The pleasure-heads

1514: 

Those who make a living out of animals aren’t likely to recognise the need for animals to be protected by 'rights'.  But for the general consumer, they're simply held by food preferences.  It's amongst these that exist some hope.  From these, the Animal Rights Movement potentially finds support.

If the hard-hearted animal abusers hate the influence of the Animal Rights movement, it’s because of the potential threat to their livelihoods.  They’re not only committed meat-eaters themselves but they earn their living from the Industry.  Animals are a matter of economic concern not a challenge to ethics - it’s bank accounts before moral accountability, pragmatics before ideals.

People who are more sympathetic to the liberation of animals, despite having a foot in both camps, are the ones we'd be trying to persuade, suggesting to them that they boycott what the other lot sell.  Change might come about very slowly, but the tide is turning towards compassion for animals and for better quality nutrition.  A more informed, more sophisticated customer is emerging, who is more discriminating and less attracted to what’s on offer because it all seems to looking dodgy.  

Vegan principle and talk of animals having rights is not good for the Animal Industry, but it’s not only that customers are becoming more conscious of health and compassion, it’s that they’re getting weary of taking things on face value and using attractive-looking animal products that might not be what they appear to be.  Today, as never before, we seek pleasure, but it’s a ‘Seconds-World’ pleasure.  It’s as if we’re squeezing the last life out of the animal-machine, knowing it can’t last much longer, probably realising the time to change is fast approaching.  There's a growing realisation that ill-health is worsening, and that the horror-stories about animal-exploitation aren’t going to go away.  And if we don’t change for ethical reasons then surely economic and ecological factors will eventually force us to change anyway.

While vegans are mindful of what they eat, the omnivores still consume their favourite foods, regardless; we speak firmly about cruelty and ill-health; they firmly disregard what we say because they prefer the foods and clothing and shoes that they're used to.

We might not be able to change that, but we can still direct our message to where it might take best effect.  Our place is with those without vested interests, who’re more likely to listen to what we have to say, who’ll still think their food tastes good, but be more open to the suggestion that other equally interesting tastes and textures exist in plant-based foods.  On that basis alone they may be willing to listen, and shop around and try new things.

         

It’s perhaps the first time in history that the ethical dimension to shopping is being so seriously considered.  And when people realise, to their amazement, that non-animal foods are okay to eat, or are in fact better to eat, they're more likely to be open to eating ‘vegan’ all the time.

The disconnect

1513:

Because the law allows us to exploit animals, it is therefore not a crime.  Whether it’s a zoo which cages exotic animals, or vivisectors cutting up mice or factory farmers enclosing pigs in iron pens, the law says it’s all quite acceptable.

There’s a ‘disconnect’ between our ethics concerning cruelty to animals and our food cravings or need for safe pharmaceuticals. Where most suffering is caused, by the exploitation of billions of captive ‘food animals’, this is where people are most unlikely to make objections. Animal-based foods are central to what is considered to be 'human lifestyle'. It’s these foods to which most of us are addicted, for they're attractive to both the educated-rich and the less well educated-poor. All are seduced equally.

Perhaps the number one impulse for most people is to find food that’s nutritious and enjoyable, but hot on the heels of this impulse comes the associated guilt about animal cruelty, and this makes us hurry to justify what we eat. But the guilt is lessened by the fact that our eating habits are so socially acceptable. Our only constraint is whether we can afford to buy this sort of food – if we can pay the price, we can eat what we like, and it can be enjoyed because rarely, if at all, does anyone have to justify ANY of it to anybody. It seems that for almost all people, the ethical provenance of our food is not a problem - the practice of animal-eating need never bother us.

But there's a problem here that isn't easily fixed. We might want to foster sensitivity in our children, but that very sensitivity can stir things up in a most inconvenient way. As soon as the truth is understood by children, that we are eaters of animals, it does begin to bother those with heightened sensitivity. When these kids first find out about bacon being 'pig' or tender mutton being part of a young lamb, that in itself can be disturbing to a sensitive child. They gradually realise an alarming contrast between the loving kindness of the adults they know and what they see as adult-cruelty in regard to animals. There seems to be an inconsistency here, between the callousness of killing one type of animal and the kindness shown to their own animals at home. Feelings are conflicted. For children, perhaps they smell breakfast bacon cooking, experience their own salivating taste buds, and yet they can’t reconcile that with what they've come to know about 'what happens to animals on farms'.

