Violence

1068: 

The Animal Industries not only exploit animals but those people who become dependent on their products which are chemically addictive and economically attractive. Animal-based products are very available and promoted constantly in the many forms in which they are used – we know them by the product name and are largely ignorant of their animal content and unaware our animal-based foods have violent origins.

The conditions in which animals are raised and killed go largely unnoticed by almost all people on the planet. Since they never get to see what goes on behind the closed doors of factory farms and abattoirs, they don’t give any of it a second thought.

Consumers might value the money they spend on food products, so they might want to know the quality of the product - its cost, its freshness and its nutritional value. However, its ethical provenance is hardly ever considered, unless ensuring eggs are free-range or milk comes from organically fed cows. The animals themselves and their status as irreplaceable, sovereign beings are of little concern.

While humans continue to live off the backs of these animals, our only concern might be over their carbon footprint or the impact of animal farming on the environment. It’s likely that meat and dairy don’t even appear on most people’s ethical radar.

Violence-free fridges

1067:

Every day I work in other people’s homes and often put my lunch and water bottle in their fridge.  And while I’m there I will probably have a squiz inside, to see if I’ve inadvertently stumbled on a vegan fridge. In thirty years of fridge-squizzing I’ve only ever seen dead animals and other evidence of animal death. So far, no luck. How disappointing is that?

           

There they lie, the same old bits of dead flesh in nice white trays or there’s some smelly cheese or a carton of politically correct free range eggs.

           

My clients are usually lovely people but they’re not at the forefront of social change, let alone leading the transformation of the human species. Many are well educated, intelligent and kind hearted and yet few of them would realise how closely involved they are in ‘systemic violence’, by eating what they eat. Nor would they realise that their leather shoes have anything to do with the killing of animals – even vegetarians consider leather as a ‘ left-over’ of the meat trade, which is isn’t. Leather is a co-product rather than a by-product, and in countries like India, they’re skin is often of greater value than their flesh.

Because animal-based foods and leather are so popular, the habit of violence against animals is endemic the world over. That we don’t care if our food comes to us at the expense of animals show the hard side of us. It shows that we accept that we have a violent side to our nature. The soft side, on the other hand, is the side vegans are trying to nurture. We buy cruelty-free foods and keep ‘violence-free’ fridges.

Vegans are making a start. We are beginning to adopt an attitude-of-non-violence, and that example will hopefully inspire people to follow our lead.

Environment and Animal Rights

1066: 

Environmental concerns potentially bring us all closer to agreement with each other.  Who in their right mind doesn’t think the environment should be cared for, especially since it has been so badly damaged.  We all love this planet.  We want a future for our grand children.  We all want to save the forests and rivers, whereas Animal Rights isn’t in the same league of importance.  It doesn’t sound like a planet-saving matter and it isn’t obvious how saving animals (from humans) can be ‘good for us’.

If giving rights to animals brings no benefit to ‘me’, then all we see is inconvenience.  We might want to do ‘the right thing’, but we’re likely to let ‘animal issues’  fade into the background - we put the issues on the backburner.  It isn’t urgent, like ‘the environment’.  We may feel some sympathy. We may feel our nice side coming out when we do something against cruelty, like supporting giving hens larger cages. Nothing more.  It’s as far as empathy-for-hens and animal-welfare goes. It’s as far from ‘the abolition of animal slavery’ as you can get.  

The biggest battle

1065: 

This struggle we have with the popular mindset, about the inappropriateness of using animals for human benefit, is a classic David and Goliath battle.  For us to create the right atmosphere for an entire switch of attitude seems like an impossible dream, yet it doesn’t rest there.  If our final aim is to use ‘animal’ issues as a springboard towards building a non-violent society, then ethics must come first, before personal comfort.  And that means people have to focus in on a more compassionate consideration of other species.

At the moment we’re a long way from that.  We still love comfort too much, in that we are attached to rich animal-based foods or the warmth and comfort of animal skins and furs.  We’re still very sensual beings but with a very low empathetic sensitivity.

If we want a secure supply of animal-based foods on our dinner table each day, we know the animals have to be captive and therefore accessible at will, just as water is from the tap.  Animals must not only be kept ‘in their place’ but be seen as objects rather than sentient beings.

Even the most sensitive, kindly and well educated people, support the exploitation of animals and are still able to enjoy eating them without a shred of empathy arising for them.

Communicating without Violence

1064:   

When we become vegan, if we speak up about it, then our nearest and dearest will take note; they’ll think we’ve gone mad, and try to persuade us to ‘see sense’.  If we ignore their concerns, we run the risk of becoming outcasts.

Our decision to stand apart like this, may seem radical but it’s necessary, in order to balance the bull-headedness and unthinkingness of the majority of people.  When we criticise the institutional violence of the meat trade, we also criticise the consumer; most people will feel our criticism is being indirectly levelled at them, because of the fact that they eat meat.  So when we go that step further, and directly imply that “omnivores are guilty of attacking and killing animals on a mass scale”, we will always inflame people’s emotions.  It makes us seem aggressive, and that’s not surprising considering what we are saying.

For our part, there’s no reason to fall out with our friends about it.  We must come to accept negative emotional reactions and learn to live with them.  Confrontation can open eyes or raise blood pressure.  The question is, how carefully we can gauge just how far to go.

For any of us who believe what Society does to animals is wrong, our making a strong statement might seem justified.  To us. We may be surprised at the strength of the reaction we get - that no one takes this subject seriously enough or even appears interested in it.  (But why be surprised?  They maybe haven’t met a vegan before, or at least haven’t thought too deeply about the ethics of animal issues.)

We are effectively attacking a person’s whole lifestyle.  And in their perception, the animal advocate will seem to be intrusive or even rude. And that makes it easier for them to downplay the importance of what we’re saying, or simply ignore it; the more hard-hearted the person, the easier it is to do that, but to be fair, the consumer, almost all consumers,  will always turn away - they have to, because they eat animals and use many products associated with animals.

By trying to shock people into changing their minds, we risk pushing our arguments too hard and too fast.  Free-willed people won’t stand for it.  And they know they have the rest of their community on board.  Which is why, as advocates for animals, we need to examine this interface very carefully, to see what opportunity there is for creative communication.  And when we are being rejected, we should resist the temptation to crash into their private space and lay heavy guilt trips on them.  That just makes them even more certain that we are mad, aggressive or even violent people. And here we are doing darshan, epitomising non-violence yet being seen as the opposite.

