Evangelism re-visited

There’s such a thing as a loaded question, and then there’s the intrusive ‘direct enquiry’, “How do you feel about it?”, or maybe there’s no need for questions at all, since it’s all obvious! But right now, “views” are not the issue, because we’re really trying to test the waters, find out how far we can constructively go, without dipping down into damage-mode.

Sometimes I’ll find myself asking questions, at other times I’ll be manipulating the conversation towards something that interests me (not you, me!) whilst careful not to let you see that that’s what I’m doing. I don’t want it to be obvious that I’m leading you into a minefield. If, at any point it tips, when things turn from casual to stiff and suspicious, then we are exposed. When it comes to the transmission-of-feelings, each of us ‘reads’ them quite adequately enough and, accordingly, evaluates the other person. Our omnivorous friends are not stupid, they recognise how the evangelist operates.

So, am I a proper listener, and not just someone pretending to be interested, waiting for my turn to come in and perhaps attack? All of us, whether vegan or not, should be a ‘consider-er’ of their own and others’ beliefs. By our ‘consideration’, we show that our primary interest is in conversational dialogue (not in conversion). Both sides have equal rights of expression. With the prospect of such a mutually-benefitting and non-violent exchange, why would anyone doubt the need for equal-ness? It’s central to all interactions, and it’s what vegans must be able to settle in to, even when we’re with the most outrageous carnivore, or the most outrageous anybody? We’re equals. But there is a difference. Unlike our omnivore friends, in terms of the Really Good Stuff, we have one great advantage. Apart from enjoying better health we also enjoy a feeling of knowing who we are - identifying and living by a non-violent philosophy. And, what’s more, we undoubtedly derive much of our confidence from knowing that our dynamite arguments are watertight.

Not All Non-Vegans Are Hostile To Us

1904:

If we ever hear someone say, “I’ve never been clear what vegans stand for. Is it a health or religion thing?” The answer has to go through a couple of stages to make any sense to them. That’s because it really isn’t about health and religion as much as it is about sentient animals, suffering at the hands of humans. We can explain that it’s a matter of the ethics of not using animals because it isn’t  necessary, and therefore that it shouldn’t be happening. If we can get to that point, and feel our questioner understands, we might then go on to talk about the farmer.

The humans, who are in direct contact with animals, producing from them, making a living from farming them, are likely to compromise animal welfare standards, to stay in business. The more competition there is from other producers the more likely cruel husbandry methods will be used to keep production costs to a minimum, to reduce competition. Because of this, all animal products are tainted. For those of us avoiding them altogether, there are beneficial offshoots where ‘health and religion’ come in. We eat nutritious foods from which we derive our well-being, and the spiritual benefits come with leading non-violent lives. But whenever we hear a person asking a question – why vegan?, that’s a reminder for us not to lump every non-vegan into the same basket. We are all different, at different stages of awareness and freedom to change. Which is why vegans don’t need to lay any blanket judgements on those who aren’t yet ready to see things our way.

I once attended a talk on veganism and the speaker made the mistake of asking the audience to raise their hands if they were ‘vegans’, leaving those who didn’t raise their hands feeling profoundly uncomfortable, and perhaps wishing they’d never shown up.

When vegans are around, how do we make people feel? Perhaps it’s a cornered-rat feeling. So, as animal advocates often carrying reputations of others’ making, we need to ease the situation. We need to step aside from our need to set the moral standards right, and simply mention Morality which tells people it’s okay to use animals. By the way we say that we show which side of the fence we are on. A lot can be done with body language, neutral facial features, letting ourselves be receptive, listening and watching, being all-ears and not-being patronising. Patience is useful here, proving we are not wanting to pounce, or defeat our adversary. In fact right-at-this-point isn’t the time to be passing on our views or our values. At this point, we need to find out if a person is receptive. Or to put it as crudely as I possibly can, it’s no good the dog fucking the bitch if she’s not on heat.

Omnivores encountering vegans will give off certain signals. And we pick them up just as subconsciously as they signal them to us. Our reaction to those signals marks us down as trustworthy or not. End of.

Sometimes, if this subject crops up, I very often take the initiative to close it down, suspecting that it was probably their good manners that allowed them to bring the subject up in the first place, not out of interest but out of respect for me. Therefore, I might return the courtesy by saying (but only in my thoughts to myself), “Yes, I read your signals, and I see you’re not ready for this.” 

Our backing-off from a volatile situation is good strategy, if nothing else. If we can sense an embarrassing pause in the conversation, where they are toying with the idea of either confronting the subject or swerving onto a more fatuous aspect of the subject, then we know they are about to trivialise something in their minds which they don’t really think is trivial at all. Since we are interacting with the omnivore we should know to treat them with caution on matters of conscience. This is where we must gauge what’s right, and for whom. The object of the exercise is to engage, not to indulge in the ‘Coming. Ready-or-not’ approach.

All in all, we need to listen to the urban myths, the excuses and justifications – everything we really don’t want to be listening to. But let’s now have roles – me the vegan, you the non-vegan. I’m listening to what you’ve got to say even though I disagree with you completely. Remaining passive feels like I’m betraying the animals we’re fighting for, just by listening and not ‘putting you right’. But I’m allowing things to stay as they are for now, because I need to find out as soon as possible what your view on animal rights is. And very often that is made clear enough by what you might be willing to tell me or let me see when you’re eating.

Trust

1903:

Edited by CJ Tointon

For most people, the 'farming of animals' is a subject they don't want to think or talk about. It must be hard to remain a carnivore when you know all the facts. If I get a chance to speak about farmed animals, I often meet with a poor reception, probably due to the fire and brimstone sermons people are used to hearing from other vegans. It makes omnivores nervous.

When we talk about Animal Rights, people need to know that we have our facts straight. If you are an animal advocate and see the sense in coming together with the adversary, you need to appreciate the irony of the situation. First, we have differing views. Second, we have different values and Third, neither is certain how to proceed without expressing disagreement. We need to be prepared to ask and answer questions honestly and sometimes pull back. 

By becoming vegan, we've taken a fork in the road that MANY others aren't even aware exists! Their path has always been the pursuit of comfort and pleasure at any cost, whereas vegans disassociate from that pursuit if it adversely affects animals. Vegans aim to change the attitudes of others. If communication and coming together are essential to attitude change, we need to establish feelings of non-separation between us and them. Before getting into serious speaking, discussing, debating or arguing, we must first establish our own trustworthiness and show trust in others' willingness to change their attitudes towards the animals they presently eat.

Imagine a situation where you and I are talking about this subject. You are the vegan and I the non-vegan. You would ideally want to know, asap, where I stand on things in case it's a volatile subject for me. No doubt, I'll sense your probing and send you back a "Yes, carry-on" or a "No, I don't want to go there" signal. You'll be able to read me since you're already on the look-out for these signs, adjusting what you say accordingly. On the other hand, you might just think "stuff it" and carry on regardless in a true barge in/make or break style. This usually ends in disagreement, with nothing accomplished and each of us writing the other off.

