of animal abuse – completely valid. But it’s cost us a lot too, since with our overdose of aggro we’ve trashed our credibility to some extent.

Perhaps it felt good to protest this way, it felt ‘right’ and justified. But now I’d suggest there’s a more sophisticated, ‘cooler’ way to talk to ‘the other side’. I think we have to find a way of becoming less emotional about this subject, because once there’s a voice-tone there usually comes a germ of disapproval, even dislike in our voice, then whatever we say is sure to be rejected. I’ve experienced all the rejections - I’m a hypocrite, I have double standards, I’m poorly-informed. When what I’ve been saying is challenged with overtones of personal attack, that upsets me, and I get angry, quarrelsome, even abusive until I fall nicely into the trap that’s been set for me. By sounding and looking like thunder I fail to impress the very people I set out to impress. 

First principles

754:

Why would you want to talk with me about Animal Rights? Perhaps because it’s slightly interesting? … but let’s say, for whatever reason you do decide to listen to what I have to say, I bet you’ll only pay attention if I’m being nice about it. It’s not a nice subject but it doesn’t mean I have to be ... well, looking like I’m breaking ordinary social rules by forcing you to listen. When I open my mouth, you need to know I’m not out to get you, as if I’m leading you to the water’s edge to try to drown you. Once you can be sure of me then you’re more likely to dip your toes into the chilly waters. After all, you and I both know that ‘vegan’ is a hard listen.

If I try to proselytise ‘veganism’ you might think I’m talking about making personal sacrifices and nothing else. But I could emphasise the advantages and benefits, although would you believe me? How do I convince you to want to stop being an omnivore and become a herbivore? How do I do that without over-stepping the mark? Do I talk food, do I talk compassion? I suppose it depends on whether I think you are only capable of acting from self interest or whether you want to find out what you can do for the greater good. I’ll assume the latter. I’ll see how you respond to a bit of philosophy. (I suppose I’m directing this at people I live amongst in Oz) ... I was told years ago that in Australia one never mentions the “ph” word. It puts people off. But ‘vegan principle’ IS a philosophy but a very simple one, and can be summed up as “no-using-of-animals”. The journey towards becoming vegan is about thinking adventurously and, in the light of peoples’ general indifference, thinking courageously.

What animal advocates are talking about might be what omnivores secretly want to know anyway, in order that they can bring a sense of purpose into their lives. They might want to replace the chaos and destruction connected with the eating of animals. If so we, as vegans, need to engage peoples’ interest, to sow seeds and leave people with something they can think about. It’s as if our job is to hand out ‘sample packs’ and if anyone wants any more they can ask for it.

It only takes a few seconds to get our main idea across, that we “don’t use animals”. And that needs to be spelt out clearly but also made clear by the calmness in our voice - as if we are speaking for the voiceless and speaking as the animals themselves might, speaking calmly and never forcefully.

If you’ll excuse me here, I’ll speculate that the reason there are so many domesticated animals on Earth in the first place is that they have been ‘engaged’ to teach humans how to behave – to teach us how to be more like them. Because of our obstinacy it might be taking us a long time to see what we don’t want to see. Even when the dignity and calmness of animals is staring us in the face, it still seems we insist on our right to violate them, it being not that much different to how the rapist operates, knowing it’s wrong yet doing it all the same. Until we treat the animals in a civilised way we won’t know how to treat each other properly.

If vegans are reaching out at all we are simply hoping to end the habit of always resorting to violence to solve our problems or to bring us benefit.

If vegans are speaking about routine violence, practised either directly or by proxy, we must know that it won’t be reduced by confronting it head on. The words I might be using, if they’re accusing you or trying to frighten you, they’ll seem like I’m trying to fight violence with violence. If ever I do reach you by word I should stick to the accepted rules regarding ‘permission to speak’. And that’s down to your generosity towards me, allowing me in. And if I do run with it, then it’s up to me to keep an eye on any signs of withdrawal on your part. I think that just about covers it. 

Don’t carpet bomb the opposition

753:

“Keep driving. Try not to knock down the pedestrians”.

As an animal rights advocate I try to keep talking, but I try to avoid hitting people with all the facts, all at once. My ‘approach’ on Animal Rights would involve my being surprisingly sparing with my words - I’m expected to do one thing but I do the other, to be unpredictable. I don’t want to be seen as a ‘dangerous vegan’ who evokes a ‘flight’ response.

            I try not to say too much but just as importantly, I try not to give the impression that I’m into judging values. My aim is to say what I have to say without too much emotion and to say less in order to say more - the smaller the seed of truth, the less confronting it feels. (This subject being the ultimate confrontation!)

I reckon I’ve struck it lucky if I hear you asking a question. Then I’ll do you the courtesy of listening and hope you will extend me the same courtesy, and listen back to what I’ve got to say. I’m guessing I could sound confronting so to balance that I try to stick to a few facts and give you something to chew on when you get home. I want to leave you with a few new ideas perhaps. I do NOT want you to experience me making any sort of judgement of you. On this very serious subject I’d like to leave you with the germ of an idea, something that’s easy for you to remember and contemplate.

When I want to communicate the essence of this subject, I’ll mention the gradual habit changes, and suggest what can be done in the privacy of your own kitchen.

Attitude change (towards animal use) suggests considering going vegetarian or vegan. But on the practical level you might like to learn more about food and how to prepare it, so that if you ever consider this change you’ll be ready for the kitchen-side of it.