NOTE

Note: Just to make clear, again:
"Ed: CJ", before and after, means this blog has been read through/edited by my friend CJ.

Priorities

1063: 

Ed: CJ

Our first priorities, if we want to protect animals, is to stop eating them, wearing them, and buying products tested on them.  People supporting the Animal Industries are not in the best position to protect animals.  You cannot eat them, but want to save them too.  That would be hypocritical.

Once you’ve adopted vegan principles, you can speak out on the animals' behalf.  If you aren’t willing to ditch everything made with animals or from animals, you can shout as loudly as you like, but as soon as people look at your shoes they’ll think you have double standards.  When they ask you if you still wear wool, still eat cheese or own a leather sofa:  if you can’t answer "No", then they’ll have you banged to rights.  Animal advocates have to be squeaky clean if they want to be taken seriously.

There are a thousand products on the market which you might have taken for granted.  You might have used them all your life, enjoyed eating them, wearing them, right down to the shampoo you run through your hair.  If you’re willing to look into the ingredients of all these products and ditch the ones with 'animal-based ingredients' or which have been 'animal-tested', then you’re well on the way to 'getting clean'.

When your shelves at home are free of all this stuff, then you can represent the exploited animals with a clear conscience.  You can embark on the most fascinating, most challenging journey imaginable - persuading the omnivore to think for themselves and not follow the crowd.

It has to be remembered that none of us is completely vegan.  We can’t avoid some association with products  from animals.  But we can all be moving towards being as animal-free as possible.  If you intend to speak against the use of animals, all you have to do is admit that you are doing your best to observe vegan principles.  Otherwise you might get caught out when using essential items for which there are no animal-free alternatives.

It’s worth noting that 45% of the animal carcass is not used for food, but for inedible by-products. If you travel (as we all do) in a car, on a bus or on a bike, it’s likely that in the production of the tyres, they use animal-based stearic acid (helps the rubber in the tyre hold shape under steady surface friction).  Your shampoo might not have been 'tested on animals', but it might contain animal by-products such as Panthenol, Amino acids or Vitamin B.  You might have animal products in your toothpaste, sugar or plastic bags.  It’s not always easy to find out, but there are web sites which address this very problem.  Google them.

We have to be vigilant and make an effort to find out what is actually IN the things we buy, for we buy them on trust.  We trust, for example, that our foods are not going to poison us, that they don’t contain what we don’t want them to contain and that the manufacturers are honest when they state 'this product contains no animal ingredients' or 'not tested on animals'.  Web site researchers have exposed many of the frauds, and they list them.

Things aren’t always the way they seem to be.  It’s only when we are fairly sure we aren’t involved (that we’ve minimised our support of the Animal Industries) that we can urge others to follow our example.

(Ed: CJ)

One Attitude versus Another Attitude

1062: 

Being vegan means putting up with people’s misconception of veganism.  Vegans can seem to have ‘attitude’, to be ‘refusniks’, to be resentful and uncooperative, thinking themselves superior.  But worst of all, we always want to talk about it.

A non-vegan friend of mine mentioned to me the other day that global warming was the biggest issue facing us, but I suggested that there was another equally big issue threatening the world.  It was the practice of animal eating.  But before I could go on to explain my outrageous theory I was stopped.  He ‘knew’ what subject I wanted to bring up and he thought I was “getting a bit obsessive”, which was his way of closing down the discussion.  The problem was: he thought he knew what I was going to say, guessing I’d have no trouble opening up a whole, deep discussion of certain matters for which he had neither the time nor the inclination to get into.  So I never got the chance to explain what I had in mind.

It’s not easy to find anyone to listen to you these days, especially when people get wind of what we are trying to bring up.  But that is the reality.  Ours is not a fashionable subject for discussion, whereas climate change, environmental degradation is.

Often, vegans can’t even get off the starting blocks, and this is something  we just have to come to terms with.  It may not be how we’d like it to be, but this is how it actually is, right now.  If we want to experience any breakthrough, it’s likely we won’t get any ‘Eureka moments’ handed to us on a plate.  It has to be worked for.  

Two Forces

1061:

Ed: CJ

In advocating for Animal Rights, there are two things going on.  Firstly, we are trying to advocate for the animals, but we are also trying to come across as acceptable human beings.  People worth listening to. People perceived to be making some sense.  On one level we try to appear like everyone else.  On another level we draw a contrast to the 'generally accepted view' and yet seek to be taken seriously.

         

Can they be combined?  An impossible dream, given the subject?  Animal Rights is unpopular because doing without animal-based products (for some people) makes daily life very difficult.  So if the subject makes us unpopular, we just have to face that.  The main thing is to inform people of each of the stages products go through, from the living animal to the end product on the shelf.  The consumer may not want to know, and certainly isn’t meant to know, what happens to animals before their bodies are used as commodities. The consumer is usually only interested in the item’s price and its worth and essentialness to his/her life.

Let’s take shoes for example.  Almost everyone wears leather shoes and has several pairs at home.  Leather is fashionable, long-lasting, the fabric is flexible, hard wearing, waterproof and very available.  It’s sometimes expensive, but that only reinforces the impression of 'quality' and 'having the very best'.  Many leather goods, shoes, sofas and jackets are made with leather that comes from India where the leather is soft, the quality high and the price low. (This is the country, incidentally, where the cow is supposedly 'sacred').  In India, most cows are killed for their leather not their meat.  Killed without any pre-stunning and killed in close proximity and in sight of other cows being slaughtered.

I wish I could post a photograph I have (courtesy of PeTA), which shows more precisely what I’m describing. On the other side, right next to the about-to-be-slaughtered cow, is a huge hanging side of butchered carcass about to be processed.

Now this picture-of-horror should be witnessed.   If we as advocates point out what should be made known, it might alarm people enough to be concerned for the animal's welfare.  Perhaps it will make them feel guilty for supporting stores which still sell leather goods coming from India.  And that might lead them to boycott those stores.  However, they can be lulled into a false sense of security when told that leather from 'humanely-killed' cows is OK and that stores which only sell leather from countries with 'humane-slaughter practices' are worth supporting.  Just as Indian leather is involved with unspeakable animal cruelty, so too is the Australian leather industry connected to great cruelty.  In fact, all co-products and by-products from whatever animals are connected with cruelty.  However nicely we put it, we can’t get past this plain fact. Eventually, all animal advocates must emphasise the need to avoid ALL animal-based products, because every single one of them involves exploitation and a terrifying execution.  There is no such thing as humane animal farming or humane killing.   

