Popular poisons

1507: 

Animal foods are popular even though they’re harmful to health.  Because people like the taste of them and because they’re easy to find, people love them.  They aren’t necessarily cheap but they're affordable, and there’s a great variety to choose from.  Best of all, you can eat them straight from the fridge or they don’t need much preparation.  That’s a big selling point.

Supply follows demand and demand responds to supply.  To clinch matters, certain ingredients like milk or egg products are subsidised, which makes them useful and economic to food producers.  Animal by-products, especially milk and eggs, are used to 'cream-ify', enrich and bulk out foods, making them taste rich and substantial.  Overall, they’re cheap enough for everyone to buy, especially since they’re mass produced for mass consumption.

         

What’s so attractive about animal-based foods is that, at primary level, they provide us with an instant sensation.  In savoury foods it’s the blood or saltiness and in non-savoury there’s sugars and flavourings, all of which make our foods taste delicious.  This is food we crave.

         

Despite the strengthening anti-meat drive in our society, our love affair with animal foods has never really diminished, mainly because more animal by-products are used in popular food items than even meat.  So, even with the absence of meat, in foods eaten by so called 'vegetarians', there are still cheeses, creams and egg additives.  These additives hook people. Every form of exotic cheese, for instance, has been developed (over centuries), to titillate the palate.  I've often heard said, "Oh, I could never give up my cheese".

The food manufacturers have used every device imaginable to lure us.  And we buy.  The more sold, the easier it is to create ever more variations to maintain people’s interest.  Popular products, eaten from early childhood and advertised constantly, strengthen our eating habits which are then reinforced by social pressures.  People may be stunned to hear the true story of the dairy industry, but then they forget and go back to their old ways - a process that sometimes takes only a few seconds.

         

Drip by drip, these are the foods that imprint and strengthen in our minds and slowly poison our bodies.  “I’m not going to change.  No way will I give up cheese, omelettes, cream-on-everything and my favourite chocolates.  NO way!”

The Consumer Trap

1506: 

We are all consumers and we all need help to make the right decisions.  One important help would be clear labelling of products - if something is okay-for-vegans then I hope it states “this product is suitable for vegans”.  That makes shopping easier, and incidentally it’s also promotes vegan food (although, that’s likely to be why most companies don’t do it!).

Use of the word familiarises us the word ‘vegan’.  But, unlike some other countries where helpful labelling is common, it isn't yet in Australia.  And even less so in most other countries where neither the word nor the concept of veganism is understood.

When I want to buy a food product with several ingredients, I want to be sure it’s free from those ‘dreaded items’, so “Suitable for Vegans” tells me it’s “okay”.  It makes me conscious of that company and I want to support them.

There is a legal requirement, that almost all foods of more than one ingredient must print on the packaging an ingredients list.  I go into a food store, reading glasses at hand, and examine the microscopic print on the ingredients-list, and if I see the word ‘albumen’ I don’t buy it.  Whether there’s a hint of an egg or bits of a cow’s hoof in my glue, or milk in the bread, I avoid it.  I remember what tricky terminology they use to cover their tracks – like using milk but notifying it as ‘whey’, a word not well-understood.  Or they use other sneaky terms to conceal ingredients with ‘abattoir-associations’.

If the product doesn’t contain anything objectionable, if it is in fact ‘vegan’, then they do us all a great service, simply by saying so on the packet.  Or better still, printing a tick next to the word ‘vegan’. 

We need good labelling so we can make informed choices.  If we’re eating food from abattoirs or using co-products or by-products from animal farming THAT should be clearly stated.  If you’re a smoker, you need to know that your cigarettes are carcinogenic, and it’s the same for food.  The law requires companies, not for animal-rights reasons of course, to let their customers know what is going into our bodies.  But to be comprehensive about this, labelling must extend to shoes even when it's not obvious, as with the label ‘leather uppers, synthetic soles’.  The ethic behind a vegan’s boycott isn’t partial - it's a matter of avoiding all animal-based products, even unto the shoes on our feet.

We vegans (even if, like me, you are too lazy to do it) should write, text, email, phone or front-up to product manufacturers.  Especially the “Thank you” letters - "I appreciate your ingredients. And big praise for labelling 'vegan friendly'", or some such.

I am old and lazy and forgetful and I struggle with 'font 4' print.  I have trouble on ‘ingredients’ listings if I forget my glasses.  Consequences: Can't read ingredients - do without the item.  [*Remember to write on my list ‘glasses’, then remember to take the shopping list with me!!].  If all that is ignored, then we'll buy the product and HOPE there's nothing 'animal' in it, and perhaps that's what we’ve done so many times before, pretending something is 'kosher' when it's not!!  If you’re already a vegan, then you must be doubly sure NOT to do this.  Otherwise what happens is that we are criticising omnivores for doing what they’re doing, when we're doing something not very much different.