The subject of 'veganism', like no other, has the potential to disturb people deeply. It's redolent of guilt, shame, weakness and pain; which is why vegans need to recognise how much discomfort they can bring about when raising this subject. Nothing will be resolved if there's agitation, if one finds oneself between a rock and a hard place. Vegans, the very people who can help non-vegans come to terms with animal cruelty, are usually locked into a moral judgment position which they can't get past. They want to be useful, but something stands in their way and they're not sure what it is. Everyone we speak to has his/her own point of resistance and it's helpful to find a non-judging platform on which to discuss matters. This will only be possible if we make it none of our business what a person's 'vegan status' is. With this in mind, we can then talk about this subject without straying into the personal. 

I'm Right and You're Wrong

1902:

In the best of all possible worlds we work for the greater good rather than our own good. Good ideas are good for the soul, but ‘spiritual’ goals always seem unreachable and dreary. Perhaps a milder manner is all we need, and then we don’t have to feel hemmed in by our own self-expectation of being ‘good’.

Doesn’t it come down to simply putting ourselves second, addressing the greater good and then deflecting our own fears. Getting things into perspective, whatever fears we may have are nothing compared to the torments of those we’re aiming to help.

The problems facing each one of us are seen within that context – of others’ greater suffering. For vegans, it comes down to straight-out empathy with exploited animals. By deflecting the focus away from ‘me’, I can deal with the problems more intelligently, since there’s so much less self-interest involved. Self-interest is a primary motivator, but it’s also a dead weight, sucking the best juices from any personal ‘fruit’, before what’s left over can be of much use to anyone else.

I suspect humans see all this well enough; there’s plenty of examples of altruistic acts (of kindness) to make us proud to be part of our own species. But we make the mistake of dealing with our closer-to-home problems first, to get them out of the way, so that we have a clear run at the deeper stuff (‘The Greater Good’). Trouble is, we never seem to manage to get that far. We never quite clean up our own act enough to concentrate on ‘the greater good’.

I suspect that that one, single decision is the turning point, the ruining-point of our best adult goals. Because we never finish cleaning up personal issues, because we so badly want others to like us, we never get around to the more principled stuff.

If many vegans do overcome their weaknesses, as they do by becoming vegan, there are those of us who go to the other extreme, who take themselves too seriously; yes, we have addressed big issues of conscience, and now we’ve ended up having contempt for non-vegans. We make it obvious that we want others to improve. To become more like us.

While these extremes exist, what help can non-vegans be to vegans or vegans be to non-vegans? We each have important things to learn from the other. That’s why I think it’s futile to be expecting others to be won over simply by being perfect vegans. It’s a trap. Because it becomes obvious to even the mildest of our detractors that we might only want to persuade others, in order to chalk up our own achievements, by doing our bit for ‘the animals’.

Activists are willing to engage in very ineffective actions to feel better about ‘their commitment to the cause’. “How can you be an activist without some ‘action’?”, they say. How can you be a vegan unless you are sure you’re right, which can descend into being ‘right all the time’. And no one finds that very inspirational.

Style

1901:

My conscience may rely on morality, but it’s not its only guide and I’m not keen on the idea of morality when it has so much ugly association with god-botherers and goodness-preachers. I’d like my conscience to take a constructive path and avoid the bad and insincere in the same way that one would avoid foul-smelling air. I’m aware that ‘being good’ is still very much about brownie points, which I haven’t any interest in. Ideally, it’s closer to panache and style.

In a vegan lifestyle I see a smoother operation - the body itself is usually functioning in top form simply because it isn’t being daily poisoned by animal stuff. I feel that my mind is more inspired by its own potential, rather than its focusing on bald goodness or sensible healthiness. I don’t want to just ‘do right’ but to do right things more easily. I’m happier being in a more gentle relationship with my environment, when everything that can respond-back does so, positively and in a gentler style. Style again.

Veganism is about stepping beyond the tempting world of commodities in order to become freer to develop a number of things, not the least of which is sensitive thinking and sensitive attitudes. I notice it in myself, when I’m not for ever tripping over guilt and grubby, old fashioned attitudes, especially those which regularly concern once-favourite foods, produced by the animal-industry. For me personally, as a vegan, this is the really great advantage of my lifestyle - but I admit that it’s frustrating that I can’t say this without sounding ‘up’ myself. 

When I’m advocating for animals I’m also hoping to set ‘style’. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not rubbishing a bit of old fashioned morality. It’s just that I like to think morality is a stepping stone to more interesting things. Morality is a good reference point, like having rules when you’re playing a sport. Then it’s just a matter of honesty, where the honourable sports-player plays a straight game and enjoys playing by the rules.

The problem, as I see it, with evangelical preachers, preaching unvarnished morality, is that they always kill the enjoyment. They have to make pleasure sinful, and in terms of vegan principle, if it’s made into a strictness it certainly loses its attractiveness.

Morality, ethical upbringing, values, they’re guides, pointing out the right direction, but we’re heading towards more sophisticated ways of living and decision-making these days . “Thou shalt not eat meat” isn’t inspiring, whereas “Lighten up - be vegan” seems to be worth investigating. It’s more attractive and just as moral.

This Way to the Level Playing Field

1900:

If we aren’t sure about our direction in life we can imagine another place, another dimension, where people rather like us are doing things a little differently. They consult with conscience and try to be ‘doing good’. But it sounds sickly sweet, put that way. But it’s really just an extreme common sense plea for conscience. Restoring the balance between being intelligent and being too heart-driven.

The conscience is taken more seriously in some so called ‘less developed’ countries, whereas we in the West have forgone conscience in order to get ahead. We are ‘First Worlders’, and responsible for the bulk of environmental damage and animal exploitation. We’ve grown softened by pleasure and high living and grown hard-hearted in the process.

But, to our great advantage, many of us have at least developed a fuller consciousness of what we’ve done. We’ve taken the trouble to examine what lies behind the lies we’ve been fed. We are now super aware of the excesses of our human nature, our destructiveness and violence, but at the same time this has led to our becoming aware of our potential for repair. Superstitions and gods have given way to clarity of thought, so we no longer see ourselves as automaton being led by supernatural forces or in awe of earth-bound authority. In taking responsibility for our own destiny, many have become self-guiding entities working with the latest human knowledge, to come up with solutions. We’re on the brink of starting all over again.

However much we are all going to have to suffer, we’ll be better able to weather what is coming, now that we have enough awareness of what has happened. This much fuller awareness will help us strike a better balance between the genius of intellect and the guidance of conscience.

We could, in theory, turn things around so that the majority eventually get onto the same page, where we’re all pointing in the same direction. Impossible? Not really, when conscience is elevated to its rightful place, no longer squashed down by ‘the inexorable march of progress’.

On an individual level this might be where each of us wants to be, but we’d like everyone else to be there too, so that we’d have others to hold our hand, so that we aren’t operating grudgingly - not expecting reward or being in need of recognition. Aren’t we wanting to be working towards a level playing field, so that all interests are taken into consideration, equally?

