‘I think animals should be humanely treated’

It’s what everyone says. They say it while eating their flesh, drinking the milk they made for their infants, using the eggs they laid in their desperate and futile attempts to be mothers. They say it wearing flayed skins, body fibres and feathers, freshly washed top to toe, with sweet perfumed toiletries of corpse parts and ingredients for which helpless, despairing creatures were tortured in labs.

‘Oh, I think animals should be humanely treated.’ Have you ever wondered why we say these words?

Because if we really thought of animals as the objects, the things, the commodities and resources that our use of them is built upon, we wouldn’t even consider being ‘humane’. We’re not ‘humane’ to furniture; we’re not ‘humane’ to machines.

The words ‘I think animals should be humanely treated’ are a clear recognition and an absolute admission that those whom we use are capable of suffering harm and distress as a result of the practices we fund with our consumer cash.
While we continue to pay for and support using the lives and bodies of members of nonhuman species, with our own words we’re admitting either that we don’t know the facts, or else we’re admitting we know and don’t care. But if the latter is true, isn’t it curious that we don’t want others to know this about us?

Our victims value their lives and they don’t want to die. Our every use of them reinforces the unjust and extremely violent position that our self interest – no matter how trivial –  is of greater importance than our victims’ most basic right to live. Every use we make is unnecessary, causes them harm and sets them on a path where their only escape will be a premature and horrific death.

So the next time we hear the words, ‘I think animals should be humanely treated’, why not pause and reflect. Is the speaker saying that they don’t know the facts? Or are they saying that they do know the facts but that they don’t care?

Because the only way we can make the words sincere is by being vegan.

Find out about veganism today.

 

https://www.goveganscotland.com/
http://goveganworld.com/what-is-veganism/

 

 

Posted in 'Happy' exploitation, Awakening to veganism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What will happen to the animals when the world goes vegan?

Some of the family at Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary
Image by Ula Boyle

What will happen to all the animals if the world goes vegan?
You do realise that they’ll become extinct?
Will the planet be overrun with animals?
Who will pay for looking after the animals if it becomes illegal to eat them?
Where will the animals live while they re-adapt?
What industries will absorb the workers suddenly left without jobs?

Variations on these questions appear so often. This essay started out as a single paragraph for a cut-and-pasteable FAQ I plan to compile and I’ll no doubt condense the key points for the ‘in a nutshell’ series, but it turned out I had more to say than I realised.   As it happens, it’s been an interesting topic to consider, so apologies in advance for the length.

You do realise they’ll become extinct?

Humans first domesticated other species about 12,000 years ago. A mere blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, it’s important to realise that the duration of the industry of exploitation that humans have created is relatively recent and does not reach back into the prehistoric mists of time as many imagine. During that time almost every breed of animal we use for any and every purpose worldwide, has been adapted by selective breeding to optimise commercial production of whichever aspect of their lives and bodies we want to utilise, regardless of the impact this has on the health and well-being of the hapless individuals themselves.

A frequent attempt to disparage veganism is that when the world becomes vegan, the breeds we currently use will become extinct. This is said as if that were a bad thing. Apparently a species bereft of conscience, humanity created the species that we use in their current forms by selective breeding for our artificial purposes. We confine them in unnatural environments, feed them substances that they would never consume without our intervention, accelerate and boost their growth / lactation / egg production far beyond what their bodies are designed to bear, and are even working to develop further grotesque mutations by genetic modification for a variety of ‘reasons’ that all boil down to maximising profit. Like ourselves, our victims are a long way from the natural animals they once were.

With many breeds manipulated in ways that inevitably shorten their lives and no environmental niche to occupy outside of our hells and prisons, the almost inevitable extinction of the pitiable creations of our unspeakable species is a totally different issue from the extinction of those wild creatures who were quietly minding their own business in the aeons before we came along, and whose habitat we have destroyed by our industrialisation and urbanisation, not to mention the usurping of their land on the industrial scale that has been necessary for us to cultivate our victims in unimaginably vast and increasing numbers.

Joy, rescued by Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary from a FREE RANGE facility.

Hens, the persecuted individuals behind what we are taught to think of as the disembodied protein source ‘chicken’, are a prime example of a species that has been developed in various directions to maximise whatever aspect of their bodies we require to exploit. Those individuals required to maximise egg production, have been bred to lay such an excessive number of eggs that they are almost guaranteed to develop prolapse (where their internal reproductive tract is pushed through the opening where their eggs leave their bodies), or cancer, Marek’s disease or any one of a number of agonising and fatal conditions at an early age. Their productive lives last less than 1.5 years before they are bundled off in crates to a slaughterhouse to face the final horror of death, making way for new victims.

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals

Those whose corpses are sold for consumption are required to put on the maximum amount of weight in the shortest possible time. The individuals crammed into the slaughter trucks, barely able to stand or breathe under the crushing weight of their grotesquely overweight bodies are approximately 42 days old. 42 days. It’s not a typo.

Do we care about illness,  discomfort and disease as it impacts the affected individuals? In a word, no. We may claim otherwise but words are cheap and our actions tell a different tale. The stark truth is that they are regarded as short-term, expendable, commercial assets; we don’t need them to get old. They are sent to be slaughtered as soon as they reach target weight or as soon as productivity declines, depending on the use we are making of them.  

The weight of the law?

I’d like to address another point here. The suggestion of ‘if it becomes illegal’ is often slipped into a question with the rather unsubtle hint of adding insult to injury by potential infringement of ‘personal’ choiceI recently came across the following quote that says it all. I can attribute it only to an unknown law professor.

‘Law has no meaning or relevance outside of society. It both shapes and is shaped by the society in which it functions. Law is made by humans. It protects, controls, burdens and liberates humans, non-human animals, nature, and inanimate physical objects. Like the humans who make it, Law is biased, noble, aspirational, short-sighted, flawed, messy, unclear, brilliant, and constantly changing. ‘

In short, it is society that must change in a way that begins at the level of the individual, and as this must happen long before any legislative change can occur, the suggestion of animal use becoming illegal before then is a non-starter.

More questions than answers

There is a popular misconception of veganism as a menu option, a misconception fuelled by an increasingly sensationalist and mendacious media. It is frequently claimed that the ending and dismantling of the industries of nonhuman exploitation and use, is a massive and unnecessary inconvenience being proposed by a minority.  Let us be clear here. Whilst my focus is and will always be the injustice that we perpetrate upon those who are like us in every way but species, the adoption of veganism, or at least the plant diet that is a part of the ethic, is widely proclaimed by scientists and health authorities to be the only way that humanity and planet Earth have even the remotest chance of survival into the next century. Far from being an inconvenience, it is an escape route for a species that is in dangerous denial about its catastrophically destructive path.

