Ending life as we know it – humanity on the edge of the abyss

Every day I see posts using fanciful estimates about the number of individuals our species slaughters each year. There are even suggestions (often circulated by those seeking to claim credit – and frequently, donations) that slaughter numbers are falling.

They are not falling. The slaughter of land-based species has actually increased by almost 700,000,000 since the last available statistical year. (Statistics by FAOSTAT)

The numbers above, which average at 2,374 individuals per second(!), do not include numerous other groups including:

Not one of these deaths is necessary. Not one.

Make no mistake. We are now in the midst of the fight of our lives; the fight for THEIR lives, and the fight for the very existence of our living world. We no longer have options. Anyone who tells us differently, has a vested interest in lying to us.

I should like to add one further point to ponder.

Every one of our victims is and was an individual. The world of pain and fear that was inflicted on each of them to fulfil the demands of nonvegan consumers was made no greater and no less by how many of their friends and family were suffering alongside them. To brutalise one defenceless and innocent individual without cause or conscience, is to brutalise one too many. Only by ending consumer demand for harm and killing can harm and killing cease to be profitable.

As advocates for the vegan world that has finally been recognised as the only hope for our species and the planet we share with all others, we can’t afford to relax for even a moment. We need to know the facts and we absolutely must keep our focus firmly where it needs to be; on our victims.

Be vegan.

About our dying planet: https://www.truthordrought.com/the-facts-overview

Find out about being vegan here:

Posted in Global disasters, Statistics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Petitions and single issues – where’s the harm? – FAQ

Freedom. Image by Aitor Garmendia, Tras los Muros

I was recently asked the following very well articulated question by a friend who is a committed activist and vegan advocate;

I understand why we don’t want to put effort into single-issue causes, especially those that are so blatantly speciesist (such as anti-fur campaigns that imply leather is ok). But why is it so awful to sign the occasional petition about a one-off local concern (for example, the petition to spare the dogs who bit the child’s hand off from euthanasia). I don’t sign a lot of petitions for the former reason, but I genuinely don’t see the harm in signing one like the latter while including an anti-speciesist message that points out dogs aren’t the only persecuted species and they wouldn’t be at risk for euthanasia if we weren’t speciesist (or something along those lines). How is my NOT signing the petition going to: 1) Help these dogs, 2) Spread the message of speciesism, and 3) Help any other animals now or in the future?

At one time I wondered the very same thing myself. And yet now I would no longer consider signing any petition unless the top line is a call for the end of speciesism and a demand for veganism – which is the natural consequence of that – and I can’t recall ever seeing one of these. This essay stems from my own experience and the learning curve resulting from examining my feelings, thoughts and the actions leading from my nonvegan past to my vegan present.

The first point I think I need to stress at the outset is that ‘campaign’ and ‘petition’ are interchangeable words.  A ‘petition’ is how people enlist as supporters of a ‘campaign’. So where I talk about ‘single issue campaign’, or ‘campaign’, the word ‘petition’ may easily be substituted because they are as closely related as the terms ‘animal rights’ and ‘veganism’.

My own definition of single issues, taken from my blog ‘Single issues and me’ is:

All campaigns that focus on either general behaviour towards, general treatment of, general practices and/or specific instances of behaviour, specific treatments or specific practices perpetrated on:

  • one individual member of a nonhuman species;
  • a number of such individuals;
  • a single species;
  • a finite number of species.

Single issue campaigns call for prevention, change, regulation, punishment, reform; the action demanded by the campaign depends on the specifics of the topic.

I have previously written at length about how large campaigns like anti-fur, anti-foie gras, anti-dog and cat consumption etc are by their very nature, speciesist and focused on single-issues. Which brings me to my second point; just as all species deserve the same consideration that can only be achieved through veganism, every type of single issue campaign and the petitions that spring from them – whether about fur (many species), veal (one species), a wolf pack (group of individuals) or a cruelly treated dog (individual) – are speciesist by their very nature.

In considering these campaigns, a vegan activist must confront the same moral dilemma that exists when we are encouraged to support regulatory reform. Obviously instinct suggests that it is preferable to subject our victims to a lesser degree of torture if possible, but the automatic flip side of that coin is that by endorsing what we think of as a ‘reduced level of harm’, we are actually promoting and supporting harm. Intentionally or not, we are agreeing in principle to other individuals being used as our resources, albeit under the slightly different conditions that our campaign defines. That is a fundamental betrayal of their right not to be in the situation in the first place.

For example, if you or I were imprisoned as innocent individuals awaiting the carrying out of the death penalty and our lawyer started to campaign for a ‘bigger cell’, improved transport to our place of execution, or a different means of inflicting our death, we’d know our cause had been completely lost. Our innocence would no longer be the focus and our captors would consider that compromises on treatment were ‘at least doing something’.

It’s not about spending time productively

I’ve seen many excellent vegan advocates go down the route of claiming that promoting single issues is wasting time that could be more productively used for advocacy. I don’t hold with that idea at all. It’s easily shot down by the many who can truthfully say that they have plenty of time to sign petitions and do other forms of advocacy too.

In my view, the problem does not lie in the taking of time to sign petitions; it lies much deeper than that. The problem springs from the very existence of petitions, where they originate, and the mindset that they foster and endorse in those who participate, through these, in speciesist campaigns.

The questions we need to ask

So I suppose this must bring me to the third thing that really must be examined. Have you ever wondered:

  • Who sets up these petitions?
  • Who signs them?
  • How do single issues / petitions affect the participants?
  • Is signing petitions effective as an advocacy method?

A bit about me 

For years, I personally used to spend hours every week signing petitions about every sickening, stomach churning, gut wrenching topic that we all know is out there. The infinite ways that human animals harm members of other animal species is overwhelming and I doubt if there’s anyone reading this who has not felt themselves start to buckle under the weight of the horror.

And this is where my memories kick in with merciless clarity. While I was doing all that signing, was I vegan? Hell, no. I’d never heard of veganism, had no idea about speciesism but you know what?

I thought of myself as an ‘animal activist’, a campaigner against ‘cruelty to animals’. 

Read that sentence again – please. There I was, a nonvegan, wearing, consuming, using members of other species for every purpose under the sun, and I seriously thought I was an activist; genuinely believed I was ‘at least doing something’. I was signing petitions set up by other nonvegans (who by definition were as speciesist as I was because they were not calling for veganism) while I was guilty of horrors equivalent to, or exceeding, the things I was so sanctimoniously complaining about.

The concept of petitions and the harm they do

I was like that for years. Cocooned in my self-satisfied perception of myself as a ‘campaigner’, believing I was doing all I could, and frankly, with a mind closed to discovering the reality of speciesism and the veganism that is the consequence of its rejection. My mind was closed because I already believed I was doing all I could do.

