Vegans take things too far

1388: 

Because most people are still grappling with their feelings about those humans who are different, when it manifests as classism, racism, homophobia, etc, it's taking things too far if we then have to consider our kinship with other species.  Most people don’t consider animals as if they mattered at all.  We are led to believe that they are as separate from humans as chalk from cheese.  Most humans take it as read that we are superior, and that entitles us to do what we like to the ‘sub-species’.  We imprison them, breed them, enslave them, kill them and eat them.  If we didn’t feel superior, we’d choke on every mouthful of meat we ate.

         

This is why vegan principle is potentially so threatening, because it proposes an egalitarian and respecting attitude towards all sentient animals. 

In human society we can be friendly to our differently-coloured neighbours living next door, but being nice to cattle and pigs?  Isn’t that taking things too far?  If on one level what vegans are saying seems logical, the only way to knock us off our perch is to portray vegans as uncool, weird and extremist.  In most people's minds, it would be preferable if vegans kept quiet, and maybe, even, forcibly quietened!

Don’t believe the convenient untruths of vegans

1387: 

In our culture, when specialists tell us to eat foods derived from animals, we listen and take note of what they say.  We want to believe them, especially if our favourite, yummy foods are made with animal ingredients.  Just think of the wide range of delicious, tempting, animal-based food products there are in shops.

         

The advice we are all given is that meat and dairy make us strong.  Everyone’s happy to accept this, especially if they have no particular nutritional education.  From there it’s just a small step to accepting that it’s okay to kill animals, since it has to be done for our own survival, health, strength, etc.

Those who have seriously addressed the science of nutrition and by-passed the Industry propaganda, know that plant-based foods are healthy and animal-based foods far less so – the debate over this will go on for ever, and be confusing to everyone with an interest in either camp - omnivores will go one way, vegans the other.  But vegan principle is something else.  It addresses ethics.  It condemns both slavery and killing.  There's no confusion here, that there's great cruelty in all animal farming; lots of slavery and killing.  Those of us who advocate for the rights of animals might well be a thorn in the side of almost every animal-eater.  We tell people who really don't want to know, what’s happening.  And there’s no one denying the truth of what we are saying, because if we were lying we'd be publically outed, and this never seems to happen.

All the authorities can do is spread malicious inexactitudes - they warn people that vegans want to subvert Society.  But they don’t exactly put it that way.  If they did they’d draw attention to an issue that they’d rather people ignored.  They simply advise people, for their own good and safety, to disbelieve what we say.  There's no need for them to back up their accusation, because they know it will go down surprisingly well, since it fits very nicely into what people want to believe.

Kinship

1386: 

Although adults have more life experience than children they nevertheless, in one particular way, don’t differ from kids, since both adult and child, especially when related, have an innate sense of kinship and usually enjoy each other’s company.  They have a sense of guardianship for each other, the elder for the younger and, especially when elders are elderly, vice versa.

         

In the same way, each child and adult has a strong sense of kinship with companion animals - the family dog is like one of the kids in the family.  It’s just natural for humans to want to protect vulnerable ones from being hurt or exploited.  But most of us are able to turn that ‘protective-switch’ off when it suits us, especially when entertaining murderous thoughts towards especially strangers or non-humans.

We like to think of ourselves as loving and yet we still have a yen to be brutish.  We let ourselves be persuaded to give vent to hard feelings, when needs be.  When it comes to naked self-interest or self-protection we can be brutal.  But when it’s about food the same thing can apply - we abandon the protective urge and give in to a brutish sanctioning of murder or harsh treatment, as we do when we want to eat them, and as we do when we let others do the murdering and brutalising for us.

In this way, and at that point, we follow the violence creed of our society.  Perhaps this hardness is embedded so deeply in our culture, that in certain circumstances our softness is the first luxury we forgo.  It feels almost natural to switch across.  We accept that we’re  programmed this way and that compassion-oriented behaviour can be sidelined.  Even if we prefer the soft side of ourselves, what we can’t resist is the temptation to validate violence, when it brings us what we want.  Ironically, violence brings us a quiet life.  It helps us fit in, when we're doing as others are doing. Most commonly, we don't see the violence in animal farming, so we eat the animals that others eat, and think nothing of it.  We like to see ourselves as ‘realistically pragmatic’ about the place of animals and animal products in our daily life.

This dispassionate hardness doesn’t always sit convincingly with our own more sophisticated gentler natures.  And in time, of course, we realise that it’s too late to do anything about this disparity in our nature, since too many bad habits have become ingrained.  Violence becomes so much part of our daily lives, that we hardly notice it, and hardly notice that we’ve settled for compromise.  We say, “Yes.  It’s okay to exploit animals if you enjoy eating them”.  Or even more unconvincingly, “Yes, they may be killed but if I do eat them then I believe we should make the fullest use of their bodies", (in the hope that this will exonerate us, somewhat).

