Bring on the debate not the quarrel

1009:

If there were a debate on Animal Rights, I imagine there’d be two opposite positions, and it would all be very ordered. But in the real world outside the debating chamber, stereotypes, prejudices, half truths and misinformation abound. It’s a struggle to get even one decent point across before it’s objected to or we’re being interrupted.

The animal advocate is handicapped by what’s gone before, how we have conducted ourselves in these sorts of discussions, the reputation we have built. Sometimes we’ve been very informative, even inspiring. Often we’ve been adversarial and too ready to quarrel.

To establish the most positive image, to turn this around, I would try to be seen as an okay-person, fair-minded, not aggressive and respectful of both human issues and animal issues. If it’s an up-hill job, to draw the majority towards my view (especially if it’s me who is wanting to debate animal issues, and not the other way round) then I need to deal with some preliminaries. Before I get anywhere near the business end of discussing animals, I will have to set the standard for non-violent interaction and logical argument, and show that I won’t go on the defensive.

I say that because I know we have powerful arguments. There’s no need for us to lose our advantage by being sensitive to criticism or demand our right to speak. We need them to take us on. And if that means they resort to their own brand of aggressive tactics, it’s usually a cover for what they see as their weaker position.

Sometimes I try to stir people a bit, but I never know how much I should dare to provoke, when I’m not sure of the person I’m talking with. And why try to pick a fight when I can instead try to bring out a person’s enquiring nature instead?

In conclusion, I think it’s a mistake to force people to respond, or try to emotionally blackmail them. Any wish to talk about issues in any sort of detail must come from them. It’s likely if they think the animals thing is an issue at all, they’ll want to talk about health and animal welfare. Then, it’s up to us to carefully introduce cruelty and slavery and all the really heavy stuff. 

Confronting – does it work?

1008: 

Here I am, eating dinner with others, seeing what they’re eating, and I feel the urge to make a comment on their ‘animal food’, wanting them to know why I’m eating something different. I comment. The ‘already-converted’ will say “Yes, we agree”, and that’s what I want to hear, some easy agreement. Others say nothing. Their silence indicates disagreement. They’re eating and enjoying their animal-food. They don’t want to hear what I have to say, so if I carry on voicing my views, talking about Animal Rights or vegan issues, I’m guaranteed to set off alarm bells.

Omnivores won’t listen when I criticise their food, especially if they already feel a bit guilty about their position on animal farming. Understandably, to them, speaking like this during a meal is excessive chutzpah.

But for some devil-may-care activists, any time is a good time to state their case – they’d say that these people deserve to be confronted. And maybe they do, but free-willed people know they can walk away (or in this case ignore me, but nevertheless seethe). And if they do they are lost to us, sometimes for ever. So, who wins then?

The alternative to this bulldozer approach is for us to strike a balance when talking about Animal Rights. Face to face we can judge if there’s an interest in hearing what we’ve got to say. If not, then perhaps they’re building a brick wall against us; and it’s the stone-wallers who’re the very people we should be trying to reach.

We think animals deserve to have a life of their own, but the vast majority haven’t thought about it - the question hardly ever arises, and if it did it would seem like an absurd question.

But in those few countries where the question of animals having rights is more often discussed, there’s an initial willingness followed by alarm and the setting up of defensive barriers. There’s no other subject that hots up quite so quickly.

What happens? Maybe someone like me attempts some crude moral bludgeoning. I’m thought to be unrealistic. Soon, our talk goes pear-shaped. Nothing much moves on. No bridge-building, no attitude changes, lots of self-justification. To the meat eater, animal- based foods are as natural as breathing fresh air. We can talk about the horrors of factory farming or the violence of the abattoir but to most people, a meal is just a meal. They can’t associate what they have always eaten with an act of violence.

If there’s any curiosity it’s only academic – the concept of animals having rights or being protected from exploitation isn’t realistic, it isn’t applicable to the personal lifestyle of everyday living. Maybe what we say is a shock when we say it, but it passes quickly. To all intents and purposes, it’s forgotten about as quickly as possible. There’s no compelling reason to remember what we’ve said. When reality kicks in, the grind of daily life leaves no space for change. Not this scale of change anyway.

Saving Our Souls

1007: 

Violence would have been dropped long ago if humans were less competitive and less quarrelsome.  We each want to get to the top of the heap, or at least prevent being pushed further towards the bottom.  Progress is measured by upward 'advancement';  e.g.  human animal rising to the top of the animal kingdom, becoming the dominant species.  But in our quest to rise, we’ve found ourselves submerged in so much destructive behaviour that we should look again at what we really mean by 'progress'.

Humans are now at a stage of reassessing priorities.  We’re beginning to realise that winning isn’t necessarily gaining.  Our thirst for war and our need to practise domination over animals seems to have been our undoing.  On a personal level, shame and failure has crept up on us quietly.  We've hardly noticed it.  But when evidence of ill health, weak ethics and planetary damage becomes too obvious to ignore, we have to.

I’d suggest that if we hadn’t been so hooked on 'yummy' animal-based foods and all the other little comforts associated with products from abattoirs, we wouldn’t be in such a mess now.  We wouldn’t now have to face up to reducing our carbon footprint or ending mass starvation or fighting obesity or struggling with the shortage of clean water!  Plant-based eating would never have brought us to any of these crisis points.

Whether in the form of making war or taking what we don’t need, it’s been humans' short-term, short-sighted approach that’s been our undoing.   Our quick fix habits have been self-centred and anthropocentric.   Hardly ever have habits been based on empathy and altruism.  The characteristic advances that humans have made have been based on the premise that we must 'leave others to rot'.  Our irrepressible desires and decadent lifestyles are dependent upon exploiting the most accessible resources.  The most valuable and vulnerable of  these 'accessible resources' are - animals.

           

If we do eventually save our world (saving our own souls at the same time) it might just be in the nick of time.  The great fear is that we are already at the eleventh hour.  If we have left our run too late, we won’t know until it IS too late.  So perhaps we need to act sooner rather than later.  The choice is ours, but we can’t move on until the most obvious damage is repaired.  To make a start, we can GO VEGAN - NOW! and start to reverse the damage we’ve set in motion.  The longer we leave it the more damage will be done and the more we'll have to repair.

Ed: CJ

Idealism goes a long way too

1006: 

My main aim is to get people to listen.  But why would they?  Perhaps because I have something attractive to offer, and they’ll get something useful from me.

I need to give them new information about a subject not often discussed or about things they don’t normally hear about.  Interest flows from there.  I might point out some of the hidden truths of animal farming but I will also mention the importance of animal rights - including all the benefits it can bring to us - and paint a picture of the future, and show how I think we can get there.