Setting aside for one moment the health and environmental disasters directly attributable to animal use, questions frequently seek to gloss over what everyone knows and accepts about the way the world of supply and consumer demand actually works. 

Does the fact that it is convenient to do something automatically make it ethical or desirable?
Of course it doesn’t and no one would realistically claim otherwise.  With the wisdom that comes of hindsight we can now look back on massive institutions that at one time seemed unassailable. Opposition to them started out small and vehemently opposed, truth and rightness eventually swayed everyone to the cause and ways were found – as they always are – to cope with whatever challenges were faced in the dismantling of the institution. The slave trade was one such; so seemingly ingrained and entrenched in white culture that those who spoke against it were ridiculed and reviled. Opposition to nonhuman animal oppression and use, like opposition to human animal oppression and use, is a matter of justice and a rejection of the systemic violence that is inherent in any situation where one group dominates another by dis-empowering them and denying their inherent rights as sentient individuals.

Should progress and advancement due to technology, science and knowledge be discouraged, given that any such change is guaranteed to cause shifts in the industries that make their revenue from meeting consumer demand for currently available products?
Of course it doesn’t and no one would realistically claim otherwise. The development of the internal combustion engine in the 18th century is a prime example of a development that caused massive upheavals in industrial mechanisation, agriculture, transport and almost every other area imaginable. Although at the time there was, not surprisingly, opposition, resistance and suspicion amongst those whose livelihood depended on ‘the old ways’, development in this area continues and will continue, with the market adapting as required.

Should changes in consumer demand be restricted to ensure that workers in waning industries don’t have to seek alternative jobs?
Just in case it needs to be stated here, consumer demand is what drives industries of all kinds to supply products to meet that demand and in doing so they make money. That’s why suppliers do it – it’s not out of benevolence.  To see some of the comments about existing processes and procedures – particularly those in the animal exploitation industries – that are an essential part of meeting consumer demand, one could easily be excused for thinking that propping up unsustainable industries was somehow a civic duty, regardless of the ethics of unjustly ‘farming’ and butchering billions of sentient individuals, the cost to human health or looming environmental/climate destruction.

Smoke screen and health issues

The tobacco industry, with its roots reaching back into the 1500s, presents very close parallels to the animal use industries, both supplying substances harmful to humans, one in decline and the other teetering on the brink. Despite the availability of medical evidence in the form of thousands of reports and studies, the greatly diminished tobacco industry limps on, long after the direct link was made between smoking, lung disease and cancer. At first it fought against decline by a range of strategies that we see being re-enacted in current times, where conflicted interests sow confusion and doubt. The plight of our victims is not helped by the undeniable truth that even medical professionals, just like the smoking medical professionals of the mid 20th century, are slow to acknowledge the catastrophic harm that animal substances have on the human body.

If social media had existed during the mid-late 20th century when smoking was falling from favour and people were catching on to the fact that it causes cancer, I have no doubt that exactly the same prevarications would have been presented. I grew up during the 1970s and I have memories of hearing the ‘personal choice’, ‘everything in moderation’ and other declarations of resistance to change, from my contemporaries.  Many, including some who were very close to me, are now dead, having steadfastly exercised their ‘personal choice’ to early graves with lung disease, heart conditions and cancer.

Although I stopped long ago, smoking exacerbated my own undiagnosed health issues and only a transplant brought me back from the brink of certain death. Having experienced disability while juggling full-time work as a single parent with the looming prospect of leaving my children motherless, planning everything round my oxygen tanks and a grim prognosis, I learned an important lesson that few survive. Those who shrug and smile and say ‘something’s got to kill you’, who ignore the writing on the wall about their own health and take massive and avoidable risks with the health of their loved ones, have never really understood and internalised what it’s like to face imminent death.

As individuals, being reckless with our own lives is one thing but when the lives of others are at stake our responsibilities change.  If we include sentient aquatic creatures, trillions (yes, trillions) of lives – both human and nonhuman – are needlessly taken or jeopardised every year due to our obsession with harming other species, unnecessarily using and consuming their corpses and secretions, and shrugging with casual apathy as we increase the risk of killer diseases for our loved ones.

The world won’t go vegan overnight

A frequent question is based on the idea of an unthinkable number of animals who will ‘suddenly’ find themselves unwanted and apparently homeless because demand for their services and body parts has dried up overnight. So let’s address that next.

The world won’t go vegan overnight.

Yes, it’s true, and it’s the mantra of everyone who seeks to excuse continuing to harm members of other species. So, as the world won’t go vegan overnight (really, it won’t), falling demand will result in a reduction in supply. That’s what happens.

The global marketplace changes all the time. The development of computers signalled the end of the road for comptometers (remember them?), typewriters and other machines but we’re not inundated with unused ones that no one needed.  Air travel signalled the demise of shipping and rail for freight and intercontinental travel but the docks and train stations aren’t overflowing with unwanted trains and ocean-going vessels. Then there’s  the sophisticated electronic gadgetry we all love so much. Whole industries have died as a result of consumers keenly grasping the newest technology, tiny increasingly inexpensive gadgets that do away with our need for cumbersome and frequently expensive systems. We’re not struggling to know what to do with all our old games consoles and mobile phones the size of bricks from which technology has long since moved on. That’s the way demand and supply works. People move to something new, someone spots a market and supplies that demand. Someone else goes out of business and they seek out some new way to be profitable. It’s happening every day.

Who can predict the opportunities for new industries that will arise as the world shifts to veganism? We see the beginnings of this process now, with foods, clothing, toiletries, cosmetics and fabrics being aimed at the booming vegan consumer markets. We are an inventive species. We will always find ways to make money.

Just as we’re not inundated with supplies of every product that preceded the ones we currently use, the number of animals bred for our use will diminish. To suggest otherwise is a rather significant insult to those who farm the lives and bodies of sentient individuals. It implies that they would be insufficiently aware of shifting market demands to cut back on ‘production’ and diversify as demand tails away, and not for a moment would I suggest such a thing.

‘What do you think’s going to happen to them all?’

There’s a suggestion implicit in the idea of vast numbers of unwanted ‘farmed’ animals, that their reproduction is somehow a natural process and our use of their bodies for eggs, milk and body parts is some kind of fire-fighting that’s essential to keep down numbers and prevent the human population from being overwhelmed.

Stop interfering

588f493b63843-detail JAM AE

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / Animal Equality This image depicts the customary method of inseminating a cow. She is tethered and an arm is thrust into her rectum to hold her uterus steady so that the insemination rod in her vagina may be targeted accurately.

Unlike the cats and dogs that humans habitually abandon in their millions every year to fend for themselves, the reproductive processes of farmed animals are very tightly controlled. Unless specifically required for ‘breeding stock’, and even if they are to die at a young age, males of most species are castrated (without anaesthetic); much of insemination is done artificially, and at no time are males and females permitted to be together unless they are required to copulate to produce offspring as a new generation of commercial resources for the industry. With the advent of veganism, there would be no heroic measures needed to keep down numbers. All that would be required is to stop interfering, inseminating and controlling the reproduction of our victims whilst maintaining the segregation of males and females as numbers decline. A recent excellent and comprehensive work on the sexual exploitation of nonhuman animals by Karen Davis PhD is linked here for any who wish to explore this topic further.

Slaughtering

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals

Another subject that even those who are aware of the true scale of the bloodbath we create, find hard to get our heads round, is the number of individuals we slaughter every day. It’s impossible to factor in the trillions of aquatic creatures who are suffocated, clubbed, stabbed and gutted to death because statistics exist in terms of ‘weight’ rather than numbers.

However recent estimates of land animals place slaughter numbers at around 70 billion a year which is more than 7 times the entire global human population. That’s almost 192 million a day, almost 8 million an hour, over 133,000 a minute, over 2,000 per second. Can you imagine? Think of how many screams of agony have been ignored while you’ve been reading this. Think how much blood has flowed, how many have begged for their lives.

Taking the numbers as a purely mathematical exercise, these tell us that in order to sustain existing numbers of individuals ‘farmed’ to meet consumer demand, 2,000 per second are being brought into the world with their dates in the slaughterhouse planned in advance. Given that the world won’t go vegan overnight, reducing this number would rapidly erode the existing ‘stock’ of victims if slaughter rates were maintained.

Sunrise on a vegan world – the survivors

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

~ Thomas Paine

Tied into how balancing interference and slaughter numbers would rapidly decrease the number of victims in existence for us to harm and kill, is the question of how long those dwindling few would be expected to live in a world where animal use at a lesser rate was still continuing.

Once again, it must be pointed out that no one realistically would have demanded a business plan for the next few centuries at the time of the industrial revolution, and it is similarly unrealistic to expect that the shift to veganism will be mapped out fully in advance of its occurrence. It needs to happen, so a way will be found. Having said that, it does no harm to remind ourselves that the members of nonhuman species whom we currently persecute are, without exception, young; and some are extremely young.

Species Slaughter age Potential lifespan of wild breeds
Male chicks (egg industry) 1 day Up to 8 years
Veal calves 1-24 weeks 15-20 years
Chickens (meat breeds) 5-7 weeks Up to 8 years
Ducks 7-8 weeks 6-8 years
Rabbits 10-12 weeks 8-12 years
Goats 12-20 weeks 12-14 years
Geese 15-20 weeks 8-15 years
Turkeys 4-5 months Up to 15 years
Pigs 5-6 months 10-12 years
Lambs 6-8 months 12-14 years
Beef cattle 18 months 15-20 years
Egg laying hens 18 months Up to 8 years
Pigs (breeding sows) 3-5 years 10-12 years
Dairy cows 4-6 years 15-20 years

For interest, I included in this list the original potential lifespans of the wild breeds from which our current victims are descended. As discussed earlier, most of those victim breeds have been tampered with to such an extent that their ability to survive for a period much beyond the age that we habitually slaughter them is greatly in doubt, a fact that every sanctuary provider who fights so heartbreakingly for the lives of their residents, knows only too well.

Either way, it seems very unlikely that significant numbers of former victims will live to find a vegan world agonising over how best to care for them.  Those who do will find they are valued for the individuals they are, rather than the cost per kilo of their secretions, eggs and body parts, and ways will be found to give sanctuary to them.

That day is the one that every vegan is living for, and come it must because if it does not, we, they, and the planet we share, are doomed.

Posted in Addressing resistance to change | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Dairy: thoughts on motherhood, cultural conditioning and hope

Jo-Anne McArthur / Animal Equality A new mother warily watches the humans while defensively standing over her newborn.

When we are not vegan and we hear the word ‘dairy’, what do we think of?  We think of milk and cream, of yogurt and crème frais, of butter and cheeses, and of ice cream and chocolate. We think of ingredients and commodities, divorced from their source, vaguely but cosily wrapped in feel-good ideas like ‘harmless’ and ‘humane’, ‘free range’, ‘grass fed’ and ‘organic’.

We are encouraged to think of dairy as a harmless substance and millions of pounds, millions of dollars are spent by a heavily subsidised industry every year on the most skilled marketers money can buy, who use high-profile advertising to keep us thinking that way. Once we become sensitised to the prevalence of the advertising promoting and normalising dairy use, it is truly breathtaking to note how widespread it is.  The advertising is carefully crafted with cheerful cartoon animals alongside bucolic depictions suggesting a ‘natural’, ‘healthy’ commodity, never mentioning that it is unnecessary for health, seemingly unperturbed by any trace of conscience regarding the disturbing and ever-increasing weight of medical science that tells a completely different tale.

Motherhood corrupted and sold

The irony is that none of the substances in the first sentence that we associate with the idea of ‘dairy’, are what dairy actually IS, and simply understanding that one piece of information has made so many of us turn away from the very concept in revulsion. So what’s dairy?  In a word, ‘motherhood’.

Many of us are mothers ourselves, and most of those who aren’t, belong to a culture where the status of motherhood is valued, and mothers deeply respected. Which makes it almost unbelievable that ‘dairy’, this commodity that so many of us use with casual disregard for its source, is nothing other than motherhood, exploited, corrupted and sold for profit.

Dairy is the impregnation of female mammals followed by the removal of their infants so that the lactation their bodies produce for these infants may be pumped out and sold for use by humans.

That is the fundamental principle of dairy. All the feel-good words in the world can’t and don’t change that fact, they can only cover it up or cloak it in apparent benevolence. We can set the practice in a factory farm, a ‘family’ farm, an organic, free range feel-good farm; it can take place in barns or in feedlots or rolling pastures. We can feed our victims grass or any substance that keeps them alive until we’re ready to send them to the slaughter house that will be their only escape, but the fundamental principle remains. That is what dairy IS.

When as consumers we pick up that carton of milk, butter or cheese, we have been taught from childhood to see only a faceless commodity. We can, however, choose to reject that cultural conditioning, can consciously look past the ‘product’. If we were to do so, we might see in our mind’s eye, the two pairs of despairing eyes whose grief, terror and traumatic separation was the unseen and unavoidable cost of the pristine package in our hand. Acknowledging these faces, every single one of whom is condemned to death by our personal demands as a consumer, is a sobering experience.

There are two pairs of eyes because dairy is the exploitation of motherhood followed by the destruction of the bond between mother and infant. No matter how those with vested interests seek to justify their actions, it is anything but ‘natural’ and the truth goes against everything that most of us already believe in. Yet every one of us has, at one time, been keen to accept the ‘justifications’, no matter how contradictory they are, in order to make us feel comfortable with our own status as consumers generating demand for ‘products’ that we want to buy and use without feeling guilt.

The justification of vested interest

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.

~ Thomas Paine

Those who make their living from harming animals for us to consume as a completely unnecessary ‘food’, even if they are aware of it, are not in any way motivated to acknowledge the sentience of our victims, the injustice of what we are paying them to do and the very real risks they pose to our health. Just as consumers have been raised to be oblivious to the moral implications of their choices, it seems clear that the majority of those who supply these consumer choices are similarly oblivious. Livelihoods depend on everyone remaining that way.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

~ Upton Sinclair

By those who perpetrate the interventions, there is a soothing ‘explanation’ for every single practice that is carried out. There is likewise a swiftness to dismiss and close down any probing, accusing the enquirers of being ‘out of touch’, ‘unrealistic’, ‘ignorant’ and so on, the forcefulness of the retaliation depending on the insistence of the enquirer.

The justifications are many and varied, and just like the arguments against veganism, it would really be impossible to list every one.  However it is not necessary for any one of us to know them all, just as it is not necessary or even desirable for anyone to provide us with details of what to think about any given subject. One of the greatest gifts that any of us can give to another, is to point out the mechanisms by which their views are being manipulated and then stand back and let their own thoughts unfold and untangle, freed from the restrictions placed on them by marketers, cultural conditioning and commercial interests.

Whilst the separation of mothers used for dairy and their infants (cows, goats, sheep and others) is a fact that is never broadcast by those who make their living by participating in the industries that meet consumer demand for substances predicated upon this process, there are a number of standard responses that I’ve seen wheeled out to quickly shut down any who seek to question the reasons for it. I’ve heard many of these in my sixty years, and to my shame as a former consumer, I not only used to find them reassuring , but they used to be effective in switching off my concern. Now that doesn’t work. Once we know something it becomes impossible to un-know it. From a variety of sources, I’ve heard and read things like:

Cows are terrible mothers /they don’t even notice they’ve had a baby / they might stand on the calves/they are separated for hygiene
Except that statistically, a cow defending her calf is amongst the most dangerous of farmed animals. Except that in keeping with all the other species that we habitually use for unnecessary ‘food’, the circumstances of existence as a commercial resource whose rights as a living, sentient individual are not even acknowledged, necessitates conditions that are completely unnatural, and that – not surprisingly – place them all at high risk of disease and injury. Drug use to counter risks and boost production in all areas of nonhuman use, is increasingly well known and documented, as are the grave risks posed to human health by antibiotic resistance and cross species transmission of disease.

It should also be noted that research confirms that separation is deeply traumatic for both mother and infant, and in the case of cows is greater the longer they are together, due to their strengthening bond. Terrible mothers. Clearly.

Cows want to be impregnated, they mimic mating behaviour
Except that in keeping with all other female mammals, mothers used in the dairy industry experience cycles affecting their reproductive systems. Unlike humans who participate in recreational sex, every few weeks a female mammal of many other species will experience a short period when she may be responsive to the mating advances of a male of her species. The notion that these biological cycles indicate that she ‘wants to be impregnated’, is completely anthropomorphic and there is no evidence to suggest that any ‘wanting’ takes place. Neither is it morally justifiable to inseminate her for the commercial use of her reproductive process, either by introducing her to a male or by the more common method of restraining in order to use arms and implements in her vaginal and rectal passages to inject semen obtained by an equally interventional procedure** from a male.

The infants are given special/individual care /they are loved like family.
You know, it always amazed me that so many calves were orphaned at birth – which is what I used to think long ago when I saw the images of bottle feeding. Such naivety was so much more comfortable than the truth.  If we were talking about kittens or puppies, our ‘favourite’ species, being taken from their mothers at a mere *24 hours of age instead of the recommended  8 – 12 weeks, we would be incredulous.

And on the other point, well, they say you always hurt the ones you love, but I do make a point never to eat them.

Talking about ‘natural’

As someone who has actually given birth, I know about the process at first hand and it’s a messy business, but it’s also a time when primal instincts that I was unaware of possessing, seemed very close to the surface. Supported by hospital staff, I was glad for their help, but also aware that at a deep level, my body already knew what to do.

Dismissing the competence of nonhuman animals to mother their own infants now seems to me to be an extreme arrogance for a species that first began to domesticate other animals a mere moment in time ago, from an evolutionary perspective. 12,000 years of gradually increasing exploitation has built to a crescendo in recent decades, an unholy orgy of bloodshed, brutalising other species, laying waste to the planet we share with them, and killing ourselves with the diseases caused by inappropriate ‘food’.  It beggars belief that our species now postulates that many other species, despite managing absolutely fine in the eons that their ancestors lived wild and free without our aid, are now so hopelessly inept that they allegedly require our midwifery and childcare for their very existence. We’re told it’s about ‘welfare’ and ‘compassion’, but when we really stop and consider it, all we need to do is follow the money and apply common sense.

Once again in the case of our dairy victims we have the benevolent midwife scenario. Following the money and applying common sense leads inescapably to the realisation that both mother and infant are commercial assets (the mother more so than the infant who was in fact just a tool to induce lactation); they are business resources being used to make money and generate profit. Medical treatment is costly and undesirable as it reduces potential profit.  Any and every business will risk assess and maintain the assets required to optimise their financial gains. No one would claim to ‘love like family’ a fleet of vans, machinery on a factory floor or the contents of a warehouse. To those with interests in making money from their use, ‘livestock‘ (there’s a clue in the name) are in this same category and while ‘caring’ talk undoubtedly softens up some uncritical consumers, ‘love’, from the perspective of the helpless victims, is in very short supply.

To quote the late Tom Regan, in his work The Case for Animal Rights,

The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals – as our resources – the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.

Believing what we want to believe

Why is it that we are so quick to accept without challenge or critical thought, almost anything we are told about those species that we wish to continue to harm, to exploit, to kill and consume for no reason other than self interest? Why is it that if we were told the same thing about humans or any species that we consider to be ‘pets’, we would immediately spot the self-serving inconsistencies?

The truth is that not one of us actually likes to think of ourselves as inflicting devastating and gratuitous violence and death on innocent and defenceless creatures and we strongly resist any suggestion that we are.  What we are on the look-out for is reassurance that appears to legitimise and excuse the actions we currently take. Reassurance makes us feel good about ourselves, and means we don’t face any moral conflict that might render us obliged to face the trivial inconvenience of changing our behaviour. When we find that reassurance, no matter how unlikely it is, no matter how inconsistent or illogical it is, many will grasp it with relief. It’s a phenomenon called ‘confirmation bias’. For many, the finding of confirmation that apparently supports our own opinions, ends our search. We reinforce our personal barriers to truth, self-congratulate and carry on with our past support of use and harm. The only difference is that now we are reassured and convinced that what we’re supporting is ethical.

Are we worth it?

For our defenceless victims, hope comes in the form of campaigns such as Go Vegan World.  In posters and words, with links to a comprehensive website, this particular campaign in the UK and Ireland is presenting the unpalatable truth to consumers in those venues and media that were previously the unrivalled domain of those with something to sell, but here we are witnessing the advent of a new era.

Social media is awash with information, ***with a number of excellent sites and pages providing links to superb quality information, explaining in detail why, and indeed how, we can all be vegan. In the age of Google, it has never been easier to seek out and find information.

With nothing to sell and nothing personal to gain except justice for humanity’s victims, vegan advocacy is setting new precedents. Unflinchingly calling for an end to our needless use of other individuals, such advocacy in the form of campaigns, pages and websites offer everyone they can reach, the opportunity to inform themselves about the heartbreaking reality that underpins their nonvegan consumer choices, offering the chance to make informed decisions about how our shared values are reflected in the way we live. We are invited to consider whether our new awareness of a twilight world of nonhuman misery fits with the vision that most of us have of ourselves as people who stand against oppression, who believe in justice, and who are strongly opposed to anything that inflicts needless harm on the defenceless.

In the end of the day, the question we must each ask of ourselves is, ‘Am I worth the terrible and unavoidable consequences of my nonvegan choices?’

My answer to that question made me become vegan. Let yours do the same.

Be vegan.

 

 

Links for further interest:

*In the UK separation 12 – 24 hours after birth is the time upheld by industry’s highest ‘welfare’ standards for cows (other species have different standards, as in fact do other countries where in some cases immediate separation is the norm, before a mother may even lick her infant).

**Interspecies Sexual Assault, a superb analysis by Karen Davis  of the exploitation of other animals on which all use of them is predicated https://www.animalliberationcurrents.com/interspecies-sexual-assault/

***Suggested sites to check out
Go Vegan Scotland
South Florida Vegan Education Group
Vegan Starter Kit
How To Go Vegan
Legacy of Pythagoras

 

Posted in Advocacy, dairy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

This wonderful life

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / Djurattsalliansen

So often, I see claims that in causing our victims to exist by our contrivance and intervention, we are bestowing some gift on them that they would otherwise not have. When I hear this, I think of the 60-70 billions each year of innocent young individuals whose violent, slaughterhouse deaths are timed to meet consumer demand for their corpses, for their milk, for their eggs, skins and body parts. Reduced to resources, without rights or respect, nameless and unloved, they are regarded as no more than cogs in a wheel, the measured moments of their existence commercially calculated, financially optimised well in advance of the forced violation that conceives them. This is not life. We impose an existence to be endured for our self interest, but it is not life or any kind of ‘gift’.

For ourselves we all know that life is so much more than the measure of time, the breath moving in our lungs and a clock ticking down until we die.

Think of it, this one precious life that each of us has, its length unknown, into which we must fit all of our experiences, our achievements, our times of happiness and joy, our bonds with family and friends, the loves of our lives and the griefs of parting and loss. We each cling to life, desperate not to miss a single moment, grieving when our close ones can no longer walk alongside us on our path, hoarding our glittering memories of the good times, so that we may take them out and remember them once again in times of solitude or sadness. It is impossible to place a value on how much our lives mean to us. Each life is beyond price, beyond measurement. It means everything to each of us, as too, do the lives of our children, our partners, our friends. Without life, we have nothing.

We are not unique, this is part of our sentience, of our self awareness, of the way we relate to the world through our senses and our relationships with others. Each one of us is the same, and when a life is taken that we have no need or reason to take, we have no word that expresses the enormity of our outrage.

Yet every nonvegan choice is a decision to take life from another individual who values that life every bit as much as we each do. We do it casually through our choices as consumers, while claiming that we care for our helpless victims to shield us from the truth of our brutality. We excuse ourselves with a smile and a shrug. They’re not like us. It’s okay. Everyone does it. It’s okay. It’s okay. It’s okay.

But we are lying to ourselves. We all know that difference alone is no justification for needless harm.  And it IS needless. We can thrive without doing it, a fact we stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

To truly value and respect life is to refuse to continue using the lives and bodies of defenceless mothers, fathers, infants, friends of other species. The ONLY way we can recognise and respect their right to life as we understand it, is to be vegan.

Why not start today?

Posted in Advocacy, Sentience | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s the point? A personal reflection.

Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals
Sheep looking through a fence in a sale yard.

‘What’s the point of going vegan? One person can’t make any difference.’

Familiar words that attempt to justify continuing to cause devastating harm to those around us who are defenceless against our brute force and technology. It’s also an attempt to ignore the fact that each of us, personally, is unavoidably responsible for the inevitable consequences of our demands as consumers.

Every one of us likes to think of ourselves as an individual, as our own person; as someone who determines their own values and behaviour. We all strive to be someone who can hold up their head and feel good – not necessarily by comparing ourselves to others – but by meeting our own expectations and standards. For most of us, it is unlikely that we will change the world. I definitely won’t and probably neither will you. However that does not define who we are.

Once we become aware of the deep injustice that is the basis of all our use of nonhuman individuals, when we acknowledge the sickening violence, the unspeakable horror and the heartbreaking misery that are the inevitable consequences of our unhealthy and unnecessary obsession with harming and slaughtering defenceless and innocent individuals, there is one thing each of us can definitely do. We can draw a line in the sand. Each one of us can say, ‘That’s enough. I will not be part of that nightmare for even one more day’.

