<<
Industrial animal farming in the United States needs to make many major reforms in order to protect
>>

sentient creatures from horrible, unspeakable abuse;

and in order to protect us human beings, who have a grave moral responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the helpless, from further moral degradation, beyond what we have already been doing to ourselves in our very long history of animal exploitation.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

If we're talking about changing agribusiness in the near term, we have to deal with people's perceptions as they are.

It would be nice if everyone's morals and ethics expanded to include nonhuman creatures, but it is next to impossible to force that kind of change on a person and we have to work with what we got.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

However, if we make it known that factory farms consume huge quantities of petroleum products, increase the production of methane (a greenhouse has 24 times more powerful than CO2 -- agriculture contributes more to global warming than does transportation), promote drug-resistent bacteria, and waste and pollute the water more than family farms, then we can win.

Low-input and family farming may not be perfect, but the alternative ("green revolution") is killing us.

I suggest the best way for the reform is to take out the animals part. - I bet that will solve everything!

So basically, stop with the animals killing, and you may have a better result int he energy and food crisis.

But no this idea will never work with the animal eating crowd! -

In the modern world, we're faced w/ the endlessly daunting task of finding secular ethical/moral principles with the overlapping consensus of a plurality never known before. It's a beautiful and scary thing.

Bearing plurality in mind, we must assume that a multi-level, organic approach to education, outreach, conservation, and preservation will be required. Dont be so quick to count out the folks arguing for the inviolability of animals....they arent so small in number anymore. Neither are the backwoods-revival, snake charmers for that matter....

I am happy to read of yet another study that is critical of the massively destructive industrial animal agricultural system. I also greatly appreciate the efforts of all of those at the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to draw attention to the serious human, animal, and environmental health issues that result from this monstrous business. And thanks to Grist for spotlighting this report, and for continuing to raise awareness about the problems inherent in industrial animal agriculture.

I am deeply concerned, however, with the speciesism in both the report itself and with the Grist's response to it (http://www.grist.org/news/2008/04/30/ndstrlAg).

What am I talking about? Well, for example, the Grist headline cries out "You Animals! Independent report calls for major reforms to industrial animal farming".  I'm sure whoever thought of this title thinks this is clever. And in a way, it is. But it is also speciesist, and therefore inappropriate, since the "You Animals!" part is apparently meant as an insult directed at those who are responsible for the many troubles caused by industrial animal agriculture. When we call someone an "animal" to insult them, it is an insult to animals. The person who uses this term seems to be saying something like, "Your actions are despicable. To do what you do, you must be less than human. You are like an animal."

The fact that animals cannot understand or speak out against this insulting action does not make it tolerable, anymore than it is tolerable to call someone who has made a blunder a "retard." Whether or not someone with special learning needs understands or ever speaks out against this sort of speech, the use of this term as an insult is wrong. We can agree on that, I'm sure. Now, will you please join me in choosing not to use the word "animal" in ways that are meant to insult humans, and that therefore insult animals? Grist, we can do better.

I also firmly object with the apparent premise of this report that animal agriculture -- in any form -- is an activity which should be allowed to continue.

According to Putting Meat on the Table (page 33): Industrial Farm Animal Production in America: "The fundamental welfare concern is the ability of the animal to express natural behaviors--for example, having natural materials to walk or lie on, having enough floor space to move around with some freedom, and rooting (for hogs). Crates, battery cages, and other such systems fail to allow for even these minimal natural behaviors."

There is, of course, a more "fundamental welfare concern" in regards to animal agriculture, whether it is industrial-scale or not. That concern is whether it is right for humans to be raising animals for food at all.

I think it is clear that there is no argument sufficiently convincing in favor of the continuation of animal agriculture in the United States for us to allow this practice to remain legal. I am so convinced of this that I have joined with many people around the world in devoting a significant portion of my life to working to end animal agriculture through international law. Until this formal prohibition against raising animals for food comes into being, I believe we each have a moral obligation to choose a vegan diet.

