Advocating nutrition, for a start

1716: 

The blog is on holiday till July 1st. Postings therefore intermittent

The starting point to non-violence is in not attacking animals. It's all unnecessary since plant-sourced food gives us optimal energy, so there's no reason to kill animals. The Animal Industry needn't exist; the consumer needn't demand meat and milk. But how does it happen, what is the trigger for change? Perhaps non-violence has to become attractive, and for that both vegan arguments and vegan approach must be entirely non-violent.  In keeping with our harmlessness principles, vegans need to advocate in a non-violent manner, without using fear or force. There’s no better way for people to identify with us, than by finding our 'persuasions' helpful and non pontificating.

If we are to put a credible case forward, for switching over to a plant diet, our persuasions need to be comprehensive and attractive. The foods we’re advocating need to be tasty and junk-less. Above all, as advocates, we should come across as fair minded - as much listening and learning as preaching and sermonising, and all to show we’re looking out for people as much as for animals; being as concerned for the safety of human health as for the ethical treatment of animals.

Whatever we might say about ethics and compassion, we can't afford to lose sight of the importance of nutrition. It's the key to so many things, and it's the deciding factor too when considering a change to vegan food. Will it be safe? Is vegan principle and a vegan boycott good for our health. This is both a selfish and a self-centred concern. Understandably no one wants to put their own lives at risk. As well, most people will stick to what they know; they’ll follow scientific advice about food. Perhaps they'll cut down here and there but won't readily give up eating the foods they love to eat.

People will latch onto any argument persuading them NOT to change too radically.  One is that animal protein has a complete combination of all amino acids, whereas vegetable protein has to be more carefully balanced in the diet. For vegans, there might be a lack of Vitamin B_12. So it has to be supplemented. But otherwise, by eating whole foods, there are no other health concerns. And no amount of vegetable protein will harm us, but be ultimately nutritious. Whereas the same can’t be said of animal protein.

With so much attractive animal-based foods on the market, people are indulging in them. Consequently there’s a danger of over-eating which is associated with high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. Because animal-based diets are high in saturated fats and salt and low in fibre, people who follow them are doubly at risk. The use of foods in animal-based diets is the cause of fear for middle-aged to old-aged people. After many decades of eating rich foods, the fear of life-threatening illness looms large.

Maybe we vegans have to exercise some small amount of care over our diet, but that’s a small price to pay compared to the dangers associated with a typical omnivorous diet.

THE BLOG IS GOING ON HOLIDAY TILL JULY 1ST.

INTERMITTENT POSTINGS.

Hypersensitivity

1715: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

We usually know what people are into by what they want to talk about. If they like football and you dislike football, try not to mention the sport unless you want a blow-by-blow description of the last game played! It's the same with charity workers. If you volunteer your time to sponsor some worthy charitable cause, you'll probably want others to know about it. Even using subtle overtones, your generosity usually shines through. We like to boast about the work we're most proud of.

People involved with great causes are lucky if they find people to talk to about 'it'. But with 'Animal Rights' and 'Veganism' that sort of luck is almost non-existent - especially amongst 'olds'. For me, it's unlikely I'll find anyone raising this guilt-laden subject with a 'known vegan'. They know the danger. They know that ethical vegans know just how to make non-vegans feel uncomfortable! 

Vegans are usually passionate and enthusiastic talkers on the subject. But even if we only say half of what we could say, it's usually too much. We must hold back, if only to counter the unfortunate reputation vegans have - that we find it difficult to 'zip our lip'.  Vegans often feel like exploding with frustration, so we go on the attack. Ultimately though, we know it does no good.

It's very difficult to deliver our incontestable reasons for being vegan - not because we're confused about them, but because no one is asking!  Nor are they asking why animals need to be liberated, etc., etc. When an enthusiastic vegan starts to talk about this subject, you can hear the groans. If we are asked to say something, we need to be quick - usually much quicker than we'd like to be. We have to say whatever we have to say with patience, respect and non-boringness (in that order). One single fact about animal husbandry might be enough to digest at one sitting. If there's a genuine question being asked, then a throwaway line might be all that's needed. The value of what we say is in its power to act as a catalyst. In the end, however, Going Vegan is a very private matter and one's 'status' is one's own business.

Discussing Animal Rights in depth with omnivores is just not going to happen! Not a proper discussion anyway. We must be brief with our opinions if we want to gain peoples' trust and have them reform their opinion of ethical vegans. No diatribes, sermons or lectures. This subject is far more sensitive than any other subject on earth. Most people know what's going on, but they don't do much thinking-for-themselves, content to draw their strength from Normality. Their confidence comes from their safety-in-numbers. We are talking to those who are hypersensitive to personal criticism, especially regarding animal farming and animal eating. They're on the defensive. We might never attack them directly, but for the average omnivore we're no less dangerous for that. We set the standard because we know that communication channels wither fastest at the first hint of getting personal. And we can so easily make this look personal!

It's rather like a parent trying not to be destructively authoritative with their teenage son or daughter. They are trying to establish a safe channel for discussing any subject without closing down or inhibiting the young person wishing to talk through their thoughts. And it's especially important for them to be able to trust that the parent won't embarrass or stamp on them.


It's this sort of careful handling of our subject that we're considering here. We have a job of tending huge numbers who still can't imagine what it's like being 'Vegan'. These are the ones most hypersensitive to our comments about diets and food and attitudes to animal use.

Meat versus Evolution

1714: 

By clearing our own conscience (on a safe vegan diet) by using plant-based foods, our eating habits lead to health, pleasure and survival. It has been shown that humans have no reason to keep and kill animals for food, other than for the fun of killing them or for reasons of convenience. For the first time in history we can say that all animal farming is unnecessary, especially because it's unethical. Without having to feed ‘food’ animals, our fertile lands could produce crops for humans, and deforested lands could be returned to tree cover. In addition, the methane produced by ruminants would be eliminated and waterways no longer polluted by effluent run-off.

