Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Huffington Post Article: Who You Callin' Vegangelical?

This 2009 article by Ari Solomon is one of the best and most succinct arguments for veganism I've ever read. I had repost it here.


Who You Callin' Vegangelical? 
by Ari Solomon, Huffington Post Green 2009

Recently I've heard some perplexing criticisms of veganism. They go something like this: vegans are extremists, vegans are so preachy, veganism is like some fanatical religion, veganism is a cult.. There obviously is some misunderstanding going on and I'd like to try and stamp out this issue once and for all. I realize I can't possibly speak for all vegans, but this is how I see it:

First of all, veganism is clearly not some religion or cult. There is no Church of Vegan. Veganism is a philosophy. Donald Watson first coined the term "vegan" in 1944. This was how he defined it:

The word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude as far as is possible and practical all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animalfree alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

Sounds pretty simple right? Well, nowadays people become vegan for all different reasons. They might go vegan because of health reasons, or perhaps they've read that animal agriculture is the number one cause of global warming. But, if someone is an ethical vegan, that means they've chosen to open their mind and heart to the suffering of animals. They want to alleviate unnecessary suffering where they can. (There are actually some people who feel that unless you go vegan for ethical reasons that you're not really "vegan", but that's a whole other story.)

Here's where things get interesting. While many of us may feel a certain attachment to the food we eat (cheese, anyone?), there is actually no human dietary requirement for animal foods. It's true. You don't need to eat meat, dairy or eggs to live.

In fact, Dr. Colin Campbell, who conducted the foremost study on human nutrition for over 40 years, detailed in his book The China Study how a vegan diet is actually better suited for optimal human health. This means that people eat animals not because they have to, but because they want to. Now, of course I'm not talking about people who live in countries where food is scarce and they'll die unless they eat animal foods. I'm talking about you and me. People who shop at the supermarket where tofu, beans, rice, grains, fruits and vegetables are mere feet from meat, dairy and eggs. We have a choice.

In case you're not up to speed, over 98% of all meat, dairy, and eggs produced in the US comes from factory farms. The conditions in these places are truly horrendous. Animals are crammed in spaces so tight they can't turn around. They literally go insane, lying around all day and night in their own feces. They never see sunlight, have their beaks, horns and genitals cut off (without anesthetic) and are horribly abused by stressed and desensitized farm workers. We kill 10 billion animals for "food" a year in this country, that's over 27 million animals a day. Most of those animals are birds, and all poultry (chickens, turkeys, ducks, and rabbits... yes, rabbits are considered poultry under the law) are excluded from the barely enforced Humane Slaughter Act.

Now, before you start at me with some "humane meat" "happy meat" bullshit please take note that all animals, whether they are raised in the nastiest of factory farms or grass-fed, free-range, blah blah blah, are all sent to the same slaughterhouses. That's right, your organic steer is being sent to the same hell as a downer cow and will meet the same ghastly end. If you are a "humane meat" consumer, please take a moment and meditate on the whole concept of humane killing... bloody, fearful, struggling, screaming, despairing humane killing. It's never pretty and it certainly isn't "humane." 

There is a video making rounds on YouTube that shows a lone cow shaking in terror as she contemplates walking down the kill chute. She walks forward, then back. Animals can hear and smell the violence and death that awaits them. Their last moments are ones of abject horror and suffering. If you wouldn't condemn your dog or cat to such a fate, how can you pay for others do it to these poor animals?

So. When a vegan is talking to a meat-eater about these issues, he or she is not "preaching", "trying to convert", or any such thing. We're not telling you what to eat. We're telling you what you're eating.

Since animals can't speak a language humans can understand (though I think the screams and terrified moans that fill slaughterhouses should be pretty much universal -- all living beings want to live) it's up to us to tell their stories and inform people of the suffering that goes on conveniently out of the public eye.

If, as a meat-eater, being exposed to this reality bothers you, it is not the fault of the vegan. Lashing out or making up endless excuses doesn't change the stark scientific fact that animals are suffering because of our taste buds. Your neatly packaged chicken breast, all wrapped in pristine plastic, was once part of an animal that felt fear and pain. It's called responsibility and culpability, and we're all to blame.

Now, you may try to argue that eating animals is a matter of personal opinion or choice, but again I'd have to disagree -- this is not about your opinion versus my opinion, this is about animal suffering. You can't discuss your "personal choice" of eating animals while leaving animals completely out of the conversation.

Think of it this way, if you were walking down the street and saw someone beating their dog, would you try to do something to stop it? The same principle applies here. Since eating animal foods is a question of want and like versus need, killing a sentient being, when there is absolutely no need -- except for someone's pleasure -- becomes simply unnecessary and merciless.

And if we say we care about cruelty to animals then it's time we start caring about all animals. Yes, dogs and cats are companion animals but in terms of suffering our canine and feline friends feel the same as a pig, cow, chicken, lamb, or turkey. 