Ideally, I’d never want anyone to feel overwhelmed by the implications of change-of-attitude. It’s usual to see the sky falling, boycotting everything animal-based all at once and staring at an empty fridge - for that reason alone, you might need to go slow.

That’s the practical side, but in the rush to go slow you wouldn’t want to sink into safe compromise, which would spoil the clarity of this attitude-change. One has to remember that it’s the wrongness of ‘using animals’ that sparks this different attitude in the first place. You can discuss free-range farming and humane killing but they are non-starters, if only because they seem to reduce the suffering of animals but not eliminate it. Even if the ideal is too hot to handle at first, there’s no reason to forget the ideal which inspires everything else - that is, that total boycott might be too hard to hold to, at first, and it’s therefore possible that you could drop the whole thing. A gradual reduction starts the process and that eventually leads to total boycott and the principle of non-use-under-any-circumstance. I hope you are a ‘towards-vegan’ if you aren’t yet vegan.

A subject like no other

752:

A ‘refusal-to-consider’ this matter of animals deserving to have ‘rights’ is defensiveness, but understandable.

I remember, years ago, trying to talk up the idea of veganism with a group of hostile listeners - I knew the subject was very controversial but at first didn’t realise that it was quite unlike any other controversy, about something like politics or religion. This was a highly sensitive matter. It went right to the heart of a person’s philosophy and lifestyle. It was like trying to discuss the person’s mental health with them. While my arguments seemed reasonable, the idea of conforming to them was just too uncomfortable to face up to. The last thing a meat-eater wants is to discuss it … while, of course, a vegan wants very much to discuss it. And since the non-vegans are very much in the majority the strength of numbers make it an okay subject to avoid.

            Given half a chance, vegans will do anything to promote vegan principle, but our methods of persuasion often make non-vegans go into reverse – what might seem to me a ‘good idea’ becomes a ‘not-so-good-idea’ when you don’t want to hear about it. ‘Veganism’ is one subject that can turn even our friends unfriendly.

This ‘good idea’ might seem simple at first but it trails behind it long, stinging tentacles that frighten people.

Don’t trash your reasoning power

751:

One person eats meat and thinks nothing of it. Another would sooner die than touch the stuff. That sounds like a big difference, but is it so large? Here are two extremes of view, using two different reasonings. One accepts that it is okay to use animals for food, others don’t. But food is a very powerful force for all people, not just for survival but for one’s enjoyment; eating is part of the pleasure of life. So, if we decide to NOT eat certain ‘unethical’ foods which are otherwise delicious and affordable, then we ought to be sure we have good reason to deny ourselves the pleasure.

            It’s no good giving up eating meat if you hate the idea of being vegetarian; if you’re forcing yourself to NOT eat foods that leave you with only those foods you don’t like, you will either be ill or unhappy. All of us know we have to feel good about our food choices, or at least not feel denied. But all of us know we have to feel good about ourselves ‘spiritually’, self-esteem-wise. If you’re a meat eater you won’t enjoy your meals if you’re weighed down with guilt. What probably happens, is that the potential for guilt is numbed; you have to be able to put out of your mind where the animal-based food comes from and what they do to animals to extract the food from them. Meat eaters probably have to convince themselves that what they do to animals is an ‘unimportant matter’, and that it mustn’t be given a second thought.

For a vegan it’s different. We perhaps have a more developed sensitivity and conscience. Perhaps we realise the danger of having our mind so easily manipulated by the animal-food lobby.

For my part, I’m seeking a more independent mind out of fear of being manipulated. I’m very suspicious of what my fellow humans are capable of and are willing to condone. The way I see it, humans are not only the most dangerous animal but the most cowardly – we’ve picked on the weakest sentient beings and taken advantage of their weakness. And then pretended not to have realized this!

            My concern is that certain problems about our world are so deeply entrenched that even if solutions to those problems were clear they wouldn’t be implemented. If the problem concerns something to our disadvantage, like giving up certain pleasure-inducing foods, the  thought of that is just too uncomfortable to contemplate. There is a common fear that once a thought enters the mind, it can’t be expelled; it takes a course of its own. And therefore, it’s important NOT to let it in, in the first place. Matters pertaining to food and animals mustn’t be allowed to get that far – these must be perceived as ‘unimportant matters’.

If there is a problem, a question concerning the eating and using of animals, people might prefer to live with it. They would probably say that veganism is too high a price to pay for peace of mind, and wouldn’t consider it or discuss it or take it seriously. But it isn’t just peace of mind that’s at stake, it’s the danger of losing one’s power of reasoning or acting upon the results of reasoning.

Don’t trash your ethics

750: 

I’m not only into Animal Rights for the animals’ sake but also for my own. But it separates me from nearly everyone else in that my life is led quite differently, and I don’t want that. But there again, I don’t want to be weighed down by other people’s mistakes.

I go it alone if needs be. I accept that we are all much the same under the skin, but as far as animals go, the eating variety I mean, we’re at different levels of awareness. I’m fairly sure that we can be brought closer to each other, simply by discussing the details of our daily lives; assessing what is important and what is not. It’s all to do with how important certain common activities are, like what food to eat when there’s an ethical dimension to it.

 If we make a mistake about the sort of foods we eat, the consequences can be catastrophic. Some people emphasise the importance of food in relation to their health, but others see the importance of choosing and avoiding certain foods in relation to their ethics. It doesn’t matter how healthy one is if one is daily trashing one’s ethics.