In fact – and this is the crux of why I no longer support petitions and the single issues that spawn them – participation in this form of self-righteous complaining actually worked against my seeking the information and the consistency of thought that led me inevitably to the realisation that I had to be vegan. It was completely counter-productive.

I was firmly in the ‘at least I’m doing something’ camp and what’s even worse – I found myself adopting a xenophobic outlook and was influenced by the general atmosphere of ‘otherisation’ that is also part and parcel of the concept of petitions for other animals. Countries where they consume dogs, countries where they hunt dolphins and whales, countries where elephants are exploited as tourist attractions – we can all add to the list if we think for a moment. So in addition to ‘doing something’, I thought that my actions and the myriad causes I supported were ‘better than what was being done in other countries’, a skewed and mistaken view that was reinforced every day.

And while I’m proclaiming my personal failings to the world, here’s another one.  Almost every petition emphasised the concept that some species are more important, more worthy of our concern than others. Elephants, tigers, dogs, cats, whales, dolphins, monkeys, lions. Yup, how often did the tales pull at my heart strings?  I wept over them all and I  know now that I’m not alone in this.

On reflection, to be honest, the ‘petition’ scene of my experience was a toxic mix of speciesist xenophobia, peopled mainly by nonvegans complaining about other nonvegans, all whipped into a righteous fervour of indignation about single issues that did not touch them personally, or about which their own actions were not on the table for examination regardless of how incongruous they were.

I’m vegan now – so what harm would signing a petition do?

There is a view that is bandied around by those individuals and organisations whose focus is fundraising, and others, many of whom claim to be vegan, that ‘reducing suffering’ is a worthy goal. This view promotes the idea that needlessly harming other creatures is a numbers game; that to harm fewer of them or harm each one of them less is a worthy and ‘pragmatic’ aspiration. Oh how I hate that word ‘pragmatic’ – it always precedes and seeks to excuse a betrayal of our victims.

In the question, my friend mentioned that they always include an anti-speciesist message with a signature. Again, I can only relay my own experience. I’m told by some that they do, but I have never once signed a petition and read all the comments by others. Not once. After reading a few, I quickly realised there was only so much vitriol I could take. So what if I had read a vegan message? Would I have been influenced? In a word, no. I honestly thought I had all the answers and I wasn’t looking for any more.

To participate in any speciesist campaign/ petition, we are endorsing the fundamental principle of speciesist campaigns, just as signing a petition about how animals are transported to slaughterhouses is supporting the principle of their being used as resources, signing an anti-fur petition is endorsing the principle of singling out fur as worthy of particular condemnation, or signing a petition about eating dogs in other countries is encouraging cultural contempt and otherisation while reinforcing the idea that what happens ‘here’ to other species (wherever ‘here’ is) is okay.

We can’t save them all

What can we do to help the individuals who are the subject of the particular petition that sparked the question? This is where it gets really hard and it comes down to our own values and how we square our actions with these.

This point may sound harsh but it is the truth. While the world is not vegan, at this very moment, there are more individuals hurting and dying in circumstances that would make any decent person want to vomit, than we can ever know about, address or save.  As long as speciesism prevails, there will be dogs like the individuals mentioned, and when they are slaughtered (or ‘euthanised’ as the euphemism goes), there will be uncounted others we’ll probably never hear about, who will take their place in the firing line. As well as these dogs, there are millions of sentient individuals of every conceivable species dying today alone, defenceless, unknown, and un-cared-for individuals who are every bit as deserving of their lives.

We can’t save them all. It simply can’t happen. Saving one or two individuals is all most of us can do; and that’s the principle behind adopting or providing them with sanctuary. It changes the world for the individuals concerned and it is a tangible activity that many of us choose to undertake in recognition of the huge injustice that our species is perpetrating without need or justification upon all their kin.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is whether signing a petition, thereby endorsing what I firmly consider to be a flawed and counter-productive concept, is an appropriate form of advocacy, or whether the existence of that petition is throwing the overarching cause of anti-speciesism under the bus in the hope of making us feel better as individuals?

I made my choice several years ago. Be vegan.

Posted in FAQ, Single Issue Campaigns, Speciesism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Speciesism and the welfare of property

Sometimes we are told that someone ‘loves’ ‘their’ animals, or that they ‘treat them well’, but the claim that is always shouted from the rooftops is the one about ‘high welfare standards’. These claims may come from people in a wide range of situations, from those who exploit reproduction for breast milk or eggs, to those who use other individuals for ‘entertainment’ or forced labour, or those who ‘farm’ the living in order to sell corpses for profit, and everything in between. Those who want us to consider the term significant, use it every time they get an opportunity for publicity, regardless of the question, regardless of the conversation. It’s their answer to everything.

Those who share their life or home with nonhuman family members,  and those who rescue members of other species from abusive situations (not only caused by our species but most frequently by those mentioned in the preceding paragraph) also frequently claim to love those in their care. I’ve noticed that the difference between what a provider of sanctuary /rescuer /ordinary person with nonhuman family members would say, and a representative of the exploitation industries would say, is that sanctuaries/ rescuers / human custodians of nonhuman family members do not attempt to shut down conversations with claims about ‘welfare standards’. And there’s a really good reason for this.

Welfare, what does it actually mean?

It’s really important to understand the concept of ‘Welfare’ in the context of non-humans. It’s a common mistake to think that regulations and guidelines referred to under the general heading of ‘Welfare’ are in some way designed to protect the feelings, the well-being or the individual autonomy of those whom our use designates as resources, commodities and possessions. They’re not. The purpose of all regulation is to safeguard the commercial value of those who are deemed to be assets, through consistent practices, and through maintaining consumer confidence. It’s not about the victims. Through implementation of the ‘regulations’, any lessening of the oppressive regime of relentless use to which our defenceless victims are subjected, is purely coincidental and cost-driven.

How can regulations protect the feelings, the well-being or the individual autonomy of our sentient victims, when the thing each one desires more than anything, the thing that makes them exactly the same as our sentient selves, is their desire to live unharmed, and the recognition of that desire is the one specifically excluded from every use that our species makes of them?

How can regulations protect the feelings, the well-being or the individual autonomy  of our victims, when they are not in a position to give their consent for any of the things that are done to them? Even in those situations where they make their lack of consent crystal clear, such as when they are quite evidently afraid or in pain or are seeking to escape from the processes and procedures our species inflicts, their clear absence of consent is ignored.