To pick and choose species in terms of whose pain we care about is incredibly hypocritical and inconsistent. Sorry, but if you're eating veal parmigiana or turkey sandwiches, you don't really care about animals. You may care about dogs and cats but you certainly don't care about birds and baby cows.

So, who's the real extremist? The person who tries to stop unnecessary suffering by cutting out animal products, or the person who says, "I like the way that tastes, so a sentient being needs suffer and die?"

Who's the real fundamentalist? The person who simply speaks the truth about where food comes from, or the person who knowingly chooses to ignore it, listening only to the falsehoods of the meat and dairy clergy? Isn't the latter more akin to choosing to believe the earth is 5,000 years old despite clear evidence to the contrary?

The reality is that veganism couldn't be more different from religion. While religion is based on faith, veganism is based on facts. Animal suffering is not some ethereal concept, it's very real. All animals deserve to be free from unnecessary pain, fear, and suffering at the hands of humans. How can anything less claim to be humane? Do I want more people to go vegan, is that why I talk and write about it? Of course, but it has nothing to do with me or some group that I belong to. It has to do with  he animals who suffer everyday so that we can eat them, wear them, and do whatever we want to them simply because we can.

Veganism is the practical response to a social injustice. Instead of vegangelical, the word should be veganlogical.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Posing as a Bald Eagle to Escape Execution: Speciesim Unmasked

The cartoon below, in which turkeys attempt to avoid slaughter by disguising themselves as American Bald Eagles, is specifically about how we revere certain species and abuse others as if they were inanimate objects. Eating a Bald Eagle is a crime in the U.S. but abuse of chickens and turkeys is protected by anti-terrorism laws by making it a felony to take pictures or videos inside factory farms. Yes, that’s true. Yes, it’s absurd. Dogs and cats are protected by law but virtually no other species. The lack of logic here confounds me. -- Piraro "Thought Food"



Monday, November 4, 2013

"Humane" Thanksgiving????


For those planning on consuming turkey corpses this Thanksgiving, 
here's what "humane" turkey slaughter looks like.




Sunday, October 27, 2013

Empathy: What If We Personally Experienced Non-human Animal Pain and Death?


This is a scene from the television series Powder, in which a sci fi character forces empathy on a deer hunter by causing him to experience what the deer is experiencing. This short and powerful scene  articulates the most  fundamental argument of my thesis; that empathy (or lack thereof) directs our moral decisions and actions.


Sunday, October 13, 2013

Marti Kheel, PhD: The value of an ecological model for creating empathy.

Marti Kheel articulates the world view which relates animals, nature and women and that guide beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Kheel, a feminist and animal rights activist, expounds on these deeply entrenched stories guiding current systems in her book Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective (2009). Erin Scott interviewed Marti in her home in Northern Caifornia on May 20, 2009.

 
How can we plant the seeds of empathy and care?
 Professor Kheel gets underneath the entire purpose of my thesis 
in these two important interviews.


Are Humans Designed to Eat Meat?


Marc Bekoff PhD.: Ethological Insights Into the Emotional Lives of Non-human Animals

Animal Emotions: An Interview with Professor Marc Bekoff

Animal Sentience



Marc Bekoff: Who lives, who dies, and why: ignoring and redecorating nature and specious speciesism

Jeffrey Masson, PhD: On the Emotional Lives of Non-human Animals

The Pig Who Sang to the Moon
Why Do You Eat Meat?

On the Emotional Lives of Animals

The Face on Your Plate


Wednesday, October 9, 2013

There's a New Milkman in Town: Silk Almond Milk Ad

Of course the idea of vegan food alternatives being advertised nationally is appealing and this ad has its humorous merit. But, the gender stereotyping portrayed here is an extension of an ongoing sexualization of meat that perpetuates the idea that being compassionate is somehow feminine and therefore should be avoided.  In an attempt to masculiniize almond milk we are subjected to a ridiculously macho "milk man" who pretty much assaults and abuses a young man having breakfast. Is he his mother's new boyfriend? Yikes! It also denigrates cows themselves by claiming that drinks for people are somehow superior to drinks for "parched heifers."

While I give Silk a thumbs up for pointing out the fact that humans are the only species of animals who drink another species' milk AND the only species to drink milk at all as adults, this ad is offensive on other levels that shouldn't be encouraged.

[T]he war on compassion has caused people to believe that they have to help humans first. As long as we treat animals as animals, as long as we accept there is the category "animals," both the treatment and the concept will legitimize the treatment of humans like animals. - Carol J. Adams, The War on Compassion 2006


Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Normal and Natural for the First Time in Their Lives

If we embrace empathy, moral change is not only easy it becomes a matter of Normal and Natural. This is truly one of the most beautiful and inspiring things I've ever seen. Please watch this important video below.


Monday, October 7, 2013

Monday, September 30, 2013

Hope Haven Farm Animal Sanctuary: Meeting Rescued Animals

Today I had the most amazing experience! I was able to spend time at a local farm animal sanctuary called Hope Haven.  I met several pigs, lots of chickens, ducks, a turkey, alpacas, and a pony. This sanctuary is run by a young woman who is a veterinarian. She spends her days practicing at area animal shelters and evenings caring for her rescued bunch at Hope Haven. Looking into the eyes of these creatures, knowing that they were destined for abuse, torture and slaughter, I felt a kinship that can't be put into words. I'm looking forward to helping out as much as I can there.

If you can afford anything at all, please consider sponsoring one of these beautiful creatures. They rely exclusively on donations and can use all the help they can get. 

Monday, September 23, 2013

Out of the Mouth of Children... and NOT Into Them

This is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen!

While watching this video I am reminded of how deeply we are, as a culture indoctrinated into meat eating. As a child I was repulsed by any undisguised animal part that showed up on my plate. One of the ways my mother tried to alleviate my misgivings was to make a "game' out of preparing corpses. She used to make chicken and turkey corpses dance and talk while preparing them. Somehow I learned to giggle at these antics that were actually macabre and sick.

The mother in this video should be applauded for taking her child's objections seriously.



Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Abolutionist Approach - Gary L. Francione Lecture and Q&A Luxumburg Germany

A must hear forum by Gary L. Francione on the Abolitionist Approach to animal rights. 

The video is too large to upload, so please click here to view.

Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.

He is the author of numerous books and articles on animal rights theory and animals and the law, including The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? (with Dr. Robert Garner) (2010), Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation (2008), Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (2000), Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996), Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), and Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection (with Anna E. Charlton) (1992).

Professor Francione and his partner and colleague, Adjunct Professor Anna E. Charlton, started and operated the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic/Center from 1990-2000, making Rutgers the first university in the United States to have animal rights law as part of the regular academic curriculum, and to award students academic credit not only for classroom work, but also for work on actual cases involving animal issues. Francione and Charlton represented without charge individual animal advocates, grassroots animal groups, and national and international animal organizations. Francione and Charlton currently teach a course on human rights and animal rights, and a seminar on animal rights theory and the law. Professor Francione also teaches courses on criminal law, criminal procedure, jurisprudence, and legal philosophy.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Earthlings: Please Watch the Trailer to This Extremely Important Film

I just watched a trailer for what is one of the most important films made. But I warn you that it is very difficult to watch. I am physically ill from seeing it. But EVERYONE who eats meat or consumes animal products should be mandated to watch this film. The invisibility of this reality must be end. Please watch and share.





The full length film is also available to watch at the same site. If you are an educator please consider using this film in your classes or as a forum for discussion.

I've often wondered if it's necessary to show such graphic images and if people other than those already concerned about animals will actually see it. But as a friend said to me recently, "Sometimes I think that the only thing that could fundamentally change the attitudes and actions of people who eat and wear animals is to see such shocking images/events. Clearly, detached reasoning isn't going to do shit."


From the site:

EARTHLINGS is an award-winning documentary film about the suffering of animals for food, fashion, pets, entertainment and medical research. Considered the most persuasive documentary ever made, EARTHLINGS is nicknamed “the Vegan maker” for its sensitive footage shot at animal shelters, pet stores, puppy mills, factory farms, slaughterhouses, the leather and fur trades, sporting events, circuses and research labs.

The film is narrated by Academy Award® nominee Joaquin Phoenix and features music by platinum-selling recording artist Moby. Initially ignored by distributors, today EARTHLINGS is considered the definitive animal rights film by organizations around the world. “Of all the films I have ever made, this is the one that gets people talking the most,” said Phoenix. “For every one person who sees EARTHLINGS, they will tell three.”

In 1999, writer/producer/director Shaun Monson began work on a series of PSAs about spaying and neutering pets. The footage he shot at animal shelters around Los Angeles affected him so profoundly that the project soon evolved into EARTHLINGS. The film would take another six years to complete because of the difficulty in obtaining footage within these profitable industries. Though the film was initially ignored by distributors, who told Monson that the film would “never see the light of day and should be swept under the rug,” today EARTHLINGS is considered the definitive animal rights film by organizations around the world.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

On a Lighter Note: There's ALWAYS a GREAT Vegan Alternative!

One of the things I miss most is carrot cake with creamed cheese frosting. This had been my birthday cake of choice forever. But alas, there's always a great vegan alternative!  :-D

Though, beware not all beer is vegan. 
Here's a link to Barnavore which lists all the vegan friendly and unfriendly beer. 


Moral Decisions Depend Entirely on the Presence or Absence of Empathy

Amazon Link
I have spent my entire Sunday morning reading detailed descriptions of how most cows, pigs and chickens live and die. I have been crying and found that I had to stop periodically to calm my visceral responses to the horrors described. If I weren't already a vegan, I would most certainly become one now. Though I already knew the facts of slaughterhouses and dairy and egg industries, reading this text provided me with a renewed connection to this almost invisible reality. There is simply no moral, physical, economic or environmental justification for using animals for food or other products.

In thinking about my thesis, it has become clear to me that morality is inextricably connected with empathy.  

Mark Bernstein makes this point beautifully.
Consider a totally reasonable, intelligent individual who is completely devoid of emotions; a futuristic robot would fit the bill. It sees persons starving to death in sub-Saharan Africa but cannot react to them emotionally. The robot has no sympathy or empathy for these people. It cannot feel sorry for what they are going through or put itself in their shoes. The robot does not care about these people at all. Were human beings like this, we would think of them as leading lives far less rich than our own. Regardless of how intelligent they are or how well they can reason, this lack of sentiment excludes them from the realm of moral agents. Our emotional lives are what trigger our thinking about ethical issues. If we could not care about others, morality simply could not be an issue for us. -- Bernstein, Mark H. (2004-05-27). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals (pp. 92-93). Ingram Distribution. Kindle Edition.


We live in a society that promotes narcissism and selfishness, viewing empathy as weakness that gets in the way of individual goals. This type of thinking is rooted in societies driven by profit and power. One of the tactics used by the powerful to promote their own agendas is to objectify various groups of people and to use propaganda techniques to lower their moral status. Nazi Germany is, of course, the most famous overt example of this, but it was also true for justifying slavery, and misogyny. In order to exploit and dominate someone else, one must first be able to separate herself from them, to lack empathy for them as it were. Eliminating empathy is also a standard training method of military personnel. Without this training, soldiers wouldn't be able to kill their "enemy".

The enormous propaganda campaigns surrounding the torture and murder of non-human animals includes keeping it invisible from us, having us believe that it is "humane" and that those on death row are living "happy", 'free-range" lives. It uses slogans like "Got Milk", "Beef. It's what's for dinner", "the Incredible Edible Egg" and aims at convincing us to consume products that are wholly bad for us and which we don't need at all. Invisibility, misinformation, and lies of necessity are also used in war propaganda. All of this is done in the name of profit. There is absolutely no concern for animal welfare, let alone the welfare of the consumer. It's important to remember that corporations have every reason to lie about their treatment of animals. Vegans have no reason to lie about it. Consuming animal products harms everyone, being vegan harms no one.

Anyone with an ounce of empathy would have extreme difficulty consuming a steak after witnessing a living, conscious, terrified cow struggling for survival hanging from a meat hook (a common occurrence), or eating a hot dog after seeing a pig collapse from heat exhaustion in a cramped transport truck and being trampled to death (also common), or a chicken being boiled alive to loosen her feathers (extremely common) If you don't feel anything by these minimal descriptions of the horror faced by billions of sentient creatures (including members of our own species), perhaps it's time for you to evaluate your own moral sensibilities and ask whether the pleasure of the taste of these creatures is worth what they endure on a daily basis. 


Saturday, September 7, 2013

The Subtler Side of Speciesist Hypocrisy

I defy anyone who eats meat and claims to love their pets to come up with a morally sound reason how this is ANY different than the slaughter of cows, sheep, chickens or pigs. 


The conditions, torture and methods of slaughter are exactly the same in these dog slaughterhouses in China as any slaughterhouse in any country. This has nothing to do with being Chinese or any other ethnicity. It has everything to do with the almost ubiquitous acceptance of the moral superiority of human animals. 



Oprah Video Documentary of a Colorado Slaughterhouse

Very important film from Oprah Winfrey detailing the death row of cattle in Colorado. The film makers were not allowed to show the execution. They bleed to death. The claim is that they don't feel the death process.

What's most interesting is to watch the interviewer's (a meat eater) reactions to the "process". That is moral intuition at work. It is also interesting to listen to how cows are thought of. The "sole purpose of these cows is to die."  Does anyone else see the absurdity in this?



Friday, September 6, 2013

Animal Cruelty Is Entirely Based On Profit: Any Doubt? Check This Out

If you had any doubt that cruelty to animals is entirely based on profit check this article out. I learned about this while getting a hair cut yesterday and talking about Paul Mitchell products being cruelty free. My hair dresser told me that Paul Mitchell has decided to abstain from selling to China to maintain its cruelty free products. GO PAUL MITCHELL!! :D

L'Occitane and Yves Rocher: The big-name beauty brands among those ditching cruelty-free animal testing policies to sell their products to China 

  • By law, all human cosmetics sold in China must first be tested on animals
  • Lucrative Chinese beauty sales rose by 18 per cent to £10bn last year
  • Cruelty Free International chief executive 'disappointed' to see brands 'letting animals pay the price' for their profit-chasing
By Suzannah Hills
|
Several big name beauty companies have been forced to remove a logo that declares them free of animal cruelty after they decided to sell their products in China.
L'Occitane, Yves Rocher and Caudalie are among the high end brands that can no longer use the internationally-recognised official Leaping Bunny logo to show their cosmetics are free from animal testing.
It comes after the firms decided to start selling to China where animal testing on beauty products for human use is still required by law.
Going global: Big-name beauty brands have changed their animal testing policies so they can start selling their products in China (posed by model)
Going global: Big-name beauty brands have changed their animal testing policies so they can start selling their products in China (posed by model)
Cosmetic sales in China increased by 18 per cent to £10billion last year - making it an attractive financial prospect.
But many companies selling their products in the country have been asked to fund animal testing of their products in Chinese laboratories in order for them to be sold to the public.
Cruelty Free International chief executive Michelle Thew said: 'The Humane Standards, symbolised by the Leaping Bunny logo, is the most rigorous international cruelty-free certification in the world.
'Each company is regularly audited to ensure that no animal testing takes place throughout each company’s entire supply chain.
'Where companies no longer comply with the Humane Standards, the right to use the Leaping Bunny logo is retracted.
'Following discussion with L’Occitane, its certification was retracted in mid-December.
'Some companies wish to bring ethical beauty to China, however this is not currently possible until China changes its current policy which requires animal testing.
'I am disappointed that certain companies have fallen prey to the lure of the Chinese market and are letting animals pay the price. Consumer pressure can make a difference.
Leaping Bunny
The Leaping Bunny logo is used by brands that don't test on animals, useful for ethically-conscious beauty fans
Emerging market: China requires that all cosmetics for human use are first tested on animals (pictured above is a make-up artist at work in Shanghai)
Emerging market: China requires that all cosmetics for human use are first tested on animals (pictured above is a make-up artist at work in Shanghai)
'We certify over 400 companies around the world that refuse to allow animal testing into their products, so there is plenty of choice for everyone who wishes to eliminate this cruel, unnecessary and outdated practice.
'The only way that you can avoid animal testing in your toiletries and beauty products is by looking for the Leaping Bunny logo, or checking www.GoCrueltyFree.org.'
Britain banned animal testing in 1998 and several large cosmetics companies including Paul Mitchell, Sainbury's, The Co-operative, Superdrug, Marks & Spencer all have Leaping Bunny certification meaning they are cruelty-free.
Hair-care giant John Paul Mitchell Systems pulled out of China after being informed that the company would have to pay for animal tests in order to continue selling its products there.
Paul Mitchell CEO and co-founder John Paul DeJoria put sales in China on hold last year and confirmed they will not sell products in that country in order to remain committed to the company's cruelty-free policy.
Mr DeJoria said: 'Since Paul Mitchell was founded in 1980, we have been cruelty-free.
'We do not conduct or condone animal testing on our products, and we will not attempt to market our products in China until alternatives to animal testing methods have been accepted by the government.
'Paul Mitchell always has been and always will be cruelty-free.'
Leading the way: Marks & Spencer is one of several big UK firms that has cruelty-free Leaping Bunny approval for its own products
Leading the way: Marks & Spencer is one of several big UK firms that has cruelty-free Leaping Bunny approval for its own products
Dr Dan Lyons, Campaigns Director of internal animal protection organisation Uncaged, said it is down to individual companies to make a stand.
He continued: 'It's a fundamental decision companies need to make.
'It's much better if they stick to their principles and avoid China, which will put pressure on the government to change their own policies.
'It's unnecessary for China to require repeat and totally unnecessary testing on these products.'
Urban Decay has also recently decided to cancel its plans to enter the Chinese market after being informed of the animal testing requirements.
Spokesman for the charity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation, Alistair Currie, said: 'We are seeing welcome signs of progress in China but their current animal testing requirements are a major factor pushing up cosmetics tests on animals globally. 
'Companies who have turned their backs on their non-animal testing policies because of the lure of China have regressed a generation: their products are once again being dripped into rabbits' eyes and smeared onto animals' abraded skin.
'While many progressive and principled companies are sticking to their non-animal testing policies, others need more motivation.'
But the revelation that some large name brands are giving up their cruelty-free status to sell to China will come as a surprise to many shoppers.
Even more surprisingly, there are many huge international brands including Chanel, Yves Saint Laurent and Revlon, which have never been able to use the Leaping Bunny logo because of their animal testing policies.
And while an EU-wide ban on the marketing of animal-tested cosmetics is due to come into force next year, campaigners warn that the European Commission is now contemplating compromises or even delays to the legislation.
Mr Currie continued: 'It's vital that the EU protect its own ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics due in 2013.
'We've led the world on this issue – we mustn't take any steps backward right here in our own back yard.'
A spokesman for L'Occitane said: 'L'Occitane does not and never has tested its products on animals.
'Similarly, we insist that our suppliers certify that none of the ingredients we use are tested on animals.
'We do sell our products in China however and the Chinese government reserves the right to conduct tests, but we are hopeful that this situation will change soon.
'We are actively working with the BUAV, with whom we have a long term and constructive relationship, to influence the Chinese authorities to allow the alternative tests that apply elsewhere in the world.'
Jean-Christophe Samyn, Director of Caudalie UK, said: 'We are against animal testing. We do not test our ingredients and formulas on animals and never will.'

ARE YOUR FAVOURITE COSMETICS CRUELTY-FREE?

LEAPING BUNNY APPROVED
Paul Mitchell           
Urban Decay
Sainbury's               
Marks & Spencer
Liz Earle                 
Faith In Nature
The Co-operative   
Burt's Bees                    
Dermalogica          
Bull Dog   

NON-APPROVED COMPANIES
L'Occitane                      Yves Rocher
Caudalie                         Mary Kay
Avon                               Estee Lauder
Revlon                            Garnier
L'Oreal                           Chanel
Johnson & Johnson       FCUK
Clinique                          Christian Dior
Givenchy                        Yves Saint Laurent
Lancome                        Virgin Vie
Yardley                           Proctor & Gamble

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181468/Big-beauty-brands-dropping-cruelty-free-animal-testing-policies-sell-products-China.html#ixzz2e6zB5q2b
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Other Reactions to Veganism Born of Moral Hypocrisy

Recently another friend of mine (a self-proclaimed animal lover) posted an image on Facebook in response to my veganism.


While this may seem innocuous and comical it exposes the unease that most people who eat meat feel when confronted by the moral hypocrisy of claiming to love animals while continuing to participate in their slaughter. It also inadvertently supports speciesism by likening animals with inanimate objects.

If our moral intuition about animals were unfounded, we would indeed take the same level of issue with watching someone pick a flower and another torturing a cat. But we don't and that is because animals are sentient and plants are not. Here's another image for consideration on this issue.


Tomato plants, nonhuman animals, and humans all live and eventually die; only those in the latter two groups have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. -- Bernstein, Mark H.





Saturday, August 31, 2013

Twilight Zone: To Serve Man - "IT'S A COOKBOOK!"

Aliens arrive on Earth offering technology to end war, and to live in plenty and ease with the technologies offered by the aliens. It all seems great, until the book they brought with them is translated.

 

I think that one of the many important messages of this episode is the idea that death row is death row, no matter how "humanely" (or Kanamitly) the condemned are treated.

Doctor Who - Aliens Eat Humans


In this skit from the episode "Animals and Science Fiction", the Doctor tries to convince an invading alien not to attack and consume humanity. Somehow, the conversation turns to veganism.
For more information, see Animals and Science Fiction at theVeganOption.org.

The sketch was written by Ian McDonald with Sally Beaumont; and performed by Sally Beaumont. It also used freeware sounds “Connecting to Earth” by Philip Bock, “Giga Core” by Cosmic Dreamer, and “Crowd Talking” by SoundJay.




Excellent Podcast on Science Fiction and Animals

Click here for podcast.

Fiction Novels With Animal Rights & Veg Themes

Fiction is a time-honored way that human beings explore social issues. Through analogy and imagination, we enjoy speculating about the possibilities of life, human behavior and love. Similarly, ethics have been a great topic for novelists, for it helps people think about tough issues in a way that is realistic, easily understood, and not personally threatening. Many authors have thus approached the issue of the ethics of eating animals (either directly or indirectly) through the medium of the novel. In the first installment of this two-part series, we turn the spotlight on five classic novels that are great examples of animal rights and vegetarian/vegan themes covered masterfully in fiction.

1. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair (1906)
This Pulitzer Prize winning novelist shocked the world with this exposé of the meat industry through the eyes of character, Jurgis Rudkus. The Jungle explores the exploitation of the working class and animal cruelty in industrial Chicago. Rudkus, a Lithuanian immigrant, sees his life fall apart in a new country, progressively losing his family, his health and his home, forced to perform a series of degrading jobs and seeing others, including children, degraded by a system that destroys his sense of personal integrity. He becomes a labor organizer, a socialist and a vegetarian. Sinclair’s novel led to public outcry and the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Sinclair himself credited the success of his book on the grounds that people did not want to eat “tubercular beef” and that, “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” You can read The Jungle online for free at Project Gutenberg.
2. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Phillip K. Dick (1968)
A science fiction novel that became the film Blade Runner, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is set in a futuristic world where everyone is vegetarian. Most species have become extinct as a result of nuclear radiation and those that survive are the subject of human empathy as pets, while robotic models have come to replace the real thing for most people. The issue of what it means to be human is explored through the analogy of the ‘replicants‘ that the main character Deckhard is supposed to exterminate.
3.Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818)
The famous monster of Shelly’s imagination was actually a gentle soul seeking love, who is rejected by all except a blind man who cannot see how monstrous he appears. Like his creator Shelley, the monster is loathe to harm animals and eats only acorns while on the run from the Scientist Dr Frankenstein, who created him. His goal is to find a human young enough to not judge him on his appearance. Due to his unmanageable emotions and physical strength, the monster sadly kills most people he comes into contact with.
4. ConSentiency by Frank Herbert (1958-1977)
A speculative fiction series by the author of Dune, the ConSentiency series depicts humans and extra-terrestrials on equal terms. The main character, Jorj, is a professional saboteur who’s job it is to slow down the actions of the government through the Bureau of Sabotage. The ConSentiency series depicts a world where most people no longer kill animals for flesh and meat is produced in flesh vats.
5. The Time Machine by H.G. Wells (1895)
Like many science fiction novels, the Eloi of the utopian future in this classic novel are vegan. Despite this, they are also depicted as lacking in free will and basically factory farmed meat for the underworld dwelling Morlocks. The author describes the predatory nature of the Morlocks as the natural outcome of class struggle.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we cover five fiction novels from contemporary authors that creatively touch upon animal rights/vegan themes using science fiction, horror and humor!

In Part 1 of this series, we featured five outstanding classic works of fiction that touch upon animal rights themes ranging from the meat industry, vegetarian monsters to future societies inhabited by vegans or vegetarians. In this installment, we highlight the works of five contemporary authors, many of whom have received widespread mainstream literary acclaim for these outstanding works of fiction.

1. Lullaby by Chuck Palahniuk (2003)
From the author of the Fight Club, Lullaby is a grim, disturbing and sometimes humorous look at modern society and morality. The plot revolves around a reporter who discovers a poem that is actually a “culling song,” and can kill whoever hears it. As always, Palahniuk manages to create some very quirky main characters, including a vegan, eco-terrorist named Oyster. Although Oyster is a bit of a stereotype and not a very likable character, some of his rants about the way humans treat our planet and exploit animals are fairly thought provoking.
2. K-pax by Gene Brewer (1995)
The main character in this science fiction series is ‘Prot’, a fruitarian alien from a planet called K-pax, who finds himself in New York and is quickly locked in a psychiatric institution. K-pax is described by Prot as a world built on anarchist principles, without corporate laws or religions and where beings are peaceful and nonviolent vegans. The novels explore the nature of ‘truth’ and was made into a movie (in 2001), starring Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges.
3. Under the Skin by Michel Faber (2008)
Science fiction horror that explores the subject of speciesism in a clever and disturbing manner. The book follows a mysterious woman (Isserley),  an alien who’s job it is to pick up hitch-hiking ‘beefy’ men who later become fattened up for meat delicacies in her home world. It is the son of the owner of this hunting operation, Amlis Vess (a vegetarian), who affects Isserley’s views on human flesh.
4. PopCo by Scarlett Thomas (2004)
PopCo is vegan author Scarlett Thomas’ 6th novel and covers topics ranging from capitalism, advertising, math, codes, animal welfare, veganism and homeopathy. The novel also includes a vegan cake recipe of a cake that is eaten by the characters in the book. PopCo’s protagonist is Alice, a code breaker and crossword-puzzle compiler who works for a multinational toy company. She is sent to a Thought Camp where she and other PopCo employees must invent the ultimate product for teenage girls. Alice starts receiving mysterious, encrypted messages, which she suspects relate to her grandfather’s decoding of a an old manuscript or could mean that she is at the the center of an evil plot hatched by her employer.
5. The Vegan Revolution…With Zombies by David Agranoff (2010)
Yes, vegans can have a sense of humor! This novel takes a simple premise and delivers some hilarious results. Thanks to a new drug, animals no longer feel pain as they are led to slaughter. Unfortunately, once the drug enters the food supply, anyone who eats it is turned into a zombie (except the vegans of course!). Vegans, freegans, abolitionists, hardliners and raw foodists are holed up in Food Fight, Portland Oregan’s famous vegan grocery as they prepare to do battle with the undead. Fans of zombie or bizarro fiction will love this book and so will vegans, because David (a vegan himself) does a great job of throwing in several inside jokes about animal rights and vegan culture that will surely keep you entertained.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Euthanasia and Human Superiority

Whenever I'm in the process of writing a philosophy paper my mind is almost continually sorting and sifting through ideas. At times these ideas are easy to articulate. Other times, not so much.

One of the thoughts I've had lately is of the second variety. I'm going to try to sift through it here.

Human superiority is the underlying prejudice used to "justify" our exploiting and killing animals. Most of the time this prejudice is easily spotted. For example, my recent paper on John Rawls and Animals, Animals Behind the Veil exposes this prejudice in the form of "rationality." Rawls, and others like him, dismiss animals from the moral community based on the fact that most human animals are rational and at least most nonhuman animals are not. Ergo, humans are superior to animals by virtue of their ability to do calculus. Of course this is as morally arbitrary as asserting that white humans are superior to black humans by virtue of skin pigmentation or men are superior to women by virtue of their genitalia, but you get the idea. Other justifications used to exploit and kill animals include the idea that they don't have a soul (spiritual superiority) or that they don't feel pain (at least not in the same way that humans do.) The list goes on...

In all of this, human life is deemed more valuable than animal life, hands down, case closed. This is obviously expressed in action by our eating animals, enslaving them, torturing them etc. But one of the less obvious ways this prejudice is expressed is in the dominant view about euthanasia.

I remember a period when Dr. Jack Kevorkian was in the news daily. His view, and subsequent illegal activity, on human euthanasia was considered extreme and morally abhorrent. But why? When I stop to think about his view in relationship to the dominant view on animal euthanasia, I am left concluding that the prejudice of human superiority has once again reared its ugly head. But this seems counter intuitive at first glance.

How can I assert that allowing "merciful" euthanasia for animals is somehow speciesist and wrong. Well, I'm not settled on whether it's wrong or not (though my first instinct is that it is, but with qualification*) but I am sure that the fact that we are abhorred by human euthanasia and not animal euthanasia reveals just how much more human life is valued over animal life.

Tyrone Kamienski - My puppity-doo moments after his birth.
Most of us who have shared our lives with companion animals have made the decision to euthanize one or more of them. This is heart wrenching at best. What makes it even more difficult, at least for me, is the fact that I couldn't ask them if this is what they wanted? Dr. Kevorkian's patients were all of sound mind when making the decision to end their own lives. I believe they had every right to do this. But animals are incapable of letting us know if they would prefer to die. We are left with making an analogical inference based on our own experience with pain. This fact is, in itself, ironic since so many people assert that animal pain either doesn't exist at all, or is at least less relevant than human pain. But in any case, it is unclear whether a sick or infirm animal wants to die or not.*

The fact that we have a "right" to kill animals for any reason, but we don't have the right to kill humans (including a right to kill ourselves!) makes it clear how much more we value human life over animal life. This is true even if a human wants to die and an animal clearly does not, as in the case of slaughter houses. 

Tyrone was euthanized in 2012 - RIP Puppity-doo
I'm not sure I'm done with this idea yet, but this is a good start. In the end it's just more of our moral schizophrenia with regard to animals. 




Is Vegnism "Extreme"?: Excerpt from Eat LIke you Care by Gary Francione and Anna Charlton

I've experienced all sorts of reactions to both my vegetarianism and, more recently, my veganism. Most of them thoughtful and reposed. Some of them supportive. Others defensive or dismissive. A few filled with vitriol and anger. Expressing viewpoints in opposition to the dominant view is always considered "extreme." Have I been on a soap box about animals lately? Yes, I most certainly have. I am willing to stand by my conviction. But let's think about what "extreme" really looks like:

  • What is extreme is eating decomposing flesh, milk produced for the young of another species, and the unfertilized eggs of birds. 


  • What is extreme is that we regard some animals as members of our family while, at the same time, we stick forks into the corpses of other animals. 


  • What is extreme is thinking that it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering and death on other sentient creatures simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products. 


  • What is extreme is that we say that we recognize that “unnecessary” suffering and death cannot be morally justified and then we proceed to engage in exploitation on a daily basis that is completely unnecessary. 


  • What is extreme is that we excoriate people like Michael Vick while we continue to eat animal products. What is extreme is pretending to embrace peace while we make violence, suffering, torture and death a daily part of our lives. 


  • What is extreme is that we say we care about animals and we believe that they are members of the moral community , but we sponsor, support , encourage and promote “happy” meat/ dairy labeling schemes. 


  • What is extreme is not eating flesh but continuing to consume dairy when there is absolutely no rational distinction between meat and dairy (or other animal products). There is as much suffering and death in dairy, eggs, etc., as there is in meat. 


  • What is extreme is that we are consuming a diet that is causing disease and resulting in ecological disaster. 


  • What is extreme is that we encourage our children to love animals at the same time that we teach them those whom they love can also be those whom they harm. 


  • We teach our children that loving others is consistent with hurting them. That is truly extreme— and very sad. 


  • What is extreme is the fantasy that we will ever find our moral compass with respect to animals as long as they are on our tables. 


  • What is extreme is that we say we care about animals but we continue to eat animals and animal products.
  •  
    Which is the more rational view after all?


Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Locations 1555-1565). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Shaba and Connie: Animals and Emotion

I lived in Tucson AZ for over four years. My house there is within walking distance of Reid Park Zoo where two elephants - Shaba and Connie - were held captive for many years. It is a well established fact that elephants are emotionally sensitive animals and can die of broken hearts when separated from their mate. Even though there was widespread public outrage, the city of Tucson and Reid Park Zoo planned to separate these two friends. 

Shaba and Connie
Psychology Today followed the story of Shaba and Connie. Public outcry succeeded in keeping the pair together during the transition, but Connie became ill and was soon after euthanized at the San Diego Zoo.

******

Zoos are one of the many ways in which animals are exploited and enslaved in the name of human enjoyment. The nature of zoos and the connection between racism and speciesism was exposed in this article about a man who was displayed in the monkey house of the Bronx zoo in 1906:

"Is that a man?"

In his first few weeks, Benga wandered around the grounds of the zoo freely. But soon, Hornaday had his zookeepers urge Benga to play with the orangutan in its enclosure. Crowds gathered to watch. Next the zookeepers convinced Benga to use his bow and arrow to shoot targets, along with the occasional squirrel or rat. They also scattered some stray bones around the enclosure to foster the idea of Benga being a savage. Finally, they cajoled Benga into rushing the bars of the orangutan’s cage, and baring his sharp teeth at the patrons. Kids were terrified. Some adults were too, though more of them were just plain curious about Benga. “Is that a man?” one visitor asked."

 All exploitation is underwritten by prejudice. Deeply held prejudice takes a great deal of time and struggle to overcome. Speciesism is one of the most deeply held of all prejudices. The struggle continues!