         

Vegans have two choices - Point out the very worst of animal treatment (factory farming, inhumane slaughter procedures, vivisection, etc.) and win over a large number of supporters at the expense of being ineffective for the greater cause of Animal Rights - OR - Promote the total avoidance of ALL animal-based products. Welfare groups improve the prison conditions of the most intensively-reared animals.  They do good work here, but they give a very mixed message. Vegans, on the other hand, give a much clearer message, but with the concomitant difficulty of being less acceptable. Some vegans find the public’s dismissal of animal cruelty infuriating.  They fall into the trap of saying "To hell with social acceptance.  Better to be disliked than ignored".  

But once one is disliked (no matter how sensible one’s arguments) too much traction can be lost.  If we stand up for what we believe, that’s fine.  But if we shout about it too loudly, we risk alienating the very support we almost had.  We have to decide carefully how hard or how soft we are with others.  It’s very much a matter of personal approach.

         

We always come back to the same question, which must be answered if we are to change omnivore mentality.  How do we make these people start to think like us?  Perhaps we can’t and we’ll only waste a lot of emotional energy trying. Perhaps though, we’ve got to get people to like us enough to want to listen to us. Once we are engaging others, so much more is possible. Like opening up the nasal passages to breathe better or open up the chakras to experience things better. Once all the ego stuff and point-winning nonsense is laid aside, then we may be able to speak outrageously and courageously.  If we take a risk or two, it’s likely we can win respect, just for that.

However we decide to make our case, the vast majority of people are still secure in the knowledge that their own animal-abusing habits are shared by most other people. However carefully we deal with people on this subject, we might only be able to make slow progress.  We’re talking about a massive shift of consciousness.  From the shifting of ingrained habits of individuals to eventually shifting the collective consciousness.  Animal Rights activists have to come to terms with one fact. We have to be prepared to be in this for the long haul.

(Ed: CJ)

Why vegans go out on a limb

1060: 

Being vegan. It’s nice to belong - to be amongst people one can identify with.  People who are special, and we all want to be amongst those we regard as special, to feel special.  We like being special to our family, to our circle of friends.  Most of all we’d like to be special to our whole town, and what we wouldn’t give to be ‘special’-famous in our own country?  The bigger the group that 'knows us and respects us’ the more special we feel.  Some people sell their soul for fame, for the recognition of their society - but what a let down when you realise that it’s always conditional on remaining loyal to a whole set of rather dodgy values.         

In one very important way, our big group, what we call Society, is desperately flawed, and if we can’t approve some of the most fundamental values of our society, then we have to do without its approval, recognition, etc.  We have to, in fact, move away from it, not geographically but ‘spiritually’.  And if we do that, we can expect people’s deliberate misunderstanding of us, which naturally isn’t pleasant.  Indeed, we must be prepared to experience the opposite of approval.  Being an outspoken vegan in our society is the kiss-of-death to social ambition.  We end up feeling socially alienated.  No one likes being excluded, and no one wants to feel like a freak.

Yet vegans accept all this, standing against their society, awaiting the chance to explain why. 

           

Our ‘rather peculiar’ take on things does attract some attention. Sometimes it arouses curiosity from people with conscience.  But mostly, there will be nothing.  No notice will be taken.  Vegans may look the same, talk the same, behave the same, until we speak out against Society’s acceptance of violence against animals.  And then we are harshly judged.  We no longer ‘belong’.

Non Separation

1059: 

Being associated with the Animal Rights movement or the vegan movement requires a big commitment. There’s so much ground work to be done by so few people.

To keep up our drive, we need to have a high frustration threshold, because almost everyone is opposed to what we are saying, although they might not tell us so. Instead, they ignore us and hope we’ll go away. Of course we won’t, despite being buried under an avalanche of indifference.

No other activists, in minority groups, put themselves up against such a brick wall which almost everyone is building, either by eating animals or wearing them or using them in some other exploitative way. Most adults are aware that what happens to animals is ugly. They know it but don’t want to be reminded of it. They see vegan animal advocates as a thorn in their side. As a group we are not popular but within this small grouping of people there are different approaches and lots of disagreeing. Each of us believes their own way of ‘breaking through to resistant people’ is the best way.

Inevitably, antipathy exists between individual activists. We’re not unlike any other political group, in that way. But  perhaps it’s worse for vegans, working for Animal Rights, because we’re such a tiny percentage of the overall population, especially here in Australia. The realities of ‘animal activism’ are hard enough on a personal level, so what I’m suggesting here is that we don’t need to add to our considerable present-day difficulties, by distancing ourselves too far from each other or from the wider omnivore population.

           

The aim, after all, is to connect NOT to draw apart. If we ever feel superior to others, whether they’re fellow vegans or our adversaries, we need to be careful not to become separate. In separating we make ourselves look morally superior. It’s not a good look and none of us can afford to be an island. 

1058. 

Ed:CJ

The Cageman

Here’s a redefinition of altruism - Something we do because we can see how useful it is for others, ultimately bringing pleasure to ourselves.  My elderly parents loved playing with their first great-grandchild even though they were exhausted by her.  They wanted to be exhausted in that way.

We use whatever energy we have to balance the selfish with the selfless.  Our action benefits ourselves as well as others.  But it’s not done for brownie points or for any more enlightened reason than for the fun of it.  If there’s no fun or benefit, there’s no altruism.

Altruism restores energy relative to what is put out.  It produces an energy that self perpetuates, expanding energy rather than expending it.  Having good intentions helps to justify the energy outlay.  If an altruistic act can be allowed to work, it builds confidence.  It strengthens our instinct to act with less self-interest. If it works, we’re less likely next time, to hesitate when risking our energy on an uncertainty.

On the face of it, altruism doesn’t make any sense.  Animal Activists need to function altruistically, seemingly pouring their energy into a bottomless pit.  Our reason for working so hard for animal victims is that they are so up against it.  We are hard at work, even though the odds are heavily stacked against our succeeding on their behalf.  We continually put altruism to the test and it’s really only the strengthening effect from this attitude that ensures we don’t fall into despair at being up against such huge forces.

The single most powerful force is the Animal Industry itself.  It has huge financial resources.  It operates within the law and is strengthened by the support of approximately seven billion consumers.  This gives it the shamelessness to introduce "the cage".  Today, the cage makes it all possible, ensuring animals are completely under human control.  The entertainment department of the Industry keeps the exotic animal in a cage in a zoo.  The piggeries incarcerate the sow in an 'iron maiden'.  But perhaps the most notorious cage is reserved for the egg laying hen.  She languishes there, caged for life, the autonomic biological functioning of her body producing one-egg-per-day.  Even though the obscenity of caging doesn’t seem to occur to most people, it is the useful symbol for marking the depths of depravity the Industry is willing to go to and what Animal Liberationists are up against.