As usual, reality forces the kids not to complain too much, since their opinions usually hold very little weight. Soon enough, children learn that if they don’t do what they’re told they’ll be denied lots of yummy things – it comes down to them either eating or starving. Children are bribed with food. They’re indoctrinated, from birth, to conform to a 'meat-and-veg' diet. And they know that they must conform, otherwise their significant-adults will be put to all sorts of inconvenience.

So habits roll on, from childhood into adulthood. We don’t bother about investigating everything we put in our mouths. We don’t ask what's behind our food or even if it's worth looking into. We convince ourselves that it's better just to ignore the whole matter altogether. 

Are We All Being Duped?

1512: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Even though conspiracy theories abound and I laugh at them and call them preposterous, somewhere in my mind I suspect that we are all being 'taken for a ride'. 
Those with vested interests in 'The Animal Industries', whose livelihoods depend upon our buying the products of these industries, can neither care about animals nor their customers' consciences.  They’re buoyed up by politicians, scientists and the media.  These people are often shareholders in the Animal Industries and know not to bite the hand that feeds them.  Each benefits from the other and plays into each others' hands to make money out of the consumer.  If they're peddling unhealthy food, we (the public) allow them.  If they're cruel to animals, we (the public) raise no objections.  

Consumers DO have a choice (albeit a seemingly difficult one) but they seem to have no incentive to choose wisely.  Problem is, it's just too tempting to make NO choice at all!  There's nothing 'illegal' in the way The Industry deals with animals, nor is their selling animal-derived products against the law.  Consequently, animal abusers are getting richer by the minute.  Strange thing is, these people are also 'falling on their own swords'.  Profiteers of the Animal Industries are wealthy enough to 'eat well'. 

This usually means eating rich food and - yes, you've guessed it - lots of animal products!  It's ironic that the same animals that make their wealth, also break their health.  They'd be well advised by the food scientists they employ to avoid eating their products.  These highly trained scientists should know the dangers associated with animal foods - but they're not telling! 
   
You’d think the spiritual leaders of our communities would pounce on the opportunity that the horror stories concerning animal farms and abattoirs provide, to help people save their souls.  But no!  Nothing is ever said!  Perhaps our leaders' and scientists' reputations rely too much on conformity.  They know that if they whistle-blow on animal issues, it would mean social and professional suicide.  So 'conformity-to-the-norm' is a must for them.  If anyone in the Establishment spoke up, there'd be hell to pay!  The scientists would lose their grants, the politicians would forfeit their pre-selections and the priests would be kicked out of their parishes.  Which is why no one is rushing to represent animal interests or promote vegan principles.  You can hear them saying to themselves:  "Get real!  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!"

So the habit of using animals continues with every consumer numbing any empathy they might have had with the edible(?) animal and refusing to look at what's really going on.

An "Alien" Tale

1511:

Edited by CJ Tointon

From the Flight Deck:

"Don't look down now Buddy.  That's Earth.  They're in rehab at the moment.  We know of the problems they're having - even if they don't.  They're going through a bad patch, all sorts of relationship problems - with everything.  They're a very quarrelsome and violent people.  Mark my words - if you value your life, don't even think about going there!" 

Home Planet:

One of my kids said something strange to me the other day - about how 'Earthers' are famous thieves.  I was discussing Earth with her (she's studying it in geography at school) and it just came up in conversation.  "They steal everything", I told her.  "It's how they survive".  And she said something I didn't expect, describing them as just being the way they are.  That got me worried.  She mustn't know all about them yet.  I said to her, "They don't think about how they are. They say they cherish their beloved 'Earth', but you should see the way they treat it!  They're very primitive".  Anyway, my daughter asked me, "Dad, why don't you just go there?  It can't hurt - can it?"

It's funny how innocent kids can be.  I did my best to explain, but I don't think she understood.  How could she?  She can't possibly imagine what these 'Earthers' are like.  To anyone who is sane, the idea of 'going there' would be like jumping into a pit of pythons.

I heard on the news the other day that Earth is struggling in the early stages of rehab.  It's at the 'kicking and screaming' stage.  And I thought to myself, "Yes. They're going through denial but don't know it".  We've all been there, we know what it's like. I wanted to sound a warning for my daughter without frightening her, yet still concealing nothing about the danger of the place.  I explained to her thus:  "They're volatile.  It's like they're living on the edge of a volcano.  They can't see anything through the smoke.  Everything is blurred.  They hope they're safe but can't see if they're not.  They're basically intelligent, but frustrated and angry.  That's what the rehab is for, to help them, to convince them to not always fall back on violence to solve their problems.  But at this stage in their development, they're just plain dangerous!  There's nothing they don't know about killing and being aggressive towards strangers.  So for us to 'go there' would be stupid in the extreme.  They're so jumpy.  They'd buzz bomb any ship without a moment's thought, no question about it."