For those who’ve become vegan, there are sighs of relief. The body feels lighter, the mind sharper and the conscience clearer. But amongst people who are still locked into a ‘conventional’ diet, they are stuck on one central argument: they argue that animal protein has been used by humans since time out of mind. We are what we eat! Every advancement of the human brain is down the meat diet.

But has the human species ‘advanced’ or been ‘held back’ by this meat-fuelled brainpower? Has it achieved everything it can achieve? Or has it yet to reach its true potential? If we are proud of artistic and scientific advancements, we're also ashamed of war and violence. At least a plant-based diet would stop the violence.

The world on its meat-diet isn't making much progress where it's most needed. The writing's on the wall - violence is chaos and chaos is considered normal. If violating animals and eating them is normal, then condoning of animal cruelty is normal. Violating animals is the mirror reflection of ourselves, violating our own bodies and bringing us closer to self-destruction.

Plant-based diets make everything else possible

1713: 

Plants are not motile or considered sentient, and if humans can live solely from plants there’s no longer any need to kill animals for food or clothing. That breakthrough allows us to adopt a humane attitude to animals, a vegan diet as a vegan lifestyle.

For those who become vegan, certain opportunities and responsibilities open up. We are now able to advocate for Animal Rights, whereas before, that option was never possible; non-vegans are inevitably caught up in some sort of animal-attacking, whereas vegans aren't. This allows us to campaign for animal liberation. The Animal Rights Movement represents a great cause. It's an impressive cause that many people might like to be part of. In fact a great many people want to see the end of cages and confining pens, but very few want to see an end to all forms of animal-use, and there are even fewer intending NEVER to use animals for anything.

If someone isn’t yet vegan but is moving that way, it bodes well for them and for all of us, animals included. But for ‘non-vegans’, hardened into habits of daily animal consumption, their hands are tied. They're unwilling to give up meat and milk and all the rest. Their reasoning is based on want, not need. The taste for flesh and/or animal by-products has become the one big habit of a lifetime. It's been continuously entrenched by the ready availability of thousands of popular food products, all made with animal ingredients. The shops are full of them. At prices most people can afford. Easy availability gives rise to the attitude - we can eat or use whatever we like. And that's because we've learnt how to manipulate the environment, including 'useful' animals.

As we learn more about this whole subject of animal-use, we can't help hitting brick walls. And the only way past them is to take on a set of ethics which leads to living more harmlessly and more compassionately. And that means living without violating animals. Some say, "it's taking things a little too far".

However, for those of us who have gone that far, we can feel free to accept there's equality between sentient beings, an equality of consideration. Whether animal or human, bee, bird or fish, we are all sovereign beings, individually deserving respect. Since humans enjoy so many advantages over animals, it puts us in the best position to set a good example. Vegans hope that that is what they're doing by boycotting suspect foods. But behind the diet change is an attitude, and it needs to be based on three things: firstly that animals aren't our property to do with as we like, secondly that eating animals is unnecessary, and thirdly that animal-derived foods damage human health. 

A humane response to cold blooded killing

1712: 

I often wonder what is worse, the act of hurting animals and killing them or the unwillingness of people to acknowledge that it happens at all. If any of us saw an animal being killed, or indeed being mistreated, our first instinct would be to want to do something, to help. But since there’s nothing much we can do (these animals are always the property of someone) instead we turn away and pretend not to know. We even sometimes pretend we don’t care. We pretend there's a ‘turn-off’ switch, for instant desensitiseation. If we do want to re-sensitise, we surely have to say goodbye to the routine killing of animals - and do it by boycott, by not buying abattoir produce.

         

Whether the killing is done at the abattoir or in the back yard, or in modern clinical surroundings, there is a killing. The killing has been happening for a long time, plus enslavement, etc, at any time in the past. The moments-of-horror never change much. And perhaps the greatest for them as it is for us, the deception/betrayal/abandonment-feeling.

The innocent animal, nurtured by relatively kind humans, is now forced to meet the most ugly of dooms. The human heart’s capacity to turn. In such a cold and calculated way. From kindness to violence.  illustrates how humans have hardened, by playing a trick on the animal, lulling it into a false sense of security in order to manage it with minimum difficulty. And then to betray it at the end. The cold-heartedness of today’s animal food industry exemplifies this, and the money is afforded and spent as we move into a world where we can no longer afford to be omnivores. It's this warning some of us have taken on board. So I think we do feel as a bunch, that all this ugliness we want to put behind us.

         

What are animals? How are they different to humans? Perhaps they can’t match our brain power, but does that justify being cruel to them? Use them let alone exploit them! Most animals that are useful for food have long since been enslaved and denied any form of natural life. We justify the ending of their lives. We support the killing. And we give our support in order to meet our own 'needs'. This trumps everything else. But cunningly, it's been so utterly disproved that the conspiracy theorists' heads are often being scratched. When we say, "If we have to kill them, and keep them captive, we must. We must maximise productivity and stay in business. Movement-restriction preserves valuable expenditures of the animal's energy and growth potential. Enclosure is maximised so that their management and killing present as little problem as possible.

We, the consumer, asks if there's an ethical component here. We weigh usefulness against compassion, even when it involves cruelty. Economics rules the animal-production business. And it is a competitive business, where every cost is calculated to keep ahead of the competition. It’s a ‘dog-eat-dog’ mentality, and there’s no room for sentimentality.

         

But many today DON'T accept this. Empathy and ethics are based on the sentience of these animals. They are like us in that they have 'feelings' which show as responses - their ability to suffer and their need to escape attack is like our own. Their suffering isn't for lack of food, it's lack of everything else. On a farm or at an abattoir there’s no escape. I can only imagine that that must feel like the ultimate terror. I imagine this is at the heart of the dilemma, for those kind-hearted meat-eaters who have to accept the concept of ‘necessary’ animal suffering!

That meat and dairy ISN'T necessary (and only eaten for the pleasure of eating it) the belief that plant-based diets are dangerous has long been exploded. We are now safe to live with a clear conscience. We no longer need to hurt animals, because we no longer need to ‘use’ them. Animal products need play no part in any aspect of our lives, whatsoever!

Cruelty and temptation

1711: 

If you are an animal eater, you are an animal-cruelty supporter, whether you like it or not! If you are 'concerned', then it's a balance between personal wants and the suffering of the animals themselves. If you don’t care about the feelings of these animals then one might say that you're  not to be trusted around any animals, since you’ll always considering your own interests before theirs. Even the most beloved companion animals at home may prove this point. For many people, they are unwilling to go too far for 'the animal' - the pet, the companion. What with high vet bills - some won’t pay. They’d rather have their animal’s life brought to an early end. For their own convenience.

Perhaps it’s here that we’re most sorely tested – the animal we say we love presents us with a difficult choice, between the cost to ourselves and the ending of a life. Should we or shouldn't we? For some it’s compassion that decides. For others, the kenneling costs whilst away on holiday will convince them to have their animal put down, to be replaced by another on their return from holiday. And if this can apply to those we call ‘companion animals’, then when it comes to those animals who are used for food, their feelings are entirely beyond any sort of consideration. We  allow ourselves to feel no responsibility for what happens to them, as long as we remain blissfully ignorant of 'farm animals' living conditions or the manner of their death. For only then can we enjoy the ‘benefit’ of them. Since almost everybody eats them, there’s hardly anyone left to defend them, nor to urge an attitudinal change.

These farmed, faceless animals are so tasty to eat and a good source of protein, that surely we’d be mad not to accept Nature’s generous gift to us? Since no animal can match a human’s strength or brain power, we know there’s no danger of them fighting back. They make easy prey for us. Once captive, they become rather like food-on-tap. We control their lives and the timing of their deaths. We make full use of them, and nothing is wasted. Animals are a resource. Most people have never considered the possibility that this (traditional) using of animals is wrong.

         

Those of us who are more kindly disposed towards animals avoid all animal food. But that doesn’t mean we starve or become ill, by not eating animals or their by-products. Up until the middle of the last century, it was believed that animal protein was nutritionally essential; without meat our health would be compromised; we’d become anemic, lack physical and mental energy, and our children would sicken. By the second half of the twentieth century this belief was exploded by a few brave people who experimented, by avoiding all animal protein. They found that the human body actually thrived on the plant protein. And so it was recommended - a plant-based diet. From that point on, everything began to change for those who adopted a vegan diet, by coming to know that there's no danger to our health by not eating animal-based foods. Indeed, we were at last also realise that humans don't need animals for anything – neither for transport, clothing, entertainment or food.

As we end our dependency on animals, so we can come to regard them as sovereign, irreplaceable individuals and allow them to live out their lives without human interference. And yet, as free-willed human beings, we still have the ‘choice’. But it seems the overwhelming majority still want to make use of animals. It is still too tempting to give up.

Entropy

1710: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

The thrust towards evolution (and the energy it requires) moves in an opposite direction to entropy. To be involved in our own spiritual growth, we have to work against the force of entropy. It's much easier to be lazy, follow what others are doing, think as others think, eat what others eat. We all have material drives. We earn money to buy what producers produce and often it's so comforting to feel 'normal', that we'll choose to live life to the fullest as materialists. But if our spiritual growth is important to us, then there's work to be done and entropy to be resisted.

Let's imagine we're off on an instinctual open-ended journey with no clear end in sight. We're willing to leave our material interests behind and pursue the pull of our own unconsciouses, as yet not fully revealed. This journey will be hard work. We'll be on the move for a long time and we can't expect much that's familiar or receive outside help. The driving force will have to come from a source within ourselves. But moving requires energy - fuel. Fuel which will allow us to grow, despite the natural resistance of our own lethargy. Love! With this all-purpose fuel, we can draw from the unconscious and impel ourselves towards our own (and others') spiritual growth. I imagine that love is the distillation of ourselves-extended, the main evolutionary force that develops consciousness.

Our spiritual growth as individuals (and as a species) depends upon each of us finding a significant focus for development; something timeless and of universal importance. The focal point we choose isn't primarily for our own enlightenment or necessarily for our own benefit. It can have the double purpose of contributing to others most in need of help while at the same time giving what we do a great sense of meaning. As well, our focus would be on reforming what our fellow humans have gotten most wrong; where humans are at their laziest and where most damage has been done to the victims of that laziness - animals!

We must be conscious of animals because of all the wrongs we've done them in the past (and are still doing); the millions we've put to death for what was never essential to our survival. There is a great debt to pay and a great need for repair. Nothing better to draw us away from the entropic forces tempting us to do nothing. If we are to evolve, to grow spiritually, we need to disassociate from specific behaviours of our fellow humans, draw away from the entropic side of human nature. Only then can we start our journey-proper which involves some difficult and very honest questioning that others might not dare to do. Yet we do it for love, through love and by using love.
Our questioning is simple. Can we survive (and thrive) without using animals for food? Are we determined enough to work on ourselves? Are we convinced that love is the most effective driving force? Twenty-first century humans need spiritual growth - and that growth demands all that we can give. We need to push ourselves to high levels of consciousness, loving activity and a high sense of responsibility to counteract our own laziness and a need to stop and rest and be just like everyone else around us.

