Our sensitivities are poles apart

1321: 

There’s an enormous difference of opinion between the protectors of animals and the users of animals.  Many of us who are animal activists have been involved for so long, that it’s possible we’ve forgotten how we once felt, when we accepted living as an integral part of mainstream society.  We ate as others did, wore leather shoes, wore the same fabrics, etc.   And now, all that has changed and we’re used to feeling part of a minority.

For non-vegans, they’ve always been part of the majority, who eat anything on offer.  Just to take one example of a routinely used product, cheese. To most people cheese is just cheese, and they've never given a thought to the origin of it. So when we say “no dairy products” (which includes cheese), the cheese-eater doesn’t connect that with something unethical. We can talk all we like about animal slavery, but to them cheese will just be cheese. Arguments about how it is produced, the treatment of the dairy cow, the killing of calves and the genetic modification of the cow’s mammary glands all sound a bit too complicated to listen to.  It’s easier to NOT investigate too deeply, and continue to enjoy cheese, and of course the hundreds of other popular food products of which milk is an integral part.

It’s easier to think of vegans just as weirdoes. 

Ethics starts with Non-Violence

1320: 

Apart from the vegan diet being nutritionally sound, it’s also an ethical diet because it is based on non-violence, meaning that animals don’t ever have to be killed or exploited or violated.  Vegans can therefore live with a clear conscience.  We aren’t involved in the daily violence that all non-vegans are party to.

But if we say this in so many words, it will be seen as an aggressive attack, however true we might think we are being.  If we accuse someone of being violent, because they eat meat or dairy products, that accusation will be construed as a ‘violence’ in itself.  For this reason alone, we should avoid these sorts of accusations.  By pressing our opinion too hard in this way, we hint at aggression, and lose our best chance to discuss things rationally.  Once someone feels they’re being attacked, they’ll counter attack, and then the discussion goes round in circles.  The central arguments will be forgotten and their hostile attitude to Animal Rights will become more deeply entrenched.  And in future they may only see us as wanting to subvert society by liberating all the animals which, put that way, sounds like anarchy.  Which opens the way to some particularly insidious legislation - it being only a matter of time before ‘food-denigrating’ becomes illegal, as it is in some parts of USA.  The animal industry, supported by almost all consumers, already has enough political clout to bring this about.  We face a dilemma here - we stand bravely for what we believe and aren't afraid to say it as we see it. On the other hand, we can alienate everyone with our brave words and end up having communicated nothing at all

Nutritious arguments

1319:

In any sort of discussion on animal-use we need to keep our cool because there are always two points of view, each opposite view valid to one person more than the other.  Before getting to matters of ethics and cruelty, we must deal with our own survival, so the issue of food must be dealt with.

Vegans who are dealing with matters of vegan nutrition are challenging a food tradition which is accepted as gospel: that animal foods are essential for health.  By promoting a vegan diet, we are making a case for the safety and healthiness of a plant-based diet.  At the same time we’re saying that meat and animal products are actually unhealthy.  This latter proposal doesn’t make sense to healthy young people, since they’ve been eating meat and dairy all their lives and they feel okay.  They’ll probably suggest we “Go tell it to our sixty year old friends, not us”.  Their fear of illness seems to them to be a lifetime away.

It’s easy for us to get bogged down in nutritional arguments and yet we do need to be sure we can address safety issues.  If we can speak confidently about food, we’ll show that best by inviting genuine questions, so that we can show that plant-based diets are safe and all nutritional needs may be met from plant food.  There are safeguards we need to mention in some detail, in order to answer all questions of safety.  But, food is used as a diversionary tactic, where it becomes easy for them to bog us down in nutritional argument.  It becomes a peg on which discussion hangs its hat – the talk is all about ‘diet’, anything to get away from the dark side, the cruelty of animal farming.

Our ‘return-point’ in any discussion is ‘ethics’.  This is where compassion is ignited and where we can win people over. 

Bring on the debate not the quarrel

1318: 

If there were a debate on Animal Rights I imagine there’d be two opposite positions, and all very ordered.  But in the real world outside the debating chamber, stereotypes, prejudices, half truths and misinformation abound.  I struggle to get even one decent point across without being interrupted.  I’m handicapped by what’s gone before.  So, to turn things around, I establish that I’m an okay-person, fair-minded, not aggressive and respect both human issues and animal issues.  I realise it’s an up-hill job, to draw the majority towards our minority view, and because I’m the one wanting to debate animal issues, not the other way round, I’ll be the one taking the initiative to be civilised about the way we speak.

Before I get anywhere near the business end of discussing animals, I'd be setting the standard for non-violent interaction, logical argument, and never going on the defensive.  Animal Rights has a powerful argument so there’s no need for us to lose our advantage by demanding our right to speak.  We have to get others to want to take us on, and if they seem aggressive it’s often a cover for their weaker position.

So, how much do we dare to provoke and how much do we try to sweeten people into taking us on?  Why try to pick a fight when we can instead bring out people’s sense of their own truth?  We shouldn’t force them to respond to us or try to emotionally blackmail them.  This wish to talk about the issues must come from them and, at first, the issues they choose to discuss might not be the really big issues.  It will likely be food and health and animal welfare.  It’s up to us, then, to carefully introduce cruelty and slavery and all the really heavy stuff, but with an eye on the impact we’ll be making.

However hard they try to defend animal use, however hard they try to argue that it isn’t cruel, however adamant they are about meat being strengthening, their arguments weaken on account of the unethical violence and violation involved in all stages of animal farming. 

As soon as there’s a willingness to talk, we can say what we have to say, simply and without too many words.  We don’t need to labour the point.  Things can be left hanging since these weighty issues need time to be thought through.  When we've all had our say, we must show every genuine attempt to part company with each other as friends, not as quarrelling enemies.  If we’ve ‘had words’, then that is what will stick.  And it’s likely that everything that has been discussed about ethics and health will be swept away in the emotional discomfort of having quarrelled about it.

The no-brainer

1317:

When I comment on animal food, the already-converted will say “Yes”  but with others, especially if I’m not invited, talking about Animal Rights or vegan issues sets off alarm bells.  Omnivores just won’t listen when I sound as though I’m criticising their food!  Especially since they might already feel a bit guilty about their position on the animal connection.  Understandably, they regard what I say as excessive chutzpah.

         

But for some activists it’s okay - these people deserve to be confronted.  But the danger is that free-willed people who walk away may be so put off by our confronting approach that they're forever lost to us.  So, who wins then?

         

The alternative to this bulldozer approach is for us to show a particular sensitivity when talking about Animal Rights.  Face to face we can judge whether there’s an interest in hearing what we’ve got to say, or if they’re building a brick wall against us.

         

Some think animals deserve to have a life of their own.  The vast majority haven’t thought about it - the question is never brought up and if it were it would be considered an absurd question.