Inequality

1505: 

If I predict that the value of my house will drop because Abdu has moved in next door, I am a pessimist; the optimist would see things differently – their value system would be based on something more interesting.  Instead of being resentful towards Abdu, I can be friends with him.  As a friend, he might become valuable to me.  So, the pessimist sees gloom ahead, and the optimist sees that Abdu, any Abdu, lifting the gloom.  What better than moving towards integration of differing cultures, global-village style?  By bringing this about, we simply show what we are capable of.

         

What could be better than being like the 'enlightened ones' who more or less all live in the garden?  Cats and cabbages and kids, all rub along nicely together.  In a fashion.  It's not always perfect, but nobody's complaining about lack-of-perfect.  It's just that today it contrasts so wildly with 'adult business'.  Something about the style of things.  Tone.  The kids might be saying something important about 'hurt' and passing negative feelings across, but who listens to kids?  In a future world there won’t be any problem about interaction since we'll have understood the 'no-need' for doing-hurt.  Any hint of racism would be ludicrous.  And certainly, there'd be no reason to be eating pigs or drinking the milkings of cows.  

The start of all this is living a peaceful, non-hurting, vegan lifestyle.  Most adults in the Western world today know what it is - how being vegan is about plant-based food and clothing.  That's basically all there IS to know.  Because after that, it’s just a stroll down the garden path, to a point where by suspending a little disbelief, we can find ourselves in a very natural world.   A world where we can imagine how all-this could become very fashionable.

How to meet the optimist in you

1504: 

Even though we humans impose upon the world the very worst attitudes, unbelievable levels of indifference, lack of responsibility towards the weak, and an acceptance of a damaging value system, all this shouldn’t make us pessimistic.  It’s the ultimate challenge-to-change, helping us face each other and, despite differing viewpoints, resisting the temptation to go to war with each other.

It’s as if we are the victims of a divide and rule system, designed to keep us at each other’s throats, to keep us bickering and weakened.  Our non-acceptance of each other’s differing views easily turns into a non-acceptance of each other as whole persons.  We take-against someone for their poor attitudes, and inevitably value-judge them, dislike and disapprove of them.  In another location, the same 'hardening' has to take place, in the way farm animals are treated. It helps the human do terrible things to these animals, in order to break them, kill them and use them for food.

Meat eating and making value judgements are destructive in dangerous ways.  Going down that road keeps us hardened, weakened and warring with each other.

For each individual, life on this planet is governed by our 'at-home' behaviour.  That's where moods such as 'pessimism' show up along with being unfriendly and lacking self control.  Where, for instance, adults get frustrated with a child's behaviour and go too far.  In trying to correct a child, they end up showing disapproval not only for the bad behaviour but for the child.  They act the bully.  Kids have to take it, because they know they are trapped by their lack of freedom and lack of experience-of-life.  The biggest damage to children comes when they sense 'dislike' in the air.  The adult's attempt to exert pressure and bring about better behaviour, often strays into a no-go-non-acceptance of the whole person.  It's as if, in an instant, a faith is broken.  What the adult has done is make-separation.  And once done, there's less chance to restore balance.  I know people who haven't spoken for forty years, after some remark was made and feelings of dislike shown, and this wasn't cleared it up at the time!

Is it all about ego/pride/face-saving?  Is that how these conflicts arise?  And similarly (at-home or in general), where one country is ever at the throat of another country?  Is this really just pessimism, a belief that things aren't going to get better?  And following on from that, we cobble together some sort of solution that we know can't possibly work.  And the inevitable failure makes us angry and frustrated, and that's where the violence comes in.  Never more evident if you've ever watched the angry shouting and corresponding fear-caused, when humans are trying to direct cattle down the chute at the abattoir!

But, in human-to-human relations, once the semblance of friendly exchange gives way to using force to get what we want (usually we want agreement) control of the situation is lost.  This 'going off' at someone can sometimes intimidate them enough to make them submit, but that misses the point. It is never the solution, only the buying-of-time.  Whatever force we use, even though it might look like a solution, all it does is reduce one's own feelings of being overwhelmed by the problem.

It's here that something important breaks: you abort on the other person, or they with you.  In families, this is where many parents give up on their kids, and vice versa, because neither will let go of their underlying pessimism.  And so force is resorted to, making break-through impossible.