This instrument (the cage) when used on animal farms to immobilise the animal, conserves energy and therefore reduces the cost of the 'end product'.  The low price of the egg for instance, makes it very attractive to the consumer.

Our objective, as Vegans, is to encourage others to follow our lead and withdraw support from  'The Cageman'.  Our objective is to put him out of business!  To achieve this result we need to plan for the long term.  Work hard against the 'cage mentality'.  Encourage the boycotting of animal products and hang in there until we achieve animal liberation.   For that we need to draw heavily on our own inner sense of altruism.

Ed: CJ

Good greed

1057: 

The more confident we are with altruism the bigger the difference we can make with it.  Or, put another way, a revamped altruism isn’t so much about being good as being confident.  If it does nothing else it gives others the feeling that they want to make a difference.  Put another way, me selfishly wanting to be confident about something is the beginning of optimism, which leads to having faith that we ‘live in a safe universe’.  Instead of buying into the negatives of present day events one can look towards the self-fulfilling future, and help to bring that into being by projecting it. 

If life is really all about having faith, whether in some master plan-for-our-planet or whatever form it takes, it’s should primarily be having faith that things will turn out constructively, the way they’re meant to.  If we have that sort of faith, call it optimism if you like, we won’t allow our doubts to screw everything we do.

It’s doubt that makes it impossible to see ourselves operating more selflessly.  It’s doubt that makes us think altruism’s only about goodness and idealism, whereas it’s more to do with ‘clean dealing’ and motivation, galvanised by an opposition to greed which itself is turned into a greed for others.  In effect, we are transposing it into a greed for a fabulous future for all of us.

You’d be entitled to say, “Dream on Brother!”  And I’d agree that the sticking point is that altruism doesn’t bring happiness immediately – it’s long term stuff.  And the off-putting fact is that whatever we initiate, we might not personally be around to benefit from any of it.  So, whatever level of altruism we engage in it must have a component which is fun, to help us through the back-breaking work ahead.  In all this, certainly the big killer is doubt and pessimism, for doubt plunges us back into this bad habit of gloom and self pity.  Altruism, if it’s about anything at all, is about the joy of attempting to problem solve.

You might say that the enjoyment of challenging oneself is the ultimate exhilaration, which makes altering one’s lifestyle easier.  When we do things without needing to get materially rewarded for doing them, then we switch over to an important attitude that’s powerful enough to transform our own world view.  At which point we have altruism in the bag!

Altruism is irresistible

1056 

We need to discover if altruism can work for us, at first privately and then collectively.  As individuals, we need to take the initiative without waiting around for others to go first.  It’s up to us to bite the same bullet we accuse others of not biting.  It’s up to us to find out if altruistic initiatives are safe, then go ahead and enjoy adopting them and promoting them. 

We have to be happy taking on more than our fair share of responsibility, and it’s not a matter of who does more or who less, or who is holier or guiltier. It isn’t even about who’s more culpable or more capable. It is about the most intelligent remedy for what’s gone wrong. The nature of altruism is effective repair, that’s all. It’s simply the one thing that can slow down destructive tendencies and transform violence.  It gives humanity a different type of motivation, which will take us into an entirely different type of world.

           

However, big repair needs big numbers of people, armies of advocates, and not just a willing few.  Today the numbers are growing but slowly.  Humans drag their heels because it seems like such a big step to take, to take up a less human-centred project in order to help the development of a damaged human race. In a nutshell, it all begins by standing aside from animal exploitation in all its forms.  This is a very big personal step, to not eat them, wear them, use products with bits of animal in them, and then to start to advocate on their behalf.

Each advocate needs both energy and motivation, strong enough to withstand anything thrown at us.  We have to transform the way we function as individuals, the way we think and act.  We need to set off a chain reaction of irresistible altruism, and if it is going to start anywhere it’s obviously going to be by boycotting the violence associated with animal exploitation.

As a force for transformation altruism might just do the trick, but there are dangers, one of which being that some of us advocates get carried away by the self-glorification of it all, and forget the principle of thinking about others before, not after, we think of ourselves.

           

If this idea is going to work it must ‘go to the feeling’ within, so much so that it will dissolve our value judgements of others.  It must be strong enough to step aside from resolving situations with any sort of violence, and that includes the violence inherent in judgement-making.  If that means being not quite so pushy or not quite so righteous, or not being right all the time, then so be it.  This is not about me, not about us, it’s about the interests of the slaves we own, known as ‘domesticated animals’.

We are so used to focusing on the main chance and seeking opportunity, that we have to go towards the altruistic with our eyes open, to consciously avoid self-advantage in order to bring about a revolution in our very thinking. If we look for a different sort of reward it will be found by seeing others also acting altruistically.

Plant-based diet

1055: 

The human-advantaged world doesn’t seem to have learnt its lesson about the disadvantages of violence and war.  Having an abundance of food at the expense of making everlasting war on animals is not so very different to having a reliance on atomic arsenals to ensure peace.  Such threats as hunger and atomic annihilation were supposed to revolt us so much that we’d find a better way to live.  But we still have both, and we’re no nearer to peace.  Individuals can’t do much about world governments’ defence systems but we can each do something about our use of animal foods - we can boycott them and if enough of us do that the Animal Industry will collapse.  Unfortunately, animals are still being used as food, and the matter of animal slavery is still being ignored.

           

Today, the world is focusing on climate change.  It’s made us sit up and take notice, but not much more.  We talk about it a lot but don’t do much for fear of the inconvenience it will cause us.  Governments don’t dare to act, and individuals are reluctant to ‘make a start’ when others won’t.  It’s a you-first, me-next situation.  It’s the same with food and taking on an animal-free diet.  There’s always an excuse.  It’s cheaper and less disadvantageous to eat as others eat.

            

Dodging ethics

1054: 

Those who came up with the idea of imprisoning hens in cages, in fetid, sunless sheds, set a trend.  To come were other prisons, for other animals, perhaps inspired by the cruelties of wartime treatment of human prisoners.  The war had shown how willing whole populations of people could be, to ‘not-see’ what they had seen and to accept a ‘death-camp’ mentality, which included the turning of a blind eye for the sake of convenience.  Out of an existence which had been threatened, people were now dodging ethics as it suited them, accepting cruelty, ignoring empathy, and all for the sake of pragmatism and the importance of providing cheap and plentiful food.