         

But where the question of animals having rights is discussed, no other subject hots up quite so quickly.  For the confirmed carnivore this whole subject is a no-brainer.  What happens?  The activist tries some moral bludgeoning, the adversary denigrates them and nothing useful is achieved.  For the carnivore, using animal-food is as natural as breathing; a meat-meal is never seen as an act of condoning violence.  If there’s any curiosity at all, it’s academic and not applicable to everyday living.  Maybe what we say is a shock when we say it, but it passes from memory as quickly as a night’s dream when you wake up.  There's just no reason to remember what we’ve said.

How to save our souls

1316: 

Violence would have been dropped long ago if humans were less quarrelsome.  Our thirst for war stems from our need to be safe and to place ourselves at the top of the heap – to do that we have to dominate ‘inferior’ humans and ‘lower’ species.  Humans might see themselves at the top, but we also know our ambition to get there has been our undoing.

The thirst for power is the province of those people already near the top of the heap, but for the rest of us, we’ve been content to exploit the lower orders, most prominently the non-humans; for us, it hasn’t been so much a matter of dominating and feeling powerful as being able to guarantee food supplies and, with that ensured, the pleasure of eating certain types of foods.  By becoming hooked on pleasure-giving foods and many other little comforts associated with products from the animal kingdom, we’ve landed ourselves in both a physical and ethical mess.  If we’d learnt how to survive and thrive on plant based foods and materials, 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.  Each of today’s major problems can be related back to centuries of advantage-taking, of taking more than we need and leaving others, notably animals, to their unenviable fate.  We are now so used to a decadent lifestyle that we can’t face the habits we’ve developed, which make us dependent on the enslaving and domestication of animals.

         

If we do eventually come to our senses and save our world in the nick of time, then we’ll have effectively saved our souls.  But we still have a long way to go to reach this stage of human development.  And if circumstances of ill-health and climate change are forcing us face the music, we can either get there easily or get there kicking and screaming.  It’s up to each one of us.  We can be insensitive and suffer for it, or we can start to respect our planet, look after our bodies and empathise with our victims.  The we can set about repairing the damage we’ve done.  And with good grace, we can become vegan.  It's our choice as free-willed individuals - we can step onto the vegan path now or go vegan at the eleventh hour when there’s even more damage done and even more to repair.

Idealism goes a long way

1315: 

If our main aim is to get people to listen we must first ask - why would they WANT to?  Perhaps they'll be intrigued by our different angle on things.  On this subject of food and animals, maybe they want the sort of information they’d normally never get to hear about.  At first, we might not know what their real interest is.  We must be prepared to cater for whatever they want and be prepared to back off from anything they show they don't want to hear about.  It's always their call.

Let's say I am talking with a friend, and they know I’m vegan, they know I’m pro-animal and anti-abattoir.  They might even know why I include milk and egg products on my prohibited list. If all this is NOT unacceptable to them, they might, nevertheless, be expecting the Ten Commandments from me.  So instead, I'll try to mention all the attractive reasons for being vegan.

I’ll try to paint a picture of a non-violent future, a different attitude to animals which could bring about a shift in human nature.  And I’ll attempt to link that to food choices, clothing and commodity choices, all of which for vegans are choices directly connected to harmlessness.  I’ll talk about a world without a slave trade in animals or abattoirs or animal farms.  And my aim would be to ultimately show that this ideal-world isn’t unattainable.  As soon as we start to develop empathy and altruism we automatically drop violence, selfishness and the main self-destructions.

Without any hint of fear-mongering, I would prefer to speak optimistically, and imagine how normal and natural it is to become more mature as human beings.  The harmlessness principle not only brings us personal health and happiness but it allows us to walk the earth without a nagging sense of guilt.  It allows us to breathe easily.

Some self deprecation goes a long way

1314: 

In the weekend newspaper I read this snippet on vegans – "How can you spot a vegan?" goes the joke. "Oh, they'll tell you".

The general perception is that vegans are a bit up themselves.  And while that image sticks we need to disabuse people of it.  We probably can’t help seeming to be righteous and intense, which makes non-vegans feel either callous or too casual.  So, to readjust things, I try to do what comedians do, and risk everything by laughing at myself, if only to get the audience on side.

By being self deprecating we can make ourselves look simple but it’s really the only way to get the human dynamic working in our favour.  Before plunging into the information we want to impart, we have to know how receptive someone is to it.  What we don't want is for it to wash over them or alienate them.  I prefer to take people by surprise, where they expect one thing, and I give them something quite different.  When asked, “Are you a vegetarian?” I usually answer, “No, far worse than that, I’m vegan”.  If that’s carried off well, it will get a laugh and open the way for something extra. “... and that means NOTHING from animals”.  If it can be carried off lightly, just that amount of information gives them something to chew on. And of course it might lead to another question.  And from there we can take it further, little by little. As long as the questioner feels safe ...

But safe from what?  It’s nearly always a matter of us not making them feel inadequate, even if they tell us they think we’re crazy to be vegan.  Any sign of superiority from us or any hint of shaming them for eating poor food, let alone dead animals, and they'll want to clam up. It's almost as if they'll be looking for any excuse to bring the conversation or questioning to an end.  However little we mention, reasons, information, warnings, etc, you can almost hear them saying, "Too much information".

We are dealing with very private choices here.  These are regular, continuous food choices.  These are choices which involve guilt about condoning some of the cruellest practices that are barely within the law.  Even if we said nothing, just by being-vegan we live by an ethic far removed from theirs.  So on this most sensitive matter, a little self-deprecation goes a long way in our favour.  If I’m prepared to laugh at myself, they will guess my reluctance to force my opinions on them.  Instead I'll be displaying my respect for them by acting in the most non-confronting way possible.  I'll be attempting to show a manufactured vulnerability to match their own.  I’ll be emphasising our equality by making no value judgements.

So, why would we be having such a conversation at all?  For my part, I'd be wanting to show my interest in their view-of-life, to learn something other than what I know already, to show my willingness to consider all views, even though I'm sure my own views about using-animals are quite clear.

Before ever I get around to inform, I’d be aiming to use self deprecation to reinforce a mutual equality.  I'd be letting them feel not-inferior, establishing a calm atmosphere, paving the way for them to be prepared to listen to difficult information.

In the hands of a good comedian (let’s imagine the subject of his jokes are 'crazy vegans') if we are being sent up as ‘bleeding hearts’, animal lovers, fussy eaters and tree huggers, then we laugh with the best of them.  In our own self-deprecating hands, we too can describe ourselves like this.  By entering into the spirit of enjoying a joke at our expense, we can show we aren’t afraid of being made fun of.  There’s no better way of showing that 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 of impressing people.)