I think it’s important to point out that we are not only interested in animals but a much broader prospect that involves human life at every level.  I’ll speculate about how I think people could turn out, and even be passionate about it (otherwise I won’t convince anyone that I really can see a different world ahead).

           

You can guess something of this future world – it would be a world WITHOUT a slave trade in animals, without abattoirs or animal farms.  We wouldn’t see animals as food but as sovereign beings in their own right.  Because the prospect of such a world is so difficult to visualise, my job must be to convince you that it isn’t unattainable.

If this world is to seem at all realistic, firstly my ideal must appeal to you, so that it can also become your ideal.  It’s likely that what we have in common is that this new world will be more altruistic than the one we know at present, but that it will feel normal and natural to be altruistic.  And if that ideal is reached, that we’d see ourselves as being more mature human beings, walking more worthily on earth and breathing more easily. Who wouldn’t be drawn to the prospect of such a world?

Self deprecation goes a long way

1005: 

Some vegans can come across as being up themselves, as if we would rather be seen as too serious than be mistaken for being half-hearted in our views. But it widens the gap, and it makes for communication difficulties.

To prevent this over-serious image, I’d rather try to do what comedians do - they risk everything by laughing at themselves, to first get their audience on side.  They might try to appear stupid or ‘uncool’ or even clumsy, but they’re really busy getting the human dynamic working; they’re building a wave to ride on, to carry the whole audience away, as if by surprise.  When they do it well, the audience loves it.  They laugh out of gratitude, learning something about themselves, in that they’ve been so easily fooled by the trick of the comedian’s self-deprecation.  I think we, as animal advocates, can do approximately the same thing.  We have to do something unusual to take the heaviness out of our subject.

I’ve found even with the most hostile bunch of people, a little self-deprecation goes a long way.  If I’m prepared to laugh at myself, show my vulnerability, show a soft underbelly, then I’m likely to be seen incapable of doing much damage – to show that I’m not wanting to be hurtful.  And in the end they’ll be more prepared to listen to even the most difficult material.  And let’s be clear - our material is NOT what people usually want to hear.  It can make people feel very uncomfortable. 

           

In the hands of a good comedian (whose jokes, shall we say, are being aimed at vegans) we can be sent up.  They may portray us as ‘bleeding hearts’, animal lovers, fussy eaters, tree huggers, etc.  There’s no reason why we can’t describe ourselves like this, and enjoy the joke of these stereotypes.

           

In this way, we can show we aren’t afraid of being made fun of, thus showing we’re confident of our selves and our views.  It also proves we have a healthy sense of humour (without which animal rights advocacy doesn’t stand a chance)!

By letting someone see my naked side, I’m showing I trust them, that I’m not considering myself too important to be laughed at.  When I put on my clown mask, I’m better able to show my serious side too.  If I seem a bit weird, so what?  As long as I keep my sense of humour plus a non-violent tone in my voice, then I can speak freely without doing damage.  And then what I have to say won’t be reacted against or too easily dismissed.

We have a strong message that needs to be sung lightly. 

A nice bit of violence

1004: 

Why is the human so aggressive, why is there so much violence and violation?  Perhaps because it’s the easier way.  Violence is popular because it requires so little energy, especially if the victim is very much weaker than oneself.  There’s almost no resistance when the virgin is violated or when we violate and extract the spoils of the earth or the seas.

Violence is attractive because it gets results.  It’s like getting something for nothing.  On a subtler level, it’s used in a different, less obvious form, for self-confirmation - when we make a value judgement.  It confirms that my values are better than yours.  I’ll use judgement as a pick-me-up and draw energy from feeling good about myself by making my position clear to you, or by making you feel bad about yourself.

But it’s like a sugar-rush, it doesn’t last long.  Whether I’m value-judging or bullying, raping or killing, in the end my violence eats me up.  Even when I’m justified, when I think I’m right and you’re wrong, as soon as I’m making judgements I’m indulging my destructive side.

If I want to do something good for my soul, I’ll draw energy from being non-violent and non-judgmental.  That might mean striking some sort of balance, by taking the longer way, the slower, less violent way.  So, if I don’t like what you do, my first reaction might be to tell you, to make it clear where I stand, but it’s not only about me and how I feel.  I won’t be helping you.  You won’t be inclined to change because of my disapproval of you or what you do. 

Affection & Disaffection

1003: 

The affection and intimacy we all so easily show to a dog or cat is more inhibited when it comes to humans.  If we don’t have the same invitation from others, we don’t show them quite the same level of intimacy.  We might not be prepared to take the initiative.  People, even kids today (and perhaps with good reason!), don’t trust spontaneous intimacy.  We are more likely to pre-think our interactions.  Perhaps we’re afraid of one another.

Even closer to home, firstly with people we know, intimacy-levels have to be established.  Do I hug my friends when I meet them, kiss them, shake their hands?  Should I be soft and gentle with kids or be stricter, firmer?  Do I trust my neighbour enough to be friendly or should I establish some distance between us?  Perhaps we fear that if we get too friendly, people will think we have ulterior motives.  Or if I’m too trusting there’s a fear in me that I might be taken advantage of.

If we are ever to break down our barriers, if we want intimacy and non-violence to be the norm, then we must trust ourselves and our motives, and then go on to trust that others will read our signals and respond accordingly.  If I want to nurture trust, I must take the lead. I must show intimacy and affection, not sometimes but at all times.  Perhaps I must be prepared to risk my reputation, give other people the benefit of the doubt, consistently look for the good points in others, and be more aware of myself when interacting; I have to be sure there’s no aggro in my own words, and if I make a mistake, I must right it with apology and affection.

All this we have to do if we want to prove our deeper aim - to emphasise non-violence and affection.  If we want to break down alienation, there needs to be no disaffection but lots of empathy.

All this must be ‘danced’, human to human.  If we can get it right with one another then we stand a better chance of applying it in the form of empathy-with-animals.  Whether we feel close to the plight of humans or closer to animals, we can learn from each other, from those who have a different inclination from ourselves; this is where vegans can learn to be warmer to their fellow humans and where the omnivore can feel more affection for the animals they’re consuming.  We oil the wheels of non-violence with affection.  In the end, it’s only by upping our affection that will transform us into truly compassionate people.

A sticking point in consciousness raising

1002: 

In our Western world, during the 1960s, young people began to think much more independently.  They could see how moral codes were falling apart, and laughed at them.  But while we rebelled it was without practical alternatives being in place.  The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.  We doubted, questioned, experimented, but didn’t resolve anything - it was mind expansion without the follow-through.