It comes down to this. We face choices between pleasure and spiritual growth. If we go for growth, then the pleasure may not be immediate or it may come in unfamiliar forms or come later, perhaps in increments. And it's not only down to love. We need to find reasons for the path we choose. If we choose to be vegan - why vegan? We need to ask specific questions; for example about cows! Why shouldn't we eat them? Why shouldn't we use their skins to shoe our feet, drink their milk and encourage their methane flatulence? It's not just about love and reasons however. It's also about the debate we never seem to have. Because such questions and answers are the stuff of debate and our spiritual growth is also a matter of listening and learning from views which don't accord with our own.


At each turn, at each point of growth, entropy can pull us back. In response, we must push on through the choosing, the working and the reasoning with a determination to continue our journey inwards, towards the fount of what we already know in our unconscious. 

The reasoning behind cruelty

1709: 

If you haven’t seen it with your own eyes, it’s hard to imagine the depths of inhumanity on animal farms and most particularly on factory farms. These places serve to illustrate how far we humans will go to secure a living by exploiting animals. It seems we’ll stop at nothing! To deprive animals of their liberty is bad enough, but to deny them any social life, and sometimes to restrict their bodily movements so they’re unable to move or even lie down, all of this constitutes major cruelty. There are millions of pigs held in iron-clad stalls, there are hens tightly packed into small cages, and other birds crammed onto the floors of sheds containing perhaps thousands of similarly imprisoned birds. These 'indoor animals' are forced to breathe fetid air, reeking of ammonia from their excreta.

It reminds you of conditions in concentration camps. Our animal farms are places of terror, where animals are subjected to constant pain and agitation every day of their lives. It’s being done this way to make them fatten faster, or more productive for longer, and all at the lowest possible cost to the farmer. These chickens, pigs, calves or fish are treated like inanimate objects, like so many cabbages in a field.

The farm operator wouldn’t consider how any animal might feel, so great is their need to achieve economic reliability - “Every competitor is cutting costs by lowering welfare standards. To stay in business, welfare must be sacrificed”.

Cold kill

1708: 

The death at any abattoir, of any sentient creature, is a long way from predator-killing-prey in the world of Nature. In the slaughter house, the animal is immobilised and made completely helpless. How it feels we’ll never know but the ugliness of the whole process is enough to make anyone feel ashamed. What we see is a dear, sweet-natured animal who has been imprisoned all of its life in slum conditions, transported under frightening conditions, arrives at a death-smelling building, encounters a lot of rough handling and is finally put to death in a cold killing. And none of this need be so;  neither the cruelty nor the killing nor the captivity. However, it is so, in every country of the world. The killing continues at the astonishing rate of 150,000 animal executions a minute, every day, all across the planet. Nowhere is there any regard for the feelings of the animals themselves.

         

Since most people benefit from animals being killed for food, no empathy is felt towards these animals, and whilst people are normally keen to obtain new knowledge, they prefer to know as little as possible when it comes to learning about the way animals are put to death. Conveniently for everyone concerned, the killing is done behind closed doors, most often by men or women who can’t find any other employment and who have to work quickly and harshly to keep up their killing quota, for fear of losing their jobs. They have to adopt a conveyor-belt mentality. Each animal passes along the line, to be killed, to make way for the next, and the next, with no one to care how either the animal or the animal-killer feels.

And yet many people these days do care. They go out of their way to show how much they care for these millions of animals, enough to work hard to establish rights to protect them.

Whatever we say about animals that are used for food, it comes down to one question - does pragmatism outweigh idealism and tender hearted feelings? Once upon a time the question was about how humanely animals were being killed. Now, because we know it’s unnecessary to eat animal products, the question is about whether we should kill animals at all?

         

There are many reasons why we shouldn’t kill or even use animals. Certainly health reasons present a powerful case, and the environmental implications of animal farming do too, but the ugliness of animal treatment on farms and in abattoirs is in a league of its own.

Killing and the thought of it

1707: 

Not many of us would have the nerve to deliberately end the life of an animal unless we were starving. Most, if not all of us, have never known starvation nor are likely to in the immediate future. So what is this mass murdering of animals all about? Why are we condoning something done by others which we could not do for ourselves? Why are we passive proxy killers?

Perhaps most people haven’t really thought about the act of killing an animal. If you don’t actually get to see the act of killing, you don’t have to think about it - perhaps it’s upon that basis that our society indulges in all this slaughter, and very few make any murmur of dissent about it. So, let’s look at the act itself.

         

We see lots of killing on TV but it’s often seen in the form of a drama; a quick bullet fired from a gun and the victim falls down dead - clean and easy. An elderly friend of mine wants to die of a heart attack – “nice and quick”, she says. Killing is bathed in euphemism; we cull the kangaroos, the faithful family dog has to be ‘put to sleep’. If we have to think of death, we like to think of it as a smooth transition. But there are terrible deaths; lingering, painful and frightening experiences. We probably all dread it for ourselves, and are therefore quite capable of empathising with an animal who is facing slaughter.

A condemned prisoner on Death Row would probably think about this a lot. But do animals premeditate their own end? Do they ever realise what fate awaits them? Certainly when the day comes and they are transported to the abattoir, they show signs of great agitation. It’s likely they can smell death which triggers their terror, even if only at the moment when they’re being restrained and positioned for execution.

         

No one gets to see the killing. We live in a sanitised world where such things aren’t even talked about. But recently, the brutal killing of cattle was shown on TV and there was a great public outcry afterwards. This was animal slaughter in its ugliest and most terrifying. It received a lot of publicity. It made a powerful impression on many people. At an Indonesian abattoir, cattle were seen being dragged to the floor, kicking and screaming, to have their throats cut, without pre-stunning! Animals Australia filmed the whole gruesome business and the National ABC TV network televised it on the popular Four Corners current affairs programme. It transpired that this was not an isolated incident but a routine practice involving hundreds of thousands of animals every year. How could anyone not feel for these beautiful Brahmin cattle and not then feel angry on their behalf?