50,000,000,000

749: 

            These days my passion is for non-violence alongside a concern for animals (mainly those that are eaten). I think I’m looking up ahead, seeing that animals and humans are inextricably linked, their fortunes and ours directly depending on our becoming protectors of them.

            We humans have always been violent and exploitative towards them and now the time has come for us to atone and become their protectors. They need our laws to make them safe, and we need to learn from them how to restore our own sensitivity. It’s a two way road - the need for human liberation is even more urgent than animal liberation, if only because this is where it all has to start. Humans are the violators and humans need to change, the animals don’t need to. Our main aim should surely be to help them recover their true wild natures. If that is unrealistic then at least we can try to help them gain liberation. And for that, we first have to prove we are worthy to be their representatives.

            My feeling is that if things don’t work out well for the animals, things won’t progress for any of us. Humans, having such a long tradition of treating animals barbarically, seem like true barbarians. (And we know there is another more-awake side to humans where they are the very opposite of barbaric). But this isn’t the way I want to see myself. I want to see the humanitarian self in me. And I think others might want to too. But that will need a change of attitude towards animals, by a lot of people, all of whom no longer want to use, keep or eat animals - until at least 50% of the human population realise there’s an animal problem, the animal problem will remain. And we will remain a barbaric species, or at least have this barbaric side to our otherwise loving natures. We may eventually get the worst abuses fixed, we may swing over to becoming vegetarians but that will be still a long way from true liberation, for animals or for us.

            Ultimately, this is what makes many of us feel so afraid – the way we charge along and yet make no progress in some very important areas. All the time the animals are not safe from us, we remain dangerous beings, and being dangerous makes us seem very primitive. Is the collective human soul at screaming pitch?

             On a personal level, my own happiness is linked to wanting others to be happy too, whether they be humans or animals. On a selfish level, I want to save my own soul from being too closely associated with my own species; I don’t want to be held back by my own species’ reputation for violence.

            It isn’t enough that I draw apart and fix up my own life, I have (as we all do) a responsibility to restore our human nature. Most of all, I want to help change our reputation by identifying some facts which even the youngest child could grasp, like:

            Fifty billion domesticated farm animals, who are alive today, are on Death Row. None of them have ever had any quality of life. None have ever had a reason to live. None have had any contact with the natural world.

Me and my shadow

748: 

When I was still buying unethical products, I realised I was collaborating in the very thing I wanted to see changed. I wanted to promote sustainable systems. I wanted to show my concern for the planet as well as the animals. I wanted to ease my conscience. Most of all I wanted to wrestle with my shadow, violence. I wanted to see myself for who I wanted to be, namely a non-violent person. But the temptations to NOT change were too great.

The implications of striving to be non-violent are far reaching. This deep, guiding principle is about conduct-with-dignity. It isn’t mildness or passivity. It is dignified outrage without the need to use any force. I knew I’d need self discipline to wrench myself away from the clutches of comfort and the oh-so-familiar violent world we all live in. I needed a plan of action to fight this shadowy presence. First up, I had to change away from animal food, leaving the animal-abuse world behind me. But I knew that soon after I’d be wanting to get this idea of non-violent living across to others.

            I wanted a direct approach about animal abuse, to protest against the violence of it. But no one wanted to talk about it. I became frustrated by the silence. I pressed my case by becoming aggressive – showing aggro towards non-vegans.

            At first, I was the typical new enthusiast. I was a proud ‘vegan’, struggling to alter my eating habits and buying patterns, to get to where I wanted to be, only then to become intense, in order to get my point across to others. I thought it was okay to be pushy, since it was for a good cause. I had a duty to be forceful. I didn’t realise at the time how close that was to ‘fighting violence with violence’.

            As animal rights activists, we might very well believe we have won significant welfare reforms for animals by being non-compromising and sometimes outrageous. By using this approach we’ve brought issues to public attention and have been instrumental in ending many of the worst abuses of animals. But it hasn’t convinced the majority of consumers to change their eating habits. They may have felt our disapproval and caught our dirty looks but they haven’t felt the opprobrium of anyone else, so they haven’t been constrained to change their attitude to animals. It hasn’t increased their sense of responsibility towards them. The collective conscience hasn’t yet been tweaked.

            This is what I think has happened – people have had the experience of a confrontation with an animal activist, who has talked passionately but who has also made it hard for the ‘ordinary omnivore’ to identify with them. On an emotional level people have been turned off prematurely, disagreeing with our arguments because they find us, as people, disagreeable types. They don’t want to know the sort of person who can be ‘that angry’. It’s like listening to great music on a radio which is picking up a lot of static interference; it’s an uncomfortable experience. This ruined listening experience jars on the nerves. You just want it to stop.

            Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, some of us have inadvertently built an agro image. We’ve been too ‘in-yer-face’. I speak for myself when I say that I’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike me, and therefore to dislike what I’m saying. I’ve lessened my chances of being able to discuss important issues with them (concerning farm animals or lab animals). By being this way I’ve been seen as unapproachable. For them, there’s been no chance of their having a low key, informative chat with me on this subject. I’ve seemed like a person who is only interested in others if they agree with me. I’ve offered little chance for them to truly form their own opinion about all this.