Famous Mistakes

1899:

My attitude to you as a meat eater is what? It’s none of anyone’s business what anyone thinks of anyone. But behaviour is important, it’s the clothing of our thoughts. I sense you knowing better than me, and that’s guaranteed to make things go wrong between us. There’s a microsecond of feeling being transmitted, before the brain catches up and tries to hide it. This is where the real damage is done, feeling-wise - you feel you’re being judged by me. You’re something between being disliked and being thought of as distasteful. And in reply, you think much the same about me.

If I sense your dislike and if I let my ego sweep in, in defence of ME, then I begin to move towards retaliation. If we’re enjoying the struggle, that’s fine. That can be liberating and stimulating. But if we’re not on the same sparring level, and it goes wrong, and one or the other slips into value-judging or condemning, that’s where the rot sets in.

If I start disliking you because I think we should all be vegan, then mine isn’t just a specific dislike but a whole-person dislike, catastrophic enough to cause a severing of connections. It’s like two jarring tectonic plates leading to earthquake. So, in the delicate rose beds of human to human relationship, we are careful about who we are sounding-off to. If it goes wrong, I’ll probably be de-friended but worse, by association, my ideas suffer the same indignity. When trust is withdrawn, it can become a war zone, me demanding air space, you just wanting to catch me out. End of.

Or maybe it’s a beginning. But a dangerous route to take and not in keeping with the principle underlying non-violence. Rough and Tumble is sometimes essential, but delicate handling is appropriate at other times. If we really were to operate between ourselves on an instinctive, vibration-ary level, we’d have no trouble reading the signals and never make the really bad mistakes of mis-communication.

The Big Sell

1898:

If I’m attempting to convince the majority that what they’re doing, by using, eating or wearing animals is wrong I’m also asking them to listen to something attractive they can do instead. Sometimes we can start in with ethics, at other times, health or food or environment, depending on who we’re talking to.

         

So, maybe we can start with this sort of pitch, suggesting that there’s a way to get off unhygienic, disease-ridden and unhealthy foods by simply eating from a plant-base, which also happens to takes us immediately away from being involved in crime against animals. We could just mention health and animal cruelty but, as the ads tell us, “there’s much more!”.

Perhaps the most attractive aspect of becoming vegan is the improvement in self respect, pulling ourselves away from the brainwashed habits we’ve inherited, making us feel less like cowards for not exploiting animals simply because they can’t fight back.      

Veganism stands up for those bullied by the self-interested human. Vegans don’t see animals as a resource, and therefore don’t turn animals into commodities. Our lifestyle is cheaper too, simpler perhaps, and yet encourages us to be creative with food. If you eat with vegans it’s likely you’ll discover new tastes and surprisingly delicious plant-based dishes. But above all this, the most significant of the attractions is that we’re in a unique position to recommend repairs. Our arguments are as simple as they are unarguable. And we think, or at least some of us do, that the universal principle which has so long been ignored by violent, greedy, enslaving humans, can now be taken up by the intelligent humans. And through them we can transform ourselves en routes to transforming our species and indeed, our planet’s future. By the simple expedient of leading non-violent lives. In other words, by becoming vegan it allows us to take a brave stand on our own behalf as well as the animals’, and pave the way for a constructive improvement all round.

Vegans are brave in what they do, how they speak out against the odds, how we conduct our private lives, and nothing more needs to be said. Unless it is to mention those who go a bit further and are speaking with just a small touch of love, to cut through any hostility and ridicule we’re given. It is only fear, after all. And courage comes cheap when you’re ‘wacko-ing’ vegans, it being easy to speak with the crowd. It’s sometimes so hard to continuously stand against it.

Dealing With Bullies

1897:

As vegans, we need to state our case clearly but then we need to step back and see what happens, and try to understand why people are reacting the way they do. To us.

It’s because this subject is so sensitive that people are so afraid of social confrontation. It means that any vegan they know could be someone they might be afraid of, if they fear attack. Which is why it’s important for vegans to get past this ‘condemnation’ phase, which isn’t easy. But it’s only then that we can conduct robust but non-violent interactions. Our detractors aren’t the enemy! We talk carefully, if only to prove that talking with vegans can be as satisfying as conversing with anyone else. Being flexible in our conversations, especially when they touch this one subject, is what it’s all about. Choosing the right time to speak up and when not to is what it’s all about.

Our movement needs more dispassionate research into attitude, so that we can realise what we’re up against. And work from there, work with what we’ve got and only doing whatever  will work. Society’s attitude is a massive construct to deal with. But keeping it simple, even local, if I’m attempting to convince the majority that what they’re doing is wrong and dangerous, I’m also asking them to consider attractive aspects of vegan lifetsyle instead. Sometimes we can start in with ethics, at other times, health or food or environment, depending on who we’re talking to, but whatever we do speak about we’d only be telling half the story if we missed out the personal benefits of being vegan.

         

So, maybe we can start with this sort of pitch, suggesting that there’s a way to get off unhygienic, disease-ridden and unhealthy foods by simply eating from a plant-base, which also happens to takes us immediately away from being involved in the crime against animals. We could just mention health and animal cruelty but, as the ads tell us, “there’s much more!”.

Perhaps the most attractive aspect of becoming vegan is the improvement in self respect, by pulling ourselves away from the brainwashed habits we’ve inherited. That will make us feel less like cowards for not exploiting animals simply because they can’t fight back.  

Veganism stands up for those bullied by the self-interested human. Vegans don’t see animals as a resource, and therefore don’t turn animals into commodities. Our lifestyle is cheaper too, simpler, market restricted, gives us the vital second reason for not buying crap food, and most significantly it encourages us to be creative with food. If you eat with vegans it’s likely you’ll discover new tastes and surprisingly delicious plant-based dishes. But above all this, the most significant of the attractions is that we’re in a unique position to recommend repairs.

Our arguments are as simple as they are unarguable. And we think, or at least some of us do, that the universal principle, so long ignored by the violent, greedy, enslaving humans, can now be taken up by the intelligent humans anywhere in the world. And through them we can transform ourselves en route to transforming our species and start to give back to the planet. And that transformative pulse could issue from the simplest of habit changes, namely for humans to become herbivorous, thus sparing sentient species from phenomenal levels of human cruelty. By the simple expedient of leading non-violent lives, by becoming vegan, we allow ourselves to take a brave stand on our own behalf as well as the animals’, and pave the way for a constructive improvement all round.

Vegans are brave in what they do, how they speak out against the odds, how we conduct our private lives, and nothing more needs to be said. Unless it is to mention those who go a bit further and are speaking with just a small touch of love, to cut through any hostility and ridicule we’re given. It is only fear, after all. And courage comes cheap when you’re wacko-ing vegans, it being easy to speak with the crowd. So, it’s sometimes hard to have to continuously stand against the status quo.