If the cage was used as an emergency means of feeding hungry people there was no twilight clause written in, so it was never abolished.  The cage has continued up to the present day.  Eggs have been mass produced.  They’re cheap, people are hooked on them and like so many other animal products, they’ve become staples because we like the taste of them – nobody cares that the hens laying them are suffering.

In our war on Nature, humans thought they were going to get away with this sort of brutal enslavement of animals.  But perhaps Nature has hidden ways of getting her own back, by ‘dis-easing’ the physical and spiritual health of those humans with a couldn’t-care-less attitude. 

The cage

1053: 

The first cage system was built to house egg-laying hens.  They’d become victim of their own menstrual cycle.  In order to mass produce her powerful protein package for humans, flock numbers were greatly increased and each individual animal was locked into a tiny cage (with one or two or three others), in which she lays an egg a day.  Massive numbers of eggs at minimum cost revolutionised food production at the cost of abandoning welfare considerations.  Here was the application of industrial-mechanised processes to the treatment of animals.  If the ‘caging system’ was an emergency response to wartime-conditions, it was a measure taken at a time when many other terrible things were happening.  Its introduction was barely noticed.

The system was based on having batteries of cages in rows, tier upon tier of them, acting as life-imprisonment cages - the hen had been reduced to an egg-producing machine, giving rise to the concept of ‘speciesism’.

Post war

1052: 

1945, end of the war.  Three near-simultaneous events took place.

First, there was a war grinding to a halt, millions dead, millions dying of starvation.  Hitler died, parents celebrated in bed, confident now to start or enlarge their families.

Second, an atom-splitting device exploded over a Japanese city, showing how we could, in theory, destroy the whole planet, just by pressing a button.

These two events marked the close of one sort of barbarity but gave rise to another.

Third, the war had brought hunger and a much needed reliable supply of food for burgeoning populations.  The fastest and cheapest and most reliable method of protein production was to intensify animal farming, thus to cage animals.  Animals went from a state of mild slavery to brutal incarceration in conditions people would have found unconscionable a few years before.  But the longer these ‘welfare’ standards remained in place, the more unnoticed and acceptable they became.

The idea of confining a whole sentient species, holding their bodies in straight jackets for the span of their foreshortened lives was the order of the day.  As we started to exploit any useful biological event in an animal’s body so we brought outrageous barbarity to the farm, by effectively entombing living animals.

As the war was ending so the intensification of farming increased exponentially, eventually giving rise to some public outrage and the beginning of the Animal Rights Movement.

Learning from the past

1051:

Repairing Earth means repairing ourselves, and the most productive way to do that is by learning to put ourselves out a bit.  Altruistically.  But we need to look at our history and learn from our mistakes, so we don’t fall on our altruistic sword.

Since we can’t know what’s up ahead (any more than we can reach out for the stars) we have to learn from the past to bring the future into being.  Maybe we (and I suppose I mean vegans) see one simple, sparkling idea which stands out from all the rest, allowing us to think differently, more constructively.  By making such a radical alteration to our daily food regime we start to think differently.  As soon as we change our thought patterns, our whole nature changes.  A wind blows through us.  There’s a ‘wanting’ for change, and uprooting of self interest, even a wanting for others’ welfare.  This ends up being a turn-around from doing everything with a self-interest motive.  It’s an alternative outlook.

By taking this ‘other view on life’, it might turn out to be our greatest asset.  On a collective level, the anti-violence of vegan lifestyle could come to represent the greatest salvage operation from a previously war-torn century.  By empathising outside of human interest, by considering the vegan principles of non-violence and harmlessness we see a way of being constructive.  We come up with both a consideration of our shame mixed with a resolve to repair.  Maybe this is where we are becoming conscious of consciousness itself.  And through that we are coming to see how we can initiate our own ‘evolution’, by applying some empathy to our outlook on life.

Looking back on how things have turned out, it’s hardly believable that so many of us could have participated in so much barbaric behaviour.  Future generations will ask with wide eyes and open mouths, how did we allow things to turn out the way they did.  And yet, at the same time, they too may still not be able to see what they’re also involved with.

How do we, in the middle of this particular era-of-barbarism, stop?  How do each of us stop and take stock and consciously alter course?

Perhaps we have to look back at the extraordinary events of the mid 1940s, where we see human nature in all its extremes.  We see bravery, altruism, waste and cruelty.  It would be sad to think we could take nothing constructive out of all this.

Reaching for the stars

1050:

When we look up at the stars in the sky (on a clear night that’s no problem for any of us), it’s like watching a cat sitting on a mat.  There’s nothing to do, nothing to want from seeing this, except to observe it.  There’s nothing about the stars or the cat to bring under our control or to want.  It’s simply is.  Maybe we feel a yearning frustration for things we can’t reach, like the state of mind of the cat or the distant stars but they remain nothing less than unreachable.  And so what?

Maybe, as we gaze up at the stars, we know they are not in any practical way part of our daily reality; we always have to return to the here and now, to appreciate what we already have ‘at home’, in our human-based reality.  We have the sun, our own star, we’ve got the Earth, our own planet, we have companions and we even have a true representative of the ‘now’ in our cat-on-the-mat.  Each appreciated but incomprehensible wonder makes us feel like very lucky beings.

We look up at the stars.  They shine down on us just as they shine down on their own orbiting planets.  Perhaps this reminds us of our future (which we also can’t ‘touch’, or see, because it hasn’t happened yet).  But the ‘unreachables’ each project important possibilities and probabilities.

Something a little closer to home, something more tangible, is the past.  It represents something we can’t touch or alter, but it tells us stories about ourselves – some of the things which have made us what we are and moulded our social attitudes.  Many humans have been exploited.  Many lives have been wasted.  We are now living in the age of machines and machine-minds, to which we can attribute a lot of the damage we’ve done to each other.  We’ve even turned animals into machines so that they will guarantee the production of goods for us.  We’ve housed these machines in cages and concrete enclosures.  By bringing  about such extremes, by seeing the damage we’ve brought about, by gazing at the stars, by noticing the calm of the cat, all this points to the obvious possibilities and probabilities of repair.  Who knows, but repair might bring us closer to what seems today so unreachable.