            In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to dispassionate education. As a spokesperson-for-the-cause I could seem to be exactly the wrong sort of person for them to be speaking to; perhaps I thought that the story-of-animals would, of its own accord, touch the hearts of people as soon as I told the story; it was a do-the-right-thing-and-go-vegan approach. Perhaps I didn’t have enough faith in the idea of ‘vegan’ being attractive in its own right, nor that Animal Rights was an exciting enough prospect. Perhaps I made the whole subject off-putting enough to be consigned to their back burner. Perhaps I was less interested in communication and more interested in fighting my own shadow.

A list of enlightenments

747: 

If we are trying to protect the rights of animals we won’t get far by abusing the abusers. They get off on this. As animal activists we need to avoid the temptation to harangue people, to trap them into agreeing with us. You can’t hit people over the head with ‘veganism’. Even if they want to agree with us, they might only want to shut us up. I find the most friendly listeners slip back to old habits after they’ve heard the other side of the story. People aren’t stupid. They value their life, their safety, their lifestyle and their social life with friends. They like eating together. They don’t want to stand out like a sore thumb. Yes, they want to be individual but not too much so. Becoming vegan, especially in a world of so few, seems like one huge soial risk to take.

            So, let’s spell out the many personal and practical implications of being vegan; swapping over to a new type of normality, away from the sort of security one has always known. What does that bring up?

            Comfort comes from clothing, social interactions, tasty food,  self esteem - ah, but self-esteem is fragile.

Self esteem is eroded by the guilt of being involved in a system we can’t approve of.  On the one hand we value our having greater sensitivity but on the other we try to meet the demands of comfort. It comes down to the value we place on having a clear conscience as opposed to pain of having a guilty conscience.

Today we are being made to feel guilty about so many things, anything from smoking tobacco (self-induced harm) to being wasteful and polluting. We clean up some habits, we start to recycle, we buy ‘green’ and we try to conserve energy. To allow in any more guilts, like those concerning the exploiting of animals, seems too ambitious. We say, “Maybe let that guilt alone”. And quietly (no one is screaming at us about this one) we let it fester. And who knows how that eventually affects us.

            I would suggest that this is the next layer of guilt we can strip away to feel really much better about ourselves. We can’t fix up just one of the ‘guilts’ before moving onto the next. They need to be dealt with simultaneously. This ‘clean-up’ is a multi-task.

By gradually raising awareness of each habit and seeing how it affects us (our own lives and the planet’s) we can repair the damage incrementally.

All I would say is this, that to totally ignore animal issues would mean we are so afraid of addressing this subject that it will spoil all the other improvements. You can feel advanced in one important way but retarded in another. If you know any enlightened people, try asking them what they eat. Unless they’ve addressed this animal-slavery issue, you’re likely to see imbalance in that person.

Safety from being farmed

746: 

What I think has happened is that ‘animal groups’ have compromised their aims in order to keep in with the majority of vegetarians. Instead of protecting all animals they have decided to concentrate on ending factory farming. In that way they will maximize their support base. And no one could argue against that focus, to end the very worst of conditions animals suffer. But it never goes any further, to advocate the ending of all farming; if intensification is boycotted we will have just as many people eating dead animals and condoning the enslavement of animals even though their living conditions improve. 

The cancer is in the attitude of using animals, the speciesism behind the exploitation. All the time we regard animals as fair game we will find ways to get what we want from them with the least regard for them as individual beings. It’s like sending the kids down the mines but giving them safety helmets and lamps; we need to get t the root of the problem as to how the human can ever see it as acceptable to enslave animals.

I think we should go right out there to the extreme, to voice the ideal. To some it might seem impractical – a world without animal farming. Out of fear of seeming too radical we don’t dare to present the case for how things should be, according to the highest and most generous in the human spirit.

            My arguments about a ‘no-use-animal’ policy goes further than just improving animal welfare. It goes past seeing them as commodities and human property. It sees them as irreplaceable, sovereign individuals who need to be released from slavery. We need to think about them as we would an abused child in need of safety from a child-abuser. In their case it means safety from being ‘farmed’. 

Getting you to hear what is being said

745: 

When I get thinking about my own self-development, I first think about the repairs I need to make (which sounds dull enough!), and then I think what that will allow me to do (not so dull). It opens the door to being the much more creative, constructive, caring, person I want to be.

I have two things going on in my head at the same time here - I’m doing something big for myself and something for the greater good. It starts out with self-discipline and turns into enjoyment.

Keeping fit works in the same way - we see the need to perhaps lose weight or tone our muscles; we do the training; we end up proud of our efforts; we have a better body.

            Working for the ‘greater good’ sounds grim until we begin to feel the rewards of our efforts - the selfless becomes more clearly self-benefitting - what we want for others is what we want for ourselves. What I do for myself benefits others at the same time. And then it occurs to us that perhaps this is true altruism, a self generating energy which is neither me-centred nor you-centred; it’s really just a matter of striking a balance between common interests.

Altruism is simply the most intelligent way of organising the route we take in life. It fits the needs of myself and serves to help global problems. Maybe we can help only in the smallest way but it’s a start and who knows where it will lead?

In order for altruism to work we need optimism, so we can say, “So what, if all this damage has been done? It can be fixed”. Optimism ‘ups’ the energy, so if I feel as though I’m heading towards something worthwhile, it won’t be because it’s right but because it’s meaningful. It’s something I’m doing for myself and for you, and that’s ultimately satisfying.