In essence, that’s what speciesism is; a complete disregard for the rights of any who do not share our species, and the ignoring of the fact that their consent to our abusive and violent actions is being understandably withheld.

So we need to keep reminding ourselves that ‘welfare’ does not mean what we think it means; what some would like it to mean. It’s a seductive word that has mimicked the language of care and respect for a long time and remained unchallenged.

Regulations and the ‘standards’ we are told about so often are designed by and for those who have a financial interest in exploitation. Which is why sanctuaries, rescuers and the human custodians of nonhuman family members do not harp on about conforming to ‘welfare standards’. It’s a death industry word describing death industry procedures; a word that mimics the language of concern to the extent that many people are completely taken in.

Buying, selling, giving away

For as long as we human animals, have the power of life and death over members of other species; if we can buy them or sell them or even give them away without being in breach of any law; if we can disregard their preferences and needs to suit our own justifications, then regardless of our intentions, they are our property.

And for as long as the law considers other living individuals who value their lives to be our property, then the relationship we have with them is essentially speciesist at heart. I hold this to be true of every relationship I have ever had with a member of another species. I wish that were not the case but it is.

While this speciesist relationship is the accepted norm, then the interests of our species of animal will always take precedence over the interests of others. While some humans will act with genuine love and respect, the door will remain permanently wedged open for the worst and most depraved actions to occur – and occur they will. And I count in this category all the myriad uses that define nonveganism.  All are unnecessary. All of them serve the interests of our species at the expense of the interests of our victims.

Speciesism – it has to end

The task we face is the ending of speciesism. The answer? Not easy and not instant. Speciesism is so ingrained into most of us from our earliest years, that it is hard to purge from our mindset.  Even as a vegan for several years, I still find unwelcome pockets of speciesism that surface from time to time.

But we have to start somewhere and that place is with the person we each see in the mirror. If we wouldn’t accept something being done ourselves, to our children, to our loved ones, then we have no business doing it to another, whatever their species.

When we recognise this, we have no alternative other than to become vegan. In the battle to end speciesism, what we do next is up to each of us.

Posted in welfare | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

With friends like these …

During this month of the media year when veganism is widely misrepresented as a dietary fad and a menu choice that we can ‘try out for size’, there are several articles and interviews circulating where celebrities are given air time, ‘personalities’ who for some reason imagine that the sudden change in their eating pattern now qualifies them to discuss and inform about veganism.

I can imagine the ‘raising awareness’ keyboards firing up at this point but there’s something here that just has to be said. There is no doubt that celebrity status opens doors to media circulation that those who actually know and understand the subject are seldom afforded.  I’ve just watched one such interview where the topic of a ‘try it for a month’ celeb with a farmer was  the ‘concern that vegetarians and vegans have about animal husbandry’ and the difficulties local farmers face in competition with ‘factory farming operations’.

My jaw quite literally dropped. It’s hard to know where to even start with such a basis for any discussion about Animal Rights. In fact it’s a basis that specifically precludes all possibility of a discussion about Animal Rights; it’s a discussion in which animal use is assumed and taken for granted, an accepted fact centring a PR pitch in favour of local farming. The ‘discussion’ has nothing whatsoever to do with veganism and could well be mistaken for a publicity stunt by (in this case) the dairy industry.

Menu choices

For starters, only someone who regards veganism as a menu choice would conflate ‘vegetarians and vegans’ as if they were in any way similar. Vegetarianism is indeed a dietary restriction whereas veganism is a moral and philosophical stance against the violence of all the uses that our species makes of others. For the sake of brevity I won’t dwell here on all the reasons why they are not connected in any way other than the letters shared by the two words, but for those who are curious, please check out Vegan and vegetarian – why they are not similar or the slightly shorter In a nutshell: the victims of vegetarianism. 

Animal Welfare

To then go on to say that vegans have ‘concerns about animal husbandry’, is once more a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of the whole vegan ethic. Concern about animal husbandry aka ‘welfare‘ is the term given to a set of standards developed by the animal use industries themselves, in collusion with their supporters and enablers, that detail methods of exploitation and use. ‘Welfare’ in the context of our use of other species, has come to focus on consideration of the degrees of the torture to which they are subjected; the details of the environment in which they are unnecessarily confined, the means by which their bodily integrity and reproductive systems may be unnecessarily violated, the methods by which they may be unnecessarily surgically mutilated, the means and duration of their transport to their place of unnecessary death, the methods by which their unnecessary killing can occur and so on.

It is at best naïve to think that any regulations, including those that misleadingly use the word ‘welfare’ in their description, are in ANY way designed to protect the feelings, wellbeing or individual integrity or autonomy of these ‘resources, commodities and commercial assets’. Indeed, any lessening of the level of torment to which our victims are subjected is purely coincidental because the purpose of ‘welfare’ regulations is to safeguard the commercial value of those who are deemed to be resources, commodities and assets by reassuring the consumer public that they can buy the products of violence and death without their conscience being troubled.

I have written frequently that making judgements about what we think are reduced levels of harm and calling for yet more legislation about such levels, is still promoting harm. And promoting harm to our needless victims is not vegan, however we choose to represent ourselves.

Animal Rights

In complete opposition to this, stands the Animal Rights position, never more eloquently stated than in the words of the late Tom Regan.

I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights-as part of the animal rights movement. That movement, as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including:

  • the total abolition of the use of animals in science;
  • the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture;
  • the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping.

There are, I know, people who profess to believe in animal rights but do not avow these goals. Factory farming, they say, is wrong-it violates animals’ rights-but traditional animal agriculture is all right. Toxicity tests of cosmetics on animals violates their rights, but important medical research-cancer research, for example-does not. The clubbing of baby seals is abhorrent, but not the harvesting of adult seals. I used to think I understood this reasoning. Not any more. You don’t change unjust institutions by tidying them up.

What’s wrong-fundamentally wrong with the way animals are treated isn’t the details that vary from case to case. It’s the whole system. The forlornness of the veal calf is pathetic, heart wrenching; the pulsing pain of the chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the slow, tortuous death of the raccoon caught in the leg-hold trap is agonizing. But what is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t the deprivation. These compound what’s wrong. Sometimes-often-they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong.

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.

~ Tom Regan

Read more here 

So what harm do the uninformed do?

Lets just have a recap about why we’re in this fight for Animal Rights. In a single year:

  • 74 billion land based individuals killed in cold blood in regulated slaughterhouses, and the uncounted individuals who were not even important enough to count
  • 2.7 trillion (estimated) aquatic individuals killed in cold blood and the trillions whose deaths were dismissed as ‘by-catch’
  • The global flock of 7.4 billion egg laying hens
  • The estimated 7.4 billion male chicks who were regarded as worthless
  • Hundreds of millions of dairy mothers of various species killed because they could no longer produce enough breast milk
  • The 800 million dairy mothers (including 264 million cows) worldwide, trapped in a system where they are used to death
  • Uncounted individuals used and tortured in laboratories
  • Uncounted individuals used for ‘sport’ and ‘entertainment’
  • Uncounted billions used for their skin, their body fibres and for a myriad other purposes.

That’s a hell of a lot of bloodshed, a sickening number of lives. THEY are who we’re fighting for. They are depending on us and they need us to be absolutely clear about what they need. They need consumers to stop demanding their use and their deaths for the products they put in their shopping trolleys. They need us to be vegan.

Yet we live in a world of celebrity adulation where celebrity status allows the uninformed to reach the ears of their admiring public without the challenges that other mere mortals would face. And through those whose absence of knowledge is not seen as any kind of impediment to their discussing ‘veganism’, far from ‘raising awareness’ about the victims of our species, a completely different message is proclaimed to a non-vegan world only too happy for the reassurance.

The message is that some animals matter but there’s no need to be extreme. They don’t all matter equally and it’s perfectly fine to harm and kill them as long as we are ‘concerned about husbandry’. This is such an utter betrayal of our victims that it’s truly heartbreaking that some will hear it and think, ‘Yeah, now I know about veganism’.

Yet when we look back at the words of Tom Regan, at ‘abolition’, at dissolution’, and ‘elimination’; there’s nothing in there about competing with ‘factory farms’.

Let’s keep the focus on veganism as it truly is; honest, simple and clear. Vegans stand against violence, against creating victims.  To live vegan is to recognise that every individual, whatever their species, has the right to own their body and their life.

Be vegan. Today!

Check out this recommended collection of (non-celebrity), informative links:


Posted in Celebrity culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Wishful thinking meets wilful misinformation; a deadly combination

Our future as a species is on the brink of disaster with climate and planetary collapse looking increasingly likely in the foreseeable future. The science that confirms this is rapidly shifting from a widely ignored trickle to a torrent sounding alarm bells in every quarter; alarms that are impossible for all but the most wilfully determined to ignore.

Against this backdrop I find myself wondering whether those who ‘farm’ lives and sell animals in response to consumer demands for dead flesh, eggs and breast milk are actually aware of the disaster that they’re being paid to cause?

In response to the demands of consumers, The animal agriculture industries are slaughtering more than 74 billion land animals and 2.7 trillion aquatic creatures – none of whom want to die – every single year.

In addition, animal agriculture industries are literally killing the consumers of the substances they are selling, with products derived from the bodies of other animals being implicated in every one of the major causes of premature death and disease in our species. This science-backed fact is seldom even mentioned, and when it is, we are all encouraged to ignore it, particularly by those who make money from our ignorance.

Animal agriculture is killing the creatures whose environment is being increasingly turned over to consumer driven animal farming, both directly and to grow feed for the 74 billion who are destined for our slaughterhouses. Indigenous species are being reduced to the category of ‘pests’ and are becoming extinct, ancient ecosystems are being laid waste to produce more animals to kill, effluent from the unspeakable numbers of victims confined to meet demand is polluting the land and waterways, wiping out marine environments across the globe.

Our unnatural obsession with using the reproductive systems and the dead body parts of members of other species, a practice that demands bringing over 2,352 land-based individuals into the world each second to replace the 2,352 who are being slaughtered this second – is literally killing the planet. Now there can surely be no doubt left, as major health authorities, academic seats of learning and environmental organisations alike add their voices daily to the imperative call for a major change in the consumption habits of our species.

Myths and wishful thinking

Yet the animal agriculture industries are continuing to deny and ridicule the science and their spokespeople take advantage of every media opportunity to deliberately misinform, talking down and talking over any other individuals who seek to express the truth. I saw an example of this just today, a spokesman openly deriding what I know to be scientific fact, repeatedly reinforcing the myths that keep him in business.

I even heard a recent comment by a farmer about how they ‘need to eat animals to be strong enough to do my job’.  Now I don’t doubt that ‘carry on as usual’ is undoubtedly a message many people may very much want to hear, after all most of us – including those of us who rejected the inherent brutality of the system and became vegan – were raised not to question animal use; to believe that it was ‘necessary’. However, to even suggest that as an option in today’s environmentally fragile world, to imply that the use of other animals is somehow necessary for our wellbeing, constitutes dangerous and deadly misinformation; and seems highly unethical when the whole world is in peril because this fantasy has been too long accepted as fact.

As Upton Sinclair is quoted as saying, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’ Unless of course they really don’t know…?

We have to think for ourselves

Whether they do know or whether they don’t, we can no longer rely on anyone but ourselves to take action; the time has long since come for each of us to take personal responsibility for what we do and how we live. The increasingly gruesome cultural habit of a species that deludes itself that only humans are worthy of moral consideration, has hacked and sawn and slaughtered its way into our current mortal peril. We each have no choice but to make a desperate attempt to secure even the hope of a future for our children. As a parent, this is hugely important to me, and I can’t believe that any parent could feel any different.

To live vegan is to recognise that every individual, whatever their species, has the right to own their body and their life. The vast majority of our nonhuman victims are sentient and their lives matter to them.  Veganism remains as it has always been; a recognition of their rights and a refusal to create victims because it is unnecessary. However, we are now running out of time and a new level of urgency is adding an edge to the call to end the violence and destruction inherent in our use of members of other species.

Despite their political influence and the public funding that goes with it, even industries as massive as the animal-use giants are demand-driven. By becoming vegan, we remove our own consumer demands from the cycle of destruction that non vegan consumers and those who supply their shopping requirements are wreaking on our dying world.

We have so little time left to halt the catastrophe that’s unfolding in front of our eyes and we will soon be past the point that stopping it is even a remote possibility. Be vegan. Do it today.

Posted in Addressing resistance to change, Global disasters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Looking at language: livestock

A young pig about to be slaughtered. Image by Aitor Garmendia / Tras los Muros

Defined by the dictionary as ‘farm animals regarded as an asset’, the word ‘livestock’ is an obscene truth hidden in plain sight. While we may allow ourselves to be soothed by the ‘caring’ rhetoric of the victim sellers, the word used and accepted for our victims’ status is screaming the truth in our faces. The very word ’livestock’ is telling us that these individuals whose lives are being ‘farmed’ are regarded, not as sentient individuals worthy of respect and autonomy over their own lives and bodies, but as assets. As in any business, the function of assets is to make profit.

The status of those whose lives are ‘farmed’ as commercial ‘stock’ is a complete denial of their selfhood as living, feeling young individuals. In a demand-driven system where the right to live unharmed is not even a consideration, every single one of them is automatically denied the most fundamental desire of every species; namely that every one of us wants to live.

However the victim-selling industries and their public relations machine know very well that consumers don’t want to recognise their victims for the low-cost / maximum profit financial transactions they truly represent, so adverts and the media are sprinkled liberally with talk of ‘welfare’ (which doesn’t mean what consumers think it means), skilful adverts that suggest victim consent and feigned concern to reassure consumer conscience. We see increasingly elaborate media charades enacted to present victim ‘farmers’ and traders as kindly and caring, selflessly producing sumbstances mendaciously portrayed as ‘necessary’;  glossing over the fact that their trade, in reality, can be summarised as reproductive violation, using to death and ultimately slaughtering defenceless creatures for money.

Those who make money from the use of other creatures will never mention that none of our use of others is necessary. Neither will they tell us that through the ceaseless brutality that they inflict on our victims on our behalf, we are damaging our own and our loved ones’ health in addition to being directly responsible for the ongoing demise of our planet, its climate and ecosystems.

Meanwhile, the word ‘livestock’ stresses bleakly just how friendless and alone each one of our innocent victims is, from the violation that conceives them, to the slaughterhouse that is their only escape from our tyranny. Each treasured life that belongs only to the one who is desperately clinging to it, matters to our species only as a resource for which we will pay money.  Whatever elaborate fantasies we may weave in our attempts to soothe our conscience, our victims are live stock; business assets that exist – as all such resources do – to make money for someone in response to our demands as consumers.

When we stop demanding that defenceless creatures be turned into victims to indulge our frivolous habits, there will be no money to be made from the sickening practices involved and the nightmare will eventually stop. When we withdraw our demands for victims to be created, when we say, ‘not in my name’, we become vegan. Why would anyone want to wait another day?

Posted in consumer demand, Terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

New Year 2019, and I’m hoping for a miracle

I usually do a blog at this time of year – it’s an apt time to reflect on the changes that have taken place and a chance to evaluate the slow but steady progress that we’re making towards a vegan world. However this year I found my thoughts being drawn in an altogether different direction from usual; something has irrevocably changed since I last sat down to write my New Year thoughts.

Humans – facing up to what we do

In 2012, I became vegan in recognition of the brutal injustice that we are inflicting on every species on the planet by the unending ways that we ignore their vital interests in favour of our own trivial and frivolous preferences. Today, as 2018 slips away, I have a new and excruciating awareness of the climate catastrophe that is breaking like a wave in slow motion over this beautiful world, and we are running out of time to fix it. Let’s face it, our causative role in the atrocity, and our resulting peril as a species, are not even being acknowledged yet, at a time when we ALL need to be working on – and close to – the solution. 

We hack and butcher our vicious way through the gentle and innocent creatures whose world this also is, ‘farming’ and mutilating them, violating, impregnating, breaking up their families and pumping out their breast milk, genetically altering them to increase egg production, slaughtering, sawing, dismembering and flaying the sweet individuals who face our slavering appetite for gore in uncomprehending bewilderment while we kill them by the trillions each year. We devour, excrete, wear, experiment on, and are ‘entertained’ by the pitiful ways that our despairing victims try to please us, their desperate attempts to make us stop hurting them. None of it works, despite the fact that none of what we do is necessary.

We are a species drunk on delusions of grandeur. 

It’s real.  We’re in big trouble

Be assured, there are charlatans who will say otherwise because the status quo of nonhuman exploitation is making vast sums of money for them, but as the old year slips away, the environmental and health related science against our use of others is continuing to pile up and the clamour for action to save the world grows louder.  This year we all must surely be beginning to realise that humanity, and humanity alone, has brought our beloved planet, and all who travel through the black depths of space on this irreplaceable blue green orb, to the very brink of disaster. We are teetering now on the edge of the abyss. 

It’s too late to complain about corporations and industries. It’s too late to carry on as before and blame everyone but ourselves for the disasters that afflict our world with increasing severity. We are consumers and it is our cash that is creating the demand that continues to drive vast agricultural industries; it is our cash that funds all the industries and practices that are wrecking our global home and depriving our children and grandchildren of a future. We are depriving them of a habitable world on which to even have a future. It’s time to take responsibility as individuals because if we don’t, we are condemning our loved ones to a world from our nightmares. We may be dead and gone, but our legacy of senseless corruption will remain as long as our species lasts – which isn’t likely to be very long at all as things are.

Global warming – the cosy myth of climate change

I know when I was younger, the term ‘global warming’ was occasionally mentioned, and here in the bitter cold of a Scottish winter, people smiled and nodded and agreed that a wee bit of warmth wouldn’t be a bad thing. How little I understood the mechanisms behind the idea of the ‘warmth’ that we all crave here.

I had no idea about the man-made build-up of greenhouse gases that in turn was heating the planet, changing climates, bringing extreme weather events with increasing frequency and severity. I didn’t think about indigenous crops and species no longer being able to survive as their environment becomes increasingly hostile; the land, oceans and waterways clogged with effluent and assorted and non-biodegradable waste. I had no concept of melting icecaps raising sea levels and releasing even more greenhouses gas into an already seething atmosphere. To my younger self, the world seemed so unchanging, so unaffected by the life forms who swarm its surface. Earth seemed unbreakable. 

Climate change – the consequences

Yet here we are as the year 2019 looms, well on our way to quite literally eating, using, and poisoning our planet to death. We are in it up to our necks, persisting in our brutal use of all other species while the very survival of our own is on the line as a direct result. New scientific reports support this view almost every week.  All this devastation has been created in the recent past by a species whose technological burgeoning, enslaving, modifying, despoiling and displacing every other species and every environment to our own ends, has disregarded the tragic consequences of our indulgence.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, we sanctimoniously delude ourselves 1) that we care about other animals and ‘nature’, and 2) that we can claim superiority amongst the millions of other species in the world; millions whose number falls daily as a result of our actions in what is known and recognised as the 6th Mass Extinction event. Google it.

I recently wrote a blog that highlighted a recent report that we had 12 years left to change our ways.  Oh, I know humanity won’t disappear in 12 years; our doomed species is likely to struggle on for a considerable while after that point is reached.  But the science is clear that by then – or even earlier according to some – it will be too late for us to avoid the consequences of our desecration of our fellow creatures and the planet we all share.  And the effective word that our children and grandchildren will get to know too well for any of us to feel good about, is ‘struggle’. Life will become an increasingly hard struggle for them in ways we find difficult to imagine, and it won’t be just in terms of the occasional storm or flood that they’ll get used to dealing with.