Yet the memory of this fades quickly, and most people continue to eat meat and believe that there is such a thing as humane slaughtering. Whereas there is no such thing; torture is always evil. It's just somewhat worse torture in certain other countries.  Whether our animals are pre-stunned or not, the killing is always ugly. The cruelty shown towards farm animals is always undeserved since the animals are innocent and have no way of understanding what is happening to them. But most people have an over-ride mechanism within them which lets them enjoy eating these animals’ bodies. Perhaps people just can’t think this one through for themselves. The animal behind the meat on the plate is not thought about at all. I doubt if most people are really cold hearted bastards who realise what they're involved with but who couldn’t give a stuff.

To change attitude

1706: 

Attitude can be turned around by the sheer power of love, but that sounds too slushy for most animal activists so they go the other way, settling for second best; they try to swing attitudes around with ‘fear’. “Stop eating animals or you’ll die a terrible death” ... “vengeance will be upon you”, etc. But whether or not we use that dubious sort of encouragement, the fact remains that we, as vegans, do enjoy a certain immunity from the day-to-day fear of being brought to book by common killer diseases. If one is constantly afraid of putting on weight or clogging arteries or raising blood sugar levels or blood pressure, then one is going to be too preoccupied with personal concerns to direct much energy towards ‘the other’. Empathy will take second place and primary concern for ‘food’ animals will be displaced.

         

I wonder what is lost when we grow up? Perhaps we lose spontaneity, lose the rebel in us and concentrate too much on personal problems. Do we accumulate too much emotional clutter and in the process lose our earlier ideals? maybe it's self-obsession that prevents us from noticing the love being leached out of us, as we lose sight of some very important animal issues.

As a vegan, I do feel heartbroken for the ruined lives of farmed animals, and this more than anything drives me to want to work on their behalf. But others have their own private reasons to make a lifestyle change, which may not be driven by compassion for animals; it might be more to do with keeping their figure trim or avoiding heart disease. And that might not lead to greater compassion. And therefore such a change will never be powerful enough to inspire others to change, since it will merely seem like a sensible life choice; it won’t necessarily help to stop others using human advantage at the expense of non-humans.

         

Perhaps it seems to the omnivore that ‘not-using animals for food' is about self-denial. But that's probably not true in the majority of cases - it’s much more a step towards altruism and perhaps towards a shift in our reasoning for doing the things we do. The idea of working happily and energetically for someone other than our own self, as well as for the benefit of the less advantaged, can be deeply satisfying. Instead of the rape-and-pillage mentality of the more primitive human, many people today are taking on a more inspiring role - that of the human acting as guardian, protector and carer, where it's most needed.

         

If we humans are consciously taking part in the transformation of our species, it won’t be for our own self edification. It's for something much more profound - more likely, we’ll be taking on the job of repairing the world we’ve damaged. Making up for lost time. So it is with pleasure that any of us might want to be part of something bigger than ourselves. At this pivotal point in our history, we might want to be one of the humans coming together to help transform the Earth into a safer and happier place. And needless to say, the first step would be to resist the temptation to use animals for food.

Personal ambition

1705: 

Slowly we are moving forward in our awareness of animals, the part they play in our everyday life, how we humans exploit them, and how much we like the sorts of food produced by the Animal Industries.

Many reforms to the disgraceful conditions under which animals are held prisoner but even so, we are still a ‘million miles’ from addressing the greater problem. We need to understand how much we like the idea of non-violence but don’t want to implement it badly enough to inconvenience our lifestyle; why, if we want to live nobly aren’t we disciplined enough to do so.

There are many analogies. We want peace but can’t abandon nuclear weapons. We want a safe climate but want lots of electricity to support our appliances. We want paper but don’t want to fell trees. And muddying the waters further, if we are working hard as animal activists, are we prepared to fight for the rights of animals without wanting to be rewarded for our hard work? Do we have ambitions to be at the forefront of the next great social revolution? If so, are we sure we won’t tread on each others’ toes in our race for personal recognition? Can we be sure that our motives for being animal advocates are sincere and will remain true? In other words, will we be able to keep enough integrity to carry us through the lean years to come, before this great attitudinal ship can be turned around?

Any one of us, vegan or non-vegan, might have high ideals but can we carry them through in practice, until they just become good habits? Or do we need recognition and show off to look more advanced that we are?

Consistency and Double Standards

1704: 

Being conscious of Animal Rights doesn’t stop at dietary change because it suggests the need for a much deeper attitude change towards non-violence. The way we treat animals and the way we treat each other often involves violence and violation. It's not usually about wanton cruelty as much as wanting a quick-fix. Violence and force are used to extract benefit, so when we see a forest we think of the timber we can take from it, without regard for the inhabitants of the forest. We fish out the oceans, dump poisons in rivers, plant ugly pylons in the landscape – we justify it by our need for fish, timber and electricity. Some inconsistencies are less difficult to fix; perhaps we can boycott fish by no longer eating them. But it’s not so easy to boycott timber and electricity. If we did, we’d be the only ones to do it, and we’d end up being resentful about it.

It’s almost impossible not to have double standards. We often feel as though we aren’t doing enough. We can't work out what we should prioritise. Take the average vegan who is boycotting a great many products already, who is being a strict vegan - should they therefore also be a hard-working activist as well? And if we are that, then should we be working at an animal shelter? Or should we just try being a nice person?

