Coal and cars and cows

1805: 

Think of all the advances humans have made over the centuries; everything we’ve so far achieved has grown out of ‘ideas’. Great ideas, exploding into the imagination and being implemented. Some work and benefit us. But sometimes, ideas work only for a certain time and then end up doing more harm than good. Like cars and cows and coal.

By the time an idea has been perfected, and is habituated, it’s then hard to shift. Some of us amongst consumers might see that its time has come, but those people whose livelihoods depend on it have built walls of protection around it. They virtually control what consumers do in terms of giving support. And ‘we’, the vast majority of people, can’t free ourselves from them.

Take coal, for example, it was the wonder energy producer, revolutionising the industrial production of goods, fuelling transport and keeping homes warm in winter. But now it is the great polluter, becoming a major contributor to climate change. But now that we've invested so much in it, we can’t drop it. Without coal, the production of electricity would be badly affected, not to mention the money made from mining and exporting it. We’ve become totally dependent on it. Coal is a good idea gone sour. Similarly with the internal combustion engine. It was such an asset at first but, a century down the track, billions of cars are contributing to the death of our planet. You might agree about the amount of damage cars cause but you’re not going to give up your car, are you? It’s the same with meat and animal protein, which is causing so much ill health.

A combination of these ‘out-of-control’ problems makes the future look grim. The belief that ‘things will never change’ makes us all afraid and pessimistic. More so because we know that each of us is still cranking up the machine, too obstinate or too impotent to stop our own consumerism, let alone inspire change in others. I might be willing to make some personal sacrifice but I’m reluctant to take the lead, because it will only be an act of pointless self-sacrifice if I do.  Will I sell the car, give up meat? That would be very brave and very noble, but will it catch on, and if it doesn't, will my stand eventually make me feel resentful?

         

What runs through my head when I’m thinking about this idea of giving up things on principle?  I don’t want to make my living conditions any more uncomfortable than they already are.  And whilst I know this is selfish, I’d rather wait for you to change first. If you change, then I have every intention of following you.

Most people follow fashions, they don’t lead them, and in a world where people are so easily manipulated, the lack of principled rebellion against convention has become a dangerous habit in itself. 

How can some people do what most of us could never do?

1804: 

I can imagine how some smart bloke dreamed up an idea for making more money out of the animals he owned. He looked at his chickens pecking about the yard and wondered if he could reduce his feed bill and the untidiness of his farm yard by caging these animals, keeping them immobilised and automating their feeding and the collection of their eggs. It would increase his profits no end. By intensifying his operation, the farm would become like a factory, his animals automated like machinery; it would be done at the expense of his animals, whose feelings, according to him, don’t count.

So brazen was this crossing of the boundary between animal care and animal contempt, that it gave rise to outrage. This solidified into a call for, what we now know as, ‘Animal Rights’ - their right to a life. This is a movement that has been growing for the past forty years, aiming to have the rights of all animals, including farm animals, written into law, to prevent the worst atrocities and eventually to make it illegal to abuse any animal. Here, in Australia’s Capital Territory, they've passed a law prohibiting the use of cages for commercial egg production, the de-beaking of chickens and the use of sow stalls and farrowing crates for pigs.

But the full protection of animals will probably be a long time coming. If human exploitation of animals has taken millennia to develop into today’s worst excesses, then it’s likely to take quite a while for less-outrageous abuse to end, mainly because of food interests. There is strong public support for animal-use (let's define that as 'abuse') stemming from the widespread addiction to animal products amongst almost the entire human population of the planet.

The consumer wants the food (and other commodities) made either from the bodies of live animals or the bodies of dead animals. And it has to come at the lowest price possible. The producers have to 'economise on the welfare' of their animals if they want to make a profit, to stay in business. They have to run intensive operations involving huge numbers of animals to stay ahead of the competition. And since closely confined animal populations are prone to epidemics, there are more and more drugs being pumped into their animals to prevent mass outbreaks of disease. And these drugs and chemicals, being ingested by animal-eating humans, bring about more and more illness. Then of course there’s pollution from animal waste adding to our existing environmental problems. The stranglehold of the market determines how much worse they must become until we reach a critical point, where consumers come to their senses and follow the advice of vegans - to boycott the lot of it, meat, animal products and all animal-derived commodities.

We have to believe that the human, who is the destroyer, must also be the creator - the same brain that creates the cage, and all the problems ensuing from it, can also create the solution.  When we humans start to appreciate what we have, and eventually realise how lucky we are to have brains to get us out of our scrapes, then we can move towards a true transformation of our species.

Personally experiencing difficulties

1803:

In my own case, I saw the advantages of a plant based diet but feared taking the first step, and for good reason. You don’t have to be Einstein to see where all this leads to. The nobility of the idea was exciting in theory, but the practical implications were scary. I could see all the weaponry I was going to have to use, to get me by. I saw the difficulty of it and started to build my defences.

But as it happened, going vegan was almost like falling in love! Quite a surprise. It was mainly to do with my own capability that had acted to put me off. I hadn't foreseen the cloud passing in front of the sun and then passing on. I hadn't known there'd be a 'eureka' moment, a forming of  my own brand of truth - seeing quite clearly that there was no need to make any use of animals. It’s like living on a main road and getting used to the fumes, not realising that there are other places where fresh air actually exists; liberating animals is simply a way of strengthening ourselves. And following from that, I now had a purpose which fitted me like a glove. It suited my inner personality just as it suits most people's deeper temperaments. It made sense to go beyond myself towards ‘the other’. For me, this was an exciting theory, challenging me to commit to something bigger than myself.

I made a list of everything I could think of which I’d no longer be using - I’d be avoiding hundreds of products I was attracted to. I’d be either having to do without them or having to find replacements for them. And when I couldn't find anything suitable, facing the fact that I wouldn’t give in to temptation. A relatively small price to pay to atone for the wrongs of my species done to other species. This would be an awakening of my empathy for ‘the other’.

My life was going to be difficult, but nothing compared to what farm animals are going through. By comparison, my ‘lifestyle difficulties’ would pale into insignificance, so a little sacrifice on my part would be hardly worth a mention.

What we are used to doing

1802: 

Protest.  Outrage. “No longer!” we say. But, in reality, even if we feel outraged, we don’t think we’d have enough willpower to alter our eating habits radically, to accord with principle. It seems that, when it comes to food, that nothing is powerful enough to convince us to stop. Neither ill health, guilt, conscience or environmental impact will bring us to make a stand against the atrocity of animal farming.

If it reaches enough ‘critical mass’ to bring us to the decision to ‘go-vegan’, we know it will mean having to turn our back on just about everyone and everything. Later, if we’ve done it, and we’ve settled into it, only then do we realise it was the best thing we ever did, or could ever have done for ourselves.

By withdrawing our support from the Animal Industries and freeing ourselves from the addictive grip of their products, we fix the heart-ache in us. Plus we add another nail in the coffin of the Animal Industry and in so doing help to liberate the gulag-ed animals.