We may not be able to change the world but we can change ourselves. Each one of us can stride beyond that line in the sand, meet our own eyes in the mirror and know that we’re doing our best to live up to the standards we set for ourselves. One person CAN make a difference. One person can make a difference in the way they live their own life by becoming vegan.

And from there, the future is up to each of us; we can spread the vegan message in every way we can devise, or at the very least we can stop condoning and approving the destructive behaviour of others.

Each new vegan is a victory for our persecuted victims, the only kind of victory that carries hope of a future where they will be valued for the unique individuals they are, rather than for the pitiless use we can make of their lives and their bodies. That is definitely worth something.

Be vegan.

Posted in Advocacy, Awakening to veganism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Who are the REAL victims?

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals

It a simple statement of fact that our victims are sentient, that they value their lives and that we have no need to use them because every use requires that their right to live unharmed is overruled in favour of the convenience and indulgence of our species.

Today, reading comments. opinion pieces and articles on social media, a thought occurred to me. It seems that any statement of support for animal rights, the moment it is articulated, becomes an ‘attack’. Not only does putting nonhuman animals front and centre become an attack, but the ‘victims’ of the perceived attack are all desperate to draw attention to themselves as the one(s) subjected to the worst degree of offence.

Suddenly there are editorials and comments reacting angrily that this is anti-freedom-of-choice, anti-farming, anti-animal-consumers, and ‘getting at’ those who wish to continue to unnecessarily harm animals in various ways. Apparently it’s even anti – people who identify themselves as vegans but are facing challenges sourcing various consumer products.

The thing that needs to be said is that being pro-nonhuman animals does not automatically mean being anti-anyone. Because guess what? It’s not about us. Any of us. The humans and their organisations and institutions clamouring and waving their hands in outrage at the back of the room are not victims.

The position of ‘victims’ has already been filled more than adequately by almost 70 billion sentient land based individuals each year, with additional uncounted trillions of aquatic creatures. The position of ‘victim’ comes with an automatic death sentence after an existence as a resource, a commodity and a commercial asset. All our species faces, at the worst, is the inconvenience of re-learning how to live and to make consumer choices that align with the values that we already think we have. In the grand scheme of things, I know which role I’d rather fill.

Perhaps it should also be noted that if we consider that the first paragraph of this essay is a personal attack, then it may well come from the voice of our conscience. When I was young, there was a saying, ‘If the cap fits, wear it’. Be vegan.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

A thought on ‘less use’

When we talk to others about ‘less’ animal use, we are encouraging them to think of nonhuman animals as a quantity that can be reduced, in the same we that we think of using less oil or less sugar. It’s not surprising that this can seem praiseworthy.

Only, they’re NOT a ‘quantity’ that we can cut down on. They are nameless, it’s true, but even their numbered ear tags should always remind us that our victims are a number, a group. Their numbers may be breathtakingly large, but they are nevertheless individuals, sentient, each one unique, each one with an equal right to their own life, each one desperate to live that life unharmed. When we think of them as individuals, see them in our mind’s eye, gazing on us with the fear and desperation that they endure as the inevitable consequence of our treatment of them as resources, it becomes unthinkable that we could ever condone the inflicting of needless harm on any one of them.

Rather than encouraging the continuation of unnecessary harm that is ‘less’ use, let’s remember always the individual faces of those who are depending on us to end the system that regards them as things for our use. When we fail to represent them as individuals, we are utterly betraying those unique children of other species who will continue to endure the existence that our needless use inflicts on them.

‘Less’ use does not cut down harm for all our victims. At best ‘less’ use may save a small number of individuals but for the rest, the torment of their existence as commodities and commercial assets will be unchanged.

What’s even worse, those who continue to pay for it by not being vegan will feel encouraged that they are doing something positive and that’s not true. We owe them better than that. We owe them the truth.

Which one do you think deserves to die for human indulgence? Whose desperate pleas deserve to be ignored? Who deserves to stand quaking and trembling in the gore of the slaughterhouse? Could any of us make that choice? I know I couldn’t. They all deserve the very best that we can do for them, and that means asking others to stop deliberately hurting them. All of them. That means asking others to be vegan.

Be vegan.

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

A brief thought on the hijacking of ‘humane’

 

Jo-Anne McArthur / We Animals

When you look at this image, be honest. Is ‘humane’ the first word that pops into your head? I doubt it.

And then, if you’re like I used to be, you’ll find another internal dialogue begins.
‘But it must be humane, because there are laws; but it must be humane because the label says ‘free range’ or ‘organic’ or ‘XYPCA approved’, and we sigh with relief, switch off our concern and carry on demanding the flesh and the eggs and the milk.

Few of us think about this in any depth. It’s uncomfortable to see the images – the real ones, not the staged, cartoonish fantasy that we are sold as consumers. That’s why marketing doesn’t show the real stuff. Even so, if it wasn’t for the constant reassurance that it’s all ok, it’s all ‘humane’, we wouldn’t know what to think, would we?

And there’s the problem. Our understanding of the word ‘humane’ has been subtly hijacked. The meaning of ‘humane’ that is sold to us on the dismembered corpses of young creatures, on eggs and on the milk taken from the seeking mouths of babes, no longer means what we think that it means. How could it? How could the obtaining of ANY of the substances that we use and consume ever be truly ‘humane’? How could it be ‘humane’ when every single thing we do is unnecessary and so fraught with suffering and misery that we refuse to acknowledge the truth. We all find it much easier to hide behind the word ‘humane’, that redefined word that is now used as a marketing tool, as a conscience salve, as a legitimisation of a brutality that none of us wants to be part of.

We all know what ‘humane really means. It means ‘tenderness, compassion, and sympathy, especially for the suffering or distressed’. ‘Well here’s another word to throw into the mix; ‘humanity; the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence’.

Not one single process that we inflict on the sentient individuals who are our wretched victims could ever be called ‘humane’ except through the hijacked and corrupted interpretation of the word that we have been sold as consumers.

Let’s take back the meaning of humane and in doing so, take back our humanity. The only way to do this is by being vegan.

Be vegan.

Posted in Advocacy, Terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Obscene phrase of the day: ‘live and let live’

Today I heard this said, yet again and without a trace of irony, by a dairy industry representative, about the decisions of consumers to consume milk and milk products from nonhumans.

So what’s obscene about the phrase?  It’s obscene in the way that any good, noble and worthy thing becomes obscene once it has been corrupted and used as a way of disguising and denying harm, horror and needless death.