Fifty years on, perhaps our decisions are more confident in that we no longer feel the need to refer to Society’s codes of conduct for guidance.  We now apply our own moral codes to relationships, eating habits and how heavily we think we should tread on the earth.  And with this have come choices in food and clothing, based on a better understanding of health, ethics and environmental impact.  We have more choices, and if we want to we can live a ‘cruelty-free’ lifestyle, we can follow our ideals and speak freely about what we believe is right.  We know that the tide has turned, and that it’s now only a matter of time before trends start to change.

But how far will that change have to go, to bring about real across-the-board change?

We’ve done the superficial changes and asserted our independence.  But we haven’t yet gone far enough to spark a whole new fashion.  An outsider looking on would notice that all the ideas of change are in place but people are reluctant to make the move, especially where food is concerned and particularly animal food.  For all our advances in consciousness and liberation, this seems to be the main sticking point.  This is where humans are showing still-primitive behaviours.  Perhaps this change calls for such a wrench away from familiar daily habits, that despite all the sense it makes in theory, it still seems to be too great a leap into the unknown.

‘Vegan’ is still a difficult concept. In reality, it might seem too much to take on.  And there’s so little support for it in our society.  Probably, in years to come, the idea of plant-based, no-cholesterol food won’t turn a hair.  We’ll wonder why the penny didn’t drop sooner.  And we’ll see the effect of this change of diet having repercussions everywhere.  We’ll look back at societal and attitudinal changes and see how they all started with a new fashion, centred on plant-based commodities, including food and clothing and footwear.

But back to the present - our reluctance to make these changes fully enough is reinforced by both  vested interests and our own addicted tastebuds.  Food and clothing, but mainly food, seems too deeply locked into our habit patterns. Making use of animals seems a big part of those unchanging habits.

For those of us who have ‘gone vegan’, our habits have moved on. But we’ve moved on to the next set of problems, we see what others are not seeing and don’t know necessarily what we can do about  it.  Our sensitivities might have been opened but impatience has increased, as it becomes clearer how slowly large-scale change is taking place.  Our problem isn’t any longer about what food to eat but how well adapted we are for the long haul, when it comes to bringing about the liberation of ‘food animals’, a liberation that can only follow a widespread change in people’s eating habits and ethical drives.

Give peace a chance - 2

1001:

Because humans have indulged in so much violence down through the ages, now that we have a chance to break that cycle we need to examine what stops us.  It surely comes down to having faith in the power of non-violence.  It comes down to giving peace a chance.

By suggesting that veganism is the starting point, on the long road to world peace, then it too must be peaceful – in its practice and its promotion vegans must exude peace.  It’s no good using any sort of force to get people to accept peace.  Promoting peace must be a peaceful promotion.

Human thinking is still rather one dimensional.  Even Animal Rights is plagued by single dimension-thinking.  Here is how I think it’s gone so far: in our struggle to get the rights of animals recognised, we hit people hard with the facts, to make them sit up and take notice.  To ‘win’ recognition in this harsh world, we settle for pragmatism not idealism.  We can’t take the risk - we convince ourselves that there’s nothing wrong with a little bit of violence to win the popular vote.  Vegetarians who eat no meat still support the killing of hens when their lay drops off, thereby allowing themselves to continue enjoying the eating of eggs.  Parents who get a bit rough with the kids argue that it will stop children taking advantage of their parents’ kindness; a little violence engenders fear; punishment stops the kids running riot.  A few harsh words to my next door neighbour will keep his noisy music quiet.  If he doesn’t like what I say, too bad!  I want peace, and without a few aggressive words I won’t achieve the results I want.  Educational and religious institutions show how the double standard works.  For example, they will say that it’s okay to exploit animals because they are a major resource, they represent food, food which is at our disposal.  To stop using them, it is argued, would threaten the stability of our society.

To make doubly sure that violence remains at the heart of our society, it is passed on through the generations.  To that end, the connection between animal treatment and violence is kept from the kids, for obvious reasons - they aren’t allowed to know what really happens to the animals they’re eating.  Once the habit has had a chance to set in, then the kids are hooked and go along with Societal norms.

           

Society determines moral codes and what is right and wrong.  Society exerts a constraining force whenever a person is tempted to stray from the norm.  Society discourages the formation of a personal code of conduct, for fear it will capsize the authority of Society’s morality, and specifically in this case for fear that it will play havoc with the food industry.

This is the reasoning of the Old World, a world which has no faith in non-violence.  The arguments are made to fit that paradigm. If there is going to be a new paradigm, then it has to have a more whole-hearted basis; if that paradigm is based on non-violence it’s an ambitious aim, and it can only come about if that aim is consistent.  By disassociating from the animal-based foods on the market we make the first bold step towards giving peace a chance.

Give peace a chance - 1

1000: 

A New World – who doesn’t dream of this?  A world which is post holocaust, post atomic bomb and weaponry, post abattoir, factory farm and animal experimentation – that would be a good start.  It would reflect a shift in attitude, not only in compassion but in trust.  By making a major statement about violence and our need to move away from it, we’d be suggesting something very brave indeed.  To lay the emphasis on disarmament we, shall we say a nation, would be showing such courage that others would be ashamed not to follow suit.  That bravery would have to come out of a show of trust, that human nature is essentially peace-loving.  It’s the same with making a statement about climate change, by taking bold steps to reduce carbon emissions, that too would take a lot of courage, trusting that everyone wants a clean planet.  The people of that nation would have to trust the leadership of their government’s foresightedness.  But at the centre of any brave gesture is consistency, otherwise even the boldest gesture would look half-hearted, even hypocritical.

If the world’s greatest problems have stemmed from humans resorting to violence and greed to gain advantage, then a New World would need to address that; humans can’t advocate non-violence and good intention when abattoirs and animal enslavements still exist; all the time we are routinely attacking animals, then any other gesture of non-violence is a relatively empty gesture.

Up to now, such levels of trust-in-human nature have been difficult to believe in, because we always refer back to seeing humans as barbaric and cold hearted.  But in truth, we also know that humans can be gentle and peace-loving, and that image needs to be strengthened by bold decisions and a show of good faith.  On a personal level, the boldest thing we do is to make a show of non-violence, in what we eat and wear.  It has to start with grass roots change, and then government will respond to what they see is important to the people who elect them. 

Non-violent vegans

999: 

Non-violent vegans

To make non-violence work, to make a habit of it, we must be ‘mindful’ not to slip back into violent ways, even when we’re on the defensive.  There’s violence in all of us, and most of us wish it weren’t there; if we still practise violence we’re probably still holding onto attitudes we can’t shake.