Please allow me to explain.  

Many people have an idea of what it means to be vegan, but fewer, it seems, understand the underlying reasons that would lead someone to choose a diet that does not include animal products. I would like to briefly make clear some of the reasons that might lead a person like me - or you - to make this choice.

There is much that could be said, but I will be brief. Here's the first part of the equation: According to the American Dietetic Association - the largest professional organization of nutrition experts in the country - well-planned vegan diets are appropriate for every stage of the human life cycle, including during infancy and pregnancy, as we grow into adulthood, and as we advance in age. That being the case, how it is possible to justify imprisoning, stealing from, or murdering animals for the purposes of feeding oneself?

The second part of the equation is this: Animals are not rocks, machines, plants or any other type of unconscious matter. Indeed, it is absolutely certain that the animals whose flesh, milk, and eggs are routinely eaten by humans are taken from individuals who are able to feel pleasure and pain. Animals do not give these things to humans as gifts. As you know, many animals experience life cycles extremely similar to ours, including an embryonic stage, infancy, childhood, and adulthood. Many have siblings, friends, and eventually their own children. Each gorilla, elephant, pig, mouse, chicken, fish, horse, and dog who comes into this world leads a life that can go better or worse for them. The Golden Rule says that we should do to others as we would like done to us, and there is no good reason to ignore the interests of animals. Therefore, shouldn't we choose to do what are able to limit the amount of harm our lives cause to animals? And therefore, shouldn't we expect everyone who has the ability to choose a plant-based diet to do so?

The fact that some animals eat other animals does not mean that humans should eat animals, just like the fact that some animals forcibly have sexual intercourse with other animals does not mean that it is acceptable for one human to rape another. Human morality is, of course, not determined by what other animals do.

In spite of how a great many of us act at this particular time in history, animals are not made for us to be our food or slaves. Treating them as such constitutes a serious injustice on par with the great injustices that humans do to one another. Currently our legal system classifies animals are property. It is, however, just as wrong for an animal to be the property of a human as it is for one human to be the property of another. In certain cases, one human may be the guardian of another, but this is enormously different than being that person's owner. It is time that we change our laws so that animals are no longer classified as property that humans may own.

On top of the good we can do to animals by choosing to not kill them or unnecessarily restrict their movement, choosing a vegan diet also represents a powerful contribution to the human family. No, I'm not talking about the numerous health and environmental benefits of a well-balanced vegan diet, although these are substantial, as you may know. Instead, I am referring to the benefits to humankind that accompany increased compassion towards other beings - human or animal.

I assume that you seek a more peaceful world - for yourself, your family, your friends, and others. In search of peace, we must be peaceful. How can we desire peace for ourselves, while promoting violence to animals? That is hypocritical. If we participate in the harmful exploitation of animals - for example, by eating them or unnecessarily restricting their movement - we should expect this lack of mercy to come back to us and our loved ones in some way. This is clear, is it not?

The following is less clear, however: Why do so many loving and peaceful people actively support violence by making animal flesh, milk, and eggs a part of their diet, when it is so easy and so right to do otherwise? Is it due to culture? Ignorance? Emotional disconnect? A lack of concern for the lives of others? What is it?

In any case, it is certain that a vegan diet is better for animals and for humans. For any reason that one may give for not choosing a vegan diet, there is a compelling response to the contrary. If you have doubts, please do some investigating of your own. A few great resources to start with are TryVeg.com, WhyVegan.com, and PetaTV.com .

Should you choose to further explore this issue of how we should relate to animals, you will be able to find many objections to the claim that we should all be vegan. This reminds me of how in previous years, many respected people argued that it was morally acceptable to enslave African-Americans, prevent women from voting, and beat children. Of course, these are three examples of practices that once were legal but have now been made illegal. In other words, these groups of individuals were eventually granted legal protection from harms which were once legal and widespread. Catch my drift?

Due to a variety of causes, public opinion is changing rapidly in regards to how we interact with animals. Perhaps it would serve us well to consider how our grandchildren's generation will think of those of us who were slow to stop supporting the imprisonment, torture, and murder of animals. In contrast, how will they think of those of us who spoke up for the abolition of animal exploitation, and who showed our concern for the world by choosing a vegan diet?

I would like to ask you now, if you are not already vegan, to please consider helping to create a more loving, just, and peaceful world by choosing to eat a plant-based diet, and to urge others to do the same. For all of us, animals and humans alike, I thank you. And please, do not be surprised if you find a vegan diet to be both easy and fun. I'm being serious! Based on the experiences of countless others, I don't think you need to worry that choosing animal-free meals means making a huge sacrifice anymore than not harming or stealing from other humans feels like a sacrifice to you. Instead, I believe you will find that acting mercifully toward all beings tends to feel pretty awesome. Truly, choosing non-violence is both liberating and empowering. But please, don't take my word for it. Try a few tasty vegan meals...and see for yourself!

Towards a better world for all beings,
Loren Hart
Chapel Hill, NC
lorenhart25@ hotmail.com

A few last words...

"I see a coming together of the many movements promoting non-violence and defending the vulnerable. For too long, people have viewed the Earth and everything on it as something to be exploited without limits. Now, many of us are beginning to recognize that our planet is not just a quarry to be pillaged and then refilled with garbage. This provides us with an incentive to promote a practical universal ethic- among these, that it's wrong to harm others who, like us, want to avoid pain and get some pleasure out of life....It seems to me that common sense suggests that our society will be upgraded by shifting from greed and macho violence to doing the least harm and the most good to other humans, to other animals and to our fragile environment." - Henry Spira, quoted in the book The Way of Compassion, a compilation of articles from Satya magazine.

According to the United Nations, raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all of the cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships in the world combined, and is one of the primary causes of the world's most urgent environmental challenges, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. - The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in their report Livestock's Long Shadow, 2006

"My best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet." - Carl Lewis, winner of nine Olympic Gold Medals in track and field

* Many thanks to "caniscandida" and "javaearth" for their earlier comments on this page, and for inspiring me to post myself.

The title "You animals!" should not be held against the Grist writers who composed it.  I am sure no one intended any insult.  As you know, the Grist writers are renowned round the world for their titles, punning or comically allusive or otherwise, some of which are genuinely very clever and funny, and others of which get a kind of groany laugh precisely because they are a bit off.  In this case, I derived much pleasure from imagining the appropriate context in a romantic comedy in which, say, Sandra Bullock or Renee Zellwegger or Tina Fey yells, "You animals!," at some swinish male acquaintances.

Thanks too, as always, to JavaEarth, and to Greenfire8, for de-marginalizing us animal-lovers.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Please visit (and share) Eco-Eating at www.brook.com/veg for loads of great info and links.


Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters at www.brook.com/veg

What makes eating wild meat environmentally harmful is industrial hunting and fishing.  Fish caught by people on shore with nets or people in non-motorized boats causes no environmental harm per se.  Same for land animals hunted without motor vehicles or guns.  Of course, an overpopulated species, i.e., humans, will cause overconsumption of everything, but that includes plants and also means that the problem is overpopulation, not what humans eat.

It is an interesting argument, which I would be happy to consider, were it presented coherently and helpfully, not as part of a debater's reductio ad absurdum.  In fact, we do not kill many of the plants whose parts we eat; and we often eat the very parts which ought to be eaten by animals, according to the genetic interests of the plants.