            ‘Satisfaction’ and ‘meaning’ are the big drivers here. As soon as I think I’m making a difference (for example, by going vegan so that animals won’t be killed on my behalf) I have taken one major step in the right direction. And if that makes me happier about myself I can go further. Perhaps I can help others take the same step.

Why would I want to do that? Because the ‘I’ is getting closer to the ‘we’. It holds hands with the collective future, where people will be wanting animals to be liberated.

            Once I can clean up my own act at home (establish a vegan kitchen for a start), then I can see myself in a new way. I can look in the mirror and see myself as others might see me. First up, I will see myself NOT as a complaisant vegan, ready to climb the pulpit and tell everyone what sinners they are. NOT how I’ve seen the light. NOT as a figure of fun for others to mock. Just to BE who I am and who I want to be.

If I am now vegan that is an essentially private term I identify with. That description of myself might mean very little to others, but they can identify with is me as a likeable, self-effacing person who is clear about personal aims. I don’t have to evangelise because just by being all those things I’ll have enough confidence to communicate what ever I want to. Naturally, I’ll want to talk about animals, food, abattoirs, the future and many other things. Naturally I’ll want to share what I’ve discovered in order to help build a strong support base for animal liberation. But most of all I’ll want to be acceptable; I’ll want others to be able to identify with the way I balance my passion and outrage with compassion and ‘outreach’, and then to be able to hold back if the time is not right to communicate any of this.

I know it isn’t enough to simply pass on information to others. Everyone today is saturated with information, and there’s so much misinformation in circulation too. Why believe anything I have to say? If I do need to say anything then what I say should be based on facts which can be referenced. And if the facts are a bit indigestible or if there’s anything about what I’m saying that’s  unattractive, I’ll have to try harder to counter that. I’ll need to become approachable, so that I can encourage others to listen. But most of all I must try to be a likeable person. Unlikeable people give the listener a great excuse to dismiss the information they’re keen to communicate.

‘I’ is the new ‘we’

744:

Everything the human race has so far achieved has grown out of ‘ideas’ that have fallen into our heads, exploded into our imagination and been implemented to see if they work. Sometimes they really do work and we benefit from them always. Sometimes ideas work only for a time and end up doing more harm than good. In that case, hopefully, we see the error and fix it.

But who is this ‘we’? On a personal level I can dream up ideas and fix them. I can do all this on my own account but I can’t change a collective or global trend. There are certain dangerous, entrenched, global habits, and if I scream about them they won’t necessarily get fixed. I can try to be useful, however.

            How to be useful? Not take part in the habit, boycott, go towards an alternative?

Take the internal combustion engine, for example. It was such an asset at first but, a century down the track, it’s contributing to the death of our planet. The car is a big problem, but it’s unlikely that you’re going to give it up. It’s so useful. It’s so ‘essential’. And if you give it up (for the greater good) I won’t necessarily give mine up.

             Our modern day lifestyle includes many of these damaging habits, damaging for myself, for the planet, for the future, and these ‘out-of-control’ problems worry us, make us afraid and pessimistic, and make the future look grim. And it’s all the more depressing to know that most of us haven’t even started shedding these habits; our own daily lifestyle is still cranking up the machine. We are either too obstinate or too impotent to change.

And don’t we say to ourselves, “I’m reluctant to take the lead if I don’t think you will join me”. We don’t act together. I can’t see how I, acting alone, will be making anything more than a self-sacrificing gesture. Sell the car, use less electricity, give up meat – all very brave and noble, but will you be so impressed that you will follow suit? And if you don’t then could my own efforts make me feel resentful? Why should I give up things on principle, only to end up making my own living conditions more uncomfortable than they already are? Perhaps I figure that I’ll wait for you to change first. Then I’ll follow suit! So, it seems that most of us follow fashions, we don’t lead them. Perhaps this is the most dangerous habit we have.

Imagine then, instead, that I don’t care what you or anybody else does. Imagine then, that I act from conscience only, no longer acting on the assumption that what most people do is what I should do. Imagine then my taking a bold step, and thinking that if you decide to come along that would be good, but if you don’t, so be it - the norm no longer affects my decision to do what I think is right.

            This isn’t as unrealistic as it might seem, because it brings us to the possibility of enjoying the process of change and experimenting with finding new ways to self motivate; the trick being not to keep looking around to see what others are doing, or looking for their approval for what we are doing.

            Coming back to these damaging habits and our need to shed them and work towards finding better ones; by connecting personal fulfillment with practical repair work, change becomes less painful. We can actually enjoy the hard work involved.

It’s like that when you decide to become vegan. Even though others aren’t doing it, the rightness of doing it is obvious. Even though there’s a fear of failure, satisfaction comes with each step taken. So, this particular change of daily habit (no longer using meat and products taken from animals’ bodies) gradually shows results. There’s an improvement in health and energy, and the big bonus is that we are helping to get animals off death row. These three features of veganism boost self esteem, if nothing else. It’s rather as if we have taken the first steps in regaining control of our own lives AND our own world. These three ‘results’ are ultimately satisfying because what I do is the magnetic pull to what ‘we’ will eventually all do.

Changing our personal habits

743: 

Anyone who sees the urgent need to do something about the way we treat food-animals is going to have to ignore what they’ve previously been taught about food - they’ll have to go against tastebud-advice, against the advice of corporations, governments and educators, and turn to them-self for advice.