If we always insisted on forging positive feelings, then intelligence will be directed towards non-violence.  It might put demands on our patience, for it takes longer, seems harder, and there's no audience for applause.  But it's likely to prevent break-down.  Where there's affection there's no-way you'll abandon the other person, or in any way leave them behind.   Or 'go-off' at them.  The optimist always does everything possible to avoid separation.  The optimist isn't afraid of being positive. 

On the 'Take' - part two

1503: 

  

Edited by CJ Tointon

Maybe you and I don't have a shred of this 'wanting to take' in us, but unfortunately we're surrounded by those who have more than a shred.  They don't care how they make a living (although to be fair, we're all  trying to make ends meet).  But some are trying to get a lot more dollars than they should.  We're all doing whatever it is we're doing, to keep control of our lives.  There's nothing new about this, except for the fact that even with all our excellent education nowadays, we're still letting 'them' control our lives.  And here's how their ego-appealing method works. They let us be persuaded that we are great, superior, deserving of only the best for ourselves.  We are led by the throat, to side with what we so aptly name 'The System'.  

But some escape because they say:  "Maybe I don't want to prop up this sort of system.  In fact, I want to destabilise the whole hierarchical setup.  I don't like it.  Them on top, us underneath with the impoverished under us and the 'edible' animals under all of us.  I want to walk naked through that grand archway of human self image and do spectacular things!  I want people to look within themselves and not look down on 'lower' forms of life nor feel superior to them". 

This superior attitude is deeply inculcated into our attitudes.  "What is it about YOU that tells me I am better than you?"  Or put the other way around, "What is it about YOU that tells me you are better than me?"  Take a dog, for example, a companion animal with whom we're close friends.   "Is that dog lesser than me?  Or better than me?"

But don't humans always have to be 'top dog' in the pack?  In most households where humans are living with animals (or anywhere near animals) the animals invariably come off second best.  The dog, like all other animals, cannot communicate with us in our 'human' language.  They can't voice their feelings.  So if we don't know how they feel, how can we know if they're unhappy?   But since we 'own' them and pay for their board and lodging, they're ours to 'control'.  We build a slave-master relationship, strengthened by knowing they won't threaten us, because they've learnt to be submissive.  We have, in effect, 'domesticated' them to suit our needs.  We talk to them as if they're slightly stupid, even when we're being affectionate (as some might talk with small children).  Our whole relationship with the dog (or with any animal) is based on making sure they know who's boss.  This upper-lower nexus exists in most relationships unless there's subtlety and sensitivity and the 'control' thing is defunct.  But mostly it's twitchingly alive - those who control and those being controlled.  Everything hinges on some being greater and more entitled and some being lesser and less entitled. 

I often wonder what causes people to want to be 'better' than others - stronger, sexier, brainier - whatever.  I conclude that it's just fragile ego comparing itself to others' egos, one-upmanship over other people, all the way down the line until it crosses the species barrier.  That's when things get really nasty and human nature shows its true colours!   

Some people turn a corner. They examine the relationships they have.  They ask: "How is it between me and the family dog?" for instance.  The dog is not stupid even though he/she has no ability to talk or write.  But, as usually happens between dog and human, it depends on 'control'.  Ultimately, humans need the dog to reflect the fact that the human is in control.  'Control' is what humans do.  It might be the dog, the kids or the weeds in the garden, but the mantra of 'control' is oft repeated.  It helps in the scramble towards the top, if only to reinforce the belief of being part of 'the greater'.  That thought supports their very being, as a lifejacket supports a body in water.  My friends living in Great Britain, have that notion reinforced daily, every time they hear their country's name mentioned.

Believing in a sense of one's own greatness, strengthens our sense of anthropocentric superiority.  We know not to entertain the idea of égalité.

On the 'Take' - part one

1502: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Three questions:  What is life?

                              What is my role in it?

                              What part do humans (in general) play?

If the answers contain any suggestion of  'human superiority', they may be unsuitable answers for the Age we're in now.

Many of our biggest problems today come from being convinced we humans are special.  We insist we are!  "Just look at all the things we've achieved"!  We seem to be so very different from every other living thing on the planet.  'Advanced' - we call it.  It comes with a sense of superiority, which persuades us that we may take, take, take!  We take because we can and we take because we want things.  It seems that whatever we have, it's never enough, so we need a special 'little helper' - superiority.  This superior-thing 'entitles' us to take more and this reinforces the need for our hierarchy principle - keeping humans on top and the rest below. 

But we've moved from being chief predator to becoming chief jailer.  We keep them captive, whether it's peoples' minds or animals' bodies.  Humans invented the hierarchy principle to ease the guilt and justify theft and abuse.  If you're at the top-end, you can benefit from hierarchy. Sometimes the benefits are great and eventually we get used to having it all and we can't see why it should be any other way. Why change if it only leads to inconvenience?

But 'we've' got trouble on all sorts of fronts.  I say 'we' and I suppose I mean the majority of people.  The majority are in trouble, because what is staring them in the face has been ignored for far too long.  The majority attitude is still strictly laissez-faire. "Why change it?  It's basically alright as it is.  Don't rock the boat".

This predominant view is based upon hierarchy. We're either controlling others or submitting to control.  The 'animal thing' seems to bring all classes and creeds together - in a morbid sort of way.  The majority are on the same wavelength regarding killing animals. The contortions associated with 'trying not to think about it', lead many people away from any deep philosophical musings.  They get to be content with 'the ordinary'.  It's called 'getting on with life'.  Not having to think about anything significant at all.  But if we do, our thoughts might sound like this:

Q.   "How else can I deal with this chronic condition, this glitch of ethics, this 'crime' festering in me?"

A.    "To survive, I've got to bundle it all into one basket.  Whatever I feel about 'all this', I  have to stay quiet.  Avoid talking about it.   And certainly avoid any talk of taking".

Taking is the problem here.

"But I don't want to change the system. It works, and it works for me!  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 'Taking' suits me well. It brings me many material things.  Trendy things. I just have to be cool about it".

Well, in fact, we have to be cold about it. This matter of 'taking' isn't a matter of seeking permission, as in "may I take?", nor is it a statement of uncertainty as in "I might take".  When we humans take, we take with a vengeance. We don't ask permission.  And when we take, there's no uncertainty.  The taking is done almost unselfconsciously.  Entitlement, too, is assumed almost unselfconsciously.  Because this is the way we feel - superior - we feel entitled to take. We think of ourselves as kingpins.  We regard ourselves as being indisputably 'great' and because history reminds us that 'The Great always Take,' we ordinary people emulate The Great.  We (indomitable humans that we are) take anything of value, anything that's unguarded.

How not to meet our opposites

1501: 

We meet as opposites, with opposite views on a particular matter.  We have a totally different view of life, me interested in pursuing an ideal, you the non-idealist, the pragmatist, mainly interested in your healthy bank balance.  To me you seem antediluvian, but I know you are a provider.  What you produce intends to make my life more comfortable.  But I can't overlook the fact that you don't seem to care how you make your money.

Take the animal farmer.  They are not service-providers for people like me, but are making money in order to comfort their own life.  It's not that much different to any capitalist venture, but in doing and profiting from what they do, it clashes with the idealist's ideal.  They do what I believe they should NOT be doing.

They and I hold two distinctly opposite life-attitudes, each pursued with equal enthusiasm.  If we need to come together over this difficult issue of using animals, it's because we need to meet, if only to stop the 'drift'.  And if we work hard enough, for long enough, we may come closer together.  But one thing's for sure, that if both sides don’t work at coming together, we’ll simply move even further apart.  And in our attempts to put space between us, we'll mutually value-judge until we each come to dislike each other.  After that, the stress of being on unfriendly terms with each other sucks any constructive energy out of us.  Nothing useful will be achieved since we are now relating on a toxic level.

Feelings get bruised and egos hurt, and of course this mightn’t matter if we could let all 'oppositions' pass over us.  But they press our 'insult' button.  There's a knee-jerk reaction (and there needn't be).  If we could accept that 'what others think about us is none of our business', then we’d almost welcome the opposition they give us (not take it personally).  At least a voiced-opposition is better than indifference.  With opposition, we have something solid to spar over.  However,  today perhaps there's not much interest in sparring, nor does much thinking-about-this-issue ensue.   But things do have a way of rising to the surface, and our differences of opinion can only be avoided for so long.

So let the insults flow.  Eat ridicule.  Drink-in the ignorance.  Don't take umbrage.  Any hostile response we give looks as if we aren’t confident of ourselves.  We mustn't be reacting badly to being thought badly of.  It's that sort of reaction which marks the start of things going wrong between two people of opposite persuasions.  Once we start to retaliate to criticism, we start to use ever more value judgement.  Then we broadcast our moral judgement.  Then there's retaliation.  Then all communication goes sour.

         

Along with sweeping generalisations, exaggerations and value-separations, we always insist on  being right.  Both sides are 'right'.  We end up a million miles from any chance of having an intelligent exchange of ideas, and out of this mess there's only one thing to learn - ‘how not to meet’!