Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

On the Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity

Posted on Apr 30th, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Vr
As I'm sure you're aware, there is a global food crisis which has already caused food riots in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Haiti and other developing nations. Thirty-seven countries currently face food crises, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Trade imbalances will be worsened, and major economies are being affected.

In the Washington Post's "World Band Chief Calls for Immediate Action on Deepening Food Crisis," Harry Dunphy writes:

Mexican Finance Secretary Agustin Carstens, who heads the bank's policy-setting Development Committee, said officials "need to redouble our efforts" to help the poorest people. He said there had been "a very welcome increase in money" from governments, but all donors need to "reach into their pockets."

I don't deny that money is needed, but something else is needed in order to create sustainability . . .

You may also be aware that the demand for biofuel is being blamed for driving up food prices. In the New York Times' "Finance Ministers Emphasize Food Crisis Over Credit Crisis," Steven R.Weisman writes:

Mr. Strauss-Kahn [the managing director of the International Monetary Fund] said he had heard from many financial officials this weekend that the West’s focus on fuel, at the expense of food, was a “crime against humanity.”

I won't say that the focus on biofuel isn't a problem, but it's not the root of the problem: it has merely exacerbated an already existing problem. Part of the root of the crisis (this is hardly a one-issue situation), as many people do indeed note (but then move on) is, as the New York Times editorial, "The World Food Crisis," suggests:

The United States and other developed countries need to step up to the plate. The rise in food prices is partly because of uncontrollable forces — including rising energy costs and the growth of the middle class in China and India. This has increased demand for animal protein, which requires large amounts of grain.

I go back to Strauss-Kahn's comment that the West's focus on fuel at the expense of food was a "crime against humanity." What about the other crime against humanity (to say nothing of billions of nonhuman animals)? In Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYT a coupld of weeks ago called "Grains Gone Wild," he gets to the root of the crime, but then passes the blame onto the Chinese (after saying "things aren't anyone's fault--" a comment he will soon revise):

First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.

Why isn't humanity's obsession with eating animals viewed as a crime against humanity? This problem didn't start with the Chinese. Enormous quantities of grains have been diverted from the mouths of the starving for decades. It is the desire to satisfy the palate of part of the human race (the haves) that is largely responsible for the starvation of the other part (the have-nots). If people in the developed world saw it as their moral obligation to help remedy this situation, they'd do more than "reach into their pockets;" they'd change the way they eat.

Say it with me: Supply and demand
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (230)  

Is "Compassionate Carnivore" an Oxymoron?

Posted on Apr 7th, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Nonwooly-l
 Is Compassionate Carnivore an Oxymoron?

It's become fashionable to call yourself a compassionate carnivore if you aren't going to stop eating animals and their secretions (milk) and menstrual excretions (eggs), but you don't want to appear barbaric and you want people to know that you don't agree with the atrocities committed in the name of factory farming.

I don't personally know anyone in 2008 who thinks factory farming is anything but cruel. But I do know a lot of people--and I read about similar people every week--who are convinced that the animals they eat have somehow been produced (which makes them sound like widgets, and in a way they are similar: they are both commodities created to be sold in markets) humanely (as if dominating and taking someone's life--all without their consent--can ever be called humane). These well-meaning, kind people believe there is such a thing as humane meat and humane eggs, and I can easily understand why: Because the media and the mainstream animal welfare groups reaffirm that belief every day. They even endorse animal products with labels like Certified Humane (http://www.certifiedhumane.org/).

I used to believe that we should go back to family farms, where animals might have the opportunity once or twice to procreate when they wanted to (rather than being inseminated, although insemination happens on many family farms), or to roll in the grass under the light of the sun, or to eat what they were intended to eat rather than some corn-based, hormone-ridden mixture that can include the bodies and blood of other creatures and maybe even their own species. I used to think that when we eventually slaughtered innocent, sentient beings, we should do it in the kindest way possible.

But then I got honest with myself and admitted that the phrase "when we eventually slaughtered innocent, sentient beings, we should do it in the kindest way possible" is absurd if you don't have to kill someone in the first place. I realized I was just looking for a rationale for continuing to eat what I wanted to eat.

Every animal product must be considered in its context, and that includes eggs and dairy. When the scenarios are considered, in toto, one easily comes to the conclusion that eggs and dairy involve more suffering than steak. Why? because egg hens churn out eggs until they are spent, which can be years, and then they are slaughtered. And their baby males are killed when they are one-day old--usually by being tossed into a giant shredder (and that is considered humane, by the way). Dairy cows are continually inseminated and kept pregnant and lactating for their entire lives until they too are spent. (If you saw the footage of the Downer cows being brutally assaulted at the Hallmark/Westland meatpacking facility-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFCeV8vFzlo-, those were dairy cows and that happens far more frequently than you are led to believe). Furthermore, the male and female calves are taken from their mothers (a female is kept if one needs to be replaced), as she wails in agony and panic, and they are shipped away to be crated and become "veal." Of course, when the dairy cows are spent, they are slaughtered.

Again, consider the entire picture when you're deciding if a product you are going to purchase to consume--that you don't even need to consume--deserves the word "compassion" associated with it.

Ask yourself: Is the taste the milk from another species, or the flesh from the breast of another species, worth everything you have to do to the individuals to get their milk and their flesh? What is the cost to your conscience? Are you thinking critically about all that goes into using animals when you don't need to, or are you just trying to find a justification for continuing to use them?
Access_public Access: Public 2 Comments Print views (154)  

Animals and Culture, Part Deux

Posted on Mar 3rd, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Pony

Animals and Culture, Part Deux

Part of our culture is the media that confirms the values we're supposed to have. In most of the United States, when we're young, we play with all manner of furry creatures and stuffed animals, and most of us enjoy that experience and feel a kinship with other creatures. At the same time, our parents and the world around us tell us that our instinct of kinship across-the-board is not acceptable, and they begin to whittle away at any connection we naturally experience with other creatures, with the exception of those we have domesticated and consider "pets" (i.e., cats, dogs and horses). Our impulse to play, love, care for, or even simply respect the lives of most other species is pummeled, daily, by just about every message we receive, consciously or otherwise.

The values I innately had as a child were destroyed and replaced with values that are convenient for American culture, and treated as sacred. But in reality they're arbitrary. They're really not values at all; they're a set of consumer specifications. American culture trains me to be a certain kind of consumer--one who fits easily into the existing configuration of industries and priorities, while making the least amount of trouble.

Of course, that all came crashing down when I made the conscious decision to take back my morality and my definition of justice, and alter my behavior accordingly. And fortunately, I haven't been alone on the journey to reclaim the ethics of our relationship with nonhuman animals.

Morality involves intention and deliberation, but the perpetuation of our American culture (or any culture) relies on our refusal or inability to attend to the most important aspects of our daily lives, such as where our food comes from. Looking at our behavior through a lens that deconstructs our ethics is not supported in our culture.

It's time for that to change. It's time to raise a generation of people who say: Why do we eat chickens if they feel pain and pleasure and terror just like dogs do? Why do we find the pain of another creature entertaining, as we do in the rodeo? And when they hear about the biggest beef recall in history, these children will ask: Why was the focus on tainted meat entering the food supply rather than on an industry (dairy) that uses cows until they're crippled and can't even stand long enough to be slaughtered?

It's time to ask why we do the things we do. And if the answer is unacceptable, we must have the courage to change what we do.

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (106)  

On Animals and Culture

Posted on Feb 19th, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Chb3

On Animals and Culture

Through an accident of birth and geography, you grew up with a certain name for your god and certain beliefs about animals. You were taught that some animals are for eating and some are for petting. And yet others are for entertainment. Your beliefs about your god and about animals are similar in that, whether you think of it this way or not, you hold them both sacred.

But what does it mean to hold something sacred? Why do we cling to beliefs and customs? Is there something intrinsically right or good about valuing certain animals as food? Is there a reason to value certain animals for "sport?"

Every use of animals, in every culture, has one thing in common: it is carried out today because it was carried out yesterday. It is sacred today because it was sacred yesterday. After all, there is no good reason to eat cows and not dogs. We domesticated dogs yesterday, therefore they're not food? We ate cows yesterday, therefore we should eat them today? We race horses or camels or dogs, depending on where we live, meanwhile racing horses or camels or dogs seems odd . . . depending on where we live.

We judge other cultures based on what we have decided are norms, but in reality they're often completely arbitrary. For example, there are socially-acceptable horrible acts, and socially-unacceptable horrible acts. That's one of the main differences among cultures. Americans find ritual animal sacrifice appalling. Yet we have institutionalized forms of cruelty--like factory farming--that are no better, and some might argue that they're worse (if the animals used in the rituals had unfettered lives where they got to behave in biologically and socially-appropriate ways before they were unnecessarily and brutally murdered).

So I ask you: Is ritual animal sacrifice worse than meat-eating, and if so, why?

One of the most irrational-posing-as-rational reasons for using nonhuman animals, causing them suffering, terrorizing them, and ultimately killing them, is culture, and it's sibling, tradition. Let's look at some common statements:

  • "Bullfighting is part of our culture," says the Spaniard.
  • "Eating turkey is a Thanksgiving tradition," according to most Americans--as if that's a good enough reason to slaughter 50 million turkeys for one meal on one day of the year.
  • "We eat horse meat; it's part of our culture," says the woman from Japan or France or Belgium.
  • "We don't eat horses, here; they're a national treasure," says the American.


Do you see the problem? Anything goes when positioned under the umbrella of culture.

Every part of culture that we have come to defend is something that began in a certain historical context. Take, for instance, what I perceive is the most sensitive topic: the culture of Native Americans. We've taken enough from them (like, everything, and every time I think about it I'm embarrassed to be of European descent). But they're not so different from the earliest European settlers in that they used animals in a way that benefited them and they weren't in the business of institutionalized terror and cruelty for profit. They were simply doing what they thought they had to do to get what they needed and make it through the day.

Fast forward to 2008. Notice that the terrain is a bit different than it was 400 years ago. Most of us don't use horses for transportation anymore (not because it's not right, but because we have more efficient modes of transportation). We don't need to use horses (not that we needed to back then, but doing so no doubt made everyone get places a bit faster). And guess what else? In 2008, we don't need to eat animals. In fact, study after study shows that the way we raise animals for food has not only harmed the environment, but it has polluted our bodies. Yet we continue to do it. Why? Because we accept that it's part of our culture. We don't question it just as we don't question why we eat cows and not dogs. Americans have been inculcated (en-cultur-ated) to find the eating of dogs anathema to us. But is the actual eating of dogs really different from the eating of cows (once you remove the culture part that says dogs are pets and cows aren't)?

One of the traits that we like to think sets us apart from the nonhuman animal world (although there's increasing evidence to the contrary) is that we are able to make decisions based on some kind of moral code. And I'm not referring to religious doctrine. I'm referring to refraining from doing things simply because they are wrong to do, such as killing sentient beings when you do not need to.

The consciousness of humanity won't be able to evolve as long as it clings to ideas and behaviors borne out of an entirely different time. We need to have discussions about how we should behave going forward that are based on what we have the ability to do now, and the knowledge that we have now--not on what we did or knew yesterday.

Access_public Access: Public 3 Comments Print views (465)  

On Food and Social Change

Posted on Feb 4th, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Bwcow-m
AN UNPOPULAR VIEW OF SOCIAL CHANGE

Food just might be the most powerful medium of social change, although most people don’t see it that way. In the 20th Century, with the development of concentrated feeding operations (CAFOS, or factory farms) the way human animals thought of nonhuman animals took a bit of a turn. Though we used nonhuman animals for virtually whatever purpose we wanted before then, the Industrial Revolution led to the dominance, control, exploitation, mutilation and slaughter of nonhuman animals as an industry. And as an industry that is part of a capitalist system, its main objective is profit.

That being the case, anything goes when using animals. If greater profit can be reaped from cramming more animals together, so be it. If, when crammed together, the animals attack and injure each other and themselves, we can cut off their ears, toes, tails, beaks. Whatever part does damage, we snip it off. Whatever part gets damaged the most, we can snip that off, as well.

Now, though the treatment of nonhuman animals “produced” in factory farms is indeed hideous, we must not stop short of addressing the core problem by merely blaming intensive farms for their daily acts of barbarism. They are not alone in their unjust treatment of the ten billion land animals killed in the United States just for the taste of their flesh or secretions.

It is something far more basic that creates the atmosphere for the unnecessary yet socially acceptable mass slaughter of billions of sentient beings each year: we use them for whatever we want to because we can. We have decided that our species is better than theirs, simply because we say so. Might makes right, we say.

Let’s think about this for a moment. We in America feel a duty to certain species that we decided to domesticate (i.e., cats, dogs and horses), and we feel a duty to other species because they are particularly cute, intelligent (according to our definition of intelligence) or human-like, such as dolphins, chimpanzees and other primates. But that duty stops where we say it stops. We can still use them for our purposes, but we consider certain treatment of them to be “cruel,” “inhumane,” or “criminal.” Where is the logic in that? Where is the justice?

We have no sense of duty to all beings capable of the pleasure, pain, terror, boredom and frustration. We discriminate according to the value we assign; we do what suits our interests. We have doomed certain species to “food,” and raised others to “pet,” at no point factoring in the intrinsic value of the individuals. At no point do we say, “The pig has the same desire to live a life free of domination, exploitation and slaughter as the dog does.” In fact, we say close to the opposite with: “Dogs are worthy of our protection and our companionship, while pigs are worthy of our dinner plates.”

This system is unjust, regardless of whether you’re looking at Farmer Joe’s operation or Perdue’s. Though factory farming is an embarrassment of atrocity, the mere fact that we are so eager to use other sentient beings for our own gain is the real problem. Fortunately, there’s a way to change this unjust system. There’s a nonviolent way to send the message that what we have done to nonhuman animals is unacceptable and must stop. It’s a revolution of sorts, aimed at freeing nonhuman animals from the bondage of our palates. Contrary to popular belief, it’s inexpensive, it’s easy, and it doesn’t have to involve soy products or any “faux” meat. And it strikes a blow like no other to a system that has institutionalized the abuse of animals, people and Planet Earth. It’s called veganism.
Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (125)  

On Food and Nonviolence

Posted on Jan 23rd, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Img_0827
AN UNPOPULAR VIEW OF NONVIOLENCE

If I were to ask you to define nonviolence, what would you say? The traditional macro-type answer would have something to do with peaceful resistance to a government. And either you believe in passive resistance or you think that sometimes force of some kind is necessary; sometimes violence is necessary.

Now what about nonviolence on a micro level—on an individual level. What does nonviolence mean in your daily life? More specifically, do you ever think of your eating habits as having anything to do with violence or nonviolence?

Recently there has been quite a bit of mainstream discussion about the way we treat the animals we have decided are for eating. There is an unprecedented demand for cage-free eggs, free-range products of all sorts are the rage, and even veal, at least in the UK (and produced under certain standards), is now being touted as “humane.”

This is all rather odd to me, as I don’t find killing sentient beings acceptable when it’s not necessary (and I’m hard-pressed to find a reason it would be necessary in 2008 in the developed world). If a being has the capacity to experience pleasure, pain, frustration, boredom and terror, in a way similar to how I do or my adopted Greyhounds do, I find slaughtering that being simply because it suits my palate or because the creature is included on the list of “food animals” of my culture, morally unjustifiable.

All the brouhaha about allegedly “humane” products needs to be closely examined by anyone seriously interested in nonviolence or claiming to live by it. For example, notwithstanding the fact that most people probably couldn’t differentiate between a cage-free hen and one kept in a battery cage (which tells you something about the conditions of the supposedly-more humane cage-free set up), let’s look at what actually occurs. In the best of circumstances, a chick is brought into the world. In a day or two, the sex is determined. If the chick is male, he is slaughtered. Regardless of how he is killed, his life is taken, according to someone else’s timetable and simply because he is male. How does that fit with your definition of nonviolence (to say nothing of social justice, which I’ll discuss next time)?

Let’s take a dairy cow, who is continuously artificially inseminated so she will keep producing babies and milk. Is artificial insemination, obviously conducted on someone else’s timetable, nonviolent, whether or not it occurs via “rape rack?” When her calves are born they are immediately taken from her and sent elsewhere to either become veal (and this is true for both the males and females) or to become dairy cows themselves. Their lives are entirely dominated by farmers who decide what they will eat (usually not their natural diet), when they will eat, if they will ever see the sun, or if they will ever be able to turn around (if they’re in a crate, as veal calves most often are). Even if they aren’t in crates, in the best of all possible worlds, their lives are not their own and their deaths occur when a farmer decides they will. Would you describe that situation as nonviolent?

Finally, even if an animal was created at or is living at (i.e., being “produced” at) one of the few family farms that still exist, where she runs around under the sun and is fed her natural diet, her life is not her own. She still breathes at the pleasure of the farmer, and will stop breathing the moment the farmer decides her flesh is ripe for the taking. If you believe in nonviolence, and you campaign for nonviolence toward human animals, why would you exclude other sentient beings from such consideration?

There’s a lot of talk about the suffering of animals and our obligation to decrease it. But perhaps that’s the wrong issue to concentrate on. Instead of focusing on the result-the effect-why not focus on the act that is the cause? Violence. If you remove the violence, not only do you decrease the suffering, but you eliminate it. And if it can easily be eliminated, why spend so much time trying to merely decrease it?
Access_public Access: Public 1 Comment Print views (198)  

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: Part 4

Posted on Jan 3rd, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Goat-l
Perhaps the trickiest part of wanting to spread the animal rights message is regarding charitable donations of cash and time.

There are thousands of organizations created to help animals. If you want to help animals directly, there are rescue groups, sanctuaries, wildlife rehabilitation centers, no-kill shelters and TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return) efforts.

When it comes to more general “advocacy” organizations that don’t deal directly with animals much of the time, finding an organization to support may not be as easy as it seems. For example, the mission statements of some groups sound a lot like animal rights, yet the groups routinely kill healthy animals, don’t denounce breeding, endorse animal products, such as cage-free eggs, and work with animal  exploiters to find ways they can both “win” by using animals. Tens of millions of dollars flow to such organizations each year, and many donors blindly give, without ever questioning where their money is going.

If you would like to help animals by donating to a group, you need to be clear on what your intention is first, so you recognize a good match for you when you see it.

Compose a mission statement: Do you want your money to go directly to helping animals? Do have a passion for a specific issue, such as eliminating dissection in schools or reducing the feral cat population? Do you have a specific geographical focus?

Research organizations that may be a good fit for your mission: It’s your responsibility to go to the websites of organizations you might give to (or visit them) and make sure that their mission is a good match for yours. Before you write a check or sign up to volunteer, you should be able to answer the following questions: What kinds of campaigns do they have? (What are they trying to accomplish and how are they going about it?) What are their outcomes, which are often called “victories”? Is their definition of “victory” the same as yours? And most important, what do they do with donations? Where does the money go? How exactly is it helping animals?

It’s important to closely examine organizations that supposedly exist to advocate for animal rights, and make sure what they say is consistent with what they do. Animal rights organizations should not be promoting any kind of animal product or working with animal exploiters to find a win-win-win for all (animals included). Why? Because there’s no such thing as a win for animals when their lives, their bodies, and their freedom are the bargaining chips.
   
Finally . . .
Eddie, the main character in the documentary film “The Witness” (go to www.tribeofheart.org for more info an to watch a clip) reminds us that a miracle can be defined as a change in perception. Most Americans were raised to think about animals as things--as resources--to be created, used and managed by humans to suit our palate, our sense of fashion, or our definition of entertainment. It’s time to think critically about how we use animals, and it’s time to think critically about organizations that claim to have an animal rights mission.

It’s time for a miracle.




Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (346)  

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: Part 3

Posted on Jan 2nd, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Emmesun
Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: Part 3
What YOU Can Do


N O W  W H A T ?

Most people who begin considering why and how we use animals say the same things:
*I never thought of it that way!
*It seems so all-encompassing and overwhelming!
*We’ll never live in a society where animals aren’t treated heinously!
*Abolition will never become a reality!
*What can one person possibly do?

Those are all understandable reactions. Fortunately, there’s plenty that you can do . . .

W H A T  Y O U  C A N  D O

It may indeed be true that we will never stop using nonhuman animals. However, that doesn’t mean nothing can be done to decrease the number of animals we use (and whom we pay someone else to kill for us). Think about it in terms of supply and demand: The lower the demand for products made from animals or tested on animals, the lower the supply (i.e., fewer animals will be bred to be used, and ultimately killed). Likewise, the lower the participation levels in activities that use animals, such as: rodeos, zoos, circuses, and horse and dog racing, the fewer the animals that will be bred for them, suffer for them, and die for them. Here’s what you can do in your own life to decrease the number of animals brought into the world just so they can be used by us and killed by us.

Go vegan!
If you believe animals aren’t ours to use, you ought to align your actions with that belief, right? Fortunately, it’s easier than ever to go vegan, as there are many meat and dairy alternatives available in grocery stores and over the Internet; and shoes and clothing not made from the hair, fur or skin of other creatures (or their entire bodies, as in the case of silk), are inexpensive and accessible in most areas of the country, as well as over the Internet. Vegan cosmetics and household products are increasingly common also, as manufacturers listen to their customers, who are demanding that they stop using animal-derived ingredients, and stop experimenting on animals, particularly where there’s no law that says they must, or when the ingredients have previously been tested. Online stores include: the Vegan Store, at www.vegan store.com; Cosmo’s Vegan Shoppe, at www. cosmosvegan shoppe.com; and Vegan Essentials, at www.vegan essentials.com. Vegan restauraunts all over the world can be found at www.happycow.net

Though being a healthy vegan is easy once you get the hang of it, it’s not a good idea to do it without an introduction to basic nutritional requirements and how to get them. VegFamily, at www. vegfamily.com/dietician/, is a wealth of information, as is Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, at www.pcrm.org/health.

If you have a canine companion animal, vegan food, supplements and recipes are available at the sites listed above, in addition to at Harbingers of a New Age (www.vegepet.com).

Educate other people and help them go vegan.
Living by example and showing those around you how easy and inexpensive it is to be healthy, happy and stylish without using animals is the best way to generate interest in veganism. But when people start asking you questions and challenging you, it’s helpful to have resources handy that support what you’re doing. Here are some more favorites:

Farmed animals:
Life for the ten billion land animals slaughtered for their flesh each year is hardly idyllic. Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, at www.peacefulprairie.org, is a great place to go to learn about what we do to farmed animals and to read the stories of individual animals who were rescued and are now living their lives in peace. While you’re there, check out "The Free-Range Myth" at www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html, which clearly explains why there’s no such thing as a humanely-produced egg.

The environment:
The connection between eating animals and climate change is now undeniable. Two recent, independent studies demonstrated that raising animals for food is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Both “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options,” at www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm, which is a report by the United Nations; and the University of Chicago study, “Diet, Energy, and Global Warming,” available at geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf, conclude that the breeding and raising animals for food uses resources, such as grains and water, that could be going directly to people. It also produces enormous amounts of air, water and ground pollution, and is responsible for a massive loss of biodiversity. The impact has been so devastating that we need to address it immediately.

Learn how to cook tasty morsels to bring to parties and meetings.

When introducing people to veganism, beginning with dessert is always a great idea because everybody likes dessert! If people like the taste of food first, they won’t complain about or be dubious about its veganness. Once they like it, then reveal the reality that no one died for it. If you tell them it’s vegan first, they tend to be skeptical that it could taste good, and that affects their experience. If you like baking, try The Joy of Vegan Baking, by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, who also has recipes, cooking DVDs, nutrition information and a podcast at www.compassionatecooks.com.
   
Hold a screening of “The Witness” or buy the DVD for friends and family.

Films are a great way to spread a message without having to do the talking yourself. Tribe of Heart (www.tribeof heart.org) created the award-winning documentary, The Witness, about Eddie Lama,  a construction contractor-turned-animal advocate. Tribe of Heart’s latest film, Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home, which is about farmed animals, will be released in early 2008.

Next time, I'll discuss what to do with your charitable dollars if you believe animals aren't ours to use.

As always, I welcome questions and comments.

The photo above, of Emily Fokker Loder, the rescue cat who's a carrier of Feline Infectious Peritonitis, is the property of Mary Martin. Emily is living comfortably with her adoptive parents, Mary and Dave.



Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (562)  

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights, Part 2

Posted on Jan 2nd, 2008 by fire : Animal Person fire
Chb3beach
Thinking Critically About Animal Rights,
Part 2: On Animal Experimentation and Pets


Q: I understand that you don't believe animals are ours to use for food, clothing or sport, 

but what about experimenting on animals for medical reasons, like to find a cure for 

disease or to see if something is toxic? Aren’t those examples of uses of animals that 

can be ethical as long as they are humane and necessary?


A: The stand of the animal rights advocate regarding research that involves animals

is very simple: Animals are not ours to experiment on. Period. Now, no one is claiming 

we’ve never learned anything from experimenting on animals in the past. But that isn’t

the point. The point is that using a sentient being, against her will (which is the only 

way it can be done), for your own purposes (whatever they may be), is morally 

unjustifiable.


In order to responsibly address the question asked, however, you’d first have to define 

humane and necessary. Let’s begin at the beginning. Do you think it’s ethical to breed an 

animal for the sole purpose of using her as the subject of an experiment (she’d  more 

accurately be an object, as something would be done to her)? Dogs, such as Greyhounds, 

who are docile and rarely bark, apparently make great “subjects” and are often used for 

heart disease research. Beagles are used often, as well.


Furthermore, do you think it’s ethical to seize animals from pounds or off the streets 

(that’s the other way they get to be “subjects”) for the purposes of caging them, cutting 

them open or exposing them to hazardous substances, collecting data, and then killing 

them? If it were your dog being experimented on, would that be okay? Would it be ethical 

then? Most people say no, as they’re emotionally attached to their dogs and we Americans 

value our dogs.


The vast majority of animals used in research are rats, however, and most people aren’t 

emotionally attached to them and don’t value them. But is that what should matter? Given 

that rats have the same capacity for pleasure, pain and terror as your dog does, is it 

humane to breed them with genetic defects, artificially inflict them with diseases, expose 

them to toxic substances, and kill them? Why would it be ethical to use a rat but not your 

dog? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a sentient being, without her consent, just because 

you can?


As far as necessary goes, it is never necessary to experiment on anyone. It is either a choice 

or it is dictated by a governing body such as the FDA. It might be a legal necessity, but it’s 

certainly not a scientific one. In fact, a growing number of scientists now believe that 

experimenting on animals to gain knowledge about humans is just plain bad science. And 

they have history on their side, as there have been instances where testing done on animals 

showed that a substance wasn’t dangerous, but that has turned out not to be the case 

(e.g., Thalidomide and Vioxx, among others). In fact, adverse reactions to animal-tested 

medicines are now the fourth largest cause of death in America


Think about it: Does it make sense to assume that a response you get in a nonhuman 

animal, whom you’ve inflicted with a disease (so it has not organically occurred, and 

might not ever have occurred), will be the same as you’d expect from a different species 

(humans), in individuals whose disease occurred over time, as a result of a certain 

behavior or exposure to certain toxic substances? Does extrapolating from one species 

to another, even with a close genetic relative, like the chimpanzee is to humans, make 

sense when each individual chimpanzee or human reacts differently to disease to begin 

with? Adding species into the mix only makes the results less reliable. Fortunately, 

many alternatives to using animals have been developed, including computer models. 

The most responsible way to find cures and treatments for disease, and to test for 

toxicity, is to allocate research funds to the development of non-animal alternatives, 

such as human clinical and in-vitro research, cell and tissue cultures, epidemiology 

and genetic research, all of which are more effective methods of studying disease and 

testing the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. 


If you believe in animal rights, you believe that the potential of some kind of beneficial 

result isn’t a valid reason to use the life of a sentient being, against her will, as the 

“subject” of an experiment.


Despite the inherent flaws of animal experimentation, there are political, economic

(read: big business), and social reasons why government and non-government 

organizations continue to fund research on animals. Meanwhile, people who are ill 

continue to be ill while, for instance, billions of dollars are being spent trying to inflict 

diseases in animals, as is the case with AIDS and chimpanzees (who can be 

successfully infected with HIV, but do not progress to AIDS). There's a helpful but 

short explanation of chimpanzee research that doesn't apply to humans at 

www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/chimps. For a more thorough explanation, see the 

work of Ray Greek, MD, at www.curedisease. com/president.html, co-author of 

Sacred Cows & Golden Geese, which is a great mind-opener for someone unfamiliar with 

the reality that animal experimentation simply isn't great science.