           

Violent habits show up at home, where we’re so well known that we can’t fool anyone.  If we take a black mood to the breakfast table, things can fall apart quickly.  We say something harder than we should, and with this one small violence the damage is done.  It happens so quickly, and then it’s hard to pull back.  The feeling of it is left hanging.  Others remember it and in future try to avoid stirring us up.  And so it goes on.  No one’s relaxed.  We begin to dislike ourselves for it.  We promise ourselves that we’ll change.  We try to become a truly non-violent person.  Then we try to deny violence altogether. 

           

Good intentions can modify things, but it needs to be written into daily practice, and no better way than by starting at the breakfast table – with how we think and with what we eat.  Food mirrors attitude.  By being vegan we stand the best chance to awaken our non-violent personality. 

Doing it solo

998: 

Being liked by others might feel great, especially if you’re a vegan, but that probably means you’re still depending on others’ good opinion of you, even though that might not extend to your ‘weird’ animal rights views and habits.

           

However, if other people are living their life counter to our own principles, if in our opinion they are ethically compromised, then their opinion of us might not have that much currency anyway. It might mean we’ve no role model to look up to and that might lead to feeling alone. So therefore we have to find a way of surviving strongly enough not to need others’ approval.

Being vegan is inevitably a solo pursuit, simply because there are still so few people living ethical, animal-free lives. So on this matter of finding approval or even discussing the subject of animal-use, we have to be prepared to deal with stone-walling, and see it as normal. If there’s no support forthcoming, we must try not to need it.

           

Our strengths have one fertile ground in which to grow - this one inspiring example of non-violent living. We shouldn’t be weakened by having no one around to guide us or encourage us. Our strength has to come from being ethically safe, and knowing that this must be enough to compensate us for the loss of others’ regard for what we believe in.

Motivation

997:

If we are the sort of vegan who doesn’t particularly want to speak out but just wants to be accepted for our views, then fine - we’re simply wanting others to recognise us for what we stand for.  We shouldn’t need anyone else to agree with us, only recognise us for what we stand for.  But even that’s a hard ask.  Usually people’s reactions to veganism are neither logical nor kind – nor for that matter particularly unkind either - they’ll say, “What’s important for you is not important for me”, hoping to leave it there.

On some level we must accept that, for them, this whole subject is not worth talking about or responding to.  This might be irritating but I think we have to learn to cop it sweet. It comes down to this: what is wonderful and brave and future-making for us is, for others, not even worth noticing.  And of course that’s hardly very encouraging for us!

           

So, if there’s no social kudos in being vegan where do we find motivation or encouragement?  Perhaps we have to look within, tap into our imagination, develop an ability to see ahead and then to create our own reality.  Maybe the catastrophe of our age is really only a crisis of ‘unimaginativeness’.

           

If encouragement isn’t forthcoming from others, there’s no point getting angry about it.  That’s probably the seat of all human trouble anyway - the need for recognition, whether it be a nation state wanting autonomy or an individual wanting recognition. The big trouble for many of us is that we look ‘outside’ for guidance and motivation … in other words we’re likely to do what others will encourage us to do.  Omnivores reason, “Others eat animals so I eat animals.  Others don’t question it so I don’t question it”.  But without inner questioning things will only stay the same.

If we, as vegans, are attempting to lead the way, we can expect to keep hitting up against our own motivation crisis points.  It goes with the territory.

A Serious Shortage of Argument - 3

996: 

People find it very difficult to grasp the idea of vegan principle, or indeed to consider becoming vegan.  They prefer to take advantage of what is on offer and do what everybody else does, even though they know there’s something distinctly wrong about feeding off animals.  Perhaps it’s the lack of questioning in our society that’s at the root of these ugly and dangerous habits.  If there is a possibility open to us, but it isn’t widely publicised, then it really doesn’t exist.  We are all influenced by what is promoted and ignorant of what is purposely not exposed.  Think normality, think McDonalds, Heinz and Adidas.  Powerful corporations know exactly how to persuade by way of blanket advertising.  ‘Vegan’ is neither a brand nor a very well known concept.  It is purposely not promoted.  In fact, it is often tabooed, which would explain why it doesn’t appear much in the media.  Any discussion of its merits is given almost no publicity, thereby almost pretending that it doesn’t exist, or that a vegan way of life is so impractical that it isn’t worth consideration.  Imagine how humiliating it would be for someone who has a good brain, who is widely respected, but who can’t hold their own when it comes to this subject.  And we’re not talking diets or health or veganic farming here, we’re simply referring to the common practice of attacking animals to make human life easier.

No one will talk about it.  They can’t.  It’s not exactly hard to win the argument for veganism.  I’ve even known kids to knock down hefty intellectuals with one or two well chosen words on the subject.  It must be embarrassing for those who will talk expansively about any subject under the sun, but who refuse to open their mouths when it comes to the matter of using animals to provide food and clothing.

Ed:CJ

A Serious Shortage of Argument - 2

995: 

From birth, we’ve all been accustomed to these consumer items. It’s what is readily available.

Making use of animals is easier, that’s all.  It’s convenient, it makes money for the 'Animal Industries', but there’s no common sense to it.  The predominance of animal-based foods in our diet is the cause of much disease and ill health, as evidenced when walking into any one of our hospitals and seeing both patients and their visitors looking so entirely unhealthy.  But perhaps worst of all, the exploiting of animals contradicts our potential guardian nature.

If you believe in climate change or environmental sustainability or God or motor cars, there’s always a counter argument.  There will always be those who can put up a cogent argument opposing these 'beliefs'.  But vegan principle is out there on its own - it’s different. It’s an ideal, a workable precept.  There seems to be no intelligent opposing argument, or at least I’ve never heard of any.  That is, unless we talk to Ahnah, an Inuit from Kangirsuk, who lives on foods that are mainly fished or hunted, there being no land to cultivate fruits and vegetables.  She’s not unhealthy, but then she’s not subjecting herself to the poisoned body parts of highly medicated and artificially-fed captive animals!!  Or we could talk with John from outback Hamilton, who can only find work on a cattle station.  Or we could talk to refugee Hussein, who has only been able to find work at the Narrogin abattoir.  They have probably never heard of 'veganism', but their options are limited anyway.  They, and many like them, would find it very difficult to be vegan.  But not so for most of us.  We have choices, especially if we are urban consumers.  We have plant-based foods available and, although limited, we also have a range of non animal-based clothing and footwear.

Ed:CJ

A Serious Shortage of Argument - 1

994:

There’s one thing which has probably occurred to everyone who is either vegan or moving towards being one but which has probably not occurred to those who have no interest.  It’s the uniqueness of vegan argument.  The principles of ethical veganism. It’s unique because it has no counter argument.  You can’t fault it - it’s indisputable.