Order and chaos

1049: 

In many ways, we are living in a disordered world.  If I want to bring order to the chaos perhaps I’ll ask myself how to do that constructively.  It would be a bit like pulling out weeds to make room for a new tree; when chaos is brought to order the tree finds space to grow.  In the human context, the greater good and minimising destruction seem sensible in the same way, but there’s also an energy consideration here.  Order comes at a cost.  And if that ordering involves my being altruistic, that’s very constructive but not if there’s insufficient energy to sustain it.

‘Order’ doesn’t necessarily solve anything on its own, because a little chaos is needed too.  It’s the same when you compare a well behaved child with a rebellious child.

Where altruism is most useful is when things are badly out of kilter, calling for remedy.  If we let weeds grow the trees will die.  If we let unsustainable systems continue the way they are, the system will die.  Even on the mildest interpersonal level, when simply smiling at someone or making eye-contact, that too brings order to the chaos (of being separate from each other).  We can’t grow when we are solitary or competitive beings.  In the bigger picture, order and chaos is a question that needs to be considered in terms of rescuing human nature itself – the chaos here is that we are each copying one another’s destructive behaviours.

In theory if humans have the ability to restructure physical systems then we can restructure our own nature.  And following on from there, we can then consider the possibility that humans can re-balance the Earth, the ultimate in bring order to chaos.

Altruism as a reference point

1048:

Living within a partially unknowable universe, we have to make the best of things.  If we do it with affection we make things go a little smoother.

We respond to conflicting messages from within: our instinct might tell us to give-out and give with affection.  Instinct also tells us that life isn’t just about doing good but also about optimising our opportunities.

I’m weighing up my choices.  At first, the selfish choice seems the most attractive way to go but, on after-thought, so does the selfless. There’s some part of us that knows when we do things, for instance, the sake of the kids, it will somehow feed back again to ourselves, later, sometimes much later.

If we can get away from the righteous overtones of altruism, we can see it’s just a more intelligent way to do things. In the bigger picture, co-operation, compassion, empathy and generosity are not so much divine values as workable ones. The practice of altruism brings us to maturity, something essential to mothers and fathers. If you are a parent, the child screams for attention and the parent comes to the rescue. The child screams many times, the parent comes to the rescue many times. Altruism, in this form, is best for both the child’s development and the personal sanity of the long-term parent. But altruism isn’t just one thing, rescuing, giving, selfless. It doesn’t work that way. It’s simply a reference point, from which one chooses to be hard or soft, indulge the child or deny the child. Each decision, swayed by instinct, edging away as far as possible from the me-first principle, edging towards the interests of the ‘other’.

It’s the same with the ant in the sink. Altruism is never very far away, nudging our choices. It might not be clear what the choice should be, but it IS clear what it should not be - never harm-causing. So if we turn this around we can see that non-violence can never be anything other than motivated by altruism.  

Pests are irritating

1047: 

Altruism usually means me putting me second. It needs some effort.  It’s usually inconvenient.  But if we are trying to squash the selfish urge, then the altruistic act can be made easier if it’s done as naturally and unselfconsciously as possible.  The longer you do it, the more of a habit it becomes and the less conscious one will be ‘doing’ it.  

For example: You act unselfishly, in the best interests of your own child - it feels very altruistic but quite natural.  However, if you apply that to everything else as well, does it become unwieldy?  Can we become too ambitious?  Is that a reason to confine altruism to our nearest and dearest?  Can the quality of mercy be strained?  Let’s say you find an ant in the sink, and quick as a flash your hand touches the tap.  A flow of rushing water washes the insect away.

If we think about the ant at all we might choose to act more altruistically.   It might go something like this.  You’re irritated.  “Damned ants!”.  (Perhaps it’s not the first time this has happened).  You don’t want it there; perhaps you don’t like ants; you think to drown it.  Then, on second thoughts, you resist the temptation (to turn on the tap).  You switch from self interest to ‘the interest’ of the insect.  You’re saving it; your hand reaches for a sheet of paper to scoop it up onto dry land.  Drown it or save it?  You’re learning to deal with a familiar ants-in-the-sink situation.

By making an empathetic choice the problem isn’t exactly solved (ants appearing in the sink) but an important lesson is taking place, that of acting non-violently, NOT taking the line of least resistance, putting something other than oneself first

           

Would we treat the ant with the same unselfish consideration as the child? probably not, since we have no personal relationship with the ant and it’s so small and almost too unimportant to think about.  “There are plenty of ants.  One less will make no difference”.  But this has nothing to do with ants really.  It’s not even about drawing closer to the ant’s world.  We’re using this situation to help us open our empathy ports, looking outwards to something that’s outside the human realm.  Looking inwards, letting the situation represent something within us, which might need drawing up into consciousness, awakening and working on.

Mutual support and self-motivation

1046: 

Because people who aren’t into vegan-ism dismiss it as unimportant, they give little encouragement to vegans.  For us, it’s a cause made harder because of that.  Of course, we’re not ‘being-vegan’ to win admiration but nevertheless, we all need some sort of encouragement or recognition.  Vegans get it mostly from fellow vegans, but it’s thin pickings because other vegans are also suffering from being marginalised.

In the area of Animal Rights activism, there’s a tendency to join the welfare lobby or make our main focus the least controversial side, with food and health issues.  But perhaps we might go that way because we need to feel part of the larger minority group.  And that is at the expense of emphasising the broader ethical arguments of abolitionism (the non-use of any animals in our lives).   Whatever branch of Animal Rights any of us are into, part of what we are busy doing is motivating ourselves.

           

Largely, motivational energy has to come from within because it doesn’t usually come from others.  It probably has to stem from a deeper-than-comfortable wish for self-development.  And that touches on altruism, concern for ‘the other’, empathy for exploited and most marginalised victims.  The focus is therefore on being of service to them.  Our own need for motivation has to be self-generated and can’t rely on grateful thanks, because those who we’re helping have no way of knowing let alone showing any appreciation.

Motivation is crucial.  We shouldn’t be ashamed to want some sort of reward so that we can keep up our effort.  If we deny the importance of reward, altruism can’t work, since it wouldn’t be sustainable and the last thing we need is for our energy to wither.  There probably has to be a gathering of energy from somewhere, and if we do get it from one another, then our efforts in connecting with each other is one way of refuelling.  If you’re a vegan then supporting other vegans is important, again it’s the altruism principle.  Whatever cause we’re fighting for, part of the obligation which comes with the cause is giving support to others, but at the same time trying not to expect it from others.