Any old proposition will do in our attempts to divert us away from our softer, more compassionate side.  But all this is a greatly magnified for people who are making their living out of animals.

If you are an employee of the Animal Industry, exploiting animals to make your money, it’s unlikely you’ll have developed any ‘guardian instinct’ for animals.  You might be an animal farmer, who might care for ‘your’ animals but since you are exploiting them for profit, you'll have had to squash any hint of being their guardian.  It’s not that much different for consumers, except that theirs is one stage removed from actually dealing with the animals they eventually get to eat.  On the one hand they feel tender towards the animals ("sweet little lambs, darling piglets", etc.) and on the other hand they choose to remain fairly ignorant of what's going on behind the scenes.  

It is little wonder then, that Society is not keen to discuss animal welfare issues, let alone ‘rights’- issues.  State-sponsored education never mentions having kinship with these sorts of animals, only a need for kindness and respect towards certain other animals, be they fellow human (animals) or the wild or companion variety.  Most education revolves around the need for humans to eat meat, milk and eggs, and it emphasises the serious danger to our health if we don’t.  This is misinformation on a grand scale, and it's what vegans are up against.

Separation

1385:

To really keep separate, to really control people, whether low caste, uneducated or vulnerable, all we need to do is keep our distance from them. The necessary distance-of-separation depends on how far we want to make use of them.

A whole range of exploitative attitudes are passed on from generation to generation till they become ‘normal’ attitudes. 'Separation-ists', learning how to put a person ‘in their place’, and find it convenient to show unrelenting dislike, distain or disapproval of them. And that is similarly applied to domesticated animals. By withholding any sign of friendship or respect from them, one is better justified in doing what we want with them.

We’re primarily talking here about resource animals, of whom there’s a vast population on the planet. Farmers say they love their animals. I don’t think that’s true, for by actively disliking them,  they can more readily justify their exploitation. 

         

On farms, any amount of heartless treatment is seen to be fair game, and the more routine it is the more it is barely-thought-about. This emotional separation becomes an essential skill for those who are hands-on with farm animals.

If you aren’t a ‘separation-ist’, if you are more inclined to be an egalitarian, it’s likely you hold the minority view of liking differences, whether between other people or other species. If you are a non-separationist, you’ll surely be in favour of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt and giving the best treatment possible to the marginalised.

         

But separation-ists are still in the ascendant. It serves their interests to keep others ‘in their place’, which means that any culture-discrimination between us as humans will more easily transpose to a species-discrimination, essential for animal farmers.

Most humans rate animals, as well as ‘lesser-people’, as being lower than themselves, allowing them to be treated badly whilst not feeling bad for doing so.

         

Humans do terrible things to animals and can still smile at the prospect of a roast dinner waiting for them on the table at home. Cooked-animal - what could be better?

And it’s always been like this down through the ages – meals containing ‘animal’ have always been thought to make for delicious food and strong healthy bodies. There was no other way of regarding our meat-predominated diet, until, in the nineteen forties, it was questioned. It was proposed that a plant-based diet was healthier and ethically sound.

That was the beginning of a transformatory change of diet and attitude towards animals that has taken a long time to take root. And it will continue its slow progress, gradually influencing us, until a new fashion takes over which not only sees animal-based foods to be unhealthy but shames us for what we have done to animals over the millennia.

The Use-By Date for Animals

1384: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Once we humans feel safe exploiting animals, the essential separation has already taken place.  It's all that’s needed if we want to farm animals.  The same type of separation can be used on people.  If we want to 'use' people, we must first practice separation on them.  That's how we get them where we want them!

Once we’ve made up our minds that 'we're superior' and 'they're inferior', all we have to do is withhold friendly feelings and everything becomes easier.  An employer, for instance, coming from a superior power base, doesn't have to befriend a dependent employee (in fear of losing her job) because he has the power to push her to her limits. 

Much the same thing happens on farms with animals - only it's much worse!  A farmer, by having biological control over the animals, can feed and breed them at will.  Animals produce by-products (eggs, milk, wool).  They're fattened.  They’re made to reproduce and they’re made to endure mutilations.  And eventually they suffer the agonies of transportation to the abattoir and the terror of a brutal execution.  And it's all in order to make money!  It’s often the same story (but maybe less horrific) with companion animals.  They’re imprisoned, kept apart from their own kind, constantly under the orders of their human jailers and can be 'put to sleep' eventually when the vet bills get too high to maintain them in good health or longer life.

