Posts
From the Huffington Post:
The American Family Association, a religious right group, is urging that Tillikum (Tilly), the killer whale that killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando, be put down, preferably by stoning. Citing Tilly's history of violent altercations, the group is slamming SeaWorld for not listening to Scripture in how to deal with the animal:
Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)
However, the group is going further and laying the blame for the trainer's death directly at the feet of Chuck Thompson, the curator in charge of animal behavior, because, according to Scripture,
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)
SeaWorld has no plans to execute Tilly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said this before and I'll say it again, as long as people continue to treat captive wild animals like domesticated ones, this will continue to happen. Remember ... they are still WILD animals and can and will kill.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Animal Stewardship
I didn't write this but I feel that this is a very important message in dealing with animal advocacy:
I hope animal advocates will allocate a lot more resources to farmed animal issues because 99 percent of exploited animals are dying to be eaten. Here are some things I've learned about practical advocacy. Nothing is cheaper than teaching by example. Since we are the ambassadors for animals and people don't separate the message from the messenger, we need to be and look like the kind of people other people will want to be and look like - "he looks great and he's vegan!"
I used to say I would "die" for animals but wasn't even willing to wear a nice shirt for animals - my identity was more important to me than being an effective advocate. To be effective we need to be as close to other people as we can. Lecturing on diglycerides to people who are gnawing on an animal's leg bone, giving them lists of 100 ingredients to boycott, is not effective. We should applaud people for even small steps, which for them may be big steps, like being vegetarian 3 days a week or choosing a "free-range" egg over a battery-hen's egg. Imagine if we could bring each person down from consuming 300 eggs a year to 200 - what a downturn for the egg industry! At the same time, we should not encourage people to substitute one animal for another - that's not progress. Here's a list of some of the cheapest, easiest ways to promote veganism:
* Leafleting on busy street corners and campuses.
* Letters to the editor and op-eds.
* Library displays including free literature: many libraries are delighted to have attractive free displays.
* Feed-Ins - choose a place to feed people delicious vegan "chicken nuggets," say, and bring the box.
* Restaurant Outreach: going to restaurants and getting one or more vegan meals on the menu; getting your local deli to carry mock turkey and ham; getting the meat distributor to carry mock meats to receptive outlets. These are all things that COK has done, and does, success-fully in Washington DC. It works better than picketing the meat distributor.
* Put videos on cable access: it's usually free and people watch!
It's important to show people exactly what happens to animals as a result of meat, dairy, and egg consumption. Even if we don't do undercover investigations ourselves, we should use the footage that COK and other groups provide. We must show people that meat means misery. The least we can do is to bear witness. As I lie in my comfortable bed at night, I think of the hens on wire mesh floors with no comfort ever. People should know exactly why we are so adamant about standing up for animals.
I hope animal advocates will allocate a lot more resources to farmed animal issues because 99 percent of exploited animals are dying to be eaten. Here are some things I've learned about practical advocacy. Nothing is cheaper than teaching by example. Since we are the ambassadors for animals and people don't separate the message from the messenger, we need to be and look like the kind of people other people will want to be and look like - "he looks great and he's vegan!"
I used to say I would "die" for animals but wasn't even willing to wear a nice shirt for animals - my identity was more important to me than being an effective advocate. To be effective we need to be as close to other people as we can. Lecturing on diglycerides to people who are gnawing on an animal's leg bone, giving them lists of 100 ingredients to boycott, is not effective. We should applaud people for even small steps, which for them may be big steps, like being vegetarian 3 days a week or choosing a "free-range" egg over a battery-hen's egg. Imagine if we could bring each person down from consuming 300 eggs a year to 200 - what a downturn for the egg industry! At the same time, we should not encourage people to substitute one animal for another - that's not progress. Here's a list of some of the cheapest, easiest ways to promote veganism:
* Leafleting on busy street corners and campuses.
* Letters to the editor and op-eds.
* Library displays including free literature: many libraries are delighted to have attractive free displays.
* Feed-Ins - choose a place to feed people delicious vegan "chicken nuggets," say, and bring the box.
* Restaurant Outreach: going to restaurants and getting one or more vegan meals on the menu; getting your local deli to carry mock turkey and ham; getting the meat distributor to carry mock meats to receptive outlets. These are all things that COK has done, and does, success-fully in Washington DC. It works better than picketing the meat distributor.
* Put videos on cable access: it's usually free and people watch!