More importantly I explained to my daughter that we'd 'spook' them too much if we showed up.  Psychologically, it would stir things up to fever pitch.  When you're in such heavy denial, you're not very receptive to new ideas.  Not very receptive to the existence of (let alone the presence of) other 'beings' - especially if they seem brighter than you are.  Just by showing up, we'd knock them off balance.  I can see what would happen.  All seven billion of them would be worrying themselves literally to death, talking of nothing else.  Psychologically, they're at a very vulnerable stage.  They just couldn't handle visitors from 'outside'.  They're sure there's no one 'out there'.  They prefer to think of themselves as alone-in-the-universe  Any other possibility would scare them completely.  "Going there would be like flying into a firestorm.  A very frightening thought".  

I don't think they teach kids anything important at school these days.  Surely everyone knows about Earth?  It's hard to explain to kids when they restrict extraterrestrial news items to the late night shows, mainly the 'Geography' channels.  Too late for my daughter to watch.  But we grown-ups all know about it.  We see pictures of their various scandals.  I told her, "Earth's a place to NOT go anywhere near".  I thought that was obvious.  But it seems it isn't to my daughter and many others. 

The other day I overheard one of my young assistants bragging to his friend about one day 'going to Earth'.  I thought:  "Is he crazy?  Has the boy been raised in a monastery?"  He evidently had no concept.  "Forget that idea", I interrupted.  And then he wants to know,  "What happens there that is so bad?"  

I was tempted to tell him everything.  At this point I could have reeled off a whole list of horrors I knew about, but I feared losing his attention.   I decided to hit him with something really 'heavy'. "THEY IMPRISON, KILL AND THEN EAT ANIMALS". 

He was rendered speechless!!!

Between a rock and a hard place

1510: 

The horror stories about animals in farms and abattoirs horrify and confront all sensitive people, whether vegan or not.  But for omnivores it’s a  mixed message.  “I love animals but I like to eat them, so I don't want to find out too much.”

As soon as we know what’s happening ‘down on the farm’, we realise that it implicates us because of what we eat (or wear).  Almost all of us are implicated in something so routine and on such a massive scale that it seems futile to try to fight it, especially when it seems most people are either cold-hearted or burying their heads in the sand.  Most people just don’t want to know.  The plain fact of the matter is that the 'animal-holocaust' is a daily event, and yet, however horrific it is, it doesn’t make most people step away from their eating habits.

However, vegans have stepped away.  And having done that, we now want to change everyone, not for the sake of their being supportive of us, but being supportive of animals themselves. We have a big task on our hands. To be an animal activist is to be prepared if necessary to act solo, in defiance of family, friends and other social pressures.  To act independently takes courage.  Some would say Animal Rights is an impossible dream.  But what else can we do but try to change the pattern of human violence against animals?

Farm animals (‘food animals’) are badly used, and we know it.  But even though every educated adult, in every part of the world, feels some guilt about it, still they won’t shift.  They possibly know ‘animal-based food’ isn’t healthy and is the product of a cruel and exploitative system, and yet they will not act on this knowledge. The reason for this may be obvious, but nonetheless it’s the never ending question all vegans contemplate - how to get people to take animal cruelty seriously.  What can we do about it?  Until we unlock this particular mystery - why some do respond, why some don’t - our way forward won’t be clear.

If you DO act, if you do respond, you can guarantee that your life will change quite radically.  By being an advocate for the ‘abolition-of-animal-slavery’, one is marked-out as an ‘all or nothing abolitionist’.  And since you can’t be a little bit abolitionist anymore than a woman can be a little bit pregnant, once you’ve said, “I’m vegan-on-principle”, in reality there’s no going back.  Once you’ve faced your cravings, only then can you step out of one world into another.  I don’t mean there’s a Vegan Club-of-Paradise, only that there's a different mind-set and a thunderingly altered perception of things, which, now, I personally wouldn’t want to move away from on any account.

Selling veganism

1509: 

Sometimes, with friends or acquaintances, I get the feeling they want to bring up this matter of Animal Rights to exculpate themselves, and then immediately regret they've done just that.  I can sense it coming sometimes, where the subject is about to be raised. And it's then that I need to know one thing.  One thing about you.  That if I actually do answer your questions or comment on what you've said, that you CAN take the shock of what I am about to tell you.  I admire those who do voluntarily bring up this subject, especially since they almost know what I'm about to say; if they allow me to shock them, they'd be showing great faith in me as a friend, especially since this isn’t the sort of 'permission' they'd give lightly.