By being the first to show our naked side, we show trust.  We show that we don’t consider ourselves too important to be laughed at.  And if we can let others see us wearing our clown mask, we’ll be better able to show our serious side as well.  We should never be afraid of seeming a bit weird.  As long as we keep our sense of humour plus a non-violent tone in our voice, we can speak freely without doing any damage.  Then what we have to say won’t be violently reacted against or too easily dismissed.  Our message needs to be strong but sung lightly. 

Affection & Disaffection

1313: 

The affection and intimacy I can so easily show to a random dog or cat (usually reciprocated) is not acceptable with a person who isn't known to us.  I’m not sure a stranger would trust such a display of spontaneous intimacy.  We have to be careful to pre-think our approaches to humans because we’re afraid our motives will be misunderstood.

Even closer to home, when we're with people we know, there's still an uncertainty about many of our connections, because we aren't sure intimacy or affection will be appreciated.  We might ask ourselves, “Shall I be firm or kind with the child?” or “Can I trust my neighbour or should I set up some rules of engagement?”  We fear the nasty side in people.  I fear if I get too friendly, people will think I have ulterior motives.  If I’m too trusting I fear I’ll be taken for a ride. No such qualms with dogs and cats.

If intimacy and non-violence are to become the norm, trust is essential.  If I want to nurture trust, I must take the lead, and take the risk of initiating an atmosphere of mutual respect.  If I show intimacy and affection it has to be consistently shown.  If we are going to be friendly it's not sometimes but all times.  We have to give other people the benefit of the doubt, look for their good points, watch out for any hardness in my own words, and if we slip into a bit of aggro then we right it with affection.  Make a mistake, see the light go out in their eyes, fess up and turn it around.  Our aim is surely to speed up non-violence and bring that to a point where it's all about empathy.  Take that to its logical conclusion and we arrive at the point where we are pleasant to be with, we hold views which are sympathetic for exploited animals and we establish a norm of which veganism plays an obvious part.

If we come across this way, when we are showing our support for the hard-done-by animals, then what we have to say will be easier to accept.  If we drop that, if we become impatient, our 'hard' side will show and we blow it.  As soon as we decide to no longer be intimate and affectionate and start to treat people coldly they’ll only notice that.  However smart our arguments might be, all they'll see is that we've stepped towards the very violence we say we're so against.

Are YOU a Flat-Earther?

1312: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

It's sad when kind, sensitive, peace-loving people are forced to become involved with people who've excluded themselves from the culture of nonviolence to its very opposite - namely the grubby game of 'animal exploitation'.   It’s something they take part in every day of their lives, if not directly then by proxy.

In truth, these 'omnivores' are probably in agreement with those who eschew violence.  They’d probably be among the first to agree that violence is causing most of our worst interpersonal and global problems.  They would probably declare themselves conscientious objectors if conscription were ever reintroduced.  They realise that violence solves nothing.  They'd be the first to condemn capital punishment.  And yet they can't 'legitimately' support the cause of nonviolence because of the 'animal using' lives they lead and the huge animal exploitation industries they help keep in business. It's so sad.

They're rather like 'Flat-Earthers'.  They force themselves to believe what they know is not true - that the products they buy and consume each day are NOT involved in violence to animals.  And if they can’t convince themselves that farming animals is benign, then they can’t give their support to what is so obviously one of the greatest philosophies of our age – nonviolence.

They can’t be a voice against war, domestic violence or social injustice because they are active in perpetuating the cruel treatment of animals, notably those used for so much of the food they eat and the clothes they wear.  They can't avoid their complicity with the deaths of thousands of animals during their lifetimes.  Whether we describe them as omnivores,  carnivores or lacto-ovo-vegetarians, it makes little difference.  Throughout their lives, they will have spent many thousands of dollars, buying  products that come directly or indirectly from the abattoir.  They will have enriched the Animal Industry, knowing it to have inflicted untold cruelty to countless innocent animals.  

It's sad that omnivores/carnivores/lacto-ovo-vegetarians have to exclude themselves from what they otherwise might want to see thrive - the emergence and strengthening of nonviolence itself.  If they had stood up for the animals, promoted their liberation, spoken out against their enslavement, they'd have discovered for themselves an alternative to the use of force and violence.  These are the people who could be the vanguard of an Animal Rights movement, because in their hearts they know violence and cruelty is wrong.  But instead, they've become trapped by their attachment to certain commodities which they believe they can't do without. The products they use which harm animals include milk, eggs, wool, silk, leather, pet food and of course the flesh and organs of slaughtered sentient beings.  The use of them puts an end to the idealism of gentle, caring, kind people. 

The worst effect of this widespread use of animal products is that no one can openly or proudly admit to their dependency and still support Animal Rights and non-violence!  It all has to be swept under the carpet, or at least enough of the by-products anyway, in order to demonise the more obvious products of violence - like the meat that comes from the direct 'killing' of animals.  But omnivores are on dangerous grounds.  They can’t overtly support nonviolence for fear of being shot down by the 'carpet-lifters' who see what has been swept away.  Theirs would be a very fragile defence if they tried to advocate for Animal Rights whilst being unable to refrain from so many of their favourite foods and commodities.

People are so used to eating what they find tempting, and wearing anything that catches their eye, that shopping poses no ethical difficulty whatsoever. In fact, the only restriction when choosing what to buy is based on what is affordable.   Carnivores might consider the cost of lobster too high initially and once they know that the lobster is boiled alive, an ethical component does arise.  Or those cheeses (developed by the casein-culturists) which are milk-based are indisputably involved with all the cruelties of the dairy industry.


There’s an irreconcilable dilemma facing anyone using animal products. They are drawn to the product and yet repelled by the violence necessary for its production.  Most people settle for indulgence rather than avoidance.   Whether we are attracted to the delicacy of Roquefort or a Cheddar bubbling over our pizza, it's the same irreconcilability challenging us.  And it happens when we are tempted by the almost irresistible beauty of a fashionable pair of leather shoes or the softness of a Cashmere jumper, or the deliciousness of a quiche or a cream cake.  There are thousands of equally seductive products on the market making things very difficult for Flat-Earthers, when they can't admit to their complicity in the evils of the Animal Industry.

Give peace a chance

1311: 

A new world seems to be arriving, one that is post holocaust, post atomic bomb, post factory farm and post animal experimentation - it is a prospective world of peace.  It suggests something very brave indeed - that we might be ready to give peace a chance.  But presently, the world is too violent for such ideals to survive for very long, let alone grow strong.  The human mind still works in a clumsy way when it comes to ethics - a first question leads to the absurdity of a second question - don’t we still need some violence to survive? and don’t we need to use some violence to force people to accept peace?

And this is how it plays out for those of us attempting to raise awareness, of both social justice and the rights of animals.  Perhaps it goes something like this: I must hit people hard with the facts, to make them sit up and take notice. In order to survive in this harsh world, I must be pragmatic and not too idealistic.  Surely, there’s nothing wrong with some violence?  (Can you hear some faint cheering from the lacto-ovo-vegetarians?)

This line of thinking deteriorates into something like this: If I get a bit rough with the kids they'll learn not to take advantage of my kindness.  If they fear punishment they won’t run riot.  Or: 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!  Without a little assertiveness I won’t achieve the results I want.  I just want a bit of peace.  (Which is not quite the same as giving peace a chance!)

Why do we start to think along these mutated lines? Perhaps we accept that we have to have some rules, some punishment, some violence, to make this whole difficult world operate.  And we know all this because the authorities have taught us that way.  When we are young we follow the accepted way.  We follow without question.  Educational and religious institutions show us how double standards work.  For example, they may say that it is okay to exploit animals because they are a major resource at our disposal, and it would be a pity to waste this resource; if everyone stopped using them it would threaten the stability of our society.  The indoctrination of children is essential, and to this end, it is important to keep the connection between animal treatment and violence away from them, since they mustn’t know what really happens to the animals they’re going to be eating for the rest of their lives.  So far we've drifted a long way from giving peace a chance.

We like John Lennon and we like the song, but we think it just applies to war.  It's simpler to think this way.  And for the rest of the violence-saturated world we live in, it's better that we just follow 'the rules' and do as we've been taught.  Society determines the moral codes we must abide by.  And admittedly, we might think they seem a bit dodgy, but we're told that the alternative is anarchy - just imagine how dangerous it would be if we tried to make up our own rules of right and wrong, based on instinct.  Imagine if we all started to apply such instincts to daily life. For a start, it would play havoc with the food industry.  The abattoirs would go broke.

In our Western world, during the 1960s, there were a lot of people beginning to think independently.  They dared to reject what they'd been taught, because they saw how Society's moral codes were falling apart.  The counter-culture laughed at the moral codes of the day.  The morality bubble began to burst, but unfortunately the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.  Nothing was certain, and revolution was everywhere. Everything was being thrown into doubt. No one could make confident choices or launch new attitudes. Only the superficial things changed, whilst the fundamentals remained in tact.

Fifty years on our choices are more confident, and we don’t need to refer to Society for our codes of conduct.  We apply our own codes to relationships, eating habits and how heavily we choose to tread on the Earth.  In this way we are broadening our definition and application of peace.  And only now, we're on the threshold of giving peace a chance.

Non-violent vegans

1310: 

To make non-violence work as a habit, we need to get used to not slipping back into violent ways, even when (especially when) we’re on the defensive.  If we still practise violence we’re probably still holding onto attitudes we can’t let go of yet.

         

Violent habits show up at home, where we’re so well known that we can’t fool anyone.  In this testing ground, you can imagine what happens: we wake up angry, and take our black mood to the breakfast table; things fall apart quickly; we say something nasty, hard.  And with this one small violence the damage is done. It happens so quickly but everyone notices. It’s hard to pull back.  We try to bluff it out, but what we’ve said, the feeling of it, is left hanging.  Others remember that nasty side of us.  They try to avoid stirring us up, in future.  And so it goes on.  We begin to dislike ourselves for it.  Then we try to become a truly non-violent person.  Then we try to deny violence altogether.  Nice try!!

         

Good intention can modify the ingrained violence we pick up from our violent Society, but it has to be comprehensive or it won't work.  One of the greatest things about becoming vegan is that we gain an overview of our own hard-nose attitudes.  Just by the daily practice of 'being compassionate towards animals', it can help to bring out our innate non-violent personality. 

You’re on yer own

1309: 

Being liked by others might be highly valued, especially if you’re on the outer, as a vegan – most vegans have experienced how it feels to be socially isolated.  But, if popularity were the aim, then it would mean we still value other people’s good opinion of us.  However, if other people are ethically compromised, their opinion of us might not be so valuable after all.  If their acceptance of us is conditional on keeping our mouths closed about ‘meat-eating’, when the subject comes up or when we’re all eating together, then their approval isn’t worth very much.  For us, the question always arises - should we keep the peace or put up a challenge?  Even through no fault of our own, simply by being discovered to be vegan, it can be enough to close down our social acceptability.  We aren't included because of our 'funny ideas about food'.

This is often the testing point, when we might have to face being alone, having to do without others’ approval, especially if it interferes with our being proactive as Animal Rights advocates.

To NOT need the approval of our friends over this one matter might seem a bit cavalier, but it is also a sign of thinking for oneself.  And this in turn signals a strength of conviction that is largely coming from within.

Animal Rights (which is really about being non-violent) is a great cause and shouldn’t be weakened by our personal need for outside guidance and encouragement.  Our conviction must comes from knowing that we are, unlike many of our friends and family, in a position of ethical safety, and that should be enough to compensate us for what might be the loss of others’ regard for us.

Motivation

1308: 

If you’re the sort of vegan who doesn’t particularly want to speak out, but just wants to be accepted for your views, then that’s fine.  But there are others of us who are the sorts of vegans who want to educate the ubiquitous omnivore, and who want others to recognise us for what we stand for.  And to our everlasting frustrations, that is one hard ask.  Usually people’s reactions to veganism are neither logical nor kind, nor for that matter particularly unkind. We’re as much up against indifference as hostility.  We often get the impression that people want to be left alone, when they say, “What’s important for you is not important for me”.

On some level we must accept that.  For them this whole subject is not worth talking about or responding to.  This might be irritating to any vegan who sees this subject as vitally and universally important; but the fact is that what is so future-making for us is, for others it's not even worth noticing.

So, if amongst our contemporaries there’s no kudos in our being vegan, how do we stop the frustration or rather, where do we find encouragement?  Perhaps from within, from acknowledging that the rest of the world hasn’t yet seen what we’ve seen, and that the real catastrophe of our age is simply a crisis of unimaginativeness.

There’s no point getting angry about it.  If encouragement isn’t forthcoming from others, that won’t deter us from remaining vegan, because we know something of the truth of things, which others simply don’t know or can’t see; nor do they project the consequences of their not seeing.  As vegans, we know that we aren’t dependent on encouragement to stay vegan.  Nor do we say what the omnivores say - “If others eat animals so can I eat animals.  If others don’t question it neither do I need to”.

Vegans know that without some robust, solo, inner questioning, things will stay the same.  If we lead the way, we can only expect to keep hitting a few crisis points in our own motivation, since it goes with the territory.

Weighing interest and indifference

1307: 

Why would I even care if you disagree, if you're indifferent?  Perhaps we all want our values confirmed by others, and when they aren't confirmed or they're disagreed with, then we worry that self-doubt might creep in.  So, value-judging is a natural tendency - if I judge that they are wrong then I am more likely to be right.

But this is the main cause of separation. And that separation holds back any constructive interchange, neither party learning anything new because neither will allow themselves to be undermined or shown to be wrong or seem not to have thought things through deeply enough.