In our culture, kindness and compassion are considered to be supreme.  One would always put kindness and compassion before personal safety or comfort.  If someone is lying in the gutter, you don’t assess his origins or clothing, you simply go to his assistance - no questions asked.  You’d react the same way if you came across an animal trapped or being attacked.  We humans are natural rescuers.  It’s how we’ve been brought up.  It’s in our culture.  And that, in essence, is what veganism is all about - rescuing, defending the undefended, protecting the innocents, fulfilling our guardian role, no matter the cost to ourselves.  If we look ahead to the future, we’d should see humans as custodians of our somewhat endangered Planet Earth.  Vegan principle is a show of confidence in the idea of non-violence.  I doubt if too many vegans would join the armies of the world.

 

One would have to be either brave (or stupid) to attempt an argument against the vegan principle.  To say that what humans do to animals is acceptable makes no sense.  Enslaving them, mutilating them and then killing them at abattoirs is cruel by any measure.  On top of that, what we do to ourselves by consuming all the cholesterol and saturated fat in animal products is doing untold damage to our health.  To argue that using animals is essential or reasonable is obviously open to question.  Any argument in favour of meat-eating or animal husbandry won’t stand up.  Not only is the Industry riddled with cruelty, it’s an inefficient energy source, an environmental disaster area and it’s totally unnecessary.  In other words, the whole ‘animal business’ makes no sense.  We’re involved with it out of habit, that’s all.  Our whole food and clothing set-up is geared that way, with thousands of unchallenged, unhealthy food products on the market and leather goods and woollen products dominating the clothing market.  From birth, we’ve all been accustomed to these consumer items. It’s what is readily available.

 Ed:CJ

Being too judgemental for my own good

993: 

When we are discussing things, you and I, how much do I value good feeling between us?  Do I try to defuse things when I sense things getting out of hand?  How do I pull back in time?  How do I let any bad feelings blow over, especially within that vital microsecond, before things go too far?

Do I even care?

Surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values.  It comes down to resisting the temptation to become antagonistic towards someone because of the attitudes they have.  For me, when things begin to get out of hand, by having a grounding in non-violence I avoid inadvertently touching a raw nerve in my adversary.  And when it comes the other way around, when I’m being cornered, it’s important that I don’t appear hypersensitive.

Communications on this subject of Animal Rights is fraught with dangers.  As soon as I feel entitled to get my point across no matter what, I will surely fail.  As soon as I go for broke, show I’m not scared of getting rough or getting into a fight, I run the risk of losing friendly feelings or even the whole friendship, over this difference of opinion.

I’ve found that ‘going for broke’ never wins the argument and usually haemorrhages a person’s respect for me.  So, it comes down to this - do I really think that the issue of Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone?

Perhaps I’ll argue that I must be true to my role as animal-advocate – I must rigorously defend them under all circumstances.  But what if this approach is doomed to failure?  Maybe we aren’t trying to win the argument as much as we are firstly trying to win the heart, by convincing our opponents that, bottom line, we are sworn to a non-violence policy.  This can impress and even win over the most hostile adversary, because of this value.  It makes me less scary.  It makes me approachable.  It allows a person to put up an argument without the fear of being shot down.

More is achieved by showing mutual respect than anything else.  We can even show a little humility, and by remembering the value of non-violence we won’t be so easily sucked into a fight, even though it means leaving my feelings on this subject undeclared.

But just wait a moment.  Is this honest?  If I have strong views surely I shouldn’t pretend otherwise?  And why should defending a position strenuously have to go pear-shaped anyway?  Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, is stimulating, breaking through barriers of politeness, providing enough heady atmosphere to uproot stale attitudes?  Surely a frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if does seem uncomfortable?

This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even between close friends.  The vulcanologist never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it happens.  Similarly, we never know exactly what will set another person off, or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them?

What’s important here is surely not about our own human sensitivities being bruised, but the possibility of ‘blowing it’.  Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently living down on Auschwitz Farm.  Surely our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to the suffering of domesticated animals.  If we feel strongly about this, surely passion must outweigh politeness.  Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage.  I want to move away from being Mr Nice Guy.

           

But this isn’t about conception but perception.  I think passionate advocacy can coexist with non-violence, and that our non-violent side is more robust than our violent side.  

           

If there is interest in what we say, it’s like having an invitation to speak freely.  And then we moderate that according to our respect for others’ feelings.  If I ever try to break in without an okay it’s just gate crashing, and whatever I do have to say will be less important than my aggro approach.

Fighting talk

992: 

If I’m talking about things with fellow animal advocates I’m encouraged to speak boldly; the animals need a vigorous advocate.  But things are different when I argue my case with an adversary.  On this sensitive subject, where there are few strong arguments to be made for animal slavery, there’s a reluctance to discuss it at all.  So if the subject arises and I intend to say anything at all, I’m having to work hard simply to get permission-to-speak. I can debate my case patiently, but I might not have your go-ahead, in which case you’ll turn off, and I’ll be talking to a brick wall.

I have to be sensitive to how much interest you have in this subject, so I’ll watch carefully, I’ll be alert to signs of your attention wandering, your eyes drifting off my face, even that you’re beginning to feel negatively about me.  I’ll be asking myself if I’m going on too long, becoming too locked-on to my own point of view to allow you to say something.  On the even subtler level, I’ll be monitoring my own tone of voice in case there’s an aggressive edge there, scaring you off.

If I miss any of these signs, it’s likely you’ll start to give out signals of your own.  Signals saying that you only wanted the subject to be touched on lightly.  Indicating that you don’t want to be cornered into agreeing.

If you and I do get to discuss this subject seriously, it’s likely major differences of opinion will arise.  And if things get heated, what then?  Do I try to ‘bring it on’?  Or do I step back, to prevent things getting out of hand?  If so, I’d be showing how non-violent I really am.  Or rather how respectful I am, by stopping myself before I stray into the personal or even become aggressive.

It’s frustrating for me, when I get a chance to speak, to have to cut myself short before I’ve even got going.  But that is the reality when dealing with this particular subject.  I might have to ask myself where it comes from, this determination to say my piece, even to provoke someone in order to get a reaction?  I need to look deeply at my motives, and to what extent I value another person’s free-will and their right to disagree.  I need to question why, when things aren’t going my way, I can be confronting.  Or if the shoe is on the other foot, and it’s me being confronted, how that might make me feel and how I will handle it. 

Avoiding fighting

991: 

To avoid an exchange of views turning into a fight we must examine our motives.  I have to ask myself just one honest question - was this intended to be a casual chat about whatever arises spontaneously or did I manipulate it?  Did I start out with an agenda?  Was I trying to steer the conversation towards this one fundamental difference, in order that I could make a speech?  Did I ever consider how the other person might feel if I confronted them?  Was I, in fact, looking for a fight?

           

If I wanted a show-down then, however good my arguments might be, I’d always be intending to put them on the defensive.  In return, they’d be wanting to burst my bubble.  Even if I’m not a bully, even if I’m as nice as pie, this subject (ethics of animal food, farms and slaughtering) is not a lightweight subject.  It’s about one’s deepest, most profound outlook on life.  It points to how kind-hearted we are or how cold hearted we can be.

If people feel generally okay about their own life, if they see themself as a kind person, they will expect others to recognise that in them.  So, if I come along and suggest that they are not at all a nice person, then my tone alone will give me away, sounding like a personal attack.

Perhaps that’s not what’s going on in my own head.  I’m probably saying to myself that if my arguments are water-tight, then surely anyone hearing them will have to agree.  But no. It’s not likely they’ll pick up this ‘good idea’ of mine just because I’ve hit them over the head with it.  People have learnt to stand up for themselves and stand firm against anyone who attacks them, however correct their arguments.  They’ll be searching around in their heads for the sharpest words, to defend themselves. That’s a long way from exchanging views and learning from each other.

I’m right and you’re wrong

990: 

If I think I’m right it doesn’t bestow magical powers on my arguments.  Just because I’m fearless with my words, it doesn’t make everything I say impressive; it’s more likely to be irritating.  Perhaps I like to see myself as radical and outspoken, as brave and admirable.  But it’s likely, anyway, that what I’m saying will be disagreed with by others, if only for them to save face.  And one more thing, when I try to make people feel ashamed they remember that and avoid me in future.  How they see it, is that I’m boasting about my own achievements, and that will cloud everything else with the result that they won’t be picking up the information I’m trying to get across.

           

I might enjoy chatting about my favourite subject but I run the risk of my being regarded as a bore, especially when I show no interest in what you might want to say.  As soon as I start ‘going-on’ about eating meat or animal cruelty, you might see it as one big yawn.  And it’s taken personally, as if I’m being purposely offensive.  They’ll want me to stop, and if I don’t stop there’s likely to be a flare-up.  So, a light hearted chat between two people with opposing views may be, on any other subject than this, stimulating.  On any other subject we can agree to disagree, but not with this subject.  This is between two entirely different approaches, the one seemingly selfish, the other seemingly unselfish.  Disagreeing on this matter of indulgence versus self-denial can soon enough turn into a full blown fight. 

Force

989: 

If we make veganism just about health and a cruelty-free lifestyle we sell it short. It’s an attitude more than anything else, which can stimulate a whole new way of thinking. It produces a new flow of energy. It broadens our view, so that we can examine opposite views without feeling like a traitor to the cause.

Because it feels right, being vegan, you don’t have that immediate defensiveness when being questioned about it. Vegan principle is broad enough to stimulate original thought, turning conventional ways of living upside down and yet allowing people to come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

It might be my aim to promote a radical change of attitude but if I use guilt and fear to strengthen my argument, I won’t succeed. If I seem too persuasive it’s as though I don’t have enough confidence in what I’m saying. And if I get aggressive it will seem like an ambush; just one slightly raised eyebrow when I say “I’m vegan” is enough to give the wrong impression, as if I’m a little too safe, too right, too boastful. Just by feeling the tiniest bit morally superior is as obvious to the person we’re talking to as it might be unobvious to ourselves; I hardly know I’m doing it - when the tone of my voice carries with it a disapproving value-judgement.

I might have a lot to say about the wrongness of animal exploitation or the wisdom of living a non-violent lifestyle, but before I start to speak out, I might need to unravel a lot of my own attitude before I can start to talk productively and effectively on this subject.  Just because I think I’m right doesn’t mean my approach is right. 

The block against vegan-thinking is deep

988: 

     

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, arrived at via two different reasonings.

           

It’s no good giving up eating meat if you hate the idea of being vegetarian.  If you’re forcing yourself to eat food you don’t like you will either be ill or die.  All of us know we have to feel good about our food choices, or at least not feel bad. If you are a meat eater then you’re going to have to put out of your mind what they do to animals on factory farms, or any sort of farms.  You’ll have to see it as an ‘unimportant matter’ and not give it a second thought.

For many of us though, it’s different.  For my part, I need to develop a sensitive conscience because I suspect I’m in the greatest of dangers, in that my mind has been manipulated.  I’m seeking a more independent mind.  I fear manipulation.  I fear blind conformity.  I’m very suspicious of my fellow humans, because I’ve seen what they are capable of, especially when they’ve picked on the weakest sentient beings and taken advantage of their weakness.

           

My concern is that certain problems about our world are entrenched so deeply that, even if solutions are clear, they won’t be implemented.  And that, because people are just too uncomfortable to contemplate them. It’s as if there’s not enough get-up-and-go in people to tackle the really important matters.  They’ll prefer to perceive them as ‘unimportant matters’.  They might prefer just to live with the problem.  They’re likely to think that veganism is too high a price to pay for peace of mind.  Therefore they won’t consider it.  They won’t even discuss it.  They refuse to take it seriously.

           

To me, on the face of it, this refusal-to-consider seems illogical.  But I suppose it’s just the normal defensiveness in people.  I remember trying to talk up the idea of veganism and failing.  I only succeeded in talking it down. I knew this subject was very controversial, but at first I didn’t realise that it was quite unlike any other controversial subject.  I was treating it like a political difference of opinion or one concerning religion.  But it’s much closer to the bone.  It’s more like discussing another person’s mental health, the whole matter being just too uncomfortable to face up to.  The last thing a meat-eater wants to do is discuss it … while, of course, a vegan wants very much to discuss it.  

           

Given half a chance, vegans will do anything to promote veganism, but they often make non-vegans go into reverse - the ‘good idea’ becomes a ‘not-so-good-idea’, if you don’t want to hear about it. ‘Veganism’ is one subject that can even make our friends become unfriendly.

A good idea like this might seem simple at first, but it trails behind it long and complicated tentacles that tangle and frighten people.

Hardened, machine-like humans

987: 

If I believe there’s any trace of hard-heartedness in me, then you won’t have much trouble convincing me I’m barbaric.  Ultimately, this is what makes many of us feel so afraid – the no-progress thing.  All the time the animals are not safe from us, we remain dangerous beings.   On a personal level I want to save my own soul, and not be held back by my own species’ reputation for violence.

           

Fifty billion domesticated farm animals, alive today, are on death row.  None of them have any quality of life.  None have any reason to live.   None have any contact with the natural world.  If not consciously, then sub consciously, I’m sure people are aware of the ways they are involved in all this.  I’m sure our own happiness is linked to wanting others to be happy too, whether they be humans or animals.  Conversely, our unhappiness is undoubtedly linked to our attachment to those commodities extracted from animals which are treated cruelly.

I don’t want to be weighed down by other people’s mistakes, but I also don’t want to feel separate from anyone either.  I accept that we are all much the same under the skin, we’re just at different levels of awareness.  I’m fairly sure that our greatest differences are superficial and we can bring ourselves closer to each other by assessing what is important and what is not?  We’ll never get close to one another if we’ve lost our sense of discrimination and given over our autonomy to the industrial machine.

True liberation

986: 

These days my passion is for non-violence alongside a concern for farmed animals.  I’m looking up ahead.  I’m seeing that animals and humans are inextricably linked, their fortunes and ours are directly dependent upon our becoming protectors of them.

           

We’ve 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 therefore it’s we humans who need to change.  The animals don’t need to, unless we can 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.  But that’s not how  I want to see myself.  I want to see the humanitarian side of me.  And I think others might want to see themselves that way too.  But it’s going to need a change of attitude towards animals, by a lot of people, all of whom would no longer be wanting to use, keep or eat animals.

Until at least 50% of the human population realises there’s an animal problem, the animal problem will remain.  And we will remain a barbaric species.  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. 

Me, being a bit over the top

985: 

When I was still buying unethical products, 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; I wanted to see myself for who I thought I was, namely a non-violent person.  I wanted to conduct myself with dignity, not by being mild or passive but by way of dignified outrage!

           

My approach to animal abuse was direct.  It was the only way I knew that might work, namely to protest against the violence to animals.  Surely that’s unarguable?  But no one seemed to want to talk about it.  It was very frustrating.  I would get quite aggressive towards non-vegans. I was almost proud to act without restraint.  I became intense in order to get my point across.  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’.

           

Animal rights activists 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 ended many of the worst abuses of animals.  But it hasn’t convinced the majority of consumers to change their eating habits.  They may have caught our dirty looks but they haven’t felt the opprobrium of anyone else.  They haven’t felt the urge or the responsibility to change their daily habits.  The collective conscience hasn’t been tweaked.  And all the time the consumer is providing the Animal Industries with financial support, nothing can change.

Why hasn’t it worked?

           

This is what I think has happened – many people have had a similar experience with an animal activist.  They’ve heard them talking passionately but found it hard to identify with them.  On an emotional level people want to disagree with our arguments not just because they love their animal foods but because they can’t identify with the sort of person who can get that angry.  One might want to listen but it’s like listening to great music on a radio which is picking up a lot of static interference.  It’s an uncomfortable experience, it jars on the nerves, and you just want it to stop.

           

Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, we’ve unfortunately built an aggro, ‘in-yer-face’ image.  I speak for myself when I say that I’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike me and therefore dislike what I’m saying.  I’ve lessened, not increased, my chances of being able to discuss important issues concerning animals.  A low key, informative chat with me is unlikely.  I’ve seemed like a person who is only interested in others agreeing with me.  When I’m around there’s little chance to state your own opinion.

           

In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to education.  As a spokesperson-for-the-cause I look like exactly the wrong person for Animal Rights education, especially if my arguments are powerful.  Perhaps I need to believe that the animals’ story would touch the hearts of people without my prodding.  Perhaps I don’t have enough faith in ‘vegan’ being attractive, or Animal Rights being exciting enough.  My message sounds hard and uncompromising.  It’s off-putting.  And as for the issues themselves, well, the consumer has enough to think about already, so they might consign ‘animal issues’ to the back burner or the too-hard-basket.

The rounded individual versus the imbalanced

984: 

In practical terms, of course, empathy is modified by the inconvenience it causes.  If you empathise with animals you have to suffer the inconvenience of never using anything made with animal products.  And then, to speak to others about this, might make you seem to be too righteous for your own good.  So, there are traps and obstacles for the enthusiastic vegan.

           

I’ve got a list of don’ts to start this off: I need to avoid the temptation to harangue people, or to trap them into agreeing with me.  It’s too obvious and clumsy to simply hit people over the head with ‘veganism’.  Even if they want to agree with me, give me encouragement, make me think I’ve got through to them, they may be simply trying to shut me up.  I find the most friendly listener will usually slip back into old habits after I’ve left; they never really intended to go along with what I’d been saying.  People aren’t stupid.  They value their life, their safety, their lifestyle, their social life with friends, eating together, not standing out like a sore thumb, being individual but not too much so.  Becoming vegan is a big step.

           

I’m not trying to guild the lily.  I know I mustn’t hold back on the many personal and practical implications of being vegan.  For you to be swapping to a new normality is a great leap away from the security you’ve always known.

           

I fall back on one thing - that the cushion we need can be comfortable but supportive.  I rely on the fact that you will eventually see the value of one comfort over another.  The most obvious life-comforts might be: clothing, social links, taste in food.  But a bigger comfort involves self esteem, and if that is being eroded by the guilt of being involved in a system we disapprove of, it might be too important to ignore.  

It comes down to what value we place on having a clear conscience instead of a guilty conscience.  I recognise how guilty people are feeling about a number of things.  One example: giving support and encouragement to those who pollute the environment; most of us want to ‘do something about it’, so we recycle, we buy ‘green’, we conserve energy.  And of course there is more guilt elsewhere.  If you feel overwhelmed by guilt, perhaps you won’t want to add more to the mix, by being involved with the exploiting of animals.  You try to ignore this one.

           

I would suggest that this is the next layer of guilt to be stripped away, to feel better about ourselves.  We can’t fix up one issue, e.g. the environment, before addressing the next most-important issue.  It doesn’t work that way.  Instead, by gradually raising awareness of each issue, and seeing how it affects our own lives and the planet’s, repair is carried out on a number of fronts, simultaneously and incrementally.

All I would say is that to totally ignore animal issues means we are afraid of addressing this subject.  Ignoring it won’t make it go away.  If anything, the daily involvement in the exploitation of animals will make us feel out of kilter; it’s as if we feel advanced in one way and retarded in another.

If you know any ‘enlightened’ people, try asking them what they eat.  You’re likely to see before you an imbalanced person.

Making it Better Might Make it Worse

983:

If the living conditions of farm animals are made better, that is a plus.  Trouble is, it might lend respectability to the whole business of keeping animals for food.  Or, to put it another way, as my friend CJ says (referring to the recent ACT outlawing of certain intensive farming practices) the improvements “will make the ordinary consumer feel OK about eating meat/eggs because the poor creatures are in better conditions”, which she fears, “will only make things WORSE for the animals”.  I agree.

Unless we stand firm about the NO-USE principle, it will be swamped by those who represent the easier-to-implement, compromise position, when it comes to animal use.  I think we should always appeal to the highest and most generous aspect of the human spirit and not encourage people to think it’s enough to merely improve animal welfare.

What is needed is a new perception of the farm animal so our relationship with them can never again be watered down to suit human convenience.  Because they are sentient and sensitive, because they run away when attacked, because they develop social groups and they care for their offspring (similar to humans) animals must never be objectified.  They are NOT inanimate.  They are distinctly different to carrots.  They can’t be regarded as mere commodities, anymore than humans or companion animals can be.  The shift in how we perceive these animals - pigs and chickens and cows and many more - involves seeing them as irreplaceable, sovereign individuals.  Those enslaved in captivity with no control over their lives, who are fattened for slaughter or groomed for other forms of food production, need OUR help.

If animals are to be released from slavery, it will only come about because we think about them as we might an abused child who needs a permanent safety base.  There are too many people in our present society who will not see animals this way and who are willing to do almost anything to make a living out of using/abusing them.  Those who aren’t using animals need to be clear about their priorities regarding  animals.  Firstly, DON'T EAT THEM!  Secondly,  help release them into a protected environment where they’re no longer being bred to be ‘farmed’.

This requires a leap of vision and will only come about through our human generosity of spirit and empathy.

Ed:CJ

The communication game

982: 

      

Once I can clean up my own act at home (establish a vegan kitchen for example) it’s a good start.  Then I can see what I look like.  I consult the mirror.  Ah yes, what a fine image I present - a complaisant vegan, ready to climb into the pulpit and tell everyone I meet what sinners they are.  I can preach about how I’ve seen the light, etc?  What a great figure of fun I’d be, if I tried that stunt.

If I want to be taken at all seriously, any hint of that must vanish.  Being the pontificator is exactly what others WANT to see, since that makes me look like an old-time evangelist.  It’s much harder to ignore someone you like and respect.  So, there’s a balance to strike here.  My aim is to be likeable and yet direct, self-effacing yet clear about where I’m coming from.  If I get that balance right it will show in the confidence I feel when attempting to communicate – naturally I’ll want to talk about animals, food, abattoirs, as well as dreams for the future and my fears concerning the present.  Naturally I’ll want to share what I know with anyone who’ll listen.  And you’ll guess that ultimately I’m aiming at helping to build a strong support base for animal liberation.

I should want you to see through me and for you to find nothing too cheesy.  I’d want you to sense my attempt to balance passion with outrage with compassion.

For me, it isn’t enough to simply pass on information.  A hell-fire preacher can do that easily enough.  Today, we have to recognise that the punter is more sophisticated and discerning.  We’ve all been bombarded with information and misinformation.  You can’t blame people for being cynical and suspicious.  Perhaps simple and transparent is safest - if I have anything serious to say, my ideas should be based on facts that can be referenced.  But in the end it’s an emotional exchange, the ideas are simple and fairly black and white, requiring a simple agreement or disagreement.  As presenters of our argument, the most important thing is that we must try to be likeable people.

Self-development

981:

When I get to thinking about my own self-development, what I’m really doing is creating the person I want to be.  Which means undoing some things to make a clear space for other, newer things - I first think ‘repair’ (which sounds dull), then I can start to use my imagination to be ‘creative’.  I’ve got two things going on in my head at the same time - I’m doing something big for myself and, as an extra, I’m hopefully also doing something for the greater good.

It starts out as self-discipline (which sounds uncomfortable) but as changes start to take place, (hopefully) they become a new type of enjoyment.  The nearest comparison I can think of would be ‘keeping fit’.  It works in the same way.  I see the need to lose weight or tone my muscles, so I do the training and end up proud of my effort.  (I hope) I have a better body.

           

Working for the ‘greater good’ might sound a bit grim until I see the reward for my effort - selfless at first, self-benefitting later.  The breakthrough comes with the realisation that what I want for others is what I want for myself - what I do for myself benefits others at the same time.

But this is the prelude to something much bigger, namely the idea of altruism, or you might say ‘altruism re-visited’, which is neither me-centred nor you-centred, but striking a balance between common interests.  It’s the most intelligent way of organising things.

In order for altruism to work, I’ve got to give it a go; I must be willing to try it.  And for that I will need a good dose of optimism.  I have to be able to say, “So what if all this damage has been done.  What’s done is done.  It can be fixed”.  Optimism ‘ups’ my energy, which in turn ups my own chances of being successful (in my own eyes, at any rate).  Once I’m heading towards something worth reaching, success comes because what I’m attempting to do is the most meaningful thing I could be doing for myself. In that, it is ultimately satisfying.

           

‘Satisfaction’ and ‘meaning’ are the big drivers here.  As soon as I think I’m making a difference, even only a tiny difference (in this case, ensuring that no animal will be killed on my behalf), I have taken a mature and compassionate step in the right direction.  If that makes me happier about myself, then I can go on to promote this sort of altruistic approach.  I can, with a clear conscience, encourage others to do things this way.  I hope, ultimately, it will lead to the majority of people wanting to liberate animals. 

Leading fashion not following it

980: 

Take a bold step, go solo.  Forget what others say, the omnivores, I think it would be great if you came along, but if you don’t, I won’t feel badly about you.  I’ve put it that way because it’s a theme I’d like to develop.

Going vegan: this is the hardest attitude to take up.  If I can act solo it’s not just because I’m more highly principled but because I enjoy the process of change, doing things that make sense, fixing broken things, observing the non-violent principle.  The whole world is riddled with violence, war, hunger, meat-eating, abattoirs, and it can all be repaired. Preferably painlessly.

If I can make my own repair process satisfying, I’ll be more inclined to keep going with it, because I won’t regard it as hard or painful work. I won’t have to scratch around for motivation or approval or encouragement from others.  I won’t be referring to what I see others doing.

By making practical repair work fulfilling, changes become less painful, and we can actually enjoy the ‘work’ of it all.  Obviously there’s got to be a BIG reason to make big changes, and when it comes to being vegan or being an animal activist, it will almost certainly derive from a heightened sense of altruism that turns into an empathising with ‘the other’.  By deciding to become vegan, no longer using meat and products taken from animals’ bodies, we improve our health and energy, but the biggest bonus is that we are part of a noble rescue mission; we’re helping to get animals off death row.  To achieve that, to be even the tiniest part of the eventual liberation of animals, has to be ultimately satisfying.