            The issue of using animals in the food and clothing industries sits like a lead weight on our collective conscience - what we do to animals makes monsters of us. We should all be ashamed of the way animals are slaughtered, for the way hens are imprisoned in tiny cages and for the way so many animals are routinely mutilated without anaesthetic. The more I learn the more ashamed I become. I discovered that newborn calves are snatched away from their mothers (most of which are shot soon after they’re born), sows are kept restrained in stalls, unable to move, cattle are mutilated (for very practical reasons, of course)  - the list of horrors goes on and on. Each one reflects on the farmers and producers, and the consumers who support all this by buying animal produce.

            Now all this might be true enough, but so many of us have been or still are involved, simply by buying animal-based foods, that there’s a mass switch-off; we won’t talk about it because it throws up too many problems. This is where we’re stuck.

            My taste buds are like yours, they respond to the same foods and yet these same foods weigh heavily on the conscience. There’s a sort of numbness that comes over me when I try to think of how sentient animals are suffering. The fact that animals (kept alive only to be eaten) are presently living in terror, and dying the most ugly death anyone could imagine says a lot about how brutal humans are. We say, “It’s outrageous”, but we still allow it to happen. By way of some nifty mental gymnastics we can relax at the dinner table and eat what we’re given. Minds closed, mouths open. It’s what we are used to doing. Then the brave speak up, “No longer!” ... but in reality, even if we feel outraged, we don’t think we’d have enough willpower to alter our eating habits so radically, for a principle. Nothing will be powerful enough to convince us to stop. Neither ill health, guilty conscience or issues concerning the environmental impact of animal farming.

If we do make the decision to ‘go-vegan’, we find out eventually that it’s probably the best thing we could have done for ourselves. By withdrawing our support from the Animal Industries and freeing ourselves from the addictive grip of their products, we do a repair job on ourselves and help liberate the animals at the same time. But this habit-switching is no light matter. If we give up eating meat one day, the next day we’ll be questioning the whole ethical basis of animal farming and nutrition! So what starts out as just a change of diet, now opens up significant changes of attitude. 

The obstacles which ironically give us greater awareness

741:

            The big difficulty facing animal advocates is that the more we learn, the more we want to tell our story; but the more we tell it the fewer people want to listen. The more you learn about the abuse of animals the more serious the cruelty seems to impact on both animals and humans.

            Most animal welfare organizations focus their attention on the people who perpetrate the cruelty, whereas it is really the consumer who calls the shots. Customers demand the product at a low price and availability, which forces the producer to take up the cheapest method of supply, which happens to involve the most cruelty.   

            It’s the dishonesty of ordinary people, turning a blind eye, which allows the system to continue; millions of starving children die needlessly and millions of animals are killed shamelessly, and everyone goes about their business as if nothing bad is happening.

            Laying the blame though is futile. It solves nothing. There are always arguments to excuse animal abuse. Ordinary people have their own problems which can’t be neglected. The sheer weight of making a living and paying the bills pushes so many important issues into the background; woe betide anyone failing to pay their rent or mortgage. It’s essential to give the children what they need, to secure their future, to prevent them being trampled on by others who are scrambling for the same sort of safety for their own kids. People can’t see the impact their lifestyle is having on the world about them unless they are consciously leading themselves towards a whole new set of values. It’s almost as if change can’t find fertile ground since the system is so well established that it forces people to go with the flow. And our political leaders can’t be relied upon to show leadership because they’re as nonplussed as everyone else. Even if we know what should be done we don’t have the freedom or courage to break away from the way things have always been done.

            So, there’s an obvious need for change yet a reluctance to step out in front, to take the first steps towards setting off a chain reaction of change. There’s a need for change for one’s own benefit and for the greater good, but a fear of stepping too far away from reality.

            There are many questions for which there are inadequate answers:  Do I believe that my ‘good example’ will encourage others to follow? Does my sowing seeds encourage growth? Do I have faith in others doing the right thing, for the greater good? Should I rely on others, who feel the same way as I do, not to give up on the job? Are our destructive habits and violent attitudes so deeply entrenched that radical change can’t come about? Is change possible? Are intentions good?

            Perhaps we need to turn away from the bigger picture and take a fresh look at home values. We need to walk before we can expect to run. First up, if there are things to be done then motivation is essential - personal change needs good motivation, so I have to create an alternative, non-damaging lifestyle and only then can I defend it and then promote it. But the particular difficulty in promoting Animal Rights is that there are so many competing causes, so many other, more obviously dangerous issues facing the planet. They seem bigger and blacker than concerns about farm animals. At this stage we are becoming environmentally aware. We’re aware of wasting money because of the wasteful spending of trillions of dollars on weapons of war. By looking about us we see riches and lots of fat people who eat to excess, and we see children dying from malnutrition. The obscenity of all this is easy to understand. Even if these three major horrors are known to us what room is there for further, less-obvious horrors to enter the picture? We are overwhelmed with the dangers which are becoming obvious right now without adding to the list. We argue that, surely, these are the most urgent issues to deal with, and the enslavement of non-human animals doesn’t ring alarm bells in the same sort of way. It isn’t seen as such a great threat to civilisation. It’s like in wartime, when bombs are raining down, THAT  dominates everyone’s thoughts, and very little else seems to matter as much.