To recap, animal experimentation, for the animal rights activist, has a simple answer: 

We shouldn't do it. It’s morally unacceptable. For everyone else, it has an answer that’s 

a bit more complex, but ends at the same place: we shouldn't do it. There are myriad 

reasons why it still exists (there’s a lot of money in conducting the research, breeding 

the animals, transporting the animals, running the facilities, and keeping these 

business machines alive), and it's time we ask questions of charities, research 

organizations, and the government. It's time we ask the tough questions, withhold 

money where we can, and put an end to a practice we never should have started. 

Considering everything we now know, there’s never been a better time.


Q: But if animal rights advocates don’t believe in using animals,  shouldn’t they be 

against keeping cats and dogs as pets?


A: This is the only instance where animal rights advocates might "use" animals, and 

here’s why: We have domesticated dogs and cats and we clearly have not acted 

responsibly by spaying and neutering them, and we now have an overpopulation crisis.

And to make matters worse, we continue to allow the breeding of new cats and dogs, 

when millions of healthy ones are killed each year, often just because there’s no room 

for them at shelters. We have an obligation to fix the problem we have created, and that 

doesn't mean killing healthy animals. This is not a quandary we can kill our way out of. 

For this reason, many animal rights advocates choose to adopt (never purchase) 

homeless animals if they feel they are able to meet their needs: safety, good nutrition 

(and note that many dogs live long, healthy lives as vegans), and plenty of exercise, 

stimulation and love. 


Next time, I'll address what you can do if part of your personal mission is 

nonviolence, and you include all sentient beings in that mission. 

 


The photo above is the property of Mary Martin. The Greyhound pictured is 

Charles Hobson Booger, III, who lives in South Florida with his adoptive

parents, Dave and Mary.

 

 

Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (168)  

Thinking Critically About Animal Rights

Posted on Dec 13th, 2007 by fire : Animal Person fire
Violetstraighton
Thinking Critically About Animal Rights:
What you need to know, What you need to question
Part 1


Animal Rights: What it is, What it isn’t
This is an important starting point, as the term doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. For instance, the mainstream media seems to think that anyone who cares at all about animals is an “animal rights activist,” and that all animal rights activists are members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). But these character-izations belie the spectrum of people interested in improving the lives of non-human animals and chang-ing our relationship with nonhuman animals, and how those interests manifest themselves. Let’s begin with two important definitions that are noticeably absent from (or unclear in) main-stream discussions about animal rights in America.

Animal Rights
No one is campaigning for their dog’s right to vote. For the purposes of this brochure, animal rights refers to one right only: the right to not be used by another. This is also known as “abolition,” a nonviolent approach to animal rights that: (1) requires the abolition of animal exploitation and rejects the notion that animal use is acceptable if we treat animals “humanely;” (2) requires only that nonhumans be sentient in order to be full members of the moral community and to have the right not to be treated as human resources; and (3) regards veganism as its moral baseline. (This definition comes from Professor Gary Francione, at www.abolitionistapproach.com.). Note that nonviolence includes both the way activism is conducted (harming people physically is never an objective), as well as the way animals are treated (i.e., healthy animals, such as cats, dogs, geese, alligators and raccoons, who are either experiencing an overpopulation crisis or deemed a nuisance for whatever reason, are not to be killed. “Euthanasia” is when you provide a painless death for someone who is terminally ill or suffering gravely. Ending the lives of healthy animals, no matter how it’s done, is called “killing.”).
        Both the theory and the goal of abolition profoundly differ from that of animal welfare/animal protection.

Animal welfare/Animal protection

Individuals and organizations interested in animal welfare and animal protection do not object to institutional uses of animals (i.e., using them for food, clothing, entertainment, sports or experimentation). Instead, their priority is to decrease the suffering of the animals being used. Animal welfarists seek to regulate the way we use animals, rather than campaign for people to stop using them. Welfarists may be vegans, but don’t see veganism as necessary, as they don’t object to killing animals for food, clothing, research or sport.

What do YOU want for animals?
What do YOU believe about animals?

In order to responsibly decide how you feel about this topic and what you believe, you ought to first inform yourself of the facts, which may very well be different from what you currently think is true. Let’s deconstruct some of the most common beliefs about our relationship with nonhuman animals.

  • Nonhuman animals aren’t people, after all, so what’s the big deal about using them?
Two concepts are operating here; let’s address them one at a time. Animals are like us in some ways, and unlike us in other, more obvious ways. For people interested in animal rights, one trait we share with nonhuman animals is of paramount importance: sentience. Until the 20th century, many suspected that dogs, cows, chickens, cats and even fish have the capacity to experience pain, but the fact that these nonhumans are indeed sentient was not accepted or addressed by mainstream scientists.
        It’s 2008, and we now know that, just like human animals, nonhuman animals express not only pain, but other feelings such as: pleasure, fear, boredom and frustration. They play, they grieve, they cuddle and they deceive. They have friendships, preferences, expectations and beliefs. Many demonstrate they have some degree of moral code. The fact is that animals lead lives rich in thought, emotion, culture and relationships. As such, they care about their well-being, and they have an interest in living their lives free from subjugation by others, just like you do.
        That last sentence addresses the second part of the original statement: the use of animals. Taking away someone’s freedom and using them for your gain (which includes using them for your palate) is unacceptable for animal rights advocates. It is a form of violence, and part of the foundation of animal rights is nonviolence. It is also unjust, and another part of the foundation of animal rights is social justice.