Wolverine makes a curious additional argument, suggesting that plants "mind" being killed, and proof of that is the evolution of such defensive structures and behaviors as the emission of toxins to ward off destructive insects.  Well, all living organisms and species can be correctly interpreted as physical systems so well constructed, with so excellent a balance between rigidity and flexibility, as to be able to keep themselves in existence long enough to generate viable offspring.  Sensitivity (not synonymous with sentience) to certain environmental phenomena is often present.  But there is no reason whatsoever for mindedness and intentionality necessarily to be present in most organisms.  And I do not see how it is either "arrogant" or "anthropocentric" (the better word he wants, by the way, is "zoocentric") to fail to recognize mindedness in plants.

That said, all living creatures should be treated with due respect.  And I would be glad to learn more about the sensitivity of plants.

As for what Wolverine says about the environmental effects of killing wild animals, I suppose he is right.  But it just goes to show that environmental ethics are but one part of the larger ethical picture.

It is certainly not true that "eating wild meat" is "not cruel to animals."  Even if a hunter's bullet kills a deer suddenly, presumably painlessly, there is a minimal element of cruelty in the killing.  If there is a stressful pursuit, if there are barking dogs, if the first shot is botched and more shots are needed, the cruelty is compounded.

Trapping, another way of acquiring wild meat, is unspeakably cruel.

There is no humane way to kill fish, whether if they are caught by hook or by net.  Possibly if you explode dynamite in the water -- which needless to say is totally unacceptable -- , animals within a certain radius will be killed suddenly without knowing what hit them; but those further away will not be so "lucky"; and survivors will be worse off for having to deal with a wrecked ecosystem.

No, it has not occurred to anyone to euthanize a fish.  Maybe at least they find some consolation in being confronted by human beings' honest brutality, with no attempt to disguise it as kindness -- unlike the hypocrisy with which the poor exploited filly Eight Belles, second-place finisher in Saturday's Kentucky Derby, was at once put to sleep by the vet when both her front ankles broke beneath her, and she collapsed to the ground.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Specifically

1. Just because plants don't experience and relate to life the same way humans do does not mean that they do not "feel" in their own way.  How plants feel is largely unknowable, but what we do know is that they react to threats of being killed.  Remember the study from the '60s or '70s that showed that plants "scream" when a person who had just killed another plant reentered the room?  There are also more recent scientific studies, if that's what you need, that show that plants scream when attacked (http://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun96/WhenAPlantScreams.ht ...) and when stressed (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320720.800-stress ...).  (I reject science as being the ultimate truth because of its anthropocentrism and its reductionist paradigm.  A good set of ecological morals and ethics would provide superior guidance for proper behavior toward the natural environment and other beings, but I realize that many people in this society worship science, so I've provided this evidence also.)  So, this is far from a canard; it is instead reality, despite your dislike of it.

2. Plants ARE just as much living beings as animals.  So are water, land, and air, as is the Earth itself.  The view to the contrary is nothing but white man* ecological ignorance, lack of empathy, hubris, anthropocentrism, and arrogance.  Just because these other forms of life don't look like humans in any way and relate to life totally differently does not mean that they're any less valuable or have any less desire to not be killed or harmed.  The failure of most humans to realize this allows things like pollution.  That everything in the natural world is alive is the traditional indigenous view, and it has produced an exponentially better natural environment than the white man view.

3. The claim that "we do not kill many of the plants whose parts we eat" is simply not true.  Plants are killed when they are harvested.  Perhaps you're thinking of a hunter-gatherer method of eating plants, but agriculture, including organic, certainly kills plants when it harvests them.  What you mean refers to fruits and nuts, not green vegetables, grains, or beans.  Furthermore, the seeds of fruits eaten by modern humans are not redeposited in the Earth to grow into new fruit plants, but are instead dumped into a sewage system, so there is no benefit to the plants as there would be if a wild animal, human or otherwise, had eaten the fruit.

4. Not only are defensive behaviors and structures of plants strong evidence that they mind being killed, their screams, as discussed above, are also strong evidence of it.  Your narrow definition of "mind" is, again, highly anthropocentric, so you believe that because plants presumably do not mind being killed the same way people do, they don't mind at all.  Whether plants have intention or mindedness as humans define it can never be known and is, at any rate, irrelevant.  Reducing plants' reactions to being killed or harmed to "sensitivity" and giving it a lesser value is yet another indication of a highly anthropocentric attitude toward them.  This is anthropocentrism for the following reason: because plants don't look or relate to life like humans, which other animals do somewhat and mammals do more so, they can't possibly be as aware or mindful as humans are and are thus less entitled to consideration.  Zoocentric is also correct, but I meant anthropocentric.

5. Your definition of "cruelty" is incorrect.  The dictionary definition is, "[d]isposed to inflict pain or suffering."  Killing in order to eat is not at all cruel, it is the way organisms on this planet survive, and it's not done to inflict pain or suffering.  I agree that certain methods of killing wild animals, such as trapping, are cruel, but how cruel is it when, for example, a lion kills a zebra?  I once saw a picture of lions eating the stomach of a deer while the deer was still alive and screaming in pain.  Should someone have punished the lions or sat them down for a lesson in how not to be cruel?  My point is that real life is not as cute and cuddly as many of us would like it to be.  That's one of the main reasons for the moniker I use here, though this issue was not what I had in mind.

I also think animals are cute and I'd love to go pet the deer, elk, coyotes, mountain lions, skunks, raccoons, dolphins, seals, sea lions, rays, otters, and birds that live around here.  But just like the fanatic vegetarian ethos of doing no harm at all, this desire has no basis in reality and thus cannot be realized.  It would be great if all animals were breatharians, but again, this is not reality.

As a Native American friend once told me, you cannot find a traditional indigenous culture that is vegetarian, because traditional indigenous people don't discriminate against certain forms of life like plants.  While I agree that some unethical fanatic meat eaters have used this discrimination disingenuously and with sophistry to promote their gross overeating of meat and doing so at any cost to the natural environment and the animals eaten, the discrimination against plants still exists among a large portion of vegetarians, as shown by Canis's post.

* "White man" is defined by an attitude, not skin color or gender.  Condoleezza Rice is certainly a white man by this definition, despite outward appearances.  White men are the best symbol for what I mean, though unfortunately far from the only ones who think this way.

Here are some comments, not directly in response to any of your points, but which I hope will make clear that I very much appreciate your expressing them.

By the way, as a philosopher (after a fashion), all I do is ask questions.  I do not preach, or prophesy, or pontificate.  That is against my religion (ha ha).  I tell no one what to eat, or what not to eat.  But I do indeed suggest that it is always appropriate to ask where our food comes from, and what it means to us that we are eating it.

On your unpleasant imperative "Get over it," regarding the fact of carnivory: That is neither civil, nor necessary.  All of us promoters of animal rights understand very very well indeed that human beings and their ancestors and their kin have been killing and eating animals for many millennia.  What we wish you carnivores to have the civility to allow us for a moment to point out, is that carnivory is not the inscribed-in-the-mind-of-Jove Fate for us human beings.  Believe it or not, we have a choice.  And we may choose to be kind.

On your definition of "cruelty," and your self-servingly narrow application: When you know, or can readily know, that your actions are "disposed to inflict pain or suffering," then you are being cruel by carrying out a course of those actions.  We apparently agree on the definition of "cruelty."

Your desire to absolve yourself of cruelty (as well as all hunters, and meat-eaters in general) is a matter for the consciences of all of you.  But it strikes me that you are all playing dead, and in denial, regarding the suffering for which you are responsible.

On how predatory animals might serve as ethical models: That is yet another old canard.  We are not lions, nor eagles.  We have very different faculties; and we must govern our actions by very different considerations, therefore, than those by which our animal-friends rule theirs.

On the suggestion that trees, and perhaps other plants, are "screaming" when in pain and even threatened: The metaphor is totally misleading.  There surely are chemical reactions in trees to threats of one or another kind.  But they should not be called "screaming."  Whatever the signal mechanism is, the "screaming" tree cannot hope to be helped; only the other trees in the plantation can be helped, by being warned to erect a toxic defense.  That only underlines how very difficult it is to distinguish identities among trees and other plants.

On what might be a recommended diet: Well, Wolverine, frankly, I do not understand where you are going with all of this.  You eat meat, including fish, sometimes; and you eat vegetables.  But you also seem to be saying that all of that either involves cruelty, or it involves the kind of cruelty that Nature might seem to absolve.

So, where do you stand, actually?  What animals can you kill, and eat, no matter the cruelty?  And what plants can you kill, and eat, no matter the cruelty?

Please explain.  You are no doubt a pattern to many lurkers.  : )

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

On the other hand, it's totally natural for some primates, including humans and chimps, to eat meat occasionally.  I do not at all consider any aspect of killing and eating wild animals to be cruelty, unless those animals are killed in an unnecessarily cruel way, such as by leg hold traps.  So we do not at all agree on the definition of cruelty, because by your definition, all predators are cruel.  It is totally anthropocentric and arrogant to believe that only humans know that killing to eat does not inflict pain and suffering, because predators also experience pain when, for example, their skin is pierced.

Cruelty is inflicting pain or suffering for the primary purpose of doing so, or perhaps with the knowledge that one's actions will do so where those actions are not necessary.  But it's necessary to eat, and natural predators, including hunter-gatherer humans, kill wild animals for that purpose.

I'm sorry if you found my attitude -- a better description than "imperative," though I suppose the latter is not inaccurate -- that vegetarians "get over" carnivorous behavior to be unpleasant.  However, it's a reaction to fanatic vegetarians expecting the world to stop eating meat.  Even when I was a vegetarian these people tried to shove their non-reality-based philosophy down my throat, and thus my reaction.  The bottom line is that, within the context of the actual realities of life on Earth, I don't see anything wrong with eating meat.  What's wrong is gross human overpopulation, overeating meat, and the WAY humans get their meat, not eating it per se.

The plant-rights defense might indeed have promise, but you need to work on it a bit.

Within the Animal Kingdom, we with an interest in animal-rights ethics (and who are approaching the matter as responsible philosophers, not as jihadists) are figuring out where the line should be drawn dividing the sentient, whose interests are of ethical concern, from the minimally sentient, whose interests are perhaps of less concern.  All the Vertebrates are recognized, of course.  But within the catch-all group Invertebrates, we like the cephalopod Mollusks (octopus, squids, cuttlefish), and some Arthropods (e.g. lobsters, shrimps, crabs; bees and silkworms too sometimes).

FYI, I dispatched (quickly and, I hope, painlessly) a mosquito, a short while ago, a big one too, surprising for this time of year -- global warming at work? -- , who was lurking behind the bathroom door.  I very much fear mosquito-born diseases, not so much for myself as for everyone who lives round about, including my husband and Little Dog.

So, clearly, regarding animals and their sentience and our responsibility to figure out our responsibilities toward them, we need to work this out with some patience and care.  And we must definitely refrain from pontificating and inquisitionizing.

Regarding plants, the argument you used, based on how alien and unrecognizable they and their interests are, is precisely the same argument that I use (with more justice, I think, with your kind indulgence!) regarding the sentience of fish.  We tend not to think of fish as creatures-like-us, and so we abuse them all the time, thoughtlessly.  And yet, they are certainly creatures-like-us, and deserve our friendship, not our ill treatment.

On to our differences:

1. "Cruelty" has a broader definition, I think, than the one you give it.  The infliction of pain or suffering does not need to be the primary motivation, nor does it need even to be fully intended.

2. What is "natural" for non-human primates, such as chimpanzees, is not necessarily natural for human beings.  Part of our nature is our ethical faculty, such as it is; and we are in fact being positively "anti-natural," and "unnatural," when we justify our meat-eating on the grounds that we are descendants of meat-eating animals, and close cousins of meat-eating animals.