            Few people care about the damage being done to our ‘humanity’ by confining and killing and then eating animals when it’s these other issues weighing so heavily on our collective conscience. But I’d also suggest that all issues are connected. Connected by fear and violence and the root cause of violation and violence will only mend when we stop attacking animals. That same violence has allowed us to look away from attacks on the environment and on the most poor people of the world. We can hardly pretend we are non-violent people when we still attack and use animals.

            As soon as we stop participating in the mass killing of animals we open up new awareness, but it has to start with individuals, doing what they must do without reference to what others are doing. If I can do what I think is the right thing, then other individuals must eventually start to notice and follow suit. It might take a long time, but surely that is the way the ball starts rolling. I doubt if any government will act on behalf of ‘the animals’, since to ban the killing of animals would be so unpopular that it would spell political suicide. The breakthrough has to start at the grass roots level. With individuals.

The thinking of a new herbivore

740:

When I first started out, I could see that plant-based eating was a beautiful idea in theory but in practical terms I had my doubts. Was it possible? And if I could get over missing all those familiar foods could I also withstand the opprobrium of my friends, all of whom were dedicated omnivores or enthusiastic carnivores? I’d be living in a society and yet denigrating the eating habits of nearly everyone I mixed with; this change wouldn’t exactly win me too many friends. And, as it turned out, by exposing and explaining and talking about animal abuse in the food industry, I found myself socially dropped by family and friends. I was considered to be ‘on the nose’. 

            And yet I was only trying to be constructive and get to the truth. I only wanted to point out the human capacity for acting destructively and in this case hypocritically. Whether people were acting by commission or omission, or acting directly or by proxy, or being up front or clandestine - I wanted all of that to be energetically discussed. But it was not to be. And after a while, of people refusing to discuss the issues, I started to become rude, and then things descended into mutual abuse, and I knew that this wasn’t what I wanted at all. It was far from rational debate.

            In the early days, I often felt helpless to do much about the ‘animal thing’. I was fast becoming aware that human habits and social mores were so strongly established that nothing I could do personally would change things. Everyone thought of them-self as a sensitive person. And in this case that was the biggest problem. Everybody already knew that humans were trashing the environment and doing things against the ethical standard, but by looking at ‘other’ issues, it diverted them away from more controversial issues - by admitting culpability in one issue-area, another much more difficult issue-area could be effectively ignored.

             Animal use and abuse has become so much part of our lives that the last thing a person would want to hear was any condemnation of animal farms. So, as an animal advocate, you never get the chance to speak your mind; you’re never allowed to say that, whilst animal farms were providing us with much of our food, they were little more than death camps. Nor can you go further, to expand your case, to say that animal farming was a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions and general pollution. Nor that by eating so much of this animal-based food our bodies were going haywire and that we were losing control of our health.

Because we are stopped from even entering into this matter we never get to the point where we can explain the details, about animal foods being too ‘rich’ and comprising high carbohydrates and so much saturated fat, leading to obesity and all the other problems of over-indulgent lifestyles.

Everything that needed to be said couldn’t be said because it would sound like an insult, and that was considered by any hostile listener as reason enough for not having to listen to ANY of it.

There are obvious links between the main global issues, the one leading to the other and on to the next ... ending up with detrimental consequences for rich and poor; the rich are dying from overindulgence and lack of self discipline and sub-consciously suffer the shame of ignoring the plight of children in poor countries who are dying for want of food. 

            Most people can’t look squarely at any of this since they want to be consuming animals and all the ‘goodies’ made available by farming them. They don’t heed the warnings since they are transfixed, like a rabbit in the car’s headlights, on the comforts-of-life to which they’ve become accustomed.

            To the new herbivore all this is too obvious and clearly must be avoided, but at the same time none of it will make much sense to those who are determined not to change their lifestyle or diet.

How the omnivore is thinking

739:

I used to think as an omnivore thinks, even when I came to understand the cruelty involved in animal farming and animal killing. However strong the argument might have been it would never have persuaded me to act so differently to everyone else. As a young adult and as a child I had always been trying to fit in, not to stand out as being different. Having food in common with others is a great leveller, and not so difficult either when the society we live in makes it so easy to be ‘not fully informed’ - I had always consumed animal-based foods and confections, not just to satisfy my hunger but also for pleasure.

            It was only when I started to find out about the provenance of certain foods that I began to question the ethics of those foods. Suddenly there was a problem facing me: certain foods were a huge source of satisfaction for me, so to give up my favourite foods for the sake of animals was problematic. I had to ask myself if I was I a compassionate person. Surely, if I’d wanted to test my compassion I’d have shown it first towards my fellow humans. I reckoned that there were enough humans to empathise with. I’d have argued that my compassion couldn’t be expected to extend to animals, not the ones we eat anyway. But does this argument stand up? later I found that it didn’t. It challenged my willingness to participate in ‘normal behaviour’, condoning the sort of routine cruelty practised on farm animals.

            As a life-long meat eater, my problem was a reluctance to admit that I might have been wrong all along, about my food habits. It would have meant too much loss of face and consequently, also, too big a step-down in lifestyle. I’d been eating the same sorts of foods all my life and to do without animal products altogether would take a lot of un-doing. And if I tried to undo so much, I mightn’t be able to keep it up for the rest of my life.