Conversations with Friends

1896:  

Judging and condemning don’t work. Not in the case of Animal Rights anyway, since any amount of outrage from a small group of people, is ineffective. It’s just too easy for the big group of people to ignore the whole thing and remain blissfully unscathed by their minority judges. We’re talking food habits here, where ninety per cent of people don’t regard animals, like pigs and cows, to have any other purpose than to be there for human use. The way we treat them is not that important, because it’s hidden so that we don’t have to see it, even if we wanted to. The feelings of farmed animals either don’t exist or they’re not important because they can’t be expressed in any language we can understand. No language - no feelings, so why worry since they’re going to be put to death soon anyway. That we eat them is not important, since we’ve been doing it for two million years. And we seem to thrive on our ‘natural diet’ of meat and two veg.

People who don’t think they’re in the wrong will see their critics as ignorable. There are just too many meat eaters and milk drinkers, for them to be worried about what a few rabid vegans have to say. Cruelty on the farm is just part of making a living, sometimes a very poor living, out of the land. Not all land is good for cropping, and only suitable for grazing. Then there’s the competition of other less scrupulous farmers who take short cuts, not with the quality of their product so much as with the quality of their board and lodging facilities, for their animals. They can make food that is cheaper. If a cage can double production and cut costs in half, eggs will be cheaper. If stabling dairy cows or sows or turkeys burns less energy, that means greater production and lower fodder bills, but lower retail prices. If they didn’t confine animals, farmers would go out of business.

The arguments of the people who don’t think they’re wrong, are common to people everywhere on the planet. They’d barely give the matter of animal rights a second thought. And yet there are others of us who think of very little else. We can’t get the daily holocaust out of our minds.

So, we condemn the unethical use of animals. But we know that, without the support of the law or the majority of ordinary people, our protests and judgements will go unheeded. Regarded as merely ravings of weirdos, who are therefore ignorable. But useful in so much as their antics can be the subject of amusing dinner-table conversations. The casual nature and incidental, even subliminal ‘product placement’ on TV shows further emboldens the carnivores to carry on being carnivores.

We observe them wheeling their shopping trolleys down the aisles, laden with their ‘little comforts’. We see them doing what they do and buying what they buy. And find it sad to see them eating their way to an early and ugly death. But ours is still a concern for them as fellow humans, for their conditioning and desensitisation, while our main concern must always be the liberation of human-exploited animals.

Perhaps we should only encourage people to think for themselves and not let them be frightened to discuss matters with people like us. For that to come about, they must be sure that vegans are gentle in all ways, knowing that we would never insist that anyone agrees with us, nor that we ourselves would ever become defensive about our own views.

Statistics and Stories - Part Three

1895: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Vegan nutritionists say that animal by-products are not necessary for human health or wellbeing. So, as soon as we feel safe, we should put one foot on the lowest rung of the ladder which is waiting to be climbed, leaning against the ramparts of that seemingly impregnable castle wall. And as we climb, safe rung by safe rung, we get to a point where we can direct our volleys over the castle wall. But what drives people to abuse animals and condone animal cruelty in the first place?

Customers of the Animal Industry daily swear fealty to the masters by handing over considerable amounts of money to buy from them what they think they must have. But they don't fully comprehend just how conditioned they are. People usually believe what they are told, especially when it's what they want to hear. It's the same with our tragic victims on the farm. They initially trust the human who eventually betrays them. Modern conditioning is subtler than old-style conditioning. Conditioning these days is subliminal, relying on people not identifying as being conditioned. Social animals that we humans are, we succumb to peer pressure, fashion and 'normality' and let others guide us instead of using our own instincts. We win acceptance at the cost of not developing our own individuality, our own beliefs and our own attitudes.

Today's chief concern in the human world, isn't for what is right, but for what will fit in. Eating together brings us into a comfortable 'group' feeling. The ritual of eating, a daily re-enactment of shared normality. Our greatest appreciation of the food we are eating is shown in the way we chew it, savour it and the evident pleasure we get from a good cheese or a light sponge cake. Shared experiences of the gastronomic kind act as the social glue of conformity and convention. 

In terms of reality (even of desirability) the vegan plant-based idea is so foreign to most that its very name seems to conjure the idea of 'thin/weak'. People from a very young age, have been conditioned by governments, doctors, schools and the legal system to eat and use animals for strength, for growth, for happiness. In this way, the human mind is conditioned by the established institutions of authority. Without our fully realising it, we sponsor many already thriving animal industries by helping them proliferate deadly illnesses which are closely associated with conventional diets. Lawyers, doctors, teachers and politicians have a lot to answer for by underwriting all this. They authorise the violence that accompanies the production of all meat, milk and eggs, thereby excusing the brutality embodied in the animal exploitation industries.  

Statistics and Stories - Part Two

1894:

Edited by CJ Tointon

We’re now out of the sea and up on dry land. Here, there are two sorts. Those who are born and live their entire lives in the wild in relative freedom, and others, the 'domesticated' ones, the 'farmed' ones (including some fish) who are enslaved. Unlike the fish of the sea, these animals have never known a natural environment. Indeed, they have never known LIFE - only a bare existence. These unfortunate souls are bred and kept in the captive state - solely to be killed. There's no quality of life for them. Their existence comprises captivity and incapacity followed by brutal execution. If we could actually see any of this happening,  we'd surely be in tears. Which is why these animals are kept out of public sight.

How can our consciousness allow even one animal, fish or bird to go through this horror at our behest? Without an imagination driven by empathy, it's impossible to grasp the true horror of what is really going on with all this killing and all that leads up to it. This impossibility to comprehend, creates the disinclination to change, especially amongst those with a 'food charged', speciesist attitude toward non-humans.

Here's the maths: eight animals for every human on the planet will be put to death this year!  The figures are so staggering that we can barely distinguish between 56 thousand animals, 56 million animals and the 56 billion land animals that humans keep behind bars for exploiting and killing every year. We are conditioned in a certain way to do the mental gymnastics which makes statistics meaningless. Vegans believe the killing should stop! But to the conditioned carnivore who is eating animals every day, such an idea is so unrealistic as to make it dismissible - "Are you saying that NO animals should be held captive, or killed or eaten?"  Yes - vegans are saying just that - and more!

In the attempt to unravel the perniciousness of our conditioning, we almost need to outsmart it, to help our adversaries. For example: we can try to help the perpetrators switch to profitable businesses away from the abattoir businesses. The executive killers, the product retailers, the mind conditioners, they all need help to employ their entrepreneurial skills in other fields of business to give humans and the whole ecosystem time to heal. But getting this simplest of messages across is like standing silent at the ramparts of the strongest castle.

If we are to have any chance at all as animal advocates, we must first be VEGAN. It's an absurdity otherwise. You can't eat them AND fight for their rights. Going vegan might feel like a calculated risk at first; until we realise that animal-based foods can be dropped safely. Many vegan doctors and nutritionists are researching the safety and health aspects of a plant-based diet and this is a point of great importance. But we shouldn't get waylaid by it. It isn't the main point of concern. We should boycott meat for the sake of the prisoners.