Take the average vegetarian who has stopped eating meat but is still unable to be vegan. Or a dietary vegan who can’t let go of their leather shoes and their favourite leather jacket. Or the sincere animal lovers who take on the care of a carnivorous companion animal (albeit rescued) for whom many other animals are killed to feed it. 

Animal Rights consciousness is relatively new to many of us and is the testing ground for deeper practising of non-violence. As we test ourselves and see in what ways we are falling short, we need to also see what progress we’re making and acknowledge that. But, at the same time, we need to keep an eye on our inconsistencies of lifestyle. Whilst none of us can ever be perfect, nonetheless consistency must be the ultimate aim of us all. Cognitive dissonance is what we don't need!!

Clear Thinking Comes at a High Price

1703:

Edited by CJ Tointon

We are awash with information these days. The media pumps out facts and opinions and generates plenty of fear. What should we read? What should we listen to? What should we watch? It's a continuous series of decisions we have to make as to how to spend our input time. Every spare moment is a chance to check out information sources. But are we sure we want to? One source spreads pleasing news; the other is more unpleasant. Education is a fine thing until it unlocks a few too many doors into a world we'd rather not enter. And if we do choose to look more closely at that world, it can set off concerns  almost forcing us to say: "Please don't tell me too much. It'll only make my life more difficult!" This is how we end up when we choose not to look at certain issues deeply enough.

If we see things too superficially (as most people do when it comes to matters pertaining to Animal Rights) we are confronted by shocking information and unwelcome news. On the face of it, the prospect of eating a healthier diet and having a clear conscience should add up to a more bearable and pleasurable life. But it's likely we'll only be focusing on the 'losses'. Respecting animals (which means being vegan) just seems like a lot of self-sacrifice and missing out on the good things of life. It seems too self-denying to give up so much just for the dubious benefits of better energy, fewer colds and less guilt!

But if we dare to look a little deeper, if we open Pandora's Box, it often becomes difficult to close it. The same acuity of mind that we reserve for important matters, isn't as easily applied to our senses, especially when they're seduced by the 'pleasure foods'. Beefsteak, cheesecake, prawn cocktails, chocolate fudge - and a thousand more 'delights' - keep us coming back for more. We use these 'foods' to give us a lift. We depend on these readily available, animal-based treats because we think our lives would be unthinkable without them. This is why we so hotly resist contemplating animal rights and plant-based diets and why the deeper issues are never exposed to rigorous scrutiny. Debate will not willingly be entered into!

Our routine use of these animal-based foods (these 'treats', lifters and boosters) is not as quickly destructive to us as heroin use; but over a longer period it's just as deadly! Animal-derived products may not be as cancer associated as tobacco or as 'liver shrivelling' as alcohol; but they comprise a whole army of 'pleasure giving' eatables, most of which we've grown up with or acquired a taste for. Nearly every fridge and kitchen cupboard in the land contains a variety of animal-based substances which are seen as essential to the smooth running of our domestic and social lives. Whether to satisfy the munchies, for celebration or to alleviate anxiety, we bring out the meat and dairy, the salted and sweetened snacks and 'ready-mades' - all of which originate wholly or partly from the slaughterhouse! 

To the thrill of our taste buds (and the long suffering of our bodies) we bypass the warnings of our inner wisdom. We know the danger of a live now/pay later approach. We also know that most people are battling food seductions whilst nibbling away at health and conscience - but the seduction is irresistible. Today's rich foods are made to taste delicious and they're made to feel safer than they really are because they feature so prominently in our lifestyles. The matter of food is never portrayed as a fight between good and evil - only as a self-benefitting payoff for what seems like such a minor lapse of clear thinking. 

First freeze your lobster, then take a sharp knife ...

1702:    

Despite a certain wave of change taking place today, it's still fashionable to be 'unaware' of the conditions in which farmed animals live and die. Fashion says it’s okay to eat meat, to wear wool, to buy fashionable shoes made of leather, to eat eggs for breakfast and take cow’s milk in your coffee. But what about the big food temptations, the salivation stimulators, the rich foods, the treat foods, and the exotic foods like lobster or wagyu beef? Or simple mouth-watering confections which contain cruelty-based ingredients? By deciding to buy any of these tempting items, we implicate ourselves in cruelty and atrocity. Could there be anything more atrocious than visiting a tank in a restaurant, and asking the waiter to bring you "that" (present-living lobster - which must of course must be violently dispatched before being steamed)?

At that most private moment, as you are standing at the 'lobster tank' or at the shop counter, you are imagining the taste of this lobster. You've decided to buy it, and it's likely you won’t be considering the rights and wrongs of your purchase - you refuse to deny yourself the most exquisite taste-pleasure money can buy.

For children, things are different. For them such choices don't have to be made. But for them choosing is denied anyway, in most important ways. I don't mean choosing what lollies they want, I mean choosing the ethics they'll need, to guide them through their lives. Most often, the family regime is imposed directly or subliminally - many of the foods the kids might want are, in practical home-rules' terms, unattainable. But as we grow up and we have freer choice, we’re faced with a new fear -‘missing out’. The time is narrow, and we are young men and young women for only a short period. We choose to live our lives to the full, and enjoy whatever we want. So, it would seem strange to deny ourselves anything simply based on ethics. Even the mildest consideration of 'ethics' would inhibit our delicious freedom-of-choice.

 But this is exactly what many people are doing - making a conscious decision not to buy. "I no longer eat meat, fish or fowl", we might say. But we can be tricky with ourselves. If we want something badly enough we’ll pretend a 'lightweight' ignorance. Particularly in the supermarket when we fail to check the ingredients list. And then we're able to eat what we like. BUT we end up eating what we actually disapprove of. Since there's no one checking up on us (whether parents for kids or vegans for adults) there's no pressure to ‘do the right thing’. We can avoid knowing, for there's only Conscience left that could be calling the shots.