            But wrestling with these problems at the time, as a young person, I could see there was at least some chance to change - I was less set in my ways. I was less troubled by guilt since I’d had fewer years of making my own independent food choices. Until recently, my food had been provided by my elders, and now, the act of rebelling against the habits of the older generation felt appropriate. A radical diet-change was a badge for independently striking out. And once I had decided to become vegan, I remember it felt quite natural to accuse my elders of being ‘asleep’ on the job. I felt the need to atone for what I’d done (and on their behalf for what they’d done and were still doing). I wanted to ‘set up camp’ on the other side of the river. It made me see that by becoming a herbivore I could do my bit to spare animals. Omnivore-thinking began to fade.

God is love, ouch!

738: 

For a confirmed atheist, the very mention of God or ‘god’ might seem weird, but this title phrase might mean something else. In the context of the place of food-animals in human society (and every other mutation which rots Society) I think it means that love is the Big Power of the Universe and doesn’t operate when there’s violence about. The power of it is energised by love and is diminished by the opposite. The whole vegan-philosophy-thing is about clarifying the nature of love as an energy which drives all creation and maintains life. And so it follows that humans can bring the power of it into consciousness or pervert it or ignore it or be oblivious of it. If we are conscious of consciousness, then applying love to what we do is our choice.

Because ‘love’, as an energy, is such an abstract concept it’s difficult to grasp, unless we embody it in the form of a powerful supernatural being. The reason I mention it here is that this powerful energy (love) shouldn’t be messed with. It can be as dangerous as it is useful. I like to think of it as a mischievous teacher who brings consequences to us appropriate to the way we use or abuse love.

If we want to ‘do’ love perhaps it’s best to remember that it isn’t meant to be an unstable element. It isn’t partial. To get the most from love, I think we need to perceive it as stable, and use it as such - it’s either unconditionally applied and applicable to all things we encounter at the level we apply it, or it mutates into an unstable look-alike. Like fire, it’s a good servant but a bad master. If we choose to respect ‘love’ we can join things up with it, to make things more comprehensible; the chain is strong enough to hold us together for our whole life. But if we drop a link, as we do when we hurt animals or damage a river or go to war, then we can’t expect it to have the same benign power. It can lead us into the flames of dire consequence.

On this subject of animal rights, it seems absurd that we could still go on hurting and killing (and these days demonically torturing animals) when for the past seventy odd years we’ve known well enough that our survival isn’t dependant on animals. If we ignore the fact that we no longer need to kill them or milk them or wear them in order to survive, then the power of love won’t work for us. In fact it will work against our best interests, just as any mutated or unstable element will, especially when we’re using our sophisticated intellect to try to get the best of both worlds. 

            I’m sure there are communities around the world who must kill animals to survive, since there is nothing else available for them to eat or wear, and I’m sure there are communities to whom it has never occurred that humans can survive without using animals. But our Western communities are otherwise informed. And for those who are educated enough to know better, there is a deceit and a dangerous hypocrisy in condoning the abuse of animals by continuing to buy abattoir products. Even those who eschew meat but still drink milk and eat eggs and otherwise use the products of animals, they must know the double standards they’re playing with. If love is the great power driving everything, then surely we show scant regard for love when we use products that come to us via the ugly dairy farming of cows or the slaughtering of spent hens or the shearing of sheep or in the general enslavement of animals.

            Animals, whether wild or domesticated, have committed no crime and deserve no punishment. To ‘waste’ (murder) them is both a waste of energy and a waste of love. For love to work it must be comprehensively applied, not expected to work properly when its very antithesis is engaged, to serve the short term convenience of the human.

Slogans and plain speaking

737: 

I’d like to start out by suggesting we drop slogans like “Meat is Murder”; it’s a statement that’s true enough but what we’re really saying is “YOU are a murderer if you eat meat and”, by implication, “I am NOT”. Slogans are usually hackneyed (not our own original thoughts), they are often aggressive and sound like an attack. Slogans are used like sharp weapons, the use of which we believe will shock people into change. As soon as we utter a slogan we deliver a judgement, and then the shutters come down. The defensive counter-judgement is lobbed back, like, “What bitter bastards you vegans are!”, and that effectively closes down any meaningful dialogue. 

            Obviously, being vegan, I don’t want to condone any sort of animal abuse, but I do want to allow enough elbow room for the subject to be discussed. So, let me suggest some basic arguments and you can assess how they stand up.

            One can’t justify animal-use intellectually because there are just too many ugly aspects to the way they’re treated, and too many good arguments for boycotting animal-based commodities. But we need to look at things from the omnivore’s perspective, if we want to get a handle on the problem of communicating this difficult subject.

If a person is struggling with our ideas it’s because they are weighing our arguments against their own daily habits. And these deeply embedded habits are confirmed by what others do. Mostly, others don’t think about animals’ feelings; they do what they’ve always done and what their parents taught them to do and what they teach their own children to do; they simply eat the food they like to eat; they haven’t realized there is an ethical component to eating food. It’s difficult to accept that animal-based foods are wrong when we have eaten them all our lives, and humans have been eating them since history began. Such a fundamental food source isn’t easily caste aside. And since these foods are so heavily woven into the fabric of our social life, to do without them might seem to threaten the very stability of our social interactions with others.

So when I come along and shout, “Meat is murder” it doesn’t mean much. It’s ineffective and makes me seem ugly. I might think that what I’m saying is true and truth is powerful and powerful statements bring a change of attitude. But this is shoddy communication. Slogans shouldn’t be confused with plain speaking.