‘Live and let live’ is a phrase commonly resorted to by the many who view veganism as the removal of their freedom of choice. And yet a more inappropriate phrase would be so hard to find that today I found myself wondering why. Do those who use it in this manner not understand the words that make it up, are they simply unaware of the basic processes that constitute the production of the substances that are derived from the lives and bodies of members of other species, or is there some other reason ?

The meaning of ‘live’

Perhaps the first potential misconception that needs to be addressed here is the word ‘live’. It seems to me very unlikely, but certainly, a misunderstanding about this word could possibly, I expect, make the phrase ‘live and let live’ in the context of animal use and exploitation, make some sort of sense. So let’s tackle that first.

live: verbto have life, as an organism; be alive; be capable of vital functions:

Now clearly this definition would exclude –  say – rocks, but I expect that everyone would agree that any complex organism such as those whom we victimise for ‘food’, clothing and experimentation actually do ‘live’. They are born, they breathe, they think, they feel, they experience the world. They live.

So having established that they fulfil the criteria to be considered to ‘live’, do we ‘let’ them ‘live’? Well, no.

All animal use industries kill

Given our unnecessary, violent and utterly merciless exploitation of every aspect of their existence from their conception until their terrifying death in a slaughterhouse, the phrase ‘live and let live’ can hardly be considered to have any relevance whatsoever. And let’s make no mistake here – every use of nonhumans and particularly the dairy and egg industries that are predicated upon the exploitation of reproductive processes and the severing of mother/child bonds – lead to premature death for our victims. The perception of dairy and egg use as being victimless is a severely mistaken one, that the links here can dispel unless the reader is utterly determined to remain oblivious.

But we all love animals…?

It increasingly seems to me that we are inhabiting the surreal world of Orwell’s dystopian vision, and this is never illustrated more starkly than in the area of animal use.
For those unfamiliar with the Orwell’s tale, it takes place in a setting where government departments of Peace deal with war and defence, Plenty – economic rationing and starvation; Love – torture and brainwashing; and Truth – propaganda.

In our dealings with animals the majority of us have been schooled to consider that our attitude toward those who are unfortunate enough not to share our species, may legitimately be termed ‘love’, when in fact as consumers we are directly responsible for perpetuating the most sickening and disgusting horrors imaginable upon vulnerable and defenceless individuals without cause or justification. Yet how we like to broadcast this ‘love’, each of us coming from ‘a nation of animal lovers’. We tell others about it; they reassure us that they feel exactly the same. We declare our contempt for all who would harm animals and our audience pats us on the back, absolutely 100% in agreement. We are outraged at what ‘other people’ do to animals and we protest, brimming with righteous indignation because they are clearly not ‘animal lovers’ like ourselves.

Freeze the frame

And yet if we had the means by which to freeze the frame on any one of these conversations and zoom the camera out to a distance, what would we see? Would we see the leather shoes, belts and handbags, the woollen and silk garments? Could we pan to the fridge contents, to see the dismembered corpses of desperately frightened, gentle individuals whose dying screams went unheard? Would we see the milk, the cheese for which mothers were violated and their darling infants sent to slaughter, the eggs for which a tiny, fragile bird spent the only precious chance of life she had in a box of misery, straining to lay egg after egg in her vain attempt to gather a clutch while her brothers were killed at birth? Let’s look at the shelves of cleaning materials, toiletries and cosmetics. Will we see the small furry, terrified creatures, eyes destroyed, skin erupting, crusted, bleeding while their hammering hearts await the next atrocity of a nightmare that only death will end. No. The majority of us won’t. But the majority of these things are true of any one of us who is not vegan.

We complain about what others do, but ever hold ourselves above reproach. I did it too. That’s how I know that what I say is true, hard as it is for me to face the memory.  But this is not what ‘live and let live’ means. It’s not even close.

Living and life – whose right is it?

So I am forced to conclude that the reason for the blindness that allows this preposterous use of the phrase ‘live and let live’, must be something else. As children growing up in nonvegan households (as most of us do), we learn the roots of the inconsistencies that shape adult positions which, on closer examination, make no sense whatsoever. It is here that we begin to learn how to live with the contradictions that many of us struggle with in later life; that love means harm, that kindness means incarceration, that being alive and wanting to live does not mean that one has that right, that our most trivial whims are more important than life is to our victims. Indeed we learn our lessons so well that the majority of us don’t even acknowledge that we have victims, may even seem unaware of this truth.

Seen in that context, the phrase ‘live and let live’ thus comes to mean ‘I am the only one whose life is of any importance whatsoever; I resent any suggestion that I am not free to cause whatever devastation I wish without considering the consequences of my behaviour to those who are harmed by my actions.’ Seen this way, it’s not the fine and noble sentiment we originally thought.

To acknowledge that we do indeed have victims and that this is a completely unnecessary way to live; to face the fact that these victims are sentient which means they are like us in every way but species; and to acknowledge that every aspect of not being vegan is the exact antithesis of ‘live and let live’ leads to only one logical conclusion. To be the people we already think we are, we have to be vegan.

Be vegan.

Posted in Awakening to veganism, Terminology, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

For Earth Day: thoughts about speciesism, biophilia and veganism

Today, I learned a new word. As someone fascinated by words, finding this one gave a name to a notion that has become more acute in my recent years as an advocate and blogger, and it prompted thoughts that I’d like to share.

Biophilia, noun:
A love of life and the living world; the affinity of human beings for other life forms.

*The friend who introduced me to the word had learned it in a natural history class from a lecturing conservationist who explained, ‘It’s important because we save what we love.’ Astonishingly, this conservationist then demonstrated what might be considered an absence of affinity by proceeding to discuss other life forms in terms of ‘populations’ to be ‘managed’. This outlook contrasts starkly with Henry Beston (1888 – 1968), the American writer and naturalist, whose words seem to more accurately reflect the spirit of biophilia in the quote:

‘We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.’

Humanity’s tyranny

As a vegan advocate, the main focus of my writing will always be upon the grave injustice we perpetrate upon billions of individuals each year, simply by not being vegan. The vast majority of these victims are used by us to indulge unnecessary dietary preferences, although such is our arrogant belief in the superiority of our species, that our use of them does not stop there. We wear them; we experiment on them; we ‘break’ them and ‘train’ them and are ‘entertained’ by their helpless acceptance of our strength and the implements we use to enforce their compliance. Yet as a species, we choose to remain oblivious to the unspeakable violence inherent in every aspect of our exploitation, frequently repeating the popular myth about how we all ‘love animals’. In this lie of staggering self-deception, we find a reassurance that feeds our continued support of practices so vile that to face them is deeply traumatic and life-changing.