Vegan principle

1045: 

I’ve got a friend overseas (who I write to regularly about all this) and he dislikes the idea of veganism - but it’s the ‘ism’ bit he hates.  Perhaps he’s right.  ‘Isms’ sound a bit like religion, and really ‘vegan’ isn’t anything other than a principle which combines plain good sense with compassion.   Vegans leap at the chance to introduce ‘all this’, because we want others to have access to something we’ve ‘picked up’, that’s mainly to our own advantage.  It isn’t a wish to boast  ... but that’s the trouble here ... that’s how other people often perceive ‘all this’ and our wanting to talk about it. 

Non-vegans see us as masochists or, more generously, our ‘going vegan’ to be all about self-discipline.  But to us it’s all-benefit, and we’ll always want to make that clear.

           

It’s very hard to shine a light on something ‘self-disciplined’ without looking too shiny about it.  If what I do looks like altruism I’m necessarily showing off, because it’s the opposite of selfishness, which is always ugly.  It’s very hard not to look smug about being so ‘sensible and compassionate’.  The omnivore will giggle (rather nervously) at the strictness of our lifestyle.  And then dismiss it.  But we look at it quite differently, seeing what we eat as the most satisfying food.  Our ‘ism’ gives us an interesting goal-for-life, and that’s because we’re showing a care for farm animals, and generally looking out for others, etc.

Certainly, all this can sound smug.  Difficult too.  But maybe life for vegans is a bit edgier.  We push ourselves at a greater pace, to learn about things which are being kept hidden from the general pubic.  We’ll want to investigate and expose and inform.  Does that sound smug, again?  It’s difficult not to come across like that, and if it looks altruistic then it’s nothing more than common sense with a dash of kindness thrown in for good measure, on behalf of the oppressed.

Is non-violence dynamic enough?

1044: 

I’m everyday made conscious of violence, through stories in the media, making me think most of us are violent.  But of course we aren’t!  These media stories bring (what passes for) interest into our dreary lives, giving us something to talk about.  We discuss violence.  We say how we dislike it.  But as we become more interested in it.  It sucks us in.  Then we become disgusted by our own attraction to it, and then swing right over to the opposite side, to the idea of non-violence.

           

Certainly, I’m attracted by the political correctness of non-violence.  I would like to see myself as non-violent; it helps me dream and fantasise.  But I should also be considering the grey areas in me, and the significance of violence.

If we dislike violence, we might try to deny the very existence of it, because we fear it and aren’t good at dealing with it.  We might want to make a stand against it without being able to see a dynamic enough side to non-violence; it might seem ineffective.  Non-violence can seem too indecisive and passive.  And yet, we also know there is a dynamic in it.  For example, we can avoid conscription when there’s a war and white feathers for those who won’t join up, or avoid eating meat when there is little or no alternative.  

Boycotting in many ways is difficult, but it isn’t passive or indecisive.  Mainly, it isn’t violent.  As consumers we can avoid using violent goods.  We can encourage cruelty-free and environmentally friendly commodities.  That’s a really good start.  But where else can we ‘practise’ it?  Ideally, non-violence should be in everything we do, from thinking and talking to actively supporting commercial enterprises which espouse non-violence.

As the new fashion takes off, so violence and coercion will fade away.  But then, this is only part of the violence we need to lose.  Only when it has been established in our behaviour will it sink more deeply into our unselfconsciousness, so that it becomes part of our very nature.

Keeping our violence in check

1043:

Take the violent world.  In it, we always try to get what we want.  We bend the rules and intend to fix things up properly later and then, forgetting to do that, end up with the same mess.  We never seem able to solve the problem of human-induced violence.

           

It’s different in the violent world of Nature.  Events like storms, epidemics and earthquakes destroy on a massive scale. But it’s not the same as human violence, which is so damaging and wanton or so coldly calculated; I want what you’ve got, I threaten you, I go to war, I win or lose.

By implementing the principles of non-violence, it’s implicit that we aren’t wanting to win. Instead, we are looking to understand the root of our problems; not just trying to catch the serial-killer but understand why the sociopath-psychopath has chosen that path.  It’s slower and takes more effort but is a more thorough way of dealing with complex problems. Non-violence always has a better look than violence, and if it solves anything at all it provides a much more permanent solution. 

Violence has an unattractive look, especially when we examine our own relationship with it.  And if we see it for what it is, we might want to do something about it.  In one of those moments of self-realisation we’ll look to see how to fix it, properly. And there’s no more obvious place to start than with our food.  It’s the first step in keeping our own violence in check.

But there’s no gain without pain.  Dropping violence involves a long to-do list of things to NOT do.

           

Here’s the theory - when I change, to accommodate an idea as universal as non-violence, I’ll need to test it against other people’s opinion of it.  If they’re as impressed as I am, they’ll change accordingly, and their change will make my change easier.  My non-violence will therefore win a following.  But it’s not as simple as that.  This isn’t how it works.  Non-violence is not a reality in the same way violence is.

Violence brings advantage especially when others engage in it and I reap the benefit, especially if I’m not directly associated with it.  And also, if it comes close to me, if it seduces me, the damage it might do me is lessened by the fact that everyone else is doing it. It is so omnipresent.  It’s visible everywhere, in everyone, in children, in our partners, in the collective consciousness, and we all make use of it. We say that if they use violence why shouldn’t I?

However we come to regard violence, it’s not that easy to shake off.  If we don’t like it or we see that it doesn’t bring the results we want, we might drop it.  But then we must replace it with something just as strong and almost as advantageous.

Non-violent principle looks strong but its advantages aren’t quite so obvious, being less in touch with reality.  It just seems like a good idea that’s not very practical.

If we can see the difference between the two (the most obvious place is abattoir versus non-abattoir) we might vote for non-violence.  The safest and most appropriate place to trial non-violence then would be at home, in our relationships with fellow humans and with companion animals and in the commodities we buy.  This would be when our latest change brings more harmony into our lives and acts as a springboard to everything else.  By checking ourselves for violence, by seeing how respect for non-violence affects our closest relationships, we can watch things beginning to grow, things which before might have seemed static.

By applying non-violent principles to our lives, at home in our relatively safe environment, we can better deal with praise, mockery, criticism, intimacy, ridicule, lack of encouragement, etc., and the impact is softened by the very intimacy of living amongst people who know us, especially if it’s mixed with true affection.  It’s with the people we are closest to that we can work through our differences, perhaps slowly but perhaps more thoroughly, more ‘organically’.