  • I believe that as long as we don’t inflict unnecessary suffering, it’s okay to use animals.
Unnecessary suffering is cruel, you don’t want any part of cruelty, and that’s admirable. In order to make an informed decision about whether you’re inflicting unnecessary suffering, however, you’d first have to educate yourself about the current status of the suffering of animals, right? Let’s examine some common notions regarding how animals are treated.

  • There is such a thing as “humane farming.”
What if I control everything about your life including: what you eat and when; if, and how you procreate (cows, chickens and pigs are not left to naturally mate--they are impregnated with the help of people who often use an apparatus known as a “rape rack”); when and how your life is to end; and I slaughter you when I want to. Would you characterize that process as humane? Is that  scenario acceptable   to you? When you uncover all of the aspects of farming deemed necessary (and that usually means “allegedly required in order to make a profit”), you quickly begin to see that though you may be able to decrease some suffering here and there, when the entire process is considered in toto, there’s simply no way to call it humane.

  • But I know of a “free-range” farm where the animals run around, have wonderful lives and are very well cared for. I know this because I get my meat from them and I’ve visited their farm and seen it with my own eyes.
This brings up the topic of humane slaughter. At some smaller farms, such as family-run farms, the animals do indeed eat their natural diets, aren’t drugged or mutilated, and run free. Let’s talk about you again for a moment. Let’s say I treat you as well as I possibly can while you’re alive, yet you cannot escape me, I continue to use you the way I wish to use you, I decide when and how you will die, and I will eventually kill you when I feel the moment is right. Let’s say I shoot you in the head and you barely feel a thing. Is that okay with you? Of course not; I’ve just ended your life. Furthermore, is it okay that I’ve taken your freedom away from you and used your life for my purposes? Of course not. You have the right to your life free of use or enslavement by me. But nonhuman animals don’t have that right, and animal rights advocates think it’s time for that to change.

  • But I believe in animal rights! I’m a vegetarian and I eat only cage-free eggs and drink only organic milk!
Many vegetarians like to think that eggs, milk and cheese somehow involve less subjugation and/or  suffering than other animal products, such as fur or meat. They like to think that eggs are about as cruelty-free an animal product as you can get, especially if they’re cage-free. And there’s a good reason for that: we’re surrounded by messages that tell us cage-free products are humane. Even the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals promote cage-free eggs.
        But did you know that no matter where the egg production facility is located, or what the visible-to-the-public conditions are, the egg-laying hens come from the same hatcheries that kill the baby rooster chicks at only one-day old? Did you know that hens are generally considered spent by egg-laying facilities at one to two years and are then killed? And did you know that dairy cows are artificially inseminated over and over, often via “rape rack,” are genetically manipulated to produce an unnaturally enormous amount of milk, and are killed by the time they’re six-years old, when their normal life span is over 20 years? And that while they’re alive, they are rarely permitted to nurse their babies (the males, as you may know, are taken away from them to be confined, perhaps elsewhere, and slaughtered as veal)? How do you feel about milk and eggs now?
        As for the farm near your home where you get your meat and eggs, ask that farmer what happens to the male chicks and the spent hens. Ask what happens to the newborn calves. Ask how the cows are impregnated and how often. Always question anyone who tells you that some process involving an animal is humane, and decide for yourself if it is acceptable to you.

  • I’ve heard that people who advocate for animal rights don’t think we should be racing horses or dogs. But horses and dogs love to run! Aren’t they just doing what they love to do?
Thousands of horses and dogs are created each year for the purposes of racing, with the hope of making their owners a profit. Early in their lives, animals who don’t show promise are killed (this is what “culled” means), and as the training process progresses, there are further kills to narrow the group down to only the most competitive animals. Many injuries during train-ing result in further kills if the careers of the animals are no longer promising. When the few animals who do make it to competition are injured, they are often killed if their injuries are too expensive to fix, or if the injuries will be career ending even if they heal well. Some lucky animals end up in the hands of rescue groups, who will often pay for their treatment and get them adopted, as in the case of Greyhounds and mushing dogs (used most famously in the Iditarod and the Yukon Quest, both of which are over 1,000 miles long), or sent to a sanctuary, as is often the case with horses. As of this writing, horses are still transported out of the country to be slaughtered for human consumption overseas.

Stay tuned for Part 2: On Animal Experimentation

I welcome questions and comments.

The photo is the property of Mary Martin. It is Violet Rays, rescued Greyhound who is diabetic and blind in one eye, now living a comfortable life in South Florida with her adoptive parents, Mary and Dave.


Access_public Access: Public What do you think? Print views (470)