Imagine what life must be like for our consciences, becoming ever more disabled, disconnected and discarded. Today there's so much to object to that our conscience is a barely heard voice.  We've trained it to be weak, which is why vegans have to spell out something we shouldn't have to - a ‘non-use-of-animals’ standard. And if we do have to, then we must do it as nicely as possible - vegans have to speak loudly (and softly) to get others to think things through for themselves, so they can come to their own conclusions with a newly reinstalled conscience.

Why the reluctance to change

1701: 

I’m always going to find it difficult to get the idea of empathizing with farm animals across to unwilling listeners. Most people won’t necessarily see things as I see them. They won’t willingly give up meat and eggs, let alone leather shoes or woollen blankets. They won’t extend the same kind feelings they have for their children towards those animals which provide them with 'the essentials' of life. And they won’t make the connection, that boycotting will help end the exploitation of animals.

         

Whether there’s some reasoning or none at all, almost every person will resist our arguments fiercely.  They won’t ‘be told’. They won’t be easily persuaded. They won’t voluntarily ‘do-without’. This is why I think the key to liberating animals can only be found in a particular way of approach - it has to be a sort of ‘whispering’, like talking to a nervous horse. Somehow each of us has to find our own way to earn trust, so that we won’t be pre-empted, so we can put forward our case without causing the resistant person to feel too judged or too threatened.

         

Animal advocates are essentially information imparters. So far, to a certain extent, we’ve done a good job by making information available, through our campaigns, literature, web sites, video footage, and in our personal conversations and exchanges of ideas. Today there’s no excuse for not knowing about farm animal abuse. But any number of facts won’t necessarily alter feelings, which reflect a distinct lack of interest in animals, notably farm animals. In fact, there is mostly an absence of those feelings which allow the conscience to be freed, so that we can enjoy eating such things as meat and fish, chocolates and creams and other rich foods laced with animal products. Without the nagging of Conscience, there’s no pressure or incentive to find non-animal alternatives.

         

The lack of concern for ‘food’ animals means there is nothing strong enough to spark radical dietary change or even discuss the subject. So we animal advocates can rant and rave till we’re blue in the face, but we live in a free society where everyone knows they are free to do as they please. And the ‘authorities’, the media, the parents, priests and teachers - very few of them speak up for the animals, some animals maybe but not ALL animals. This gives people the green light to NOT have to listen to what Animal Rights people are saying.

         

All the time the majority of omnivores accept the status quo, there can be no real progress made towards liberating imprisoned animals.

The low empathy quotient

1700: 

You first hit the idea of it. Vegan principle is explained and one's first instinct might be to leap to the defence of animals, because they obviously badly need defending. And then one realises what that defence involves. To 'put your money where your mouth is' involves a long ‘to-do’ list. Is one prepared to take on such a list without setting oneself up for a fall? Giving up items of animal-based food and clothing because of the animals, and giving them up for ever?

If one feels overwhelmed with such a long list, then what is achievable? Is it an all-or-nothing situation or do we ration-out our reserves of ‘care’ in order not to deplete ourselves, and then give up on the whole 'project'? This is probably a question which consumes many who find it difficult to move beyond being vegetarian.

The Animal Rights Movement is all about maintaining high ideals. Many of us feel a bit drained by trying to achieve them, because just by facing the issues head-on takes a lot of energy. So, which issues do I take up? For animal activists there’s always a danger of spreading ourselves too thinly and pleasing nobody, least of all ourselves. But in prioritizing, there’s a danger of putting too much onto the ‘back burner’, and then letting some issues become permanently forgotten about. So while we might want to be consistent, knowing that no animal is more important than any other, it will grieve us if we can't do the job thoroughly, by finding the idea of animal-rights beyond our capacity.

Perhaps it’s important to understand other people’s difficulties, concerning their own use of animals. The whole ethical confusion of it is about the use of animals in our society. It's important for vegans to try to understand what empathy involves. If we ever wonder why others are inconsistent, we need to look at our own other areas of inconsistency. Doing well in one area doesn't lessen our culpability when we do badly in another. Beyond animals, beyond food and health and violence, there's a strong attraction to passion. To be passionate about something, to be passionate about the greater good - it makes us feel very alive and involved. It gives our lives meaning. But can that numb our empathy elsewhere, where it is also needed. For example, when I see the homeless man on the streets at night, I tell myself that I’ve already got enough to care about, so I can’t take on more; I pretend not to notice him; I pretend NOT to notice what I know I HAVE noticed.

It’s the same with the way most people choose NOT to see the animals behind the food they’re eating. They know that chickens and pigs suffer badly, and yet they also know they are just like their dogs and cats at home. Their companion animals have the same sorts of feelings and suffer the same pain when it’s inflicted, yet they treat one type of animal as unlovable and the other as loveable.

My dearest friend might be lonely and ill and I lose sleep at night worrying about her. The homeless man is just as deserving of love as my closest friend and yet I’m able to ignore him completely. No sleep is lost! Abattoirs exist, animals going to their horrible deaths - again, no sleep is lost. Is that just all part of the absurdities we get used to living with? They say charity starts at home, but so often that's where it stays. But such a huge act of routine non-awareness and lack of charity deserves some serious attention, because we prop each other up while looking away at what we can't face. The fact is that we humans don’t yet regard all sensitive and sentient creatures as of equal importance to the other. Or, of course, of equal importance to humans.

Understanding the minds of others starts with our own minds

1699: 

When I considered becoming an animal activist, I soon enough also became a vegan. I knew that would involve me in much more than just avoiding meat and dairy. I’d experience shortages and unavailabilities. I’d be cutting myself off from ‘normal food’ and therefore seeming to be NOT normal. I’d have to get used to doing without; there’d be no more cheese, no more cakes from the cake shop, no more honey, quiche, waffles, and the list goes on. No more being-invited out to dinner because of the complications of catering my eating requirements. No more discussion of food with people because talking about all this leads inevitably to animal issues.