           

Hopefully, at home we can look out for each other, and try to never ‘leave one another behind’, which again is a central principle of non-violence.  If we have a bond with non-violence we won’t break-up with each other so readily or not with so much acrimony.  There’ll be fewer contracts of hatred and things will be done in a more civilised and less destructive way.

By using non-violence to build a more mutually caring society, we’ll come to feel safer and be more able to express ourselves freely, even with strangers.  We’ll be able to communicate more openly, by stating without aggression, “this is what I reckon” or “I disagree”, and we’ll be able to take others’ opposition to our views without flaring up in ego-defensiveness and violent reaction.  

An ancient idea

1042: 

Non-violence is not new.  It’s as old as the hills and the very bedrock of wise philosophy.  But because it has no form, no presence and no outlet, it can only stands like a beacon to light the way for a possible future. True to character, it doesn’t push itself forward, but steps back and allows violence to pass by, to make us remember that we exist in a world where violence still rules.

But it has a presence in the bigger picture, the picture of the future, where violence looks like something crude and irrelevant.

There will always be conflict and differences of opinion, but just before we resort to lashing out, it would be good to consider other ways of dealing with one another.  If non-violence has any voice at all, it will say “calm down” in the middle of a heated argument.  It applies the brakes just in time, in order to avoid an explosion.  Its value is in avoiding the long up-hill struggle to repairs things when they’ve gone violent. 

Non-violence keeps high emotions under control, working on a sort of count-to-ten principle.  And when it comes of age, when non-violence becomes the dynamic tool we use almost unselfconsciously, then it must be a fearless tool which inspires us to engage in robust interaction.

A Non-Violent World

1041: 

Is a no-weapon world, where we trust our neighbour not to attack us, just pie in the sky?  A planet of humans - can it exist without resorting to violent confrontation?  A non-violent world is something we can hardly imagine because everyday we hear about war.  We none of us know or have any confidence in any other system, so when things get difficult we try to exert force; the bigger force quells the smaller one.  And it works ... for a while.

This system has been in operation for as long as history has been recorded, so we think that no other system could ever work. We always fall back on the familiar, showing the violent-self.  Humans will always be fairly stupid when it comes to finding non-violent ways to deal with differences of opinion.

We hardly notice that violence is the driving force for so many of our daily decisions. For example, we use violence to feed ourselves when we take away the lives of animals.  That could mean when we eat meat, or use the milk of the enslaved-cow or feed our beloved dog with the flesh of executed farm animals.   All that stops when we stop buying the product, and start buying cruelty-free and environmentally-friendly and plant-based  product.  Just in this one way, we send a powerful message to those who produce our food and clothing; if enough of us did it they would go out of business.

If it’s plant-based products we use, we make a statement to that effect and back it up by what we buy.  And within that statement is our backing for a more generous and trusting world. We take a gentler approach to those who are unlike us. It’s the first step towards a peaceful, no-weapon world.

Two opposites dancing together

 1040:

Non-violence seems too passive to effectively eliminate violence.  But perhaps that’s the point – we shouldn’t want to kill off anything at all.  Everything is here with the purpose of teaching us something significant, violence included.  We need to know the meaning of violence and understand why it’s in us, all of us.  Certainly, violence is in the very nature of this planet.  There’s violence within the body, where alongside disease there lives a battle-worn immune system - one attacks, the other defends.  Nature itself shows violence, which helps to build defensive strengths, so in a destructive storm the strongest stalks of wheat bend but don’t break.

We find violence within our own minds too, in the tension between opposite choices.  In the push-me-pull-you of decision-making, we can observe violence creeping in, to suggest the most advantageous way to go. On the other hand, we might become the Holy-Jo and be non-violent for the sake of being righteous.

           

Perhaps there’s no good or bad here, it’s just non-violence dancing with violence.  But up to this point in history there’s been so much violence that it seems obvious to do something to stop it taking control.  Today, in trying to counter that trend of routine violence, we’d do well to let non-violence take a more active part, to burn out the old violence in the same way that a ‘control burn’ makes a firebreak to prevent a devastating bush fire. By initiating non-violence, we step in, to make a different sort of impact.

           

At this point in time, after the orgy of violence in the twentieth century, we need to be looking for non-violent solutions, to stop us repeating the mistakes of the past.  We don’t need to resort to quarrelling or going to war to solve problems.  And yet, that’s still the approach of the carnivore who can’t stop attacking animals and eating them to solve the problem of feeding and guaranteeing the supply of food; we keep doing the same things because the alternatives are still largely untested, as in the perception that a plant-based, vegan diet is untested and therefore unsafe.

If non-violence is to become the modus operandi of our new age, we have to learn to walk with it before we run with it.  And in the same way, if you become a vegetarian/vegan you need to practice it a while before expecting to convert others to it.

Planning for the far future

1039: 

Needless to say, animals are different to us.  With them there’s no hubris, no superiority and they have no doubt about how dangerous humans can be, which is why they always run away from us.  For them the prime danger is that humans always attack them and attack their environment.  Perhaps they know that humans are always trying to improve things for themselves, and with that comes the violence of maintaining their position-of-dominance over Nature, but especially over animals.

The damage we’ve done has come from trying to improve things by wit, strength and ruthlessness.  We’ve never learnt to ‘be content with our lot’.  And now, our manipulation and bullying have brought us to the brink of catastrophe - the worst animal cruelty imaginable, the worst health consequences from eating animals, the worst imaginable environmental damage.  Which is why some of us have decided to tear ourselves away from as many of the destructive habits of our own species and look more closely at the possibility of conducting our lives without exploiting the exploitable.  At least we are making a start, by living a plant-based life.  We’ve begun the process of turning in a different direction to the majority.   It’s hard enough on a personal basis, by changing to a plant diet, let alone convincing the majority of our fellow humans. To swing others around from their omnivorous foods is like steering an ocean liner around, 180 degrees.  There’s so much momentum invested in human interest (what I like, what I want) that to swing the whole ship around might have to be a very slow process.

There has to be a selfless element here; we have to look far ahead, beyond our own lifetime, and set the foundations for and on behalf of future generations. We need to be working on the assumption that eventually people will come to their senses and become peace-loving, responsible and far less me-centred. If and when that fashion takes hold, hopefully the human species will then become unselfconscious warriors of non-violence.

For us here, today, there are problems specific to this very early stage of human transformation, concerning the nature of pro-active peace-making, and that means we, ourselves, must be resolute non-animal users, whilst being dynamic yet not aggressive, non-violent yet still effective.