How would I know about this ‘struggle’?

In what feels increasingly like a past life, I worked in the related areas of ‘Disaster Planning’ and ‘Business Continuity’ in local government. Because effective planning made it essential for me to understand the realities of what might be faced, I am only too well aware of the speed with which the veneer of ‘civilisation’ falls away in the event of even a relatively localised catastrophe such as a disease pandemic, or extreme climatic event such as an earthquake or flood.

For the most part, we live in a world where our every daily requirement relies on a largely unrecognised network of interdependent services; people going to work to create supplies, transporting these supplies to where they need to be to keep the population fed, clothed and moving. Supporting the population we have health and emergency services, schools, refuse collection, and such unrecognised essentials as crematoria – all with staff who need transport to get to work. All these services work in an equilibrium. 

These systems are more fragile than we suppose and here in the UK we can see just how little it takes to upset that balance. In Scotland, all shops close on New Year’s Day and many on 2 January, and in the days leading up to this planned closure, we see panic buying that strips the shelves of vast supermarkets. That’s for a planned and short-term closure – imagine an unplanned one.

All it takes is an interruption in any part of the service network and it’s like a house of cards. Once transport links fail, fuel supplies fail and food supplies fail because whatever is available cannot be distributed. Without transport, power stations, hospitals and schools can’t be staffed. Any available medical provision starts to be overwhelmed. Roads and infrastructure are impaired, but there’s no fuel at the filling stations anyway, people have to stay home to look after their children and no one can get to work to earn money. With nothing to eat and no way to feed their families, desperation takes hold.  Public services are prioritised in increasingly futile efforts to cover the bare essentials. I could go on.

I have been employed to plan for eventualities such as these but even I can scarcely imagine this sort of scenario on a planetary scale. However I am convinced that our children – that’s yours and mine – may well become aware of it as an everyday reality. Disaster Planning will become a new and vital career choice. My heart breaks to realise that this is the world that my generation is bequeathing to our children; those children we love more than anyone else may find themselves living hand to mouth as they fight for survival on a dying planet. 

Plant based consumption – it’s a start

Along with so many self-interested and scathing dismissals of the scientifically proven need for plant based consumption, are the same old calls for yet more laws, yet more regulations, yet more support for small-scale ‘farmers’ of animal-derived substances, the same old calls to penalise large-scale animal substance producers and so on. Now apart from the fact that the concept of penalising large-scale producers for meeting large-scale demand (see the obvious problem there?) demonstrates a woeful lack of a grasp on the basic mechanics of supply and demand, basically here we have a call for the same old, same old.  These tired, worn, and desperately weary suggestions have shown no sign of working in the decades that they have been buzzing around, but making a big thing about calling for them to be implemented/enforced seeks to give the appearance of concern while indicating that the individual does not intend to take personal responsibility for their own actions. All the problems arising from those actions are conveniently the fault of ‘someone else’ who now apparently has responsibility for putting things right using the same tried and tested measures that have spectacularly failed animals for hundreds of years.

Without a widespread commitment to action, such pie-in-the-sky measures to regulate animal substance use are now physically impossible to achieve while the human population (currently 7.7 billion) spirals upwards, carrying with it the increased consumer demand for our fellow species to be used as inappropriate ‘food’ on a planet with dwindling resources.

We are out of time. Really.

What do we need? Action! When do we need it? Now!

As pointed out so eloquently by climate activist Greta Thunberg, the climate crisis should be the emergency first priority of every government and every one of us. Despite this, many are still in denial and in this world of sensationalised gossip-mongering that masquerades as journalism, denialists continue to find a ready platform for their anti-science opinions.  However any one of us who has lived more than a decade or two can see clearly evidenced in the changing landscape, the disappearance of insect life, and the terrifyingly increasing incidence of extreme events,  the torment of a planet entering its death throes.

Some appear to be sitting on the metaphorical fence. Waiting to be convinced. Thinking that ‘there’s time’; thinking it’s all bullshit but hell, if it is real, we can always take steps in the future if we’re absolutely forced into it.  Sadly that is not the case. The time to act is now. By the time the doubters and deniers are beginning to wake from their torpor and believe what the scientists have been trying to tell us about for decades, it will be well beyond too late. We couldn’t backtrack, any more than we could stuff a bullet back in a gun once the trigger has been pulled.

Start with veganism

So this year, because it’s all I know, I’m just going to keep on writing about veganism, keep on defending our trillions of annual victims, and keep on pleading with my species to wake up and realise what’s happening. I don’t know what it will take to make humanity sit up and take notice, but I have to keep trying. 

But now, as the bells of 2019 begin, the thing we need most is the thing that every single one of us should be working for, day and night, with every fibre of our being. A miracle.

Plant based eating and health – the facts

Animal agriculture – the facts

Posted in Festivals, Global disasters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

‘What are cows for?’

A recent comment on a post read, ‘What do you think cows are for?’ The writer was raging against the facts relating to dairy use and consumption. It was clear that they saw nothing wrong with their question as a line of reasoning.

My first thought when I read the question was to smile and think, ‘well what is anyone for?’ but a mental shake brought me back to earth. This was a serious question, asked by an apparent adult who seemed utterly oblivious to having asked the sort of question that would be at home in a child’s board or cloth book.

I have often considered that such comments are meant simply to attract attention and/or provoke argument for whatever ‘enjoyment’ trolling gives the instigator. However on this particular occasion a different scenario came to mind. Although I must call the scenario ‘imagined’, it rings so true that it may in fact be a long-buried memory.  And in that scenario is a small child, asking their mother the questions that bubble and overflow from the fertile and insatiably curious minds of small children everywhere;

‘But why? Why do I have to drink milk from cows? I don’t want to drink milk from mummy cows. I’m not a baby, I’m big now.’

And the mother’s reply?

‘That’s what cows are for. Now just drink up your milk.’

That’s what cows are for

For several years my thoughts have kept returning to the phenomenon of our unquestioning participation in the global atrocity of animal use, an atrocity that sits in stark contrast to the popular perception of ourselves as ‘animal lovers’.  This particular comment asking what cows are for is a typical one and is by no means unique or original. Examining the thoughts that preceded my own awakening to veganism, I recall a similar and unquestioning acceptance of childhood dietary coercion, preserved whole and unexamined from a time of my earliest memories.  I recall being taught about a world centred round me as a child, a not-yet-understood world of resources for my use and my wellbeing.  As a child, I had only the information given to me by my carers and I didn’t question it. ‘That’s what cows are for. That’s what chickens are for. That’s what sheep are for. That’s what pigs are for…’

All this came to mind again today when reading of someone who rescued four goats from a shelter. She is frequently asked why on earth she would want to rescue goats unless she is using them for their breast milk. The same question arises when vegans rescue chickens, with the assumption being that it’s clearly naive and foolish to look after hens without helping oneself to the eggs that our genetic meddling has caused them to self destruct by producing. The rescuing of other ‘farmed’ species provokes the same incredulous response. It seems that so many just can’t get their heads round the idea that anyone could want to rescue and care for members of those species that are habitually ‘farmed’ unless there are ‘benefits’ involved that continue the very practices from which they have been rescued; ‘benefits’ that so frequently involve the unconsenting reproductive exploitation of  vulnerable family members.