It's important to show people exactly what happens to animals as a result of meat, dairy, and egg consumption. Even if we don't do undercover investigations ourselves, we should use the footage that COK and other groups provide. We must show people that meat means misery. The least we can do is to bear witness. As I lie in my comfortable bed at night, I think of the hens on wire mesh floors with no comfort ever. People should know exactly why we are so adamant about standing up for animals.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Eating Liberally
If you read my blog even somewhat routinely, you'll see that I've not been posting a lot lately. Well friends ... there's a reason. Myself and my friend are starting a local chapter of Eating Liberally. If you're not familiar with them, you can check them out here. Right now there are only 4 chapters in the US, we'll be making #5. We're going to focus on things like ethical eating, promoting farmers markets, attempting to connect veggie/vegan friends and organizations ... oh yeah and eating lots of good veggie/vegan food. I'll be pitching the group on here and on twitter once the group is up and live. Stay tuned!
Monday, February 22, 2010
More about breeding Pain Free Animals
(It seems that I'm not the only one outraged at this idea. This is from a blog called Animal Sanctuary)
Washington University philosopher and vegetarian, Adam Shriver, in Neuroethics proposes that if society is unwilling to shift to a vegetarian diet then nonhuman animals should be genetically modified to fit our cognitive dissonance over eating them. Specifically, an argument is made that we could down a guilt-free slab of cow flesh if we just made sure the cow felt no pain. "NewScientist" recently published an article discussing the issue.
Pain is an integral aspect of human and nonhuman life. It is one way in which we relate and react to the world around us. But it is not the only way nor is it, in our view, the most important way.
Eliminating pain in farmed animals does not eliminate the horror of cutting a life short for a moment of gustatory pleasure. It does not address the rich, intricate social and emotional worlds of farmed animals. In fact, it further reduces them to simple, sensory beings who have no other moral worth than how much pain they feel.
Look at this picture of Summer and Freedom. This is a moment. This is a connection being made, a touch, togetherness. They are not reaching out to one another because of nociceptors or synapses, they are doing so because it is part of being bovine. It is who they are and how they relate to each other. Even if they could not feel pain, this moment would have occurred. They would still groom one another, frolick in the fields, seek out each other's companionship, call to one another. Nothing about who they are would change, so why would our perception magically shift from discomfort at ending their lives to a strange joy at comfortably being able to eat their flesh?
Or take Arturo and Cleo. Their lives are filled with a language we only vaguely understand. He is unwavering in his patience with Cleo and so many other hens. When faced with a new, young hen, he did not pick on her as so many of the other hens and roosters did but instead called her over for some of his food. He knows what camaraderie and sharing means, even if it is strictly from an avian perspective. Cleo revels in dust baths and sun bathes and cavorting with her friends. These behaviors and feelings do not cease because pain sensation stops. Their desire to retain their light, their life does not go away because pain is not experienced. They (and us) have so many enriching experiences that have little to do with physical hurt.
These are two small examples of how farmed animals are more than just pain reflexes. To think that by removing their natural, physical experience of pain means they stop feeling joy, stop talking with their kin, stop forming relationships, stop bickering, stop wanting to live is the height of arrogance on our part. It would not excuse their slaughter. The reality still remains - we do not need their flesh, milk or eggs to survive. We just do not. Let's stop trying to make it easier on our conscience to kill these animals and start directing that into positive energy, into doing something good for them and us - choosing a plant-based diet.
Washington University philosopher and vegetarian, Adam Shriver, in Neuroethics proposes that if society is unwilling to shift to a vegetarian diet then nonhuman animals should be genetically modified to fit our cognitive dissonance over eating them. Specifically, an argument is made that we could down a guilt-free slab of cow flesh if we just made sure the cow felt no pain. "NewScientist" recently published an article discussing the issue.
Pain is an integral aspect of human and nonhuman life. It is one way in which we relate and react to the world around us. But it is not the only way nor is it, in our view, the most important way.
Eliminating pain in farmed animals does not eliminate the horror of cutting a life short for a moment of gustatory pleasure. It does not address the rich, intricate social and emotional worlds of farmed animals. In fact, it further reduces them to simple, sensory beings who have no other moral worth than how much pain they feel.
Look at this picture of Summer and Freedom. This is a moment. This is a connection being made, a touch, togetherness. They are not reaching out to one another because of nociceptors or synapses, they are doing so because it is part of being bovine. It is who they are and how they relate to each other. Even if they could not feel pain, this moment would have occurred. They would still groom one another, frolick in the fields, seek out each other's companionship, call to one another. Nothing about who they are would change, so why would our perception magically shift from discomfort at ending their lives to a strange joy at comfortably being able to eat their flesh?
Or take Arturo and Cleo. Their lives are filled with a language we only vaguely understand. He is unwavering in his patience with Cleo and so many other hens. When faced with a new, young hen, he did not pick on her as so many of the other hens and roosters did but instead called her over for some of his food. He knows what camaraderie and sharing means, even if it is strictly from an avian perspective. Cleo revels in dust baths and sun bathes and cavorting with her friends. These behaviors and feelings do not cease because pain sensation stops. Their desire to retain their light, their life does not go away because pain is not experienced. They (and us) have so many enriching experiences that have little to do with physical hurt.
These are two small examples of how farmed animals are more than just pain reflexes. To think that by removing their natural, physical experience of pain means they stop feeling joy, stop talking with their kin, stop forming relationships, stop bickering, stop wanting to live is the height of arrogance on our part. It would not excuse their slaughter. The reality still remains - we do not need their flesh, milk or eggs to survive. We just do not. Let's stop trying to make it easier on our conscience to kill these animals and start directing that into positive energy, into doing something good for them and us - choosing a plant-based diet.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Removing the Human from Humanity
This is from the Huffington Post:
The New York Times had a very interesting Op-Ed Friday, which took an unusual approach to the concern that factory farms are inhumane. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University, makes the argument that the key to raising more humane meat isn't changing the methods by which they are raised, but to genetically engineer them so they feel less pain from their conditions.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort -- through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
Shriver's Op-Ed raises several questions. Is the most appalling part about factory farms -- where animals are fed unnatural diets, live in filthy conditions, and are subject to preemptive antibiotics -- is that they are suffering? Confined Animal Feedlot Operations are responsible for huge amounts of waste, which threaten groundwater, air quality and can pose public health risks. Meat production is also responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all modes of transportation. Would genetically engineering animals so they suffer less help factory farms flourish, without addressing the environmental risks they pose? Is genetically engineering our food supply to appeal to a moral conscience about suffering appropriate?
____________________
Forgive the rant ahead:
Let me tell you who a question like this is aimed at, people like Anthony Bourdain, like the people on Food Network, like Foodies or anyone else who wants to be insulated from the fact that eating animals is blantently ONE word. MURDER. If you want to feel good about eating food, guess what, raise it yourself OR buy from vendors or farmers that you know, but DO not try to get me to sign on to a idiotic idea like this. This question keeps appearing, so my faithful readers, I see it coming. Monsanto will try to do it within the next 15 years or Cargill or Smithfield Farms but of course, if that happens HOW are they going to prove it to us? By slaughtering an animal in public so that we can see that we've removed ALL traces of pain? What about the fear? Can you remove that too? Then what about our consciousness in dealing with the fact that these are LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT beings. This idea disgusts me and there is NO higher level of distaste that I can issue towards it.
The New York Times had a very interesting Op-Ed Friday, which took an unusual approach to the concern that factory farms are inhumane. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University, makes the argument that the key to raising more humane meat isn't changing the methods by which they are raised, but to genetically engineer them so they feel less pain from their conditions.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort -- through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
Shriver's Op-Ed raises several questions. Is the most appalling part about factory farms -- where animals are fed unnatural diets, live in filthy conditions, and are subject to preemptive antibiotics -- is that they are suffering? Confined Animal Feedlot Operations are responsible for huge amounts of waste, which threaten groundwater, air quality and can pose public health risks. Meat production is also responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all modes of transportation. Would genetically engineering animals so they suffer less help factory farms flourish, without addressing the environmental risks they pose? Is genetically engineering our food supply to appeal to a moral conscience about suffering appropriate?
____________________
Forgive the rant ahead:
Let me tell you who a question like this is aimed at, people like Anthony Bourdain, like the people on Food Network, like Foodies or anyone else who wants to be insulated from the fact that eating animals is blantently ONE word. MURDER. If you want to feel good about eating food, guess what, raise it yourself OR buy from vendors or farmers that you know, but DO not try to get me to sign on to a idiotic idea like this. This question keeps appearing, so my faithful readers, I see it coming. Monsanto will try to do it within the next 15 years or Cargill or Smithfield Farms but of course, if that happens HOW are they going to prove it to us? By slaughtering an animal in public so that we can see that we've removed ALL traces of pain? What about the fear? Can you remove that too? Then what about our consciousness in dealing with the fact that these are LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT beings. This idea disgusts me and there is NO higher level of distaste that I can issue towards it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
What Is Love
(From Change.org)
A recent poll of 24,000 people in 23 countries showed that 1 in 5 adults would choose their pets over their partners on Valentine's Day. But despite our strength in numbers, animal lovers, especially activists, are often treated like traitors by those who aren't "animal people."
We're accused of caring for animals at the expense of caring for people, because our passion for animal issues allegedly detracts from all of the humans in need. But choosing to spend a Hallmark Holiday with your loyal nonhuman companion instead of your spouse isn't the same as turning your back on your own species.
Here are seven reasons why animal welfare is human welfare:
1) Animal abuse is never just animal abuse. It's an early indicator of child abuse, domestic violence, and other sociopathic behaviors. Not only is animal abuse a warning sign, but it's often directly used to threaten or intimidate a person, such as pets who are harmed as a form of psychological abuse in domestic violence situations.
2) Factory farming is a major contributor to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for as much as 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. A significant reduction in animal consumption and better conditions for the remaining farm animals will have a huge impact in stabilizing the climate, which (in case you missed it) affects the future of human civilization as we know it.
3) Animal testing is outdated. The sooner the scientific community stops re-creating ineffective, inhumane animal tests and starts investing in non-animal research methods, the sooner we'll have human-relevant results.
4) Pet owners are major players in the economy. A $45 billion industry is a big slice of the economy, and it's one that keeps growing. That means job security and community development. Pet consumers also have the purchase power to have a positive influence on the market, such as helping drive a green economy.
5) Protecting wildlife is protecting the planet. There's a certain balance to the world we inhabit, where predators and prey keep each other's population in balance, and natural areas (a.k.a. habitats) keep global warming and other natural disasters at bay. As we drive species to extinction, we lose a piece of what makes the world inhabitable for humans.
6) Animals are an important part of your community. Love 'em or hate 'em, your community is full of animals. Irresponsible pet owners are a drain on municipal budgets through animal control and a threat to public health with disease and dog bite risks. Ineffective laws, such as breed specific legislation, are costly to the community, in terms of both public health risks and finances. It's also expensive to care for animals in shelters. So, the advocates that push for responsible pet ownership and animal adoption are making your community a better place to live.
7) Animals make people happy. Companion animals have been proven to reduce stress and relieve depression. The role that pets play in happiness is more than just a matter of mood; it's about quality of life. Domestic violence victims will delay seeking help for fear of putting their pets in danger. When natural disaster strikes, restoring animals is a major step toward restoring lives, whether you're in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina survivors needed the emotional support of their pets after losing their homes, or you're in Haiti, where earthquake victims rely on livestock for food and income.
For extra credit, I'll refer back to a post on Malcolm Gladwell's essays on the human-canine connection. Gladwell (like others before him) has written several fascinating articles about interactions with dogs that provide valuable insight into the human condition.
For the 21 percent of the population choosing to spend today with their companion animals instead of a spouse, and for the untold number whose hearts are with the suffering animals of the world, happy Valentine's Day.
A recent poll of 24,000 people in 23 countries showed that 1 in 5 adults would choose their pets over their partners on Valentine's Day. But despite our strength in numbers, animal lovers, especially activists, are often treated like traitors by those who aren't "animal people."
We're accused of caring for animals at the expense of caring for people, because our passion for animal issues allegedly detracts from all of the humans in need. But choosing to spend a Hallmark Holiday with your loyal nonhuman companion instead of your spouse isn't the same as turning your back on your own species.
Here are seven reasons why animal welfare is human welfare:
1) Animal abuse is never just animal abuse. It's an early indicator of child abuse, domestic violence, and other sociopathic behaviors. Not only is animal abuse a warning sign, but it's often directly used to threaten or intimidate a person, such as pets who are harmed as a form of psychological abuse in domestic violence situations.
2) Factory farming is a major contributor to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for as much as 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. A significant reduction in animal consumption and better conditions for the remaining farm animals will have a huge impact in stabilizing the climate, which (in case you missed it) affects the future of human civilization as we know it.
3) Animal testing is outdated. The sooner the scientific community stops re-creating ineffective, inhumane animal tests and starts investing in non-animal research methods, the sooner we'll have human-relevant results.
4) Pet owners are major players in the economy. A $45 billion industry is a big slice of the economy, and it's one that keeps growing. That means job security and community development. Pet consumers also have the purchase power to have a positive influence on the market, such as helping drive a green economy.
5) Protecting wildlife is protecting the planet. There's a certain balance to the world we inhabit, where predators and prey keep each other's population in balance, and natural areas (a.k.a. habitats) keep global warming and other natural disasters at bay. As we drive species to extinction, we lose a piece of what makes the world inhabitable for humans.
6) Animals are an important part of your community. Love 'em or hate 'em, your community is full of animals. Irresponsible pet owners are a drain on municipal budgets through animal control and a threat to public health with disease and dog bite risks. Ineffective laws, such as breed specific legislation, are costly to the community, in terms of both public health risks and finances. It's also expensive to care for animals in shelters. So, the advocates that push for responsible pet ownership and animal adoption are making your community a better place to live.
7) Animals make people happy. Companion animals have been proven to reduce stress and relieve depression. The role that pets play in happiness is more than just a matter of mood; it's about quality of life. Domestic violence victims will delay seeking help for