But this switching-over is no light matter. If we give up eating meat one day, then it follows that next day we’ll have to be questioning the whole ethical basis of animal farming and the misinformation of conventional animal-based nutrition. So what might have started out as a change of diet, now opens up into a whole new world of thinking, a whole significant change of attitude.

The human who couldn’t change personal habits

1801:

Anyone who instinctively sees an urgent need to do something about the way we treat food-animals is up against it; one has to ignore what’s previously been taught about food, go against tastebud-advice, against the advice of corporations, governments and educators, and turn to oneself for advice.

The issue of using animals in the food and clothing industries sits like a lead weight on our collective conscience - what we do to animals makes monsters of us. I’m ashamed of what I did for so many years. I didn’t care about animals being slaughtered. I didn’t care about hens being imprisoned in tiny cages.  But the more I learned the more critical became the situation inside my head. I discovered that newborn calves are snatched away from their mothers (and shot soon after they’re born). I found out that sows are kept restrained in stalls, and cattle are mutilated without pain killers, always for very practical reasons, of course. The list of horrors goes on and on. Each one reflects on the farmers, the producers and the consumers who support all this, who buy the animal produce.

         

Now all this might be true enough, but nearly every one of us is involved. But it seems that we can switch off, for no one will notice. We don’t have to talk about it. Or think about it if we don’t want to. This is where and why we’re stuck, and can’t move forward, because we’re all the same in so many ways. My taste buds are like everyone else’s. I respond to my favourite foods as you do. If I’m more sensitive then, these same foods just weigh more heavily on my conscience. I enjoy the advantages of being a ‘free-thinker’ or a ‘deep-thinker’ but it hurts me only because I find it more difficult to effect a numbness to it all. I can’t get it out of my head that sentient animals are suffering.

I can’t rid myself of the fact that animals are born and kept alive only to be eaten. Or used as machines for producing wool or milk or eggs. They’re held in prisons and live in terror, and die in the most ugly way imaginable. And many people who believe they are sensitive make brave comment on all this, “it’s outrageous”, but then carry on eating them all the same. By way of some nifty mental gymnastics we can relax at the dinner table and eat what we’re given. Minds closed, mouths open. 

Stopping Violence - Starting With Animals

1800: 

Edited by CJ Tointon 

There is a particular difficulty with Animal Rights. It isn’t directly about improving life for ourselves and it doesn’t seem to create big waves or impress our friends; but it is noticeably different to all other great causes. In fact, it’s the Cinderella of all causes. For most people today, there are other more immediate issues to be concerned with. People feel a threat to themselves and the planet and are specifically concerned with climate change. If that’s not the number one issue, then it’s war or hunger or pollution. Each major issue seems more dangerous, bigger and blacker than concern for farm animals. It drives people crazy to think of the potential we have to solve some of these problems, if only we weren’t wasting trillions of dollars on weapons of war. It drives us crazy to see the rich squander their good fortune by eating to excess and becoming obese, when there are millions of children dying from malnutrition. We feel crazy by the obscenity of it all. With all these major horrors, surely there's no room for any more? We have enough urgent, heart-breaking issues to deal with, so let’s deal with them first before we worry about eating bacon for breakfast! 

We can argue that there’s one common attitude driving all of these problems. It’s neatly symbolised by the way the enslavement of non-human animals is not touching people’s hearts. It should. It could. But it doesn't, because it isn’t seen as an indicator of threat to our civilisation. Rarely do people stop and consider that the one core value - humanity - is what characterises the potential of our species. We don’t see the damage being done to our very core and therefore we allow a barbaric and totally unnecessary behaviour to go unchecked. We continue to confine and kill and eat the most peaceful and gentle of animals, whilst diverting all of our attention towards other issues. Only the most obvious symptoms of human decline weigh on the collective mind. We only consider the damage caused by the problems, not why these problems have arisen. We are too busy trying to handle the problems and patch them up to worry about faults in the fabric of human nature. It’s not so much that we're hungry for violence, it just ends up that way. We neglect our problems and they get out of hand. Then we panic and turn in on ourselves to protect ourselves, leaving a trail of violence and violation behind us. Unless we go to the root cause of our problems (health, resource distribution, warfare, pollution, etc) we will never be able to stop the problems worsening. It’s suggested that we look at the root causes of violation and violence by starting with what we bring into our homes.  

Just a short distance from where you are reading this, there’s probably a refrigerator containing animal-derived food. In the living room, perhaps there’s a leather-bound chair. On your feet, leather shoes, in your wardrobe, woollen clothes - all evidence of humans-attacking-animals. It follows that once we can attack an innocent animal, we can go on to make an attack on our environment. By making war on animals, we stop ourselves from seeing the plight of poor people or how dangerous it is to make war on our neighbours or how stupid it is to dump rubbish in our rivers. It’s absurd to be in favour of non-violence if one still attacks and uses animals! It’s equally absurd to keep one eye fully open, seeing more clearly, whilst keeping the other one tightly shut, thus stopping us from seeing something else equally disturbing. As soon as we stop participating in the mass killing of animals, we open up to a new awareness. It has to start with individuals, doing what they know is right, without reference to what others are doing.  

If I do what I think is the right thing, then other individuals must eventually start to notice and follow suit (hopefully). It might seem like slow-tactics, but surely that’s the way the ball starts rolling. I doubt if any government will act on behalf of the animals, since to ban the killing of animals would be political suicide. The breakthrough has to start at the grass roots level - with individuals. 

The Loneliness of Being a Vegan

1799: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Vegans often lead a lonely life - but it's a life of our own choosing. Loneliness is not something we vegans like to talk about, but nothing will ever advance if we keep things locked away in the closet. There are just so many more non-vegans than vegans these days. 

Vegans can be boastful, conceited and righteous. But maybe when some of us are a bit 'showy', we are only using it as a cover for feeling 'alone'. Unless one is surrounded by a group of simpatico people, one can often feel alone and unwilling to admit it. 'Alone' is often equated with being a loser or not being able to make friends. I think for some people this might be a valid enough reason for NOT becoming vegan. Bear with me here - I'm not saying that all vegans are lonely nor that it's necessarily sad when they do feel that way; but we need to look at the isolating place many of us put ourselves in. It's rather as if we've taken on the burden of a chronic illness. For most of us, however, there just isn't any choice. The drawbacks are self-inflicted, but we know we can draw some comfort from the many compensations which come with the vegan package.

This alone-illness is something vegans have to put up with and get used to. It helps if our mood is positive (remembering that we're doing this for the oppressed animals). But if the mood isn't right, then it might be something we never get used to and which can cause us great damage.

The World Vegan Revolution isn't about to start any time soon. It just isn't plausible; so current vegans might be lonely for many more years to come. I'm suggesting that the trick is to not let this factor dominate, because what we actually have is the opposite of loneliness. It's a feeling of 'oneness with nature' ranging far beyond anything our fellow non-vegans can ever hope to enjoy. But I also suggest that it's only possible if we (at least) like others.

Some vegans might think this is impossible since we have valid reasons for not liking non-vegans. They are complicit in the killing of our innocent animal friends after all. But whatever our reasoning, I still suggest that if we dislike non-vegans, we're in trouble! Yes - they are all implicated to a greater or lesser extent in The Great Crime; but if we dislike them, they're sure to feel it and, in turn, won't want to be our friends. And can any of us (honestly) say that we don't need friends? No man or woman is an island.

Vegans risk everything by disliking others. There are just so many 'others' out there. Disliking them all is simply self-defeating. On the face of it, it seems obvious that we should show disapproval of those who abuse animals. In its extreme form it's a 'hating of the meatheads'. But what are we left with when the hatred burns out? We're left with a sense of righteous pride, sure; but can this compensate for the feeling of aloneness?

I think the real problem here is connected to 'mood'. Mood determines how we feel. If our fine intellectual philosophising and 'rightness' in being vegan isn't enough to stop our dark moods, we can fall into a downward spiral that we might find impossible to struggle out of. It's likely it will prevent us feeling warm and altruistic about others, especially if we perceive them to be better-off than we are.

It's great if there are factors in our life which make us happy. Our daily mood can then be better placed to alleviate feelings of aloneness. But to arrive at a state of happiness and draw strength from it, presupposes that we're determined to head in a positive direction - come what may. And this means shedding negatives, particularly when we find ourselves resorting to disliking those who aren't in agreement with us. If we aren't day-to-day 'happy', it's likely we'll be using our most judgmental, most negative feelings to compensate for the disappointment of having to live amongst the 'meathead' population. Then life is reduced to getting satisfaction from fighting, denigrating and confronting the intransigent speciesist. It's like punching water - it makes no appreciable impact and we fail to achieve any of the results we want.

As vegan plant eaters and cotton wearers, we are primarily non-violence advocates. Our 'peace thing' concerning animals also means we need to reach a 'be-happy-with-all-humans' state of mind, however difficult we may find this to be. We're OK about being friends with the animals - but with people? We just have to find a way of being at peace with them too. The contradiction is apparent. We have to like the unlikeable. But if we find a way of doing this, it will surely lead us towards some increase in our own happiness, or at least towards a state of partial contentment. Then our disagreements with those whose value base is different from ours won't cause us so much personal grief. Then our 'good mood' will save us from feeling so alone and help us get used to the feeling of being marginalised. Maybe then we'll be able to better handle the infuriating delay and the probability that it's going to be like this for a long time to come. 

As vegan plant-eaters and cotton-'eaters', we are primarily non-violence advocates. Our 'peace' thing concerning animals also means we need to reach a be-happy-with-humans state of mind, however difficult we may find that to be. We're okay about being friends with the animals, but with people? We have to find a way of being at peace with them, too. The contradiction is apparent, almost as if we have to like the unlikeable. But if we find a way of doing just that, then it will surely lead us towards some increase in our own happiness, or at least towards a state of partial contentment. Then, our disagreements with those whose value base is different from ours won't cause us so much personal grief. Then, our mood will save us from feeling so alone and help us get used to the feeling of being marginalised. And then, we'll be able to better handle the infuriating delay - the probability that it's going to be like this for some time to come.

Multidimensional energy

1798: 

That we believe animals (i.e. food animals) are low on our priority list, and that we think their treatment is not very important, reflects rather an alarming attitude in humans. And yet it’s probably coming from a very basic survival instinct, connected to saving energy. We are brought up to think that animal food is the best source of energy, and that in turn is linked to an attitude about energy itself, and where it comes from and how profligate we should be in its use.

I don’t believe that all energy is simply a finite resource like the finite quantity of fuel we may have in the petrol tank of a car. There are surely other sources and qualities of energy other than food, just as there are other sources which seem promising but that drain energy.

It’s precious stuff this energy. It’s not a good feeling to run out of it. If we risk our energy supplies, spending it on our long list of nagging responsibilities, we'll end up without enough energy for the unexpected. So, it seems we should try to keep energy and not risk it or waste it. But there again, too little energy expenditure drains energy by way of feeling guilty about doing nothing.

So, we weigh up our options, think about responsibilities, look after things we own or are in charge of, knowing that each ‘takes’ a portion of our energy. And then, what’s left? Will we really have very much energy left over for things lower down on our priority list? Which brings us to the subject of protecting animals’ rights? Working for Animal Rights sounds particularly energy consuming.

If I do choose to act for them, promote their rights, promote vegan principles, what will that involve? Energy will be a factor, but we know that energy comes from various sources - food, exercise, creative bursts of energy producing greater energy. But perhaps energy mainly comes from knowing that we are doing things we believe in, living our lives as truthfully as possible.

I think by serving the interests of those animals in extremis we are acting from love, and that will be in sharp contrast to the much cruder energy-manufacture going on in the harsh world where animals are made to work for us and are drained of their life to provide some sort of energy for us.

We’re told that the farmer loves his animals, but in truth any care shown to them is given to protect human interests, not the animals’ - attending to their welfare means the animals will respond better and grow faster and therefore, in theory, more will be gotten out of them.

Is that cynical or what? Perhaps energy isn't quite as one dimensional as we first think.

Acting to stop violence

1797: 

All of us ordinary people have our own problems that we can’t afford to neglect, concerning so many things - woe betide anyone who fails to earn enough money to pay their rent or mortgage. Or give children what they need to secure their future, to prevent them being trampled on by all the others who are similarly struggling up the ladder. If we don’t help ourselves no one else will - our political leaders can’t be relied upon for help or leadership. They’re probably as nonplussed as we are. If they’re doing anything at all they’re feathering their own nests.

There’s an obvious need for change. Perhaps we see that many of our troubles can be traced back to violence and selfish concern. But we can only focus on problems closer to home, we can’t change the world. We can’t improve things for malnourished children. We can’t alter our society’s food regime or close abattoirs. What can an individual do to make a difference? There’s a reluctance to step out in front, to take the first steps towards change, change that will set off a chain reaction. We’re reluctant to stretch ourselves, to reach out, in case nothing happens.

On the one hand, we want change for our own benefit, on the other hand we want change for the greater good too. We have a mix of noble and selfish needs. The greatest fear is to be stepping too far away from reality and thereby failing all round. And yet we know it’s up to each one of us to repair what we see is crying out for repair. We mustn't doubt our own powers to make a difference. We might say to ourselves that our own ‘good example’ will encourage others to follow, so we need to be sowing seeds to encourage growth. We need to be developing faith in others’ wanting-to-do-the-right-thing, for the greater good. On the one hand, the destructive nature of humans, our violent past, our constant insecurity, they are all so deeply entrenched. But on the other hand, we can see how dramatically some things have changed for the better, that radical change is possible and that most people’s intentions are good.

Where does all this get us? Perhaps these are questions-without-answers. But simply by addressing them, we can set ourselves in a direction that is helpful, with some do’s and don’ts.

The important thing is that we don’t lose motivation and don’t take part in destructive behaviour. On the pro-active side, we need to take on a non-damaging lifestyle and not give up too easily. Whatever we do we should do attractively, ending the day feeling proud of having consciously taken one step forward. That will surely generate motivation.

Seeing violence for what it is

1796: 

Vegan, non-violence, animal advocacy - I suppose what fascinates me more than anything is why some people get it and some people don’t. Of course, it’s easier for those who've already become vegan. We suppose that those who aren’t vegan are just that much lazier or un-inspirable.

For vegans, the more we learn about the use of animals the more cruelty we see. And that brings us to disapprove of the vast majority of people who won’t look. Because we look and act on what we see, we get to see more than is comfortable. As more windows open up onto that dark world, and because we aren’t so deeply implicated, we can allow ourselves to see the extent of the cruelties, and draw the connections between them. 

For example, if people can allow animals to be violated for food, it’s easier for them to be less concerned that children are dying needlessly for lack of food. That might not apply to every non-vegan, since many meat eaters do show great care and concern for starving kids. But in general, if you can turn a blind eye to one sort of violence, you’re better placed to be less outraged by another, be it war, pollution, greed or malnutrition.

The more sensitive you become, the more troubled you might be at the ugliness of our world, and want to do something about it. The less sensitive you are, the less troubled you’ll be by the hardness of ones fellow human beings. So, what I’m trying to propose is that we all need to become more sensitive to all of the violence, not just those most politically incorrect ‘violences’. We can all feel comfortable about hating war, hating environmental destruction, and hating hunger, especially if we are separated from it. On the other hand we find it far harder to hate abattoirs if we are directly involved in their existence, by still supporting them.

Trying not to be insulting

1795:

If you start to question any ‘standard truth’, you have to challenge it bravely, and if necessary go ahead and experiment with life based upon a different set of truths, values and possibilities.

With this animal thing, when so many people are still following the old paths, truth gets very mixed up. And since this subject is so tabooed, one also meets a widespread refusal to discuss the subject. So, one is never encouraged to speak one’s mind on this subject, since any condemnation of animal farming seems to be provocative and confrontational. As soon as any opening remark is made, one is either shut out or shut up.

You can imagine how extremely confronting it would be to suggest, “Animal farms are providing us with much of our food but they are little more than torture chambers and death camps”. Once you make a statement like this, there’s no chance of getting it to go any further. You won't be listened to if you try to expand on it. So you can never reach the next statement about how animal farming is also a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions and general pollution. Nor get as far as suggesting that by eating so much of this contaminated produce our bodies are going haywire, causing us to lose control of our own health.

The devil is in the detail. Animal-based foods are ‘rich’ and mostly fat-saturated, causing people to become too fat and too susceptible dangerous health conditions. Anything which needs to be said can’t be said, since it is taken as a criticism of people's over-indulgent diets and lifestyles. By making a provocative opening statement, we offer anyone listening an excuse NOT to listen to ANY of the details; the un-listened-to details are in fact what might swing a person over to becoming vegan. All the obvious links, between each of these issues, one leading to the next, are cut off. And then, just as tragically, one may never get far enough with the details to see how animal-food diets contribute to the problem of children in poor countries dying for want of food. 

It’s not difficult to point out the connections, between our own actions and the worst possible consequences. But that’s not the real difficulty here. The problem is second-guessing and running away from the facts. If we're seen to be inflaming this subject, then down will come the shutters. Most people won’t allow themselves to look squarely at this subject since they want to continue consuming animals and all the ‘goodies’ animals can provide. Our consumer desires prevent any condemnation of the food we love to eat, food that can only be made available by dint of farming animals. Omnivores aren't likely to heed the health warnings or the ethical arguments because they refuse to open the debate or allow discussion to continue. Like a rabbit in the car’s headlights, they are transfixed by an inability to deal with this sort of discussion.

         

Here’s the biggest difficulty for vegans, that we might have a lot to say but no one to say it to.

Transitioning is a struggle

1794: 

We obviously don’t want to condone any level of animal abuse but we should want to allow room to discuss it. Although one can’t justify any animal use on intellectual terms, we need to be able to admit that we’ve all contributed to the present state of affairs, we’ve all used animals in the past.

I can remember myself struggling with this.  I’ll explain this struggle in case anyone can relate to it. My daily habits were governed by what others did, and others mostly didn’t think about animals’ feelings. They just did what they’d always done, what their parents had taught them.  And it was what they passed on to their own children - to simply eat the food they like.

For my part, I consumed foods and confections not just to satisfy my hunger but also for pleasure. I would ask myself, why stop any of this enjoyment for the sake of animals? If I ever wanted to test my compassion I could always show it for fellow humans - there are enough social justice issues to fight for. There are always humans who need help, so I’d have argued that compassion doesn’t HAVE to extend to animals, not the ones we eat anyway.

The problem for me was, as a life-long meat eater, that I didn’t like admitting I might be wrong, especially about my food habits. That would mean too much loss of face as well as too big a change in my lifestyle. I’d been eating the same sorts of food all my life and it would take a lot of undoing, to dispense with animal products. I'd been wearing leather shoes all my life and I couldn't see how I could use any other sort of footwear. But as a young person at the time, I was at least less set in my ways, having had fewer years of guilt about my food and clothing choices. And like so many young people of my age, I wanted to re-examine all the important values imposed on me by my society. My food had been provided by my elders and, since rebelling against the habits of older people felt right to me, a radical diet-change felt like making an independent stand. I remember it felt natural to accuse my elders of being ‘asleep’ on the matter of ‘eating animals’. I wanted to ‘set up camp’ on the other side of the river.

It’s easier to make these radical changes when you're young. It's far harder when older. Then, as now, I thought that being a herbivore was the obvious way to spare animals. I could see that it was a beautiful idea in theory but in practical terms I’d had my doubts. Was it possible? And if I could get over missing all those familiar foods, could I also withstand the opprobrium of my fellow humans, almost all of whom were dedicated omnivores or enthusiastic carnivores. I’d be denigrating the eating habits of nearly everyone I knew, and this wouldn’t win me any friends.

By exposing and explaining and talking about animal abuse in the food industry, I wasn’t surprised to find myself socially dropped by those very same people. And yet I was only trying to be constructive and get to the truth. I only wanted to point out that unthinking humans have the capacity for acting destructively and hypocritically.

Whether people were acting by commission or omission, or acting directly or by proxy, or being up front or clandestine - I wanted all of that discussed. But how? All I could think of doing, to get the ball rolling, was to be rude. And that always descended into mutual abuse, cutting off the possibility of any sort of rational debate.

I often felt helpless to do much about the ‘animal thing’. I was fast becoming aware that human habits and social mores were so strongly set-in, that nothing I could do personally would change things. Everyone thought of themself as a sensitive person. That was the BIG problem. Everybody already knew humans were trashing the environment and doing things against their own ethical standards. By admitting human culpability in one area, it seemed they could ignore the animal issue. And it being such an integral part of human life, the matter of animal use and abuse was the last thing anyone would want to hear about.

So the struggle had, and still has, many strands. There were my own doubts about the safety of plant-based foods, there was the concern that I couldn’t keep it up and, if I could, then not being able to freely speak about it and not get much support, consequently made me feel like an outsider.

But even that is easier to handle when young, and far harder to deal with when older. Now, some forty years later, what is so hard to handle is that people still aren’t being touched by the question of animal cruelty. The Vegan Revolution is not yet due to explode upon our society.

Abattoirs must shut down

1793: 

We need to grow out of the idea that it's alright to kill animals in much the same way as small children need to grow out of having temper tantrums. An abattoir mentality runs counter to civilised living. It’s ugly, it’s violent and it’s unnecessary.

Vegans are people who love both animals and people, alike. The struggle is to shift this attitudinal Goliath, and do it without using force or getting steamed up about it. Nothing is achieved by harassing people into agreeing with us. But much is achieved in getting people to think for themselves.

Most people have a great capacity for love, for being loved and showing love. The potential is there for people to see that there’s another way of living life, without using the violent ways of the past. Most vegans have a passion for rescuing animals from the violence of humans, but we also have a duty to be all-round loving-types. There's important ground work to be established - our whole approach must be gentle in order to persuade people by example. We do have a difficult message to get across but to say hard things we need kind words. As much as we might want to persuade others by force of logic and ethical argument we must also be able to prove to others that we're a self-examining lot. We can't afford to give the impression that we are self-righteous. There's nothing more off-putting.

If we are ever judgemental or insulting, we miss our target. Vegans have already earned quite a reputation for preaching and coming across as superior. This sort of comment - “I’m vegan, how about you?” - has to stop. We must drop slogans like “Meat is Murder”, a statement that might be true enough but it's really saying “YOU are a murderer if you eat meat” and that sounds provocative and attacking. As soon as we make a value judgement like this, the shutters come down. And defensive counter judgements are made, like “What bitter bastards you vegans are!” , which effectively puts an end to any meaningful communication.

Abattoirs must close, certainly. That’s the message we try to get across, to show how these places are the epitome of cruelty and barbarity. But the question is how to say that without sounding arbitrary.

The 'Me First' Human

1792: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

If you're an animal activist, a vegan, a liberationist or an advocate for the 'voiceless', you might often feel alone, surprised that so few people agree with you. But maybe you DO know? You probably realise what a soggy bunch of people we live amongst and how dependent most people are on such things as milk, eggs and wool.

Imagine no ice-cream or dairy products in the fridge, no warm woollen blankets on the bed and no eggs! The thought of doing without these items prevents most people from ever becoming proper vegetarians (e.g. vegans). They just can't imagine a life not using animal products.

The reality of knowing exactly what these 'familiar products' are, presents us with a conundrum - we might hate the thought of animals being tortured, but we just can't face a life without using them and using them always involves animal torture, cruelty, exploitation and sometimes execution.

Vegans embrace a life devoid of animal-based products, thus disassociating themselves from the violent  'acceptables' that their fellow humans support by proxy. We live in a world dominated by people who have become so used to a dependency on animals that they're unable to stand by any preferred principles of nonviolence. They just can't resist the convenience of using animals.

For that reason alone, I'd suggest that humans can't be trusted around animals (any more than child molesters can be trusted around children). Whenever we use animals, we betray their easy, uncomplicated trust in us. We're conditioned to turn a blind eye to animal abuse whenever it spells food, leather shoes, silk shirts or woolly jumpers! That's putting it bluntly - but it can't be written any other way. That's how it is! However, for those of us who don't comply with an animal abusing society, it's up to us to let others know that 'animal dependency' is curable simply by using some initial willpower, deciding to do without or swapping over to products that are 'Cruelty Free'.

Generally, the human is a 'Me First' creature, always taking what is freely available or what can be taken without risking personal safety. Few of us are prepared to consider the feelings of animals if it causes us any discomfort or inconvenience. All non-vegans are in some way involved in the exploitation of animals, yet most will deny it or refuse to discuss it. This represents denial on a grand scale. Vegans eat a plant-based diet. Their clothing and footwear have no connection with animal byproducts. By way of these boycotts, we show that life is possible without using animals - for anything!

If people feel guilty about animal cruelty, it's up to those of us who don't suffer those pangs of guilt to explain what is actually happening to animals on farms and abattoirs. But we don't need to make non-vegans feel even more guilty about what they eat or wear. Guilt won't achieve results if it's ramped up by those who will inevitably be perceived as self-righteous. Even though our job is tricky, we simply have to explain how things are without voicing disapproval. This will only slow down change. Assuming the facts are known, it comes down to deciding to make a fundamental alteration in the most primal feature of human nature - moving away from 'Me First' to 'Me Second'. It isn't a matter of idealised selflessness, just a consideration of 'the other' by developing our innate empathy. And this comes down to seeing animals more as equals than as inferiors.

If animals are to be freed, there will have to be large numbers of people feeling as horrified as vegans are by animal slavery. We don't need to alienate people unnecessarily or make them feel judged by us. But at the same time, they need to be completely clear about where we're coming from - to know that our aim is to not use animals for ANYTHING.

To achieve this, to get past the normality of using animals, we need to educate, not alienate. For our own morale, we might feel the need for support from others, but it's counter-productive to use force. Agreement needs to be voluntary and arise from empathy for the animals. The best support comes when the doors of agreement are opened without the assistance of any value judgement on our part. Vegans need to understand how difficult it is for those who've never known anything but an omnivorous diet, to consider changing to a plant-based eating regime. It's likely most people will see great difficulty ahead in making this sort of change. It's unlikely they'll expect it to be as easy as it actually is. But easy or hard, there should be no confusion about what we are saying - that it's not about how hard it might be for us; but how hard it is for them - living under the perpetual sentence of abuse and execution.

'Lacto-ovo-vegetarians' say they love animals and don't eat meat, but they tell only half the story. Vegans respond with the whole truth - the ugliness and betrayal involved in every aspect of animal farming including the dairy industry and egg production. We make boycotting of the entire animal-cruelty industries our number one priority. We emphasise that it's not about our own personal comforts, but about the wrongness of animal abuse. Of course, health considerations must be taken seriously. This means taking note of the advice of vegan nutritionists and vegan medical practitioners and then going on to enjoy all the great benefits of plant-based foods. But primarily, it's all about ethical principles. It's about developing empathy for animals whilst at the same time, achieving a clear conscience for ourselves. 

Standing tall

1791: 

All our best arguments for bringing about a non-violent society might be attractive to someone who has taken the food plunge and got rid of the crap and happy to have got rid of it. But is one’s personal example enough to convince others?

Ours is a complaisant society and a self-indulgent one. Most people think they can ignore the values set out by vegan principle, even though it represents the ultimately intelligent and compassionate path.

Is it laughable to think that our as-yet-small number could ever persuade people to so radically change their ways of eating (even if it’s only food that changes)? Our task seems almost impossible. Almost, but not quite. Over the past seventy years many people have changed. In some parts of the world up to 1% of the population has become vegan. The increase has been rapid and recent, mainly amongst the younger twenties generation.

If we are to pull this one off, it’s going to have to be the biggest miracle ever. And yet we may need to simply set off a small trend of fashionability. It will have to be a mixture of reasons for change: for health, for planet, for animals and for spiritual reasons. Each individual reason will hold some appeal, to some more than others.

The social kudos of being vegan cannot be underestimated. One might have all the highest principles in the world but in the end most of us lay great store on being able to say something about ourselves for which we are proud, which makes us seem less superficial. To be able to say that you are a vegan, without even mentioning the reason for it, denotes someone with self-discipline and a determination to be in control of their life. This is something most people would probably want. It’s rather like adopting another dimension to one’s life, by disregarding the temptation-power of so many foods and commodities. By becoming vegan we stand that much taller.

The best thing about it is that we can feel as though we aren’t being manipulated by the vested interests of the food industry and clothing manufacturers. We aren’t condoning what they do, making a profit from the misery of animals. That, in itself, is a freedom which most people would like to have. Apart from anything else, the not-buying of expensive meat and dairy foods, woollens and leather products, makes for a great saving in the budget. If only in that way, for those of us who don’t have much money, it’s good to know we can live happily and ethically, and still be financially better off than the omnivores.

My personal experience

1790: 

In my own case, being addicted to all the yummy, creamy, rich, salty, meaty items I’d been indulging in all my life, I had to make the break. I gritted my teeth to do just that, only to find a whole new and satisfying food experience ahead of me. Tastebuds quickly readjusted, tingling with new life. By being cleaned-out, they open up. Once I'd readjusted, the idea of abattoir food seemed not only disgusting but absurd. It’s just annoying to think how we’ve all been duped into complying with that particular norm for so many years.

The biggest surprise for me was that I no longer craved these animal-based foods. If any vegan had told me this would happen I wouldn’t have believed them, so if you aren’t yet a vegan I can’t blame you for not believing this now, about plant-based foods. And yet that act of faith is in fact the crucial stepping stone. Once you experience the adaptability of your own body, once you get this (about vegan food) you'll likely never want to go back to the old ways. I can only speak for myself, but it was a huge surprise to me, how readily my body readjusted to an entirely different food palette. I was grateful on a number of levels; after being vegan for some time, I found my energy levels were far higher, I was less sluggish after meals and my general health was noticeably improving AND I was noticing how much more alert and mentally sharper I had become.

I won’t try to be too convincing here, since others far better qualified than me have done that well enough already. My promotion base is about the self-esteem-lift you get when you stop doing what nearly everyone else is doing. It lifts one above the blind compliance level. The alternative mentality highlights the ‘spiritual’ damage which has been done by the use of animals, by condoning their enslavement and killing. 

My main point here is that if survival isn’t dependent on animal-foods (or animal anything-else) then it should be questioned. If anyone could prove that I do need animals to survive, the whole argument collapses, since it would be suicidal to ignore those needs. However, since no one has put up a serious argument along those lines (ever since the first vegans appeared seventy years ago) I continue to assume plant-based foods are efficacious and safe. I only need mention that, over many centuries of eating animal products and now with today's emphasis on greater hygiene, some human bodies can’t make enough vitamin B₁₂. I take regular B₁₂ supplements (a thousand microgram tablet, once a week) to be on the safe side, as advised by vegan doctors.

Based upon this assumption (that a vegan diet is both safe and healthy) I feel justified in adopting a plant-based regime which then lets me adopt the non-violence principles of veganism, which in turn allows me to be an animal advocate with a clear conscience.

This isn’t an entirely selfless pursuit. It benefits me greatly to be vegan and to have this endlessly fascinating subject to occupy my thoughts and energies. It is such an interesting subject and such a worthwhile project to be involved in. 

Hanging in there

1789: 

Are present-day vegans strong enough to withstand the likelihood of no-change-yet? By leaving the normal style of life behind us, we step out towards a life dedicated to non-violence, even though we know we might never see the big changes take place in our own lifetime. There are still very few people around the world who are willing to defy the expectations of their society to be ‘normal’, when it comes to using animal-based food and clothing. 

Those of us who are vegan take on the world. We are the only ones who defend the right-to-a-life for animals that have been bred and enslaved by our fellow humans. So, we see these animals in a different way to most other people; they regard cows and chickens and lambs as unlike companion animals at home and unlike creatures in the wild, perhaps almost inanimate. Their thinking might go along these lines: Because we can keep them alive in the captive state, breed them and then kill them at will, that they are not like animal-beings at all. They don't possess a life-sense like non-captive animals. They are more like artificial lifeforms, 'created' by humans in much the same way that Frankenstein creates his monster. Maybe they see these animals as assembly line creations that come to life by our instigation and with whom, therefore, we can do as we please.

Probably most people haven't gone into this matter very deeply. They're content to go along with what they've always known, without too much questioning. Animals, or rather dead animals, are very much a major part of a lifestyle to which they're attached. But vegans are different. We believe life is possible without the abattoir. And since this institution symbolises compliance-with-the-norm, then we say this normal is wrong, and therefore it's why we don’t ‘do’ normal. This shameful and violent side of normality is rarely spoken about because if it were, we'd have to take sides. And if we are users of animals we can't be against abattoirs, and we therefore condone the mass execution of these animals. Animal abattoirs are no different to extermination camps of Nazi Germany. People pretend not to know what the abattoir really is, and since abattoirs are usually located well out of town, most people wouldn’t know where the nearest one was. Nor would they know what goes on there, apart from the fact they kill animals there.

From the Industry’s point of view, it’s essential that there’s secrecy surrounding the treatment and execution of animals. The Animal Industries are made up of the people who farm, kill and produce things out of animals. And the customer cooperates, playing along with them since they want to maintain availability of all the items they love to eat, wear and use. And to be able to buy them at the lowest price.

Vegans, however, are on the side of the animals, and since animals can’t defend themselves, we become their advocates and would-be protectors against this juggernaut of abusers and customers. We hope to succeed in winning animals their ‘rights’, even though that might seem a long way off. What keeps us hanging in there is that, in our fight for animals and our own avoidance of abattoir food, we at least know the food we eat is clean and our clear conscience is certainly worth having.

Facing a dramatic change in life

1788: 

To inconvenience oneself by becoming vegan, for the sake of farm animals, will seem to most people entirely unnecessary. They wouldn't even try to think through the logic of the issues involved. They’ll probably come to the conclusion that we vegans are just attention-seekers.

Our biggest challenge is to tell people, in the most non-judgmental way possible, the reason we’re vegan. It's easy to sound self-righteous. If we still have them listening, we can then go on to say what we have to say. Succinctly, perhaps by simply mentioning the fact that we can't approve of the way things are for animals. And leave it at that, unless we're asked for more. Vegans have to get used to truth-avoidance. People aren't going to agree or change their whole lifestyle without going away and considering carefully what they've found out. So, for our part we need to show a determined patience, continuing on despite rejection, disagreement or ridicule. And that means we have to remain vegan without the need for others’ approval or encouragement.

I know ex-activists who’ve 'given up' in frustration, angry at the people’s ethical weakness over animal issues; they haven’t reckoned on it being so slow to catch on. But when you think about it (the long tradition of humans exploiting animals) you know that such a major shift of emphasis, from human-centred concern to concern for the non-human, is a huge shift. Quite how anyone 'gives up' I'm not sure, since the only option they'd have would be to either deepen their hatred of the 'enemy' or indeed to join them again, and resume their omnivorous habits. In other words, for vegans, once vegan, always vegan.

For the hardened omnivore, it seems that animal issues, because they are so closely connected with one's daily food, are shunted off into the 'too hard department'. There's a conspiracy of silence - the issues are never talked about, either in the media or at home around the dinner table. Maybe people make a small gesture, mainly for health reasons - they reduce their intake of red meat. Or maybe they go further by giving up meat altogether (for ethical and health reasons). But in general, stopping ALL compliance with animal farming and boycotting ALL animal produce is, for most people, beyond what they think they'd be able to keep up. So, why bother starting on such a course of action? It’s just simply out of the question.

If we do decide to boycott animal products there is obviously going to be a dramatic change to our daily life, whereas if we don’t, then we condone the abattoir and all that it stands for. But it all starts with the power of one - if demand for animal products drops, as it is slowly dropping, abattoirs shut down. If abattoirs shut down, animal farming stops, and animal products become unavailable. And people adapt. And eventually consciousness changes. This almost inevitably is what we are heading towards in the future. It would spell a dramatic change in the way humans operate and think.

But we can safely reckon that it won’t happen overnight. All the time there is no immediate threat to human survival, such a change is unlikely to happen, unless by the power of one, individuals step ahead of the norm to almost unselfconsciously bring about another fashion, based on ethical principles. However, in the meantime, if that particular change doesn’t seem likely soon, then a vegan might lose heart. And this is a difficulty many vegans face right now.

Making the hard decisions

1787: 

People don’t usually like hearing stories of cruelty and waste in relation to animals. They feel guilty about what they’re eating and wearing, but the problem is that they can’t imagine a world without animal farms and animal foods and animal-based clothing. Most people can’t accept life without meat or, if they’re vegetarians, without eggs, cheese, milk and the hundreds of products using animal ingredients. Most people think a plant-based diet would be boring and unhealthy. But today people are better informed, and if they are not yet quite clear about why cruelty is linked to dairy products, they’ll have no trouble understanding that such things as leather should be avoided, because it is the skin of executed animals.

Back in the 1970s there was far less information. I knew very little until I met the son of a dairy farmer, who knew about what they did to animals, for their meat and milk and eggs. I vaguely knew it wasn’t nice but he went through the details, and explained why consumers were always kept in the dark. But, as he pointed out, that was just what the customer wanted; they didn’t want to know too much, in case they might persuade themselves to act.

This was true for me. I really didn’t want to know. And yet now I did. I liked all the delicious foods and yet had to bring myself to dislike them because of their animal content. And this is the dilemma for most people today, unable to face a life without prawns, steak, ham, eggs, ice cream, milk chocolate, melted cheese on pizzas, fruit yoghurt and cream cakes. And a lot else besides.

Every time I eat out, go to a dinner party or a function or a celebration like a wedding, there are always attractive items to eat, made with lots of animal ingredients. To pass it up might seem masochistic. So, while all the others are stuffing their faces I end up with a bowl of salad. And it's just about the same when it comes to clothing, to leather shoes, woollen jumpers and blankets, silks and furs, etc.  It amounts to a long list.

As a vegan, there's a lot of ‘doing-without’. It’s quite a discipline to impose on yourself. If you decide to deny yourself these ‘eating pleasures’ and wardrobe items, you’ll effectively be stepping aside from normality and from the lifestyle of most of your friends and family.

So, you have to adopt an alternative lifestyle. You have to use your creativity to make it attractive. You find ways to make plant-based foods interesting and delicious. You wear canvas shoes, cotton, linen and synthetic fabrics. You have to get used to explaining to people why such radical changes are being made - yes, it's healthier but mainly it to stand aside from animal-based products, to ‘save animals’.

At this point some will fail to understand, since they feel no particular empathy for pigs and chickens. But for those who do have some empathy, they’ll realise why we’ve had to make these radical changes to our lifestyle. And if we don’t become too evangelical when we explain things, they might just go away and consider things afresh. Who knows, they might admire the principles we live by and decide to move towards becoming vegan themselves.

Vegans in the minority

1786: 

We live in a country, indeed on a planet, where almost every human is using and therefore condoning the abuse of farmed animals. These animals are imprisoned on farms and denied any semblance of natural life. They live in squalor and die in terror. Until the consumer stops buying meat and eggs and dairy products and all the foods and commodities which make use of animals’ bodies, the cruelty will continue.  It’s up to the individual consumer to stop consuming it all, and only then will products be free of cruelty.

The vegan animal activist, in order to live according to his or her own principles, has to adopt a philosophy of not-touching-animals. I mean by that, not using them, not condoning the imprisonment or killing of them, and of course not eating them.

Almost everybody is involved in the exploitation of animals. Those who aren’t (‘vegans’) have made an agreement with themselves to keep their food and clothing plant-based and animal-free. In this way we show how life is possible without using animals for anything. 

The cream-bun mentality

1785: 

Could it be that the omnivore is so obsessed with a childish connection to the soft, syrupy taste experience that they can't let go of it? What is ice cream and fudgey trifles and whippy caramel desserts if not an utterly, deliciously juvenile sensation? Take the classic fattening cream bun as an example. If you’ve eaten one you’ll know what it is - an indulgent taste and texture experience. And these days, there are other more exotic, creamy-cakey items which are made to look attractive to the consumer eye. How can you go past them lined up in their brilliantly lit display cases without being seduced by them? And this comes with the past experience of eating one of these comestibles, so firmly lodged in our memory. But, apart from the sugar content, what’s the most attractive element in this confection? Surely, it's the softness and even contrasting blandness of the cream. It's the richest part of the cow's milk.

But what is it really? It comes from cows who’ve lost their new-born calf, in order to make their milk (and cream) available for humans. But the product itself, the cream, despite it being unhealthy, is universally thought to be delicious to the taste, and when inserted into a sweet cakey-substance seems to make it doubly attractive to eat. Even irresistible. That attraction, multiplied a thousandfold across the range of equally seductive food items, represents one of the most reliably tempting items of, I almost said, 'food'.

If we are concerned for the enslaved animals who produce ‘our’ milk, then we have to choose to either satisfy our taste for this cream element or rise above it. If we avoid it, along with many other equally delectable creamy sweets, then we vegans do it for ethical reasons, for the sake of sticking to a principle, namely the need to boycott anything taken from abused animals. But the question is, if 'cream buns' are eaten, can the temptation be beaten?

Our job is to find ways in which denying oneself the figurative cream-bun makes sense, not merely to avoid putting on weight but for improving one’s ethical self-esteem. 

The fair-weather vegetarian

1784: 

Many humans don’t pay much attention to developing a philosophical basis to their  lives, or at least they don’t stray too far into the world of original thinking. These humans are inclined to focus on the interests of humans only to the detriment of other life forms. I think they do it because it’s where the applause is loudest, where their own way of thinking is most likely to be confirmed.

To be loyal to our own species at the expense of other species is anthropocentrism. We’d find it ridiculous, to say that torturing humans is okay if it’s done humanely, torture never being ‘humanely’ administered. But we have a different set of rules when it comes to non-humans and how they can be treated. One could say that lacto-ovo vegetarians accept the humane torture of animals, because the animals from which eggs and milk are taken are not killed for their meat. It’s okay to exploit them, take their babies, exhaust them, prematurely age them and keep them in confinement with no semblance of social or sexual life until they’re of no further use to humans. Their by-products are acceptable to the lacto-ovo-vegetarian, as long as their flesh is not actually eaten. If they don’t eat meat they can still call themselves vegetarians. Their hypocrisy is astounding.

Here, with the laying hen and the dairy cow, are examples of grossly abused animals. A dairy cow who ‘gives’ her milk, means that her milk is denied to her calf, who is then disposed of. The dairy cow is finally executed when her milk production drops below a certain level.  The hen who ‘gives’ us her eggs (the male chicks are killed on day one) is finally executed, and so is the sheep who ‘gives’ us the wool from its back (exposing it to sunburn and exposure). They’re sent to their grisly deaths after they’ve given as much as they can give. Each of these animals lives in appalling conditions and is slaughtered at the abattoir when they can no longer provide enough milk, eggs or wool, respectively.

Could any fair-weather vegetarian say they do not approve of killing animals for human convenience? 

The bite-back

1783: 

Food is more sensory than spiritual, so it’s usually just a case of ‘eat, drink and be merry, and be careful of your weight’. There's no other dimension to it. When it comes to animal food it usually means a pleasant sensation and a full stomach. But a stomach full of meat is mind full of murder.

We put our very sensitivity on the line when it comes to indulging in animal-eating. Both compassion and intelligence have to be monumentally compromised, both by our use of animal foods and in our conniving with the enslavers and killers of these entirely innocent, beautiful beings. They're so like us in many ways and in so many ways much better than us.

For humans, there's no courage needed to hunt the dangerous beast, and no risking of safety to bring them down; for our convenience, they're kept pinned to the wall. 'Food animals' are captive, bred by artificial insemination, imprisoned in cages from birth and see no prospect of escape. In other words, they are defeated. They don’t fight back (which might remind you of the classic human-to-human situation, where women have been purposely subjugated by males for the purposes of convenience).

As a species, humans enjoy a rich and safe life, by and large. Everything has been made easy for us ever since we sold our souls to the devil, by breaking the first law of predation, currently operating on this planet - it happened when we started imprisoning animals to make use of them. Humans shamed, Nature tamed, animal docility. Thanks for  the grocery, and Death to the Animals!

But we get our just desserts. Death to the humans! The animals do bite back in an unseen way. By eating their bodies and secretions, we put on weight and proceed towards our own deaths with an array of illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease. Tied to animal-based cuisine, the human is slowed down - the subjugation of animals sits in our conscience like a lump, weakening our affectionate nature. It makes us feel like savages, so we develop a hard edge, and apply it to anything or anybody who might stand in our way. When it comes to other species, we don't care. It's food! But it hurts that we can't care for the very beings we’d otherwise feel a great affection for.

The bottom line here is that we can’t resist eating them, sucking the juices out of them, stealing from them, skinning them, shaving them and wearing them. Consequently, there are very many products in the supermarket that are made with animal-based ingredients. Because humans have been for so long tied to this cuisine, the cooks and chemists have perfected their desirabilty. We want them so badly that we've become addicted to these malign products. We simply refuse to deny ourselves. We cauterise that part of us which sees things clearly in order to continue enjoying something which is so fundamentally wrong.

Because animals represent such rich pickings for humans, it would seem like madness NOT to take advantage of them. But by choosing to use animals we bring out the worst in ourselves. The guilt or shame might be heavy enough, but being addicted especially to animal food products, spending so much money on them, risking all the chronic conditions associated with them, it all adds up to a slowing-down of our self development. We're held back by mindlessly consuming what must surely be the ugliest products imaginable. And yet we think nothing of it since most of us are in thrall to the Animal Industries.

The Animal Industries are happy to do our dirty work for us, rearing and killing and presenting the end product, just so long as Joe & Jo Public don’t make a fuss about it. The deal is that consumers will do their best to turn a blind eye to all the horrors, promise not to tell the kids too much, and teach them how to objectify living beings.

Over the years, we’ve executed billions of animals, none of whom have ever been guilty of any crime whatsoever. This wash of cruelty and destruction has forced us to pretend to ourselves that what happens to animals doesn’t actually matter. At all events, we believe about ourselves that we are not cold blooded killers.

The inanimate

1782: 

If I think the animal thing is sad and another person doesn’t, it says a lot about the wide range of human perception. I might know a few more details which makes me more aware of the situation farm-animals are in, but today almost every adult knows essentially how bad things are for them. In these gulags they call farms, and in slaughterhouses, conditions have to be blocked out of people's minds. While it's impossible for some to do that, it's easily possible for others - I see things one way and someone else sees the same thing in another way. What is of greatest importance to one is entirely unimportant to another.

         

This is how a typical vegan might see things: Animals are not so very different to us, they’re sentient, they feel pain and suffer as we do whenever their well-being and life are under threat.

This is how a typical non-vegan might see things: Animals are not ‘sovereign beings’ but more like 'things', and therefore no one has the right to interfere with the owners of these 'things'. Animal farmers contend that what they do with their animals is no one else’s business. Animals are their property, and property is sacrosanct, and that’s the law.

However, according to moral law, the way we treat them shows us how uncaring we humans really are. Seeing what we are allowing to happen to animals is rather like looking into the mirror at ourselves. It's a huge wake up, or so you’d think. But over a long period of time we humans have got used to our reflection. We hardly notice the uglinesses we've grown to accept.

One of the most useful things I possess is a table, which I made. I chose the wood, paid for it and did the carpentry. I didn’t grow the tree but I feel I have the right to call this table ‘my’ table. It’s my property. I can look after it, abuse it, even chop it up. I don’t have to wonder how the table is feeling, or what it thinks about my ‘owning’ it because, of course, objects can’t ‘feel’ or ‘think’. Does that mean I can treat my car, my bike, my table in any old way I please? Legally I can.

This must be how farmers think about their ‘right’ to treat what’s theirs, in any way they choose, not only their tractors but their ‘stock’. Animals are considered property (like my table or my bike). They can be loved and nurtured or they can be exploited and even destroyed. We deal with property as we please, with impunity (and legal immunity). Farm animals are regarded, to all intents and purposes, as inanimate: not without life but without the right to life.