Two important notes, prior to today's blog

[1893]:

First a big thank you to CJ Tointon, who edits some of the blogs. She provides such an invaluable service. My lousy English, as you can see in my unedited pieces, is greatly improved  by her great skill at ‘language’. I really appreciate all she does, and all the encouragement she passes on. And all pro bono too!!

Second, as relevant to the following three blogs, I want to pass on a link to a brilliant little 17 minute video, made my Melanie Joy, who is well known as a writer on ‘Carnism’, and therefore ‘Animal Rights’. The video has a two minute section in the middle which is graphic, but she warns us about that beforehand. I was very impressed when I watched it, and have now watched it many times. Really recommend anyone to watch it.  https://www.happycow.net/blog/secret-reason-eat-meat-carnism-melanie-joy/

Statistics and Stories - Part 1

1893:

Edited by CJ Tointon

Joseph Stalin: “The death of one is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic”

I'll tell you a story of a fish, known to his friends as Harold. Not so very long ago, Harold was happily swimming along in the sea, minding his own business. Suddenly, travelling fast behind him, came a rumbling, grinding, frightening noise. He'd heard this noise before, but from a distance, never this close.

Next thing he knew, a massive, dragging bar, weighing down a floating, balloon-shaped net, catches up behind him. It scoops him up, lifting him to the surface. As he begins to die slowly, suffocating and being crushed beneath the weight of the bodies of many other sea friends who'd also been caught in the net, he fought to stay alive. But the crush of the other creatures struggling and pressing into Harold, only ended when the net was emptied of its slithering mass. It tumbled onto the deck of a ship. Harold gasped, in agony, for a full twenty minutes before he finally died.

                                                                                           The End….

You might feel the horror of this little story, but it's not the full story - it's eighty-five billion times worse! Last year, the oceans were plundered to the tune of 85,000,000,000 Harolds and Haroldesses. Humans don't seem to care anymore. Humanity has lost its humaneness. We convince ourselves that to eat animals, is to love animals, illustrating the nonsense which is at the heart of our conditioning. Nothing seems to stir us into action if it goes against our self-interest and statistics just numb the imagination. Eightyfivebillion - how can we even conceive such a number?

Multiply one fish by 85 million, then multiply that figure by one thousand. You arrive at the unimaginable figure of 85 billion - the number of individual fish being taken out of their environment each year - just so humans can eat them.

Harold was both crushed and suffocated to death. His demise is not just a statistic, it's a story of yet another untimely death - for no reason other than to titivate the taste buds of humans. If we don't like what the story tells us, we might decide to stop eating fish. But to not eat fish might feel like doing something unpleasant to ourselves, like a self-punishment. What vegans advocate in boycotting products (on behalf of Harold and his mates) sits against the whole remembered experience of the tastes and textures of one's favourite fish dish. The remembered pleasure is potent enough to cancel out any dry old statistic - hence the phrase, "lies, damned lies and statistics". Most humans immunise themselves against the emotional impact of certain selected, unpleasant facts, hence our conditioning makes the size of statistics meaningless.

We may try to push them away, but some statistics are haunting. If we are able to feel less for a fish in the ocean than for a creature with legs or wings, we face a similar, but slightly different problem even more diabolical to deal with - the conditions of animals held in captivity.

'Pets' and Judgement

1892:

Being ‘animal-lovers’ many liberationists are owners/guardians of carnivorous-animals. But being responsible for feeding these companion animals forces the vegan to have to visit the meat counter, just as meat-eaters do themselves. There on the meat counter are other animals, now dead, made ready to feed our cat or dog. How do vegans square that one?

But that aside, what we are condemning in others, for disregarding farm animals, we do so because, to some extent, it makes us feel good, because we know we are ‘right’. But it come across as conceit, where condemnation and value judgement also sound like conceit - for this reason our ‘right-speak’ won’t work. Meat eaters won’t be bullied into giving up their meat. They might even enjoy our vegan outrage, especially if they think we’re whacko anyway.

Some vegans are like bullies, and even amongst each other there’s a tendency towards being vegan-police-types, criticising one another’s inconsistencies (as I’ve just done with vegans with carnivorous companion animals). But it’s not the details of our various judgements, but judgement in general which is so unproductive. None of us likes to be judged and most of us respond badly to it. So, overall, the blunt instrument of judgement, real or perceived, works against everyone’s best interests. If we make use of judgement we can’t, in my opinion, be effective advocates for animals. We do damage with it.

Serious Differences

1891:  

If we have serious words, spoken by serious people, about serious matters, the ‘serious look’ can sometimes look hysterical, our serious words flip over into the ‘not to be taken too seriously’ category. How easily the intelligent animal activist is called whacko. Probably, most people today live in their own well-constructed ‘reality’ camp. They feel it’s best to accept Reality, as it presents, especially when it presents our own interests.

The unavoidable fact, for all who care to think, is that just about everyone in the community is involved in killing. The abattoir crushes the sensitivity of thinking-people who are customers of the companies who do the killing. Their food involves animals, and for that reason alone, few of them can be expected to see things our way. They won’t listen. But if that’s hard enough for us, we have a more serious communication problem.

Imagine bumping into someone you haven’t seen for years and going for a coffee together, and you discuss your lives since you last met. And inevitably this subject appears. And you’re reminded of other occasions in the past, finding how easily eyes glaze over at any hint of ‘animal-lib’ talk. Which is why the bored feelings, the discomfort, the statistics. Which is why old-style animal liberation talk doesn’t work, especially when the story is dry or stale. Which is why my friend now thinks I’m boring, because I haven’t stopped talking about animals since we sat down.

A vegan’s perspective influences a huge number of activities, like food and clothes, shopping, dining, discussing serious matters. And that’s what happens here, with me and my friend. We t touch on serious discussion and within seconds I know if he’s an omnivore, and likely he soon enough picks up I’m not. We are already in disagreement. The details don’t matter because now it comes down to a raw emotion, less conscious for him than me. So, quite directly, this is where vegans MUST take a lead. It’s a matter of liking people who disagree with us. A vegan is often very strongly opinionated. And that’s okay if you’re with someone who unconditionally loves you, who find it admirable to hold strong views. They personally aren’t threatened by the fact that there’s a difference of opinion here. But with the many people we talk to, who aren’t our unconditional lovers, one big difference (politics, sex and religion, etc) can get personal.

If that happens, if we come across as cold and unaccepting of someone (because they are omnivores) that will be the predominant thing that’s remembered, and in future avoided. It’s hardly ever they who initiate coldness or rejection of us, because vegans are whacko and even cuddly and cute, but they’re no threat lifestyle-wise. But for us, that’s not the case. It’s not so for us, about them. To vegans, the meathead is the threat, not to us personally but to our ‘clients’. We feel obliged to be serious about our food, our relationships and the Cause. Well, you get my drift. We aren’t, all of us vegans, altogether peaceful peaceniks. People often think it’s not safe to disagree with a vegan.

But this genuine and not altogether unfounded fear is made dangerous for all concerned when it becomes a dislike of vegans. When people find them disagreeable, and therefore, along with their information, disregard-able. This particular attitude, towards animal activists in general, develops in the privacy of one’s own mind, becoming an almost subconscious distaste for certain types of people, types of views, and types of aggression. Whether founded on an individual encounter or a generalised view of all vegans, it’s one’s own private attitude, perhaps fuelled by others, that finalises an important judgement. Of course, our generalised view of meatheads is that perhaps with extreme carnivores, they have to swear a private oath to never cave-in to vegan rhetoric. 

Blunt Instruments

1890:

Animal Liberation aims to rescue and liberate animals - no more animal slavery. That’s the expectation! It’s not a request or a suggestion, something much stronger. But stronger in what way? Our ‘expectation’ might seems a bit cocky. But that element comes from its obviousness rather than from the moral wrongness of slavery. Slavery is an obvious sign of failure. Obviously, vegan principle is right, otherwise there’d be arguments to suggest it might NOT be right.

The fact is though we’re a bit too small to take notice of. No danger of us tipping the 49% balance soon! But through the thick haze of normality, we’re finding a way in. In any interaction, whether face to face, emailing, phoning, whatever we do together we expect to be doing in pleasure. Conversations aren’t meant to be sermons – what we say together we say in friendship even if we disagree. Our job is to tell anyone willingly listening about what’s going on– in the world of farmed animals, emphasising how none of the products or the suffering behind them is necessary. It’s avoidable. The customer is the key here: once people stop buying dead animals, soon enough abattoirs will stop making them dead, and go out of business. But saying all this isn’t communication – we say it and people don’t hear. Some do but it’s nowhere near enough change to free the enslaved animals. Only by the minority of vegans becoming a majority will there be any change in the law to protect animals. People are afraid of joining a minority, especially since it involves them making great changes to the way they eat and dress. Which is why most people don’t want to be exposed to this subject. Almost any level of communicating this subject is tricky. There are just so many people who are ‘unable’ to agree with us.

Which is why it’s so important for vegans to communicate effectively. By staying on subject while keeping emotions on low. But having been brought up in sport or debate to be adversarial, we tend to speak in order to win-the-argument.  That sort of approach is redundant in Animal Rights, because ours is a far subtler subject to deal with. It’s beyond logic and rational debate for many people who will not empathise with these animals. And, for our part, lets’ always bear in mind that we are in the middle of a conversation not a war zone.

In any conversation, arguments don’t necessarily have to be won by us. On this subject winning is about being given an opportunity to speak freely. But even so, conversing, we are talking together. We aren’t there to convert, or to win, or indeed to joke about serious matters. We’re having a conversation simply to engage in discussing matters without there being anything so formal as a fixed agenda. That’s NO sort of conversation at all, and vegans don’t go around haranguing people, if only because if that fails it fails spectacularly; by not tipping the balance and bring them around to our way of thinking, they could go the other way. So put off by our approach that they’ll avoid us in the future and for that matter steer clear of all vegans too.

Before we get anywhere near justice for animals, we have trust to build and a reputation to repair. We can do that mainly through the signals we give through body language, showing that we’re ONLY information imparters; that we never get personal; that we acknowledge everybody’s right to be at their own level of personal development. And yet, withal, we are giving reasons why we think there’s an urgency in defending these animals.

The sooner the majority of humans become vegan, the sooner the animals will be liberated. BUT, in a free society, good communication is everything, especially since we are lied to and misinformed about the value of animal products. Vegans need to find their own unique way of talking about compassion for animals and about respecting the feelings and stage of self-development of our fellow humans. So we don’t need to condemn. We often think that logically, it’s right to condemn those who support the animal industries, but if logic often works well, in this case it isn’t strong enough to withstand the collective consciousness. There are just so many people using animals for food, clothing and lots more. We don’t ‘condemn’ because the emotion behind it is ugly. It’s an approach vegans could find very difficult to justify.

Tha Flames and The Walls

1890:

As Australia swelters in heat, the Bush is burning. Houses have been lost. Even human lives. It’s on the news. But nary a mention of the main inhabitants of the bush, most of whom couldn’t escape and were burned to death, and no mention of those other animals who couldn’t escape because they were locked in.

In paddocks surrounded by barbed wire and unopenable gates, as the flames and choking smoke spread towards the trapped animals, so the inevitability of a burning-death must become clear to them. During which time these frightened and very sentient animals only know one thing – there’s no escape.

Now, take away the flames, take away the smoke, leave instead the walls of an enclosure and a ramp leading to a truck, leading to a chute or a conveyor, leading to execution. That route, trodden last year by fifty-five billion sentient land animals should be enough to stop the humans in their tracks? “Now listen. Can you hear the voices”?

No. Because it’s all done off stage – what’s to remember? The stats will be forgotten, and the TV pictures too. Yesterday’s news. The main elements will be blanked out. But those flames, those wire fences, those unheard screams, the being trapped. If they make the News at all, it only talks of ‘stock-losses’. But whether they die in flames or have their throats cut at the abattoir, the animals have long been ‘de-life-d’, gentle souls that they are. Perhaps their existence in this life is to go deeper into that all-evasive trait, forgiveness?

But for we humans, in today’s consciousness, swamped with information, almost everyone of us understands what’s going on and also that this whole animal thing is unnecessary.

Experimentation and Observation

1889:

Some of us have considered becoming vegan; some have tried it; gradually numbers are growing. Take up is slow. It’s slow at first and then, as it merges more strongly with the spirit of this new age, it will move more rapidly.

How quickly this happens depends on where we are now. With veganism, the speed at which this idea sparks a revolution is determined by our own faith in that idea, starting with our initial association with vegan food.

Once we have enough faith in our discovery (and feel optimistic about it), once we start feeling less ill all the time (by eating decent food), once we link mental clarity with the release of a single idea then faith aligns with food. Then we can re-educate ourselves and help to re-educate others.

When the really interesting experiments take place, when people start to experiment with a vegan lifestyle, they’ll know immediately that they’re investing in their own future and that of the planet. And it all comes about via information. This is the information age. It’s here and it’s free and it’s accessible. Just think of the past and all the misperceptions we’ve swallowed! We’ve almost become vivisected, experimental, laboratory creatures, who’ve been dosed with misinformation and then been observed. Used.

Looking for the Core

1889:

We tried it and liked it and then found it impossible to imagine why everyone wasn’t vegan. But here is an important factor in all this - it’s the interest that sparks things, that helps to identify with the ideal of harmlessness. Everything, including our food, is subjected to this testing and trialling, it to see if it applies. If it does, and we opt for the most harmless course, and then realise our decision becomes the better part of us, we want to share this with others. Like a stage-struck kid who learn a magic trick, we will want to hit the boards with our new discovery, show it off, and attempt to suspend other people’s disbelief in it.

At first this ‘vegan’ idea appears nothing. But it affects us so much that we have to check that we never try to big-note ourselves about it. We don’t need to boast about the treasure we’ve found. And if we do speak about it, there’s no need to sound smug, since we haven’t found anything that wasn’t there already. It’s just that we have seen something, an ‘interest’ space opens up inside us to let it in. And now we urge others to look for something of it, the ideal in it, the practice and the way of life it guides us into, and idea which before might have been discarded. The idea, even The Idea, a panacea even - we look, and we find one binding idea. But, if you’re not looking, then there’s nothing to be found.

Born Sighted, Conditioned Blind

1888:

If we find what seems to be a good idea lying, figuratively speaking, at the side of the road, we might think it lifeless. But curiosity tempts us to pick it up. We might prod it and poke it just in case. Magically, it shows a little life. We stay with it. And the longer we stay with it, the more life we seem to endow it with. Until, almost suddenly, it comes to life. So alive, in fact, that we ask what it is; we question it, trial it, test it, only to find treasure. But it’s almost invisible to others, so we can’t convey it past walled-in attitudes, which dismiss the animal-thing to let people eat what they eat in peace. “Leave me alone”. Like those telemarketing people who phone you at dinnertime - don’t give them the slightest chance to start talking or you’ll never get rid of them. Same with this animal thing. Open up to that one and another perspective floods in. Which is why this subject is, to all intents and purposes, a no-no subject. Its main association is with food and food pleasure. A vegan perspective on animals and plant-based food just looks like ‘anti-food’, a subject in which almost no one is interested.

So with conditionings and misperceptions, plus social pressures, this subject may evoke a zero interest or be merely a no-go matter. Lack-of-interest, along with attitudes that have their shutters down versus we lettuce-eating, tree-hugging hippies.

How can we interest another person in matters they’ve always found best to avoid? But if there is a point of interest in veganism it might not be in its ethics.

Initially, the biggest interest is coming from those interested in food - the health-giving properties of illness-preventing food, and through plant-based taste experiences. Those who are put off don’t want to disturb their present, familiar, ‘safe’ diet. They don’t want capsize their chief interest.

If they became vegans, it would certainly disturb the conditioning. The negative attitude towards farmed animals is based on image conditioning. We learn from an early age that calves are cute and cows are ugly; the young are pretty, the old repulsive. Take a pig, a full-grown ‘porker’ - it’s difficult to elicit warm feelings for ‘something’ like that. A pig looks too-weird. The result of humans meddling with genes and things. The human: not content to take the animals, not content to enslave and imprison them, we scientifically distort the animal’s body to being most productive of best-selling bacon cuts or deforming broad legs to make better ham. How do we get people interested let alone passionate about such matters when they still use? So how? Well, not in the direct way, or via ‘compassion’, because the mass mind-set about these animals is that they are too ugly to bother with. In other realms of interaction, if it’s human then there’s lots of compassion, compared to the astonishing lack of it for the non-human.

For vegans, it happens explosively, rocketing us off, right over the social barrier. Once on the other side we tune into finding vegan food, we deal with plant-based consciousness, we even learn to deal with the opprobrium and apathy. But in our own life, something has clicked. We’ve been brought in close to these dear animals, to their cause.

'Isms'

1887:

For those who are also attracted to ‘isms’, vegan-ism is a good ‘ism’ to be attracted to. But we have to face both what is tempting and what is daunting about it. It’s no good pretending that ‘going-vegan’ is a bed of roses. The perception of veganism, is that it’s a mixture of satisfaction and difficulty, pleasure and non-pleasure. But only by ‘doing’ it can one find out how much there is of each.

Most of us don’t willingly do unpleasant things, that will bring discomfort to ourselves. We may be motivated by the ideal of ‘going vegan’, but in practice we may not be that strongly motivated. Most people who know what veganism stands for also know what it involves. Particularly in being disciplined about cravings for taste sensations associated with animal-based foods.

There are plenty of ‘isms’ around today and most of them use some level of self-punishment as an all-purpose soul-cleanser! But this ‘ism’ has some unique ‘cleansing’ qualities. It has an attractive consistency and stability about it, because it’s based on such simple yet solid foundations. It makes one feel ultimately optimistic. It gives us hope, and a glimpse into what we could expect a golden future to look like. So, once introduced to such a principle, why would we walk away from it?

In veganism, perhaps we aren’t only looking for a health diet or even just a way to stop the animal killing but looking at an idea that might be powerful enough to break through the most dominant mind-set, shared by almost every human on the planet - that the purpose of certain animals is to serve humans. I don’t want to drift off onto a tangent here, except to say that it’s likely that violence of human approach is the main cause of most of our big problems today. Since veganism symbolises non-violence and a plant-sympatico diet for humans, it seems likely that it is, taken to its logical conclusion, an attitude changer that could alter our species’ focus on violence. But, again according to logic, that just can’t come about until animals are liberated, until enormous numbers of people are prepared to switch away from eating dead animals. The ending of slavery, for non-humans, simply can’t come about unless the majority agrees, which is why there can be no progress without change, and change in the hearts and minds of the majority of humans. Without adhering to vegan principle, any changes that are made will inevitable be superficial. Which is why it’s so important to show up what our conditioning has done to us.

The breaking of our fellow humans’ mind manipulations is urgent. When humans look about them and see what’s happening, only then can the animals be freed, only then can our health be improved, and only then will our planet stands a chance of survival. When enough people respond to today’s grim state of affairs, when the majority have taken to heart the vegan principle of harmlessness, then the future is no less than golden.

If our optimism is to have any traction at all, it will be based on having faith in the ‘awakened human’, who’d be no longer part of the animal killing system. Statistics should be impressive enough to change minds instantaneously, but owing to some pretty neat conditioning, we allow the statistic to be doubted, so that at a certain point they become meaningless. Animal Rights has relied on hard truth and statistics to get the message across, but people have shown un-interest. They’ve been unmoved. The question is why? It might still take a long time to find an answer to that “why?”

The Bottom Line

1886:

One might consider the idea of veganism as a small raindrop landing on a duck’s back – the idea of it may easily enter the imagination but if it seems impossible, too painful, too daunting, then it’s likely we’ll shake off the raindrop, we’ll ditch the whole idea. Even if one had to contemplate a vegan lifestyle, why would we voluntarily opt for living ‘vegan’ if the pleasure of it still eluded us?

If you can’t come at ‘being vegan’, you can’t be much help to the animals, because if you’re not vegan it follows that you’re still eating them. How could you ever trust yourself? How could the animals ever trust you to be their cousin? You’d be quite the traitor if you were still helping to kill them whilst trying to save them.

When the Killing Begins

1885:

In the nineteenth century, animal-killing wasn’t so commonly done behind closed doors, but often out in the open, in the yards of farms. But wherever it was done, for many small-time farmers it wasn’t easy. In this passage from Jude The Obscure by Thomas Hardy, the death of an animal at the hands of the human is no different then from today.

The Killing of the Pig.

It was thick snow, and the pig-killer was over-due. It seemed he was not coming, and the pig had to be killed that day since Jude and Arabella had run out of barleymeal mixture the day before. The pig had been starving since then. Jude says to his wife Arabella, “What - he has been starving?”