Determining the fate of animals is what humans are good at.  What we do to them underlines our superiority and emphasises their inferiority.  There is no requirement to reward the animal at the end of his productive life for all that he has provided the human.   He's just disposed of.  It’s as simple as that.  In days gone by, unproductive human slaves were never allowed to slip into retirement.   They were left to die or were directly extinguished like redundant property.  It’s exactly the same with animal slaves today; except that money is made out of their dead bodies.

'Food animals' are owned - they’re the property of someone.  They’re objects.  They’re not seen as irreplaceable, sovereign, individual living beings.  They're just slaves.  They are ‘put here’ for us to do with as we please.  They’re the victims of a species war, the victor’s spoils duly accruing to the dominant species. 

Take a dairy cow, for example.  She is the victim of her own biology.  She's artificially inseminated to produce a foetus in the womb.  This triggers high levels of lactation, so that she will produce large quantities of highly profitable MILK.  The cow is as powerless over her pregnancy as she is in stopping her calf being born or in affecting any other of her biological functions.  At the hands of her human masters, she is made into a milk-producing machine and her motherhood is denied since her calf is taken from her so that she can concentrate on her main function - producing milk.   She lactates and gives birth all her life, a life which should last 20 years but is foreshortened to half that age, since she has been used up by a constant series of pregnancies and milkings.   When she’s no longer economically viable, when she can no longer earn her keep, she warrants no more life.

That’s the human for you!  That’s the human consumer of milk too, who lends support for this whole system to flourish.  And this example of exploitation is just one of many.  Other farm-animals suffer simply because they produce good income for farmers and the many other branches of the Animal Industries.  And their treatment is tolerated by the whole of the human population because of the benefits their products bring.  Whether certain animals are valued for their carcasses, for their ‘co-products’ (like leather) or their by-products (like milk and eggs) these animals make ideal slaves.  They have no defences against human attack.  They don’t complain.  They can’t fight back.  And they need be given no respect or gratitude.

Humans have learnt how to ‘do’ separation.  We do it so routinely with animals.  The care we show for one another or for our companion animals is thought to be unnecessary for farm animals.

The Art of Being Superior

1383: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Human beings have always been 'advantage takers' and 'inferior bashers' whether in the name of racism, speciesism, snobbery or cruelty.  We are hardwired in favour of being against equality.  It's little wonder then that we treat animals as inferior to us.  It makes it that much easier to exploit them.

    

If we want to understand this attitude (especially with regard to animals) we only need to look at the way most of us treat people who are different to ourselves.  We practise separation on them.  We avoid becoming too close in case we have to 'go in hard' on them later.  We don't admit to this of course.  In fact, we might even appear benevolent towards them if only to mask our contempt.  Perhaps it's because we don’t trust people who are different to us.  We consider them not worthy of getting to know and this allows us to dislike them.  It brings us round the circle of letting us think of them as 'non-equals' which brings us back to separation from them.  We 'half-heartedly' get to know strangers.  We endeavour to help them, but not in too generous a way.  They feel this withheld approach and consequently feel patronised.  They feel they're being kept at arm's length, so they apply the same treatment to us until we feel rejected by them!   This lets us complete the circle where we feel justified in separating from them.  And so it goes on!        

In our cocoons of separation, it’s more comfortable not to integrate. We’re so used to ‘practising separation’ on other human beings when it suits us, that we have no trouble doing the same thing with animals.  We believe them to be 'brutes' and therefore less sensitive to pain, which allows us to exploit them or feel no pity for them.


Separation beliefs are integral to hierarchical systems.  The ones on top see those below them as inferiors.  And all humans (but for a very few) see animals as inferiors.  With anything (or anybody) inferior, we apply  different treatment from that lavished on our 'nearest and dearest'.  We do so because of the unlikelihood of there being any negative repercussions.

Leaving Others Behind

1382:

If we denigrate and then abandon certain aspects of traditional lifestyle (in our case the non-use of animals) it doesn’t mean we have to argue with our friends about it, or make it a condition of our friendship that they agree with us.  We are not a recruiting agency.  Vegans set certain ethical standards here.  We’re the ones wanting to change others by way of discussing these important matters, but, we can’t assume others have our own same thoroughness of analysis.  We might participate in a discussion of ‘animal issues’, but it serves no one’s interest to put pressure on friends or to quarrel with them or trash their feelings, as if this subject is important enough to ignore how others feel about it.

If we ever get into a discussion about the animals’ place in a human-centred world, we should be attempting to draw a balance between uncovering a truth and being non-judgemental about it.  The trick here is surely to not separate ourselves from others, to not give the impression that we are leaving them behind, but at the same time not pretending we accept something we personally find unacceptable.