This animal subject is so important, that if we allow our personal agendas to get in the way, we'll soon enough not be discussing the issues but our own 'right-ness'.  So, to prevent this from happening, to avoid this trap, surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values at all.  If you do, it will show in your face or your voice.  Talking Animal Rights is the art of keeping emotions in neutral, keeping ego out of it, resisting the temptation to be always-right, stopping ourselves becoming antagonistic.  This is why a grounding in non-violence is useful, especially when we inadvertently touch a raw nerve in the other.  Or when it comes the other way around, and we have to not appear too hypersensitive.  Communications in this field are fraught with dangers.

         

I remember conversations on meat-eating being a good opportunity to get my point across, so when I rattled my meat-eating friends, deciding to go for broke, I was showing them I wasn't scared by getting into the rough stuff.  But what started out as a robust discussion often turned into a fight.  And then I was risking friendship itself.

I've since found that by taking this route I never win arguments and usually damage friendship.   And then one must question whether forcing the issue (of Animal Rights) is more important than staying on friendly terms.  Or this question: Am I really being true to my role as an animal advocate, by rigorously defending the undefended, when I know this approach is doomed to failure?  Or this question: Where a non-violence policy is made obvious, it will impress and can even win over the most hostile adversary?  I've come to the conclusion that we must first set the example of showing and expecting mutual respect.

The more sensitive the subject, the more one can show that humility can go a long way.  By letting my feelings remain undeclared it's more likely that I won't get sucked into fighting.

Running through all this careful approach is yet another reality - being honest about having strong views that must be made clear.  Why pretend otherwise?  And, why should strenuously defending an important position have to go pear-shaped anyway?  Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, serves to break down a few barriers and a few stale attitudes?  Surely a frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if does feel uncomfortable?

         

This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even between close friends.  A vulcanologist never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it happens.  Similarly, in my experience, I 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’ completely.  We must never forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals down on Auschwitz Farm.  Surely our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to their suffering.  And surely, if we feel strongly about this, the passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage?  Shouldn't I risk moving away from being Mr Nice Guy?

         

But this is all to do with perception.  I think passionate advocacy can coexist with non-violence and that our non-violent side is robust and can be put to the test, for if there IS interest in what we say, it’s like having an invitation to speak freely.  And, when speaking freely we can always pull back.  We can moderate what we say according to others’ feelings.  We might need to promise ourselves to never try gate crashing.

Force

1306:

If veganism were to be just about diet and health and a cruelty-free lifestyle we'd be selling it short.  I think it lubricates the ‘fixed-idea’ and makes the whole subject more fluid; it encourages us to  think about things-unfamiliar.  It gives us a context in which to question our confidence to try something without necessarily committing to it.  You start to cook vegan food to see if you like it, to see if you can handle it for a whole week, and then longer.  And the 'handling' runs simultaneously with learning new tricks with plant-based foods.

But, unfortunately, it brings to the surface fears and feelings of resistance.  Free-will and self discipline are tested.  It’s likely we won’t see both sides of this new 'vegan diet' dispassionately - both the advantage-side and the down-side, together.

         

If I’m wanting to be a good spokesperson for vegan principle, I want to be as honest as I possibly can.  I don’t want to give a false impression that ‘going vegan’ is easy.  In fact, my interest is in simply stimulating original thinking, and wanting to help others think for themselves.  I want to encourage people to risk a little, trial a little, and then come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions.

What I want to avoid is making anyone feel guilty or getting them to change out of fear.  Unless I can ignite some latent passion, I’d be better off not getting involved.  The crude approach would be to get aggressive about it, making it seem like an ambush.  But the even cruder approach would be the subtle pitch, looking you straight in the eye, raising my eyebrow just a little, whilst informing you that “I’m vegan”, implying that you should be one too. 

In a nutshell, the biggest thing I always want to avoid is to give a morally superior impression of myself, so that everything I say is loaded with disapproval and value-judgement.  How can anyone respond positively when cornered like this?

So, before I open my mouth I need to unravel a lot of my own attitude.  If I’m hoping that others will confidently try out what I’m suggesting, then I too must be confident of my own motives as the unsolicited ‘advisor’.  If I’m clear about that, then I can start to talk productively about this subject, about the use of animals.

         

Just because I think I’m right doesn’t mean my approach is right.  And if I think I am 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.  In fact, it’s even more likely to be irritating.  If I like to see myself as radical and outspoken, and expect that to be seen as brave and admirable, I might be wrong.  It’s likely that what I’m saying and the way I’m saying it will have to be disagreed with, if only to save face.  And one more thing, when I try to make people feel ashamed, they're likely to remember that and avoid me in the future.  When I'm with you, every time I imply that I think I’m right, it reminds you that I’m boasting about my achievements.  I’m duly regarded as a bore, especially if I compound things by showing no interest in what you are saying.  When I grab all the airspace, it’s noticed. As soon as I start ‘going-on’ about my own eating habits in relation to meat-eating and animal cruelty, it turns into one big yawn.  You’ll want to stop me.  And if I won’t stop, there’ll be a fight.

To avoid this happening, I have to pre-empt such a situation - I have to ask myself some leading questions.  Like: Was this always just going to be a casual chat about anything that came up spontaneously, or did I have a hidden agenda?  Was I manipulating the whole conversation? Was I trying to make a speech?  Was I ever concerned how you'd feel if I confronted you?  Did I expect you to passively listen to me?  Did I want to bring on a fight?

         

If it was always going to be a show-down, you would never have been be interested in my arguments, you’d only ever have been interested in bursting my bubble.  Even if I'm not a bully, even if I’m as nice as pie, this subject (ethics, animals, animal food, farms, slaughtering) is not a lightweight subject.  It bears down upon one’s deepest, most profound outlooks-on-life.  In a nutshell, it points to how kind-hearted we are.

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.  If I come along and suggest that meat eaters are not kind people, or not that kind of person, then my words will sound like a personal attack.  In my own head, I’m so busy crafting my arguments that I can only see one thing – that if my arguments are good then surely you MUST agree.

         

But no, you aren’t going to give way that easily.  You’re not going to casually pick up this ‘good’ idea just because I’ve hit you over the head with it.  You know you have to stand up for yourself and stand firm against anyone who attacks you.

I can converse, I can argue, I can debate our case patiently.  But I might not have your express permission to continue what I’m saying.  And if I don't pick this up, then I'll be watching for all the wrong signals.  I might see no connection happening between us.  I might notice your eyes drifting off my face, as if your mind is wandering.  I might sense that you’re beginning to feel negatively about me (just for going on too far with this subject).  It’s unlikely you’ve asked me to go on, to say whatever I feel like.  It’s more likely the subject has arisen only for it to be touched on lightly.  When I change the dynamics of the conversation, by talking too much, it’s like overstaying my welcome.  And when it's obvious that I haven't picked up your hints, you might start to panic.

         

If I do get to discuss this subject seriously, with you joining in and giving your opinion, it’s likely we'll establish that there are major differences of opinion between us.  And if things do get heated, what happens then?  Do I then try to ‘bring it on’?  Or do I take steps to prevent it getting out of hand?

Almost any discussion of this difficult subject is never just academic, because each party holds the opinion which is daily being put into practice.  For the vegan, this is a true test of how non-violent we are, how respectful of others we are.  When I get involved in such a discussion, I have to ask myself how important it is to stop myself before I stray into 'the personal', or even start to 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.

         

So, where does it come from, my determination to say my piece, even to provoke someone in order to get a reaction?  Why, when things aren’t going my way, will I continue to be confronting?  Or if the shoe is on the other foot and it’s me being confronted, how does that make me feel?  How do I handle it?  Do I try to rescue the ‘vibe’.  Do I really value our mutual good feeling?  Do I try to defuse things when I sense things getting out of hand?  All these questions come up. 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? 

An uncomfortable position to find yourself in

1305: 

Why would anyone join up with an Animal Rights movement? To save the animals perhaps? Or is there another reason, like peace of mind? If that’s the case, then perhaps I’m in it just as much for my own sake as for the sake of some anonymous animals for whom, individually, I can’t feel anything since they aren’t known to me. Perhaps I just don’t want to be weighed down by other people’s mistakes, and want to draw away from them. But I also don’t want to feel separate from anyone either.

We are all much the same under the skin but just at different levels of awareness. I’m fairly sure that our greatest differences are superficial and can be brought closer together when we start to discuss matters in terms of what is important and what is not?

Perhaps I’m wrong about that, perhaps there are more people than I think who have submitted to the industrial machine, for baser more selfish reasons.

If that is the case, then there's a big difference between people, when one person eats meat and thinks nothing of it and the other would sooner die than touch the stuff. But is it so big a difference? Here are two extremes of view with two different justifications or reasonings behind them. One will say this: "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 I am a meat eater then what is done to animals on factory farms is a problem which I must be able to put out of my mind. It has to be a an ‘unimportant matter’ and I mustn’t give it a second thought".

At the opposite extreme we have someone like a vegan who might say this: "I can’t eat anything from an animal because I need to develop a sensitive conscience, and I suspect I'm in the greatest of dangers, in that my mind has been manipulated by vested interests. I’m seeking a more independent mind. I fear blind conformity and am very suspicious of my fellow humans because of what they are capable of, by picking on the weakest sentient beings and taken advantage of their weakness".

These are two very different approaches. Their opposites represent the very position which makes us feel most uncomfortable.  The meat eater, however, is both dangerous to the animals and to themself. Their view presumes a lack of self control over one’s circumstances, and therefore an inability to tackle important matters, so much so that they prefer to see them as ‘unimportant matters’. The danger is in the self-convincing, and their preferring just to live with the problem. They would say that veganism is too high a price to pay for peace of mind. And, having arrived there, they must go on to complete the cave-in, by not even considering it or discussing it. They refuse to take the matter seriously.

         

This refusal-to-consider seems illogical, although it’s just defensiveness. I always knew this subject was very controversial but, at first, I didn’t realise that it was quite unlike any other controversy, like a political difference of opinion or one concerning religion. This one was more like stepping into the dangerous waters of discussing a 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, for fear of being made to look either illogical, afraid or stupid. Instinctively, omnivores are afraid of discussing it, whereas, of course, vegans want nothing better than 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-such-a-good-idea’ when the other person really doesn’t want to hear about it. ‘Veganism’ is one subject that can even turn our friends unfriendly. The good idea might seem so straight forward at first but it trails behind it long and complicated tentacles that tangle and frighten people.

Early approach, later superseded

1304: 

Once upon a time, my approach to animal abuse was to confront it directly.  It was the only way I knew that might have a chance of working.  I was protesting with all the outrage I could muster, against violence to animals.  And not surprisingly, no one seemed to want to talk about it. It was very frustrating.  I could be quite aggressive towards non-vegans. I was almost proud to act without restraint, 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 acting outrageously.  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; their spending and Animal Industry-sponsoring habits.  They may have caught our dirty looks but they haven’t got any from anyone else, so they haven’t felt the urge or the responsibility to change their daily habits.  In other words, the collective conscience hasn’t been tweaked.

         

This is what I think has happened – the Omnivore has experienced an animal activist talking passionately about animal cruelty but, because of the personal tone in the voice, hasn't been able to listen appreciatively or identify with them.  On an emotional level people don’t want to know the sort of person who can be ‘that angry’, so we activists virtually force them to want to disagree with our arguments.  It’s like listening to great music on a radio that's picking up a lot of static interference - it’s an uncomfortable experience, it jars the nerves, and you just want it to stop.

         

Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, we’ve 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 my chances of being able to discuss important issues, concerning animals.  I’ve been unapproachable, giving them no chance to have a low key, informative chat with me.  I’ve seemed like a person who is only interested in others when they agree with me.  When this sort of animal advocate is around there’s little chance for you to consider things, let alone form your own opinion.

         

In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to plain old education.  As a spokesperson-for-the-cause, I could look like exactly the wrong person to be speaking, especially when my arguments were at their most powerful.  Perhaps I needed to believe that the story-of-animals would, of its own accord, touch the hearts of people.  Perhaps I didn’t have enough faith in the attractive advantages of becoming vegan, nor that Animal Rights was an exciting enough prospect in itself.  My message might have sounded hard and uncompromising, and have been off-putting enough for you to consign it to the back burner or the too-hard-basket.

         

These days my passion is for promoting non-violence alongside a concern for animals (mainly those that are eaten).  I think I’m attempting to look ahead, to the fortunes of these animals and we humans being inextricably linked - we simply being the protectors of them.

         

Humans have always been violent and exploitative towards animals and now the time has come for us to atone for that, and to 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 it's humans who need to break out of their imprisoned attitudes-of-mind. We need to change not the animals.  It's up to us to 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 this isn’t the way most of us want to see ourselves.  We surely want to see the humanitarian side of us shine.  But, in order for that to happen, we first need to revise our attitude towards animals.  We may start that process by not using them, or keeping them, or killing them, or eating them.

Until at least 50% of the human population of the planet realises there’s an animal problem, the animal problem will remain.  And that will lock us into remaining a barbaric species.  We may eventually get the worst abuses fixed, we may swing over to becoming vegetarians but that will still be a long way from true liberation, either for animals or for us.

         

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, for until I can be sure of that, I’ll always be held back by my own species’ reputation for violence.

         

Fifty billion domesticated farm animals, who are alive today, are presently on death row.  None of them have any quality of life.  None have a reason to live.  None have any contact with the natural world.  It makes sense to me that our own happiness is linked to wanting others to be happy too, whether they be humans or animals.

Self Esteem

1303: 

There’s no need to hold back on the many personal and practical implications of being vegan. It’s a move away from a security one has always known, and a move on to something we might not be quite so sure about. Even if we are convinced that the food side of things is safe, a plant-based diet isn't a particularly comfortable thought, but we still have to deal with other discomforts. Most of us know our comfort threshold. So, it isn’t just about food but about clothing, social interactions and, most importantly, self esteem. It’s this matter of one’s estimation of the self that causes such a stir inside us.

It can be deeply eroded by guilt, by being involved in something we really do disapprove of.  If we were to weigh our options, it would come down to what value we place on either having a clear conscience or doing something that brings us comfort but has with it all the worry of a guilty conscience. I'm not keen to bring up this matter of guilt but it is a factor, especially when it's self generated. It’s something people can’t help feeling when they know they've given their support and encouragement to those who do things which they themselves would never do.

Take for example the custom we give those who pollute the environment on an industrial scale. They brew toxic chemicals to produce packaging which we all use. We can’t avoid it. So we do what we can, by recycling it. Or we try to buy ‘green’ where possible. Or when thinking of our carbon footprint, for instance, we try to conserve energy. On the environmental front, there’s not a lot more we can do. But when it comes to the big damage to our self esteem and a major inducer of guilt, we find it in abundance when it touches our involvement in animal cruelty. Our lives are very often deeply involved in this ugly business. If it causes problems for us, then there's a lot we can do. There’s a lot of guilt generated where exploiting of animals is concerned, and alleviating that guilt is something anyone can do, if they really want to.       

By gradually raising awareness of each guilty habit we have, and seeing how changing that habit can affect the planet, and our own and other’s lives, we can repair things incrementally. The point is, that wherever a greater repair CAN be made, why wouldn't we do everything possible to reduce that sense of guilt that's gnawing away at us?

It seems that gestures are all the rage. By recycling and using environmentally friendly products we make an all-important gesture, but it’s often not much more than that. However, when it comes to the big guilt-makers, like the ethical issues concerning cruelty to animals, there’s a chance to make a much more than a gesture. The logical response to animal issues is to disassociate ourselves from it as far as we can, if only to reduce our own guilt about it all.

All I would say is that to totally ignore animal issues means we are producing unnecessary quantities of guilt for ourselves. Any amount of recycling won’t neutralise any of the guilt associated with our use-of-animals, for it’s so avoidable. But it’s likely that almost everyone is so afraid of addressing this subject because of the huge investment it will involve us in. We say to ourselves, "Better to lose out on self-esteem and suffer the discomfort of guilt than face such a level of self denial".

If you know any ‘enlightened people’, try asking them what they eat. You’re likely to see a lot of guilt disguised as obfuscation and dissembling.

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.  And here I was adding fuel to the fire.

By having an even deeper guiding principle, the code of logic and it’s demand for honest response, we can conduct ourselves with dignity. We don’t have to be burdened by guilt. We don’t have to slip into mildness or passivity either. We just need to practise dignified outrage, and then follow that through to its logical end. 

Can One Be Too Pushy About Animal Rights?

1302: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

A lot of the information we come across that helps form our views about animals, is often information which is difficult to handle, indigestible even.  We usually 'tell it as it is' and back this up with facts based on hard evidence.  But however careful we are in the telling of our unattractive stories, some of the negativity invariably rubs off,  making us seem unattractive too.  So the bottom line is that we need to be approachable but not too pushy.  Ultimately, we should try to be likeable.  But in so doing, it's probable that we'll settle for a compromise about how we truly feel.  This is why many of us think we ought to go to extremes to spell out the ideal in order to at least represent how things should be.  There are too many so-called 'animal advocates' who are representing a compromised position when it comes to animal use.  The vegan abolitionist advocate, in representing the most radical position of 'no-use-of-animals', is appealing to the highest and most generous aspects of the human spirit.  Involve yourself with animals but don't use them!  

Our arguments for the 'non-use-of-animals' shouldn't be mixed-up with just 'improving animal welfare'. Welfarists accept that animals may be enslaved for human use, but that their slavery should be as comfortable as possible and their killing as painless as possible.  The Abolitionists' aim, on the other hand, is to promote their entire freedom from human interference in their lives, unless it is to safeguard them from danger.  Our aim is to show all animals as irreplaceable, sovereign individuals, who simply need our help in liberating them.

If animals are to be released from slavery, it will only come about if we think of them as we would an abused child.  Their prime need is for permanent safety.  What do domesticated animals need now?  Initially, they need to be released into a safe environment where they're no longer 'farmed'.  Abolitionists have this vision because of their empathy towards animals.  If you don't feel that empathy, you won't be moved by the plight of farm animals.  You'll only see their usefulness and want the taste of them on your dinner plate.  This is the wall we Abolitionist Vegans are up against all the time.  In practical terms, the idea of empathy is usually modified by how radical or inconvenient such ideas seem.  An Abolitionist Vegan's idea of empathy is usually seen as taking things too far by most omnivores. 
Omnivores might insist that they're comfortable being the way they are.   But, by the same token, they're probably also aware that another stage of sensitivity could be reached and they may be tempted towards developing it.   However, this means a lot of re-prioritising and a great deal of lifestyle alteration.  In fact, it requires a shift of emphasis from 'self' to 'other' in relation to one of the most precious joys in life - food!  It requires shifting the personal satisfaction of appetite to the experience of empathy - for animals.  And this would probably mean that the attraction of developing greater sensitivity is subsumed by one's appetite for eating 'animal'.

If one isn't ready to make this particular shift, then one's omnivorousness has to be rigorously justified.  And the best way to do that is to denigrate the chief proponent, namely the vegan.  For this reason, vegans have to be careful not to seem too righteous.  We shouldn't harangue people, or try to trap them into agreeing with us.
If we simply 'hit people over the head' with our Vegan Abolitionist/Animal Rights arguments, it's likely all we will achieve is negativity.  They'll just want us to shut up (even if they did want to agree with us).  We might think we've convinced someone, only to find they soon enough slip back to old habits after we've left.  


So perhaps our main job is to 'attract'.  Present something that could be wanted for itself without using threat, fear or guilt.  One thing's for sure - people aren’t stupid!  They calculate the odds, they value their life, their safety, their lifestyle, their social life with friends.  They weigh it all up when making major decisions.  They value eating together and don't want to do anything that might bring them any sort of social exclusion.  It's all a balance between being an individual, but not too much so.   Which is why becoming vegan is such a big step in anyone's life.  And vegans have to bear that in mind when approaching the delicate matter of making such a radical change of lifestyle.

Optimism

1301:

In order for my own altruism to work, I need optimism, so that I can say, “So what if all this damage has been done, it can be fixed”.  Optimism ‘ups’ the energy, which in turn ups my own chances of moving on - if I feel as though I’m heading towards something worth reaching, it won’t be because it’s right but because it’s the most meaningful thing I could be doing for myself.  My optimism kicks in to suggest that my moving-on will be ultimately satisfying.  

‘Satisfaction’ and ‘meaning’ are the big drivers.  As soon as I think I’m making a difference (in this case, that no animals are going to be killed on my behalf) I've taken a compassionate step in the right direction.  And if that makes me happier about myself, it motivates me to go on to help others take the same step.  But the reason I'd want to do that is because the general consensus needs tweaking, so that the majority view comes closer to wanting animals to be liberated.

Once I can clean up my own act at home (establish a vegan kitchen for a start) I can turn my attention to others.  But not to become the evangelist.  How ridiculous would that be?  Climbing the pulpit, telling others what sinners they are and how I’ve seen the light, etc?  That makes me a great figure of fun, and exactly what others might WANT to see me as.  Instead, it is for the optimist to suggest realistic and practical ways to move towards a future that's attractive and sustainable.  It's easy enough to ignore an evangelist, but far harder to ignore someone with some interesting, if challenging, life-recipes.  It's difficult not to like someone who is likeable, even if you aren't in complete agreement with them.

So the aim is to be direct, to be self-effacing, but to be clear about where one is coming from.  Out of that comes the confidence to communicate (naturally, to talk about animals, food, abattoirs, etc.) and share information, in order to help build a strong support base for animal liberation.  But it is to colour it with a balance of passion and compassion.  I know it's not enough to simply pass on information, since everyone today is saturated with information.  And there’s so much misinformation in circulation too.  If I have anything sensible to say, then my ideas should be based on facts which are informed and truthful but which can easily be checked.

Time to bite the bullet

1300:

It's decision time.  I say to myself, "Okay, I think I need to take a bold step".  I hope you'll see things my way and come along too.  Then I hesitate.  What if you don’t come along?  What if I have to do this all on my own?  I'll be left like a shag on a rock.  I'll start to feel let down by you, and by others.  Resentment will creep in.  I'm doing it hard, you're taking the easy way out.  If I could ever get past that feeling it would be a miracle.

But the miracle is really just a switch of approach.  If we can enjoying the process of change, in and of itself, if we can make it a satisfying process, then perhaps none of the 'effort' will matter.  It would be part of a creative process, creating a new reality for oneself and trying to keep it going while it still feels unusual.  Once our bold step is no longer hard work, we don't need to manufacture motivation.  Perhaps the trick is not to keep looking around to see what others are doing, or expecting their approval, or expect them to come along too.

         

It's probably more fulfilling to 'go it alone', to make personal repairs and to actually enjoy the 'work' of it all.  By deciding to become vegan, we can certainly improve our health and energy, and that in itself is a huge reward for our efforts, but the bigger bonus is something to do with self-regard.  Undeniably, by making that one decision for our self, we're helping animals get off death row.  Even though this might seem like such a small contribution, it's something that ends up being ultimately satisfying, and one must believe useful for the eventual liberation of animals.

When we get to thinking about our own self-development, our first thoughts of making such a radical ‘repair’ as becoming vegan might seem like a struggle.  But as soon we start the repair, we go into a creative mode, we become a different sort of person, just by that one move.  The satisfaction comes with doing something caring, and empathetic.  It feels as if we're doing something big for ourselves, and something for the greater good.  It might start out as all self-discipline but gradually becomes a new type of enjoyment.  Ask any athlete how it works - keeping fit by training, putting in the time and effort, and finally seeing it starting to work.  I suspect all forms of self-development work in the same way - we end up proud of our efforts, better body and mind, and we see things with a more intelligent attitude

         

Working for the ‘greater good’ might sound a bit grim until we begin to enjoy the rewards of our efforts - selflessness is probably less about the glow-of-being-good and is more about an overall self-benefit.  That sounds like a contradiction, until we recognise that what we want for others is what we want for ourselves.  Or, put the other way around, what we do for ourselves can ALSO be of benefit to others.  This is neither me-centred nor you-centred but merely a balance of both interests at the same time.  It’s surely the most intelligent way of organising our life.  And if you've tumbled to this realisation, why expect anyone else to have done so?  We don't need anyone else to hold our hand or assure us we're going in the right direction.  Once you've done a few of the hard yards it becomes almost too obvious to mention.  But old habits die hard and we expect any changes we make to blossom overnight.  We might have to get used to the idea that any rewards won't necessarily appear straight away.

Our most dangerous human habit

1299: 

Everything the human race has so far achieved has grown out of ‘ideas’.  They've fallen into the heads of a few inventors, exploded into their imaginations and then been implemented, to see if they work.  Sometimes they really do work and it's all benefit to us. Sometimes ideas work for a while but end up doing more harm than good.  Then, in theory, we can see the error of our ways and then we can fix things.

But who is this ‘we’?  I might be able to fix some of the worst faults on my own account but if we're talking about the collective, then it’s far more difficult to bring about repair to bring about a global trend.  If I think cars are damaging I can refuse to own one, but that doesn't solve the runaway problem of cars.  Humans are now so familiar with certain dangerous habits that we hardly notice the danger of them.  If I scream about them it won’t help restore things.  I will still have to live with the damage cars do even if I don't own one.  Whatever we, as individuals do, we can't bring anyone else, let alone everyone else, to a state of sanity and health.

How then can any one of us be useful by effectively helping change things for the better?  This is perhaps one of the most leading questions any one of us asks ourselves.  We see damage and want to help put things right.  We come up with ideas to add this or subtract that, but if we have a good idea it has a long way to go, to be taken up by the majority of people.  It's easier for an attractive technology to gain traction, far less easy for a philosophical idea to bite.

The inventors of the motor car could never have envisaged the negative effects their cars would have on the world.  A hundred years ago, the internal combustion engine was such an asset but, a century down the track, it could be described as a malevolent force, a major contributor to the death of our planet.  But the bigger problem concerns another more worrying reality.  None of us, individually, is going to give up our car.  And there are plenty of other equally deadly problems to choose from, each one contesting for first place on the planet-killing list.

With a combination of these ‘out-of-control’ problems making our future looks grim, it’s all the more depressing to know that most of us, individually, are still cranking up the machine by our own daily habits.  As individuals, we are still too obstinate or too impotent or too selfish to change.  "I'm reluctant to take the lead when you won’t join me".

We don’t act together.  We don't respond collectively to some very clear warnings being issued.  We listen, yes, and we worry.  But we don’t see how acting alone will be anything other than self-sacrificing.  Sell the car, give up meat, reduce our electricity needs - very brave, very noble, but will what I do make any difference?  If I act alone, will it eventually make me feel resentful?  And I don’t want to make my life any more uncomfortable than it already is.  I know it sounds selfish, but I'm waiting for you to change first, and preferably lots of others to change too.  After that, I intend to follow suit! I follow fashions, I don’t lead them.

Perhaps this sort of waiting-game has become our most dangerous habit?