The definition of biophilia includes the word ‘love’, a word which means different things to different people. Veganism does not require us to love our victims, it simply requires that we stop having victims.  Hence although ‘love’ is not necessary for our victims, justice most certainly is. Nevertheless in the same way that we cannot claim to ‘love’ animals with their corpses on our plates and their skins on our feet, we cannot claim to embrace biophilia in these circumstances either.

My focus on the rights of our victims means I seldom refer to the fact that our own health is vastly improved once we cease to view the body parts and secretions of our fellow earthlings as ‘food’. I regard this truth as an unexpected benefit of doing what is simply the right thing. Similarly, my focus on our victims’ sentience means I seldom mention the environmental devastation that is the inevitable result of our use of them. It is, however, inescapable that in laying waste to our own environment, we destroy something irreplaceable, that belongs as much to our victims as it does to us.

I’m neither a scientist nor a medical expert. Although awareness of the environmental and health aspects of nonveganism goes with the territory of being vegan, I leave it to the many others more expert than I, to explain the science of health and environmental destruction; the epidemics of diet-related disease, the pollution, the melting icecaps and the changing climate that imperils us all.

Knowing our place

And of course, our global tapestry is part of a very much larger picture. Planet Earth is but a tiny speck in a mysterious universe where galaxies wheel and tilt, where suns are born and die, where worlds and moons collide and coalesce from stardust. Those who have skills to interpret the science, describe the impact of these forces on our little world; the dinosaurs that have come and gone; the slow drift of tectonic plates that meet and part inexorably; the ebb and flow of tides; land rising from the ocean floor, only to subside again on timescales that our short-lived species struggles to imagine.

Nature, the word we give to the rich tapestry of interdependence that comprises all life here on Earth, is the most perfect of mechanisms, maintaining exquisite equilibrium without our interference. How can we fail to marvel how each living species has evolved to fill a niche that suits its needs, with bodies perfectly designed to obtain whichever ideal sustenance nature has designed them to ingest, wonderfully adapted to survival in whatever climate that their necessary sustenance and shelter may be found, a myriad living entities with a breathtaking array of ways to reproduce and ensure the continuance of their genes.

In the same way that everyone claims to ‘love’ animals, even while actively supporting and promoting unnecessary harm towards them, I find myself pondering the way our species is so quick to declare their ‘love’ for the natural world. Because even as we do, that very same harm that we are causing to our fellow creatures is the direct cause of a systematic devastation that threatens to end life as we know it upon this small blue planet in the outer reaches of the galaxy we call the Milky Way.

It seems to me that humanity has lost sight of its place as a single thread in the tapestry of life. With technological advances that have spawned global industrialisation; we are a species fixated on self-interest, reluctant to weigh the moral obligations that accompany our abilities. Having long passed the point where, at the push of a button we could destroy our world and all its wonders, our ‘might makes right’ view assumes a licence to impose our collective will unilaterally upon our shared environment and upon the untold trillions of other life forms whose harmonious interdependence we disrupt and destroy by our arrogant assumption that we can improve on nature.

Delusions of entitlement

In so many ways we usurp the natural world with our urbanisation, with our fossil fuels and with the poisons we pour so liberally onto the land and into the oceans. Yet in terms of land/ water use and pollution, habitat and rainforest destruction, and the global warming that is its inevitable consequence, the impact of the animal use industries constitute the most sustained destructive force that has ever been unleashed on this world by mankind.

Although not necessary for our wellbeing, we have adopted lifestyles that exploit the reproductive systems of our fellow sentient beings. We adapt and manipulate their bodies, creating commercial environments in which to breed them, to accommodate the existence we force them to endure, to facilitate the premature deaths we inflict, and to carry out the processing of their body parts and substances derived from them. Without conscience, we optimise our own financial interests, interests that will always supersede the needs and interests of our victims, those countless annual billions whose sentience we deny and whose lives we mistakenly regard as having no value other than the level by which we profit from their exploitation.

Whilst my main focus is upon our sentient victims, it must be said that the natural world is rich in plant life, uncounted species whose home this also is, and without which the world’s dizzying array of ecosystems could not exist. Our obsession with the use and consumption of our fellow creatures impacts drastically upon plant life too, as we deplete vast swathes of their natural ecosystems to grow crops that we subsequently feed to our victims in a tragically inefficient conversion of vegetation to animal flesh. We destroy natural habitats, displacing the rightful occupants of ancient communities, obsessively ‘farming’ nonhuman species to obtain substances that damage our health. As our population increases, it’s an escalating and devastating cycle where there are only losers and nobody wins, a bleak backdrop against which all our protestations about ‘loving’ animals and the natural world, ring a hollow death knell.

The atrocity of speciesism

It is my firm conviction that all the harm our species inflicts upon others may be traced to a single prejudice by the name of speciesism. A form of oppression directed at other living individuals, speciesism is the practice of according or withholding the rights that are theirs by virtue of their birth, based solely upon their species. This insidious form of discrimination happens simply because they differ from us and cannot prevent our behaviour.

It is abundantly clear that because of speciesism, so many of us fail to respect and value our fellow travellers for the unique contribution each one makes to the harmony and equilibrium of the living marvel that is the world we share. As a species hell bent on self indulgence, we have come so far down the road to destroying this planet that many scientists now consider that we have passed a climatic tipping point which renders our extinction, along with uncounted other species, a grim inevitability with the only relevant point of discussion being the timescale.

Facing the uncertain future

However, even faced with the possibility that we may already be committed to an apocalyptic nightmare, nothing in life is ever guaranteed. Any one of us may be only moments from an unforeseen occurrence that may change our lives for ever. So whatever the future holds, as individuals we can do nothing more than go on living day by day, true to the values we believe in, respecting and valuing each other, our family and our friends of all species. And as we all claim to share a love of life and the living world; as we all claim an affinity for other life forms, living true to our beliefs means holding this value at our core.

So this Earth Day let’s remind ourselves of the biophilia that each of us is eager to embrace and acknowledge just how perilously close to destruction we have brought this planet on which we and each one of our fellow earthlings depend for our very existence.
Let’s renew our rejection of speciesism by refusing to participate in the injustice that regards our fellow travellers as our resources.
And let’s renew our commitment to veganism, the only way we can hope to protect this miraculous corner of the universe that we hold in trust for the uncertain future.

Be vegan.


For those who wish to read more about the environmental impact of nonveganism, I’d like to share the following link with grateful thanks to Benny Malone, my friend and fellow advocate.

Vegan Environmental Links


Posted in Festivals, Speciesism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments