Thinking about it

1468:

Perhaps there are two basic approaches amongst animal activists/advocates, there are those who show the worst treatment of farmed animals, to jolt people into action (stop eating and wearing animals), and those who appeal to the thinking consumers who are already opening up to their own sense of compassion and health.  The first group, the rescuers who show their video footage made at a factory farm, are the shock troops.  The other type of activist aims at those who are somewhat already touched by what they’ve seen but who are capable of letting the horror-images fade.  For a less powerful but perhaps more lasting effect, the second activist group uses words to get across details, to explain why things happen to animals and the rationales used to keep the system going.  And of course, this is where words, rather than high impact images, explain the chain of events linking the economic pressures that drive the farmers to do what they do and the customer to buy what they buy.

There are many different ways to communicate the situation to people who are largely reluctant to listen.  We might use video footage, still pictures, words and face-to-face talk.  But on this subject, there’s a lot of information to be passed across.  Consequently, the information easily becomes too heavy to digest.  So, as communicators, we need to avoid the temptation to say too much, too soon or with too much emotional punch.  We mustn’t lose our reputation as information providers.  If we ever preach, it’s a big turn-off, and if we bore people they’ll simply turn off even quicker.

The aim of the exercise is not to convert anyway.  We don’t want people to simply agree with us.  We want them to think and ask questions.  As speakers, we don’t want passive acceptance, nor does the Animal Rights movement want tame followers.  The greatest need is for people to find out what they need to know and then use their powers of imagination to see how things could be.  And that might include many issues, including animal liberation, environmentalism and caring for impoverished people.

But we all need to know which issue will most effectively spark other issues, and it’s probable that the world will find a very great benefit when human eating habits change, from omnivorous to herbivorous. There will be fewer forests being cleared for pasture for grazing animals, more trees to combat climate change, less fodder grown for animal feed and thus more plant food for feeding people - the planet benefits, starvation eases, the animals are reprieved from slavery, and human health improves.

Perhaps the main reason a vegan diet is still regarded as a threat is because it touches on so many interrelated attitudes, and for many people that might seem rather too overwhelming.  Which means that our job is to show how it needn’t be the case; we need to be able to show how changes will merge normally into our daily life and how putting an effort in will reap rich rewards.