The Counter
0 chickens
0 turkeys
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 cattle
0 sheep
0
0
Number of animals killed in the world by the meat, dairy and egg industries since you opened this webpage, not including the billions of marine animals killed annually.
Daily: April 2008 Archives
A conversation last week between two very exhausted, frazzled women. One of whom is me.
"Well, but when you can't even eat bread it's hard to live on a low budget."
"I know but - wait what? Bread?"
"Vegans can't eat bread."
"Huh?"
"Vegans can't eat bread. It all has milk and eggs in it."
"I don't know what you mean by bread, but I promise you, that substance made from flour and yeast that they bake in the oven and then use to make sandwiches with? I can eat that. It doesn't all have animal products in it."
"No you can't. Vegans can't eat bread."
"Dude, I ate bread this morning. I am vegan."
"Whatever."
Is it any wonder people think it's a) ridiculously hard and b) extremely expensive to go vegan?
To set the record straight, vegans can indeed eat bread. In fact, I'm eating bread right now and getting peanut butter all over my keyboard. Alex is not amused.
Last week I was on the phone with a friend from back in Salt Lake, and she brought up my web site and how she had made her friends from school read it. She's a vegetarian and I've heard a couple stories about her friends giving her shit about it, so I was naturally curious about their reactions. Especially since I'd like to think of this blog as something non-vegans can read and think about without feeling attacked or vilified. Not an easy thing to do when one of your writers is in the habit of attacking people like it's his job, but one can hope.
From the awkward pause after the question was asked, however, I gathered reviews from the non-vegan set were less than favorable. I guess they feel that we're self-righteous and more than a little arrogant. It's a complaint I think I lot of vegans (and vegetarians) hear on a regular basis, at least when you're trying to broach the subject with non-vegans. I'm the first to admit it's a touchy subject, but if I think I'm better than you I promise it has nothing to do with veganism and everything to do with the fact that I'm smarter, cuter, and a much snappier dresser. Plus I look better in hats. That alone gives me a reason to feel smug.
As a vegetarian I spent a decade and change feeling the same way about vegans. Every one I knew had told me exactly why I was wrong to just be a vegetarian on several different occasions. Nothing is a bigger turn off than being told why you're pretty much the scum of the earth for trying to do the right thing. It took me years to get over the unpleasant association, years in which the majority of the people who had acted out their self-righteous fantasies on me went back to eating meat, eggs and dairy. Obviously pissing people off is very poor way to go about changing their minds - acting self-righteous doesn't do veganism any good, and it sure as hell doesn't help any animals.
In addition to the phone call, last week was marked by a letter to the editor about a friend of mine who wrote an op-ed about animal rights. For his trouble, he got called self-righteous, and it got me to thinking - why? Why is it that when you try to defend other sentient beings, to keep them from being nothing more than objects, resources, that you are called self-righteous. Should we ignore arguments that are fundamentally flawed, inaccurate facts, prejudice and ignorance? No. The day I discover an argument against animal rights that makes more sense than the ones for it, I will have no choice but to stop fighting, but I don't believe that day will ever come.
Let's get this straight right now. Being a vegan doesn't make you a good person. I think by some people's standards I could easily be conceived as a bad person. Being an omnivore doesn't make you a bad person. The majority of my friends and family are meat eaters. I love them, and I believe they are good, solid people or I'd dump them faster than a high school jock dumps a girlfriend who won't put out. That doesn't mean I refrain from talking to them about veganism and trying to make the case. I know I'm not better than them, not in this matter. It has taken me years to change the way I think, and I've been incredibly lucky to be able to do so. To have an enlightened conversation about anything you need two parties, and there's too much at risk to offend one. As I tell my mom, I'm not trying to tell you how to do anything - I'm pleading with you to please, just think about what I'm saying. What I have to say may be offensive, and because it runs contrary to what we have been taught is normal, it's hard to hear and even harder to stomach.
Veganism and vegetarianism aren't an exclusive club. It's not about us and them. It's about everyone learning and thinking. I truly believe that most people have no desire to hurt animals, and given the facts will accept veganism as a moral baseline. This isn't about me being better than you, more right than you. It's about the fact that we kill and torture millions of non-human animals, feeling, caring, sentient animals, every year for reasons that cannot be justified. I say we because I have a part in it too. How do you accept such a responsibility? It's hard, but not impossible.
Veganism isn't about purity. It's about thinking about the impact your actions have on other beings and choosing your actions accordingly. As the existentialist Sartre said, we as human are defined only by the actions we choose. Our daily actions choose the way we wish to define ourselves and our species.
Throughout history there have been groups of people who were systematically discriminated against, discrimination that was justified in the minds of the majority at the time. There have also been people who stood up against this discrimination, people who were probably called self-righteous, and yet they continued to fight because they knew their beliefs were right, and that it was up to them to pick their actions accordingly. For me as a vegan, that means that I am responsible for educating people, for bringing these issues up. I do it not to make you feel bad about yourself, not to attack you as a person, but because I respect you enough to think you should know. Don't let the mild attacks of sarcasm fool you: I'm rooting for ya.
Cross posted @ Vegan Soapbox.
Genesis 1 29:30:
Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and for every beast of the earth and every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.
I believe that a proper reading of this biblical verse would suggest that at our creation we were all vegans.
Why, then, was veganism trumped for a conception of domination in our relations with non-human animals? How did the exploitation of non-human animals for something as trivial as "taste" become morally justified?
The answer: Original Sin.
Romans 5:12:
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Genesis 9:3:
"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the plant."
Abraham Lincoln wrote, "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not made the better for it."
"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him," Albert Schweitzer asked, "when he shows no mercy to what is under him?"
Finally, C.S. Lewis said: "If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason."
Perhaps these individuals understood the moral failing of understanding the Bible to be a justification for our species' socially constructed "dominion" over all other animals.
We celebrate the Fall - man's fundamental moral error - when we conceive of non-human animals as ours for the exploiting. And it's the Christians that justify this flawed view of morality, and defend it so passionately. Interesting.
I am one of those people who just can't help yelling at inanimate objects like they can hear me. I think I spent the whole 2004 election cycle yelling furiously at the radio like it would some how effect the voting. Every now and again I'd catch the people pulled up next to me at stoplights staring, mouths open, like they'd just seen a crazy person. Which indeed they had.
I also have a tendency to forget where I am when I'm doing this yelling. On days where I'm say, at school, in the library, this is a little bit of a problem because I generally don't like the student population thinking I need to be locked up. Like today when I came across a site called "All The Critters" which claims to "welcome all animal lovers" and yesterday featured a charming entry entitled "I am too soft hearted." Which clearly, the author is not. What she IS made me say several choice expletives loudly enough to make the girl sitting next to me suddenly decide to be in a different room.
If you run a blog dedicated to "the animals we all love and share our planet with" and you admit that you're bothered by the idea of a dead cow to the point where you get emotional and begin to tear up, why are you still eating dead anything? I don't get it. If you're incapable of eating animals you've raised and killed, why do you still eat other dead animals? Are the ones you raised magically different than the ones you didn't? There's a disconnect there. You obviously think that slaughtering animals causes pain or suffering or is wrong for some reason, or you wouldn't have an adverse emotional reaction to it. Am I missing something?
Even stranger? On March 6th a post about the depravity of horse slaughter was placed on the same blog. It strikes me as curious that someone who is so adamantly against the slaughter of horses didn't think about just how close a horse and cow really are. Or a horse and a pig. Or that the justification used for eating horses holds up for all 'meat' animals. It reeks of ethnocentrism that you believe that eating horse flesh isn't normal or right. I totally applaud you for picking up on the fact that money actually makes people treat animals poorly, by the way. High five on that one.
This idea that animals are only worth something if we form attachments to them is like me saying that genocide in Africa is fine because I've never met anyone who is being killed there. Why should it bother me? I don't know them. I don't have to see them die, right? And yet strangely, it does bother me.
Also, it's 'citing' not 'sighting'. I know you're blog is big and important, but if you're going to be making such a big, important point and trying to sway people's opinion, maybe try picking up a dictionary.
Besides being the day when the earth said a big eff you to thousands of people who showed up to use earth day as an excuse to smoke pot in public by pouring rain for 8 hours straight, yesterday was my horse Rivet's birthday, his 19th. He's been with me since he was 12, since I was 13, and I don't think a day has gone by where I haven't been so thankful for him, including that day when I lost both my shoes in mud trying to catch him so I could move him to a new paddock. I swear he was laughing at me the whole time.
I know Rivet probably doesn't care that it's his birthday. Usually I try to do something special for him, like make a special 'cake' or bake horse treats, and while I know he's happy about the extra food, I don't know if he really gets it. Generally his reaction is to shove me out of the way with his head, so he can eat whatever it is in record time, preferably with maximum mess. There are times when I don't know quite how to reconcile how much I love Rivet with the notion that he's my property. For years, all I thought I wanted in life was to work with horses and now I find myself disgusted by a lot of the things 'horse lovers' do.
Having to reconcile that I spent years exploiting horses without even thinking twice about it has probably been the hardest part of becoming a vegan for me. Realizing that you've been selfish towards someone you love for years makes you seriously re-evaluate your self as a person. Finding a way to work Rivet into my life as a vegan? It's been one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. I'm slowly doing it, which just goes to show it can be done, but because so much of what we do with horses is related to riding them, showing them, using them, it's been a journey.
I take a lot of crap from vegans for being a 'horse person' and from 'horse people' for being a vegan, but I think if every person had a Rivet, we'd all have a much easier time understanding that other animals have feelings, thoughts, moods and desires of their own. I don't think anyone has taught me more about this than Riv, standing in ankle deep mud, waiting patiently for me to get within two feet of him, just so he could whirl up on his hind end and race to the other side of the paddock and stand there looking innocent.
A friend sent me this link today, and I was blown away. No matter how many times I see people being cruel, how many times I think there's no way in hell something can surprise me, someone does something stupid like KILL a dog for an art installation. Yeah, you heard me. Some out-of-his-fucking-mind 'artist' woke up one morning and thought - today? Today I think I'll tie up a dog and not feed it, charge admission and CALL IT ART instead of shooting myself in my worthless head. This is not art, unless we changed the definition of art to murder and I didn't get the memo.
What is it about the death of an animal we find so aesthetic? There is nothing beautiful about the torturous, slow, agonizing death of starving, just like there is nothing beautiful about the brutal murder that goes into the 'production' of fur. Perhaps there is a haunting beauty in a natural death, but there is nothing attractive, nothing beautiful, nothing worthwhile about senseless, pointless, useless murder. Perhaps art isn't meant to be beautiful. In many cases, it could be argued that art should cause discomfort - to the VIEWER. Provocative though this might be, to walk through this 'gallery' and see a dog look at you, suffering, and to do nothing more than sip your champagne and talk industry is nothing short of purely callous. It is an example of all that is wrong with out treatment of animals, how we treat them as nothing more than pieces of art to be disposed of as suits the artists' fickle pleasures. It doesn't matter that he's a dog - if he were a pig, a duck, a freakin' giraffe, it would remain inexcusable.
Photo from El Perrito Vive.
This dog died starving slowly on a concrete floor while people walked back and forth in front of him, carrying drinks and probably food. They were within feet of him, watched him die in abject misery. And they did nothing. That he is a dog does not matter. He was a sentient being, and he felt every minute of this.
Note: There are various rumors throughout the art world about what may be actually occurring here: one rumor is that the artist found the dog on the street, tethered him up for three hours to "make a point about human cruelty to non-human animals," and then took him home as a companion animal; another rumor being circulated is that the dog was already dying, so this man simply tied him up and allowed him to die in the museum.
The former rumor make's an excellent point, however, the means to the end of making this point is an example of cruel animal exploitation, which is precisely the point the artist was allegedly attempting to make. So, where does he stand on the issue? Perhaps he could have taken several photographs of homeless and hapless dogs, and exhibited them to make his point. What if he were to have tethered a sickly African to a corner of that museum to make a point about the plight being suffered by millions of individuals throughout the African continent?
If the latter rumor is substantiated, then he ought to be petitioned because this is a tragedy. Who could claim otherwise?
Look at the picture(s). This is sanctified cruelty, regardless of the morality of the point he is attempting to make.
There's a petition here to stop this 'artist' from putting on another 'art installation' in 2008. Please, sign it.
I'm going to pretend like we have some readers who aren't close friends and family taking pity on us, and address some of the issues we/you have been having with the cursed content management system known as Movable Type.
First of all, hi!
Second of all, I'm sorry about the pain-in-the-ass comments section and the lacking of the previous/next post links. This is my first excursion into the realm of Movable Type and so far all I've realized is that I'm not nearly as awesome as this as I thought I was. I finally fixed the comments section today so that anyone can comment without going through a whole stupid registration and login process. I'm in the process of adding the previous and next links and trying to figure out how to get the code to do what I want it to, all without me throwing my computer at the wall across the room.
Today on campus I was approached by an activist with Environment America, which bills itself as a citizen based environmental advocacy group. AU is always filled with people like this, and while I don't have a problem with them I always ask them if they're vegan and 90% of the time I get either a no or an "I'm vegetarian," usually about 10 seconds before they launch into how they're fighting the power and automotive industries and lobbying to get gas milage standards upped because it's the "most effective way" to reduce carbon emissions. They show me their top 10 lists, things they're fighting or promoting. And I usually smile and nod, and then ask what they know about veganism and the environment.
To date, not one person who has stopped me and asked me to sign a petition has known anything. Nor has it been on any of their lists, despite the fact that by eliminating animal products from your diet you can reduce your carbon emissions by 1.5 million tons a year. That's more than driving a hybrid car, costs a lot less than one, and is much more streamlined and attractive. Plus you make a whole lot of cows very, very thankful.
I know it sounds odd, but if you think about everything that goes into getting your McWhatever on your plate, the emissions build up. Not just carbon either. As I'm sure we're all aware, cows, they fart. A lot. Four stomachs equals four times the gas. All those cow farts pump a lot of methane into the air.
Why aren't more people aware of this? The whole thing screams conspiracy, I know, but if you're truly dedicated to saving the environment, veganism is as natural, efficient and simple a step as signing a petition to up required gas milage, buying a new car, driving less, and recycling. It's as easy too. It seems like a complete contradiction that one would devote time and effort to saving the environment while contributing to its demise in a totally unavoidable way.
One of the most interesting things I've discovered since going vegan is the extent to which animals are considered to be not living beings but property. It sounds weird at first because obviously your dog is a dog and not a chair, or a 1965 Ford Mustang, but in the eyes of the law and of most people animals are property. Think about it. We buy, sell and trade them, dispose of them at will. Not the kind of things you do with people. I hope.
As much as I hate the idea, it's revolutionary and quite helpful in understanding why people think it's okay to exploit animals as resources. Resources are there to be used, after all. Property can't have rights or interests either. When you drive your car you don't think about whether or not the car wants to be driven. The car is there to be driven, unless it's a really cool car in which case it's there to enhance my awesomeness status to BEYOND AMAZING.
Think I'm crazy? If you're like me, you don't want to think of animals as property. My horse is my friend, not a handbag, not even a really nice handbag. But the majority of people in this world? They think of animals as property, or as semi-property, occupying a category in between a living being and a piece of furniture. Even people who 'love' animals do. Still don't believe me? Let's play a little game with pop culture, shall we?
Turn your TV on to Animal Planet. Watch one of those shows designed to make you simultaneously sob at how cruel humans can be to animals and revel in how wonderful we are for saving them. Detroit/Houston/Miami Animal Cops will work. Now count the number of times the animals are referred to as he, she or it. You only get to count the times where the officer or whoever is in charge of being benevolent knows the gender of the animal.
And the 'its' have it. I rest my case.