Her reply: “Yes. We always do it the last day or two, to save bother with the innerds. What ignorance, not to know that!”

“That accounts for his crying so. Poor creature!”

“You must do the sticking - there’s no help for it. It must be done”.

He went out to the sty, and placed the stool in front, with the knives and ropes at hand. Jude, rope in hand, got into the sty, and noosed the affrighted animal, who, beginning with a squeak of surprise, rose to repeated cries of rage. While Jude held him, Arabella bound him down, looping the cord over his legs to keep him from struggling. The animal’s note changed its quality. It was not now rage, but the cry of despair; long drawn, slow and hopeless. “Upon my soul I would sooner have gone without the pig than have had this to do!” said Jude. “A creature I have fed with my own hands”.     

“Don’t be such a tender-hearted fool! There’s the sticking-knife - the one with the point. Now whatever you do, don’t stick un too deep”.

“I’ll stick him effectually, so as to make short work of it. That’s the chief thing”.   

“You must not!” she cried. “The meat must be well bled, and to do that he must die slow. We shall lose a shilling a score if the meat is red and bloody! Just touch the vein, that’s all. I was brought up to it, and I know. Every good butcher keeps un bleeding long. He ought to be eight or ten minutes dying, at least”.

“He shall not be half a minute if I can help it, however the meat may look,” said Jude determinedly.

Scraping the bristles from the pig’s upturned throat, as he had seen the butchers do, he slit the fat; then plunged in the knife with all his might.“ ‘Od damn it all!” she cried, “That ever I should say it! You’ve over-stuck un! And I telling you all the time”

“Do be quiet, Arabella, and have a little pity on the creature.” However unworkmanlike the deed, it had been mercifully done. The blood flowed out in a torrent instead of in the trickling stream she had desired. The dying animal’s cry assumed its third and final tone, the shriek of agony; his glazing eyes riveting themselves on Arabella with the eloquently keen reproach of a creature recognizing at last the treachery of those who seemed his only friends. “Make un stop that!” said Arabella. “Such a noise will bring somebody or other up here, and I don’t want people to know we are doing it ourselves”. Picking up the knife from the ground whereupon Jude had flung it, she slipped it into the gash, and slit the windpipe. The pig was instantly silent, his dying breath coming through the hole. “That’s better,” she said.

“It is a hateful business!” said he.

“Pigs must be killed.”

What does killing entail?

1884:

The most abused animals are the food animals. What if they could speak? What would they say about caged hens and cows attached to machines? What would they say about denuded forests and the latest frightening changes to the weather? They’d give us such an ear-bashing.

It’s just as well they are voiceless. But it’s sad. And it’s humans, for much of the ongoing damage is being caused by omnivores. And what’s worse, they won’t admit to the part they play in the damage.

That act of animal-attacking starts on the farms and ends up in the mechanised surroundings of the modern abattoir. The murder, slaughter, execution and torture happens to every domesticated animal used for food and clothing, weather killed for its carcass or at that time when its usefulness has ended. When the steer is fat enough, when the hen’s egg-lay is no longer regular enough or the cow’s milk not plentiful enough, then keeping these animals alive no longer makes economic sense.

But are we humans just barbaric killers, unconcerned for the animals’ feelings or are we sensitive to them. How far will any of us go to have the body of the slain pig at our disposal, to satisfy our taste for ham and bacon and pork?

Enough to give you the Horrors

1883:

Edited by CJ Tointon

Among the tortures that humans inflict upon animals are incarceration, immobilisation and assault. In contrast is the great freedom of movement existing in the wild - walking, swimming and flying. One of the freest of wild creatures is the duck. It can walk, swim and fly, even when living in close proximity to humans. Like those in our local park, living on an island in the middle of a lake.

But when humans see money in ducks, when their exploitability has been noticed, the duck is no longer safe. Unlike their cousins in the park, there are other ducks who know nothing of freedom or swimming or flying. These are the 'foie gras' ducks, who know only imprisonment and unspeakable suffering at the hands of humans. They must endure the worst tortures humans can devise. 

They are held in captivity, immobilised and subjected to daily assault whilst being reared for their fatty livers. They're allowed just 14 weeks of life before they're killed. During this foreshortened existence, they live within a body which is being deliberately ruined - just so that the wealthiest (and nastiest) humans can eat their livers! 

Down on the foie gras farm, unimaginable cruelty is inflicted on these birds. Towards the end of their 100 day life, they are subjected to the worst torture - being force-fed in order to artificially enlarge their livers. The Egyptians did it. The Romans did it. The French perfected it. They refined this cruelty to an industrial scale under the protection of the law which makes foie gras belong to "the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France". Last year, in France, 38 million ducks and geese (mainly ducks) had their livers forcibly enlarged to produce 19,000 tonnes of foie gras. The French use the word gavage to describe the final stage of the production phase. The French method of foie gras production has now spread throughout the world, although in some countries (including Australia) its production is illegal. Here, however, we allow the stuff to be imported and sold (how hypocritical is that). 

At the forced feeding stage, the duck is usually immobilised, encased in an individual cage with a hole in the roof bars through which its head and neck protrude. Feed is administered using a long tube forced into the bird's oesophagus through which feed is forced to expand the lower part of the oesophagus. During this stage, the normal liver function is impaired due to the obstructing and expanding of the abdomen (also making it difficult for the birds to breathe). The feed (usually corn boiled with fat) deposits large amounts of fat into the liver. Every day, twice a day, for the last two weeks of the young bird's life, this process is continuous. 

At just three months of age, with liver swollen to ten times its normal size, the duck is sent for slaughter. Its extracted liver is then made into a parfait or pate and sells for up to $130 per kilo. That means 'good business' for producers and with its rich, buttery, delicate taste an apparently wonderful experience for the gastronome. 

It's difficult to say anything more than the obvious here, unless we speak of the human capacity for brutality. The big-brained human seems to be capable of bravery and kindness, wit and intelligence, but this same human can also be capable of exceptional acts of cruelty. And there's no better example than that of the producers and customers of foie gras. It shows a dark side to human nature, where one can be seduced into condoning a barbaric behaviour just for the sake of a dinner table delicacy. Here we can see how a 'luxury food sensation' can overcome the ethical strictures one is born with. It isn't hatred of ducks which brings this about, but an ability to numb one's ethics. It's not so much a lack of scruple as it is a record of a species without moral sense. There must be a considerable lack of compassion for someone to want to experience this particular 'pleasure' when it comes at such great cost to that otherwise much-loved creature - the duck. If one is wealthy enough to have access to foie gras, it seems that no internal argument based on common knowledge of foie gras production will be strong enough to interfere with the pleasure that awaits the eating of it. 

Foie gras is at one extreme of an ethical blocking that takes place when one KNOWS an animal has suffered terrible pain and trauma so that a wanting can be satisfied. But, of course, this extreme is at one end of a long line of cruelties associated with the production of all meat, eggs and dairy.