Wouldn’t it be awful if people were so naive that they didn’t know that vegans were NOT simply avoiders-of-meat, and for them to wander into an unexpected minefield.  I wonder if, when the penny drops, they would then expect me to shock them, hurt them, embarrass them, make them feel guilty?  For my part, I'd want them to know me better than that.

"No way", I say.  I believe that shocks like that are rarely forgiven.  So, the non-violent way to do all this is ... Well, that’s the eternal question for the vegan animal rights advocate.  But my solution may go something like this: I must have up my sleeve a couple of interesting points, facts, something to catch the attention.  I'm hoping to 'sell' veganism, make it irresistible, and so attractive that they must try it.  And, so the theory goes, in 'trying' it, they'll inevitably get hooked.

For the advocate, full of good intention, the traps are, in order of appearance: it’s too easy to show off; it’s too easy to make sweeping statements; it’s too easy to be outrageous.  At this early stage in Animal Rights consciousness, we probably don’t need to draw that much fire.  We don’t need to make it too easy (for our good omnivore friends) to change the subject.  I never like to get bogged down in fine details, because it avoids dealing with ‘the more up-front, uncomfortable matters’.

As animal activists we won’t be able to satisfy every inquirer’s questions about diet and nutrition and health, although we should try.  However, I reckon our best approach is to appeal to the heart.  The kid in us, who wants to be doing stuff that makes us most happy - that’s our best draw card.  Our job, as vegans, is to assure people of the general safety and health of a plant-based diet, and then move on to explain all the stuff about how animals are treated as machines, etc, sprinkling into the mix of all this difficult-to-digest information something of the fun of being a vegan.  The main attraction boils down to this: “You’d be mad not to try it”.

Eating out

1508:

I go to someone's place, and I’m offered the usual snacks and drinks.  “No thanks”.

         

‘Stunned’ is the best word to describe the reactions I often get.  I’m met with utter incomprehension, when I decline some ‘cheesy-bit’ on a plate, which everyone else has dived into.  If pressed, as soon as I give my reason, I’m labelled weird.  At a social event, someone might race around, to find me something I can eat.  But most people are defenders of the faith, and secretly resent my finicky eating habits, for that’s what they turn this into.

From what could be a simple, “Ah, you’re vegan then”, and a recognition of the significance of the compassion-angle, instead I get irritation, at my being ‘fussy over my food’.  I don’t get asked why I’m fussy, because that would step into dangerous territory.  They'd have to admit to knowing about animal-cruelty and farming practices, and they know to steer well clear of any of that.  So, socially, vegans are a problem.  Just about everyone realises that opening any sort of discussion about that will make them feel uncomfortable.

Those ‘cheesy snacks at the party’, and my refusal, and their wondering if it’s something to do with nutrition and being 'vegetarian' for reasons of health - that's the most familiar line taken.  It is supposed that I would believe “It’s healthier being vegetarian”, and then they might expect to hear about animal-food containing too much fat or sugar or being too high in protein.  What they may NOT expect and certainly DON'T want to hear about is the Animal Rights-angle.  It makes for uncomfortable feelings, talking about ‘hens-in-cages’.

So, as a vegan (as a potentially socially-threatening person) I’m not often asked out.  Or if I am invited, I can be sure not to be asked about the reasoning behind my food choices.  I'm not an especially unlikeable person but, in a potential talk-off, I’d probably be regarded as a social pariah.

I don’t go around looking for a fight with friends (although, I’ll certainly want to stir things up in the public arena, given half a chance).  Amongst friends, I’ll never be the one to bring the subject up.  If anyone else does, then I'll pursue things, but for no longer than their interest holds, or beyond where they’ve finished asking questions.  It’s easy to become a bore on this matter.

For my part I don’t see myself as a punch-bag but nor will I let this subject be trivialised.  I wouldn’t let anyone get away with saying something outrageously contrary to how I see things.  Also, for my part, I hope I’ll never merely report just the bare facts.  However, releasing too much too soon or by becoming too emotional about it all, is a trap.

They know that we know.  And they know that a diet comprising large quantities of animal-based foods, make them fat, and encourages heart disease, diabetes and sometimes cancer.  But as for discussing this, no person in their right mind would go there.  And certainly not when they are eating their favourite foods.  So perhaps it's best I'm not often asked to eat out.