But this isn’t ever solely about food or our social lives. There are other important principles at stake worth perhaps more than losing friends and missing out on favourite foods. Mostly, amongst us there's a wish to tread more lightly on the earth, to better appreciate things around us, to be kinder members of our world. We need to somehow transform ourselves from clod-hopping brutes to more sensitive, gentler adults.

We each face a simple choice: we can either carry on grabbing whatever we crave or become more circumspect and use a bit of self control, and then see if we can keep it up. This is the aim of becoming less attached to things, less nailed down, less concerned about doing-without.

The bigger picture involves not only becoming less tempted, but being more in tune with the prospect of some important transforming principles. One can see that these same principles can transform not only our selves but our species. (And I would say that the human species is in dire need of transformation if it is not to die an ignominious death of its own making). Practising 'being vegan' is the start of something big. It isn't attempting perfection or seeking enlightenment or taking a ‘spiritual path in life’, but rather about experimenting with what appear at first as 'maybe-truths and bringing them ínto fuller consciousness as full-blown truths.

Life is a laboratory where we learn about getting used to change, embracing, not fearing it, even if we see it as a need for radical change. This isn't about changing for the sake of it but taking up change in response to circumstances which demand it. Embarking on a course of radical change - does it have to be a hard slog or can we enjoy it? Or at least be at ease with it? By getting used to change we can keep alive a questioning of those things which others seem un-bothered about.

For me, then and now, the most bothering thing I can think of is the routine abuse of sensitive and sentient beings, particularly farm-animals. Abusing animals who can't fight back seems to me and many others to be both cowardly and weak. The situation regarding farm animals, animals being used solely for the purpose of providing us with food and clothing, is simply an example of social injustice. It is such a monumental example because there are so many who are so innocent and who are being so badly abused. Our main aim must be therefore to better understand why our fellow human beings are so careless about animals, why there is such a lack of empathy for non-humans when in every other way it seems to be a natural part of human nature. There are so many examples of humans knowing how to treat their nearest and dearest with love and affection. So why should it be different when dealing with Nature - in this case with those aspects of Nature deemed useful to humans - the animals and the environment?

Non-violence can be a slippery slope

1698: 

Vegan diets are about not-eating products extracted from animals, so just by observing vegan principles we can’t help practising non-violence too. It carries through to other parts of our lives. We consider the animal before buying clothes and shoes. We think about animals sacrificed to test the safety of our cosmetics and medicines. It brings us to feeling more empathy for others, whether sentient or non-sentient. It lets us be more generous and have gentler attitudes all round. No doubt it makes us less aggressive in the way we drive a car, more considerate about recycling waste and of course being kinder to  cows.

Sometimes non-violence can seem like passivity. At worst it’s cowardice or avoiding facing the music. But non-violence isn't a mantra - it's neither non-doing or doing or ‘turning the other cheek’. It's a governing mood, that's all. We need to be playing it in the background as we weigh the pros and cons of each situation. Especially when we are considering if the means justifies the ends.

Take for example Animal Liberation’s plan to fly drones across private farming land, to photograph examples of animal cruelty. Sounds like a great idea. Evidence of routine animal cruelty is thin on the ground since what happens on private land is usually well hidden from the public eye. Filmed evidence has always been hard to come by - getting it has often been dangerous when activists illegally trespass with their cameras. People only believe what they see, not what you tell them, so if you can show them something, they’ll find it harder to ignore or forget.  But there's another aspect to this. A drone is a very big threat. It could be turned against us. The power of the Industry combined with the opprobrium of an outraged public can seriously work against us. This could be perceived as "city-slicker interference" or it could fuel people's fear of the 'spy camera', turning this into a violation of the rights of the farmer to go about his business.

From the farmer’s point of view, and with the public on-side, his animals (his property!) are units of food-production. There’s something rather threatening about having a CCTV camera looking down from above - the farmer might feel justified in shooting them out of the sky, even though it’s quite legal to fly cameras ten meters above private property. To them this wouldn't be a case of using technology to achieve safety for exploited animals, it would be an outrage.

The drone's film footage will show the public things they wouldn't otherwise be able to see. It will show video evidence of exploitation too shocking to ignore. And that will make it all the harder for the media to ignore. But the media is the great wall of resistance here. At its thickest point, it becomes a wall of silence. We know well enough how barely a word is printed on this subject, since they fear losing the sympathy of their advertisers and readers if they print or show any adverse stories about animal cruelty. At it's worst, the media will manipulate the story to their own ends. It won't be highlighting the violence of the farmer but the Animal Liberationist's violent spying tactics. They have the ability to make us into ugly terrorists who need to be stopped and prosecuted.

Non-violence is a slippery subject. As soon as there is any pro-active initiative, there's a chance for it to be subjected to clever spin, and before we get important matters up for discussion the whole initiative is turned against us, alienating us from the brain-washed masses even further.

Self development via compassion

1697:

One of the main reasons people become vegan is to further their own self-development. When we do eventually decide to 'go vegan', we automatically become more sensitized to the plight of farm animals. By developing empathy for them, we get closer to the trauma they experience. In this violent world, most of us want to know how to become less violent, less selfish and more healthy on all levels, indeed to become an all-round, better type of person. The obvious start is to go vegan.

If, to some extent, ‘we are what we eat’ then, more so, ‘we are what we boycott’. We make our most sincere statement of intent in what we deny ourselves, becoming more empathic by what we avoid eating or wearing when it happens to be animal-based. By boycotting products so closely associated with cruelty, we make a most powerful statement concerning our ethical priorities.