What are dogs and cats for?

Yet clearly, if the question was to be turned around and addressed to those same enquirers, most or many of whom have cat or dog family members, it would be met with incomprehension. ‘What are dogs for?’ or ‘What are cats for?’  ‘What sort of question is that?’

Because we don’t need a reason for rescuing, for caring for, for loving these species. We would never think to ask what they’re for. They give us pleasure with their grace and their beauty. They engage us with their huge personalities, their sense of fun and their companionship.  We delight in their unconditional devotion to us; in the warmth and affection they bestow on us so readily and joyfully.

So there we have the jarring contrast; those species from whom we expect nothing but shared love and companionship, and those species that we cannot conceive of sharing time with unless we are using them in some way; species we have been brainwashed into seeing only in terms of ‘what’s in it for me’. Yet are these two groups of species inherently different in some way?  Not at all, and science provides more evidence of this every day.

Quite frankly, any difference is in our perception. As one species of sentient creature, all other sentient species of creature have so much in common with us that it beggars belief, not only that we arbitrarily compartmentalise them so that we can brutalise some while adoring others, but that we cling to childhood tales in our efforts to ignore the bloodbath that we are directly demanding as consumers, while sincerely claiming that we ‘love animals’.

Who belongs to whom?

As human animals, the only individual that truly belongs to each of us, is the one we see when we look in a mirror. Other individuals, whatever their species, do not ‘belong’ to us other than by some humanocentric system of ‘ownership’ that we forcibly impose and to which they most definitely do not consent.

It is unspeakable that a single species should assume such self-importance that our convenience and unnecessary preference casts every other species in terms of their usefulness (and financial profitability) for us. Despite our fond notions of ourselves as ‘animal lovers’, it is only through acts of violence and depravity that we bring others into the world to be used for our interests at the expense of their own.  The truth is that others are not ‘for’ anything to do with us.

Only veganism recognises that cows are not ‘for’ anything that needs to concern us. Be vegan.

Posted in FAQ, Nonhuman family members | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Compassion and kindness; not what we need to ask for

Image by Jo-Anne McArthur / Animal Equality

The words ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ are not what we should be asking for when advocating for the rights of our victims. I can almost hear the gasps of indignation and keyboards warming up already, but please bear with me.

Let me just be absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with the words ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ or their related adjectives and other parts of speech, when they are used in the correct context. Kindness and compassion in response to others’ suffering are qualities to be encouraged and admired and the world could do with seeing a lot more of them.

However. When we are advocating for the rights of those annual 74 billion land individuals and almost 3 trillion aquatic creatures whom our species persecutes and slaughters without cause or conscience, it is vital to ensure that we use unambiguous words when calling for recognition of their rights. Words that mean different things to different people (subjective words) are the first words that we have to leave out of advocacy. This is not because I’m pedantic; rather it stems from an acute awareness that what we think we’re saying is often far removed from what our audience thinks we’re saying.

So for a start,  the words ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ are completely subjective. My idea of being ‘kind’ and yours are probably completely different, as are my idea of ‘compassion’ and yours. And for every person we meet that is likely to be the case; different things to different people. In addition to this, both words skirt right round the heart of the issue and as such, are words best left well out of our advocacy. I shall return to this point in a minute but first I’d like to share a story.

Crying out for kindness and compassion

This evening I read an article about a man who was homeless. The article described how, in the early hours of a bitter morning with the temperature 16 degrees below freezing, the man had sought refuge in a metro station for himself and his beloved canine companion. He was desperate and panic-stricken because they had absolutely no place to go to escape the lethal cold. The metro was closed but two staff who were there, refused to let him in. Some hours later, his much loved family member, wrapped in blankets and cradled in his arms, succumbed to the freezing night and died.

I’m sure most of us would agree that it would have been an act of compassion for the staff to have given shelter to the pair. It would have been kind for them to have helped. We can all anticipate that they would likely have got into trouble from their employers for breaking  the rules and indeed the article goes on at length to seek to exonerate the decision of the staff and the authorities whose rules they were obeying. But I’m confident that every one of us likes to think we’re the kind of people who would have done the decent thing in that life or death situation, and to hell with the consequences.

In this situation, instead of turning their backs, the staff could have just taken the pair in under cover, or they could have provided some heat, maybe a cup of tea or soup, water for the dog. They could have provided more blankets, something to eat for the two of them and so on. Again we all are likely to have our own ideas about what would have constituted kindness and compassion, because the words mean different things to each of us.

But equally, although we may be critical of their judgement, it is very unlikely that the employees concerned actually did anything that was technically wrong in terms of their rules and regulations. The staff in the metro had not caused the predicament of the man who had no home or that of his beloved companion. They were not responsible for his desperate situation. They were just there in a place at a time when they could have made a bad situation a whole lot better.  But when all is said and done, no one is likely to prosecute them for what they did, particularly considering that the law regarded the individual who died as the ‘property’ of the man who was homeless in the same way as the blankets he was wrapped in. Here we have a situation where no actual wrongdoing occurred despite the fact that we all have an idea what we would have liked to see happen.

So why aren’t calls for ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ enough in advocacy?

So why is compassion and kindness okay in that context but not in the context of animal advocacy? The first point is that the staff who could have shown kindness and compassion had neither caused the situation nor were they responsible for it.

I mentioned earlier that both words skirt right round the heart of the issue, so what IS this heart of the issue? As advocates for the victims of our species, we are speaking to the very people who are actually causing the situation that our victims are facing and are directly responsible for it through their consumer demands. By simply asking for ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’, we avoid pointing out this most obvious of truths.

We also reinforce the narrative we all used to cling to at one time in seeking to justify our imaginary right to use the lives and broken bodies of other individuals. We all used to think that the problem was being caused by someone else, somewhere else. By asking for ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ without addressing this, we are allowing our audience to remain in denial as to their own pivotal role in the horrors being inflicted on their victims. Not only that, but we are using subjective words that do not specify what form this ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ absolutely must take.

So what form must this action take? The first thing we should be asking those who are directly responsible for the brutal use of members of other animals species through their consumer demands, is to stop doing it.

‘Compassion’ and ‘kindness’ do not lead to the understanding that every individual has the right to live without being intentionally harmed for our trivial interests at catastrophic cost to their own; they avoid mentioning that when we are not vegan, we are the ones who are doing this and that we need to STOP.

‘Compassion’ and ‘kindness’ do not lead to the realisation that members of other animals species value their lives as much as I value mine or you value yours, they avoid mentioning that that we are the ones who are using and taking those treasured lives in milking parlours, egg farms, slaughterhouses and labs when we are not vegan and that we need to STOP.

‘Compassion’ and ‘kindness’ fail to highlight the profound atrocity of exploiting the reproduction of defenceless mothers for their breast milk and eggs, the obscenity of slaughtering innocent families, the monstrosity of trading in corpses, in eggs and in body parts when every single thing that we do is unnecessary; they avoid mentioning that we are the ones who are demanding the death and violence through our consumer choices when we are not vegan and that we need to STOP.

‘Compassion’ and ‘kindness’ are words that focus on ourselves, and how we feel about ourselves and others without addressing the underlying responsibility for the actions that our shopping choices are demanding. As a non vegan for decades who was brimming  over with ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’, I know for a certainty that they are words that do not lead to veganism, only education about veganism does that.

So what words to use?

As advocates we are defending the most fundamental rights of our species’ victims; the right to live unharmed, the right not to be regarded as property and a resource simply because they differ from us. Because we have brute force and technology on our side and a horrific predisposition to violence, first and foremost, on  behalf of our victims, we must ask those who brutalise them to realise what they’re doing. And then we must ask them to stop.

‘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.’

~ Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights

The bloodbath needs to stop because it’s deeply unjust. It needs to stop because our victims are sentient inhabitants of our shared planet who have as much right to live unharmed as we do ourselves; whose lives matter to them every bit as much as our own matter to us.

Whereas ‘compassion’ and ‘kindness’ focus on ourselves, and how we feel about ourselves and others, words like ‘justice’ and ‘rights’ are words that simply focus on the big issues of right and wrong. These are words that focus on those who are being persecuted. They’re humble words that speak to our conscience rather than our ego. They’re sincere words, honest words, and they shine with truth.

Truth is our greatest ally in the battle against the tide of gore and misery that nonveganism causes. Our first task is to shine a light on the truth so that those who are demanding the bloodshed can appreciate the role they are playing in the nightmare. Our second task is to be absolutely clear that the outrage of nonveganism is an affront to the values that every single one of us believes that we hold.  Having done that, we need to ask for it to stop, while still remembering that most of us were not always vegan; offering others any guidance and support that we might have appreciated ourselves when that lightbulb moment happened to us and we decided that we could not live another day without becoming vegan.

‘I am not well-versed in theory, but in my view, the cow deserves her life. As does the ram. As does the ladybug. As does the elephant. As do the fish, and the dog and the bee; as do other sentient beings. I will always be in favor of veganism as a minimum because I believe that sentient beings have a right not to be used as someone else’s property. They ask us to be brave for them, to be clear for them, and I see no other acceptable choice but to advocate veganism.’

~ Vincent Guihan, vegan author

We can do all that and we can still be kind and compassionate people throughout.

Be vegan.



Compassion is defined as the feeling that arises when you are confronted with another’s suffering and feel motivated to relieve that suffering.
Kindness is the quality of being gentle, caring, and helpful.

Posted in Terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

On trusting experts

When we are new to the world, parents and carers feed and clothe us. Most of us have little idea what we are eating, drinking, wearing or using. As children we lack even the ability to grasp the brutality of the systems that provide us with dead animals, the breast milk of four-legged mothers and the eggs of small hens bred to lay themselves to death. If we ask, the question is evaded or answered with half-truths. I’m a mother who was not always vegan so I know this. We get out of the way of questioning, because we are constantly reassured.

Looking up to our elders and the vast knowledge that they seem to have, nature programmes us to trust them. They are not always right but they do what they think is best because they want nothing more than our well being, care for nothing more than our health.

Comforting our concerns

When we grow and become adult, most of us STILL have little idea what we are eating, drinking, wearing or using. As adults the world has taught us concepts that allow us to grasp the brutality of the systems that provide us with dead animals, the breast milk of four-legged mothers and the eggs of small hens bred to lay themselves to death. We understand the concept of injustice when applied to our own species. We identify with it, and with the view of ourselves as ‘good people’.

But our use of members of the other animal species is so widespread that we doubt ourselves when we contemplate what is done to them to facilitate our use. ‘Such horror simply cannot exist; it’s inconceivable’. And as our thoughts fill with snatches of words that we’ve heard without understanding, words like ‘laws’, like ‘humane’, and like ‘welfare’, our momentary questions subside as we go back to the comfort of days when our mothers reassured us that all was well.

All grown up?

And now as adults, if we ask, our questions are still evaded and answered with half-truths – or even lies. This time they come from the individuals, the advertisers, and the vast businesses that provide us with dead animals, the breast milk of four-legged mothers and the eggs of small hens bred to lay themselves to death.

Professing expertise and arcane knowledge, chiding us for daring to question them, patronising our ‘foolish’ concern, the vast, powerful and influential industries that trade in slaughterhouse-tainted atrocities, deflect our enquiries with the deft skill of long practice.

And we fall into old habits of trusting those who tell us they know best, the ‘experts’. ‘Yes, experts know best’, we nod, reassured.

Only this time, we are trusting those who need to deceive us; those whose sole concern is their own commercial interests. This time, our ‘experts’ are those who are making an endless supply of defenceless victims to sell to us. We are trusting those who want nothing more than our money. We are trusting those who are committing atrocities in our name. And most tragically of all, we are trusting them to do what they do in a way that allows us to still feel good about ourselves.

Follow the money

It’s past time to ask questions. It’s long past time to challenge. For the sake of our trillions of annual victims, for ourselves and our beautiful planet, it’s time to stop trusting those who trade in brutality in return for our money. We cannot turn our backs on the things that are done in our name; the things that are done so that we can buy dead animals, the breast milk of four-legged mothers and the eggs of small hens bred to lay themselves to death to put in our shopping trolleys.

When we stop paying for dead animals, the breast milk of four-legged mothers and the eggs of small hens bred to lay themselves to death, there will no longer be money to be made from this sickening bloodbath and it will stop.

We can do this. We have to because everything depends on it now. Be vegan.

Posted in Awakening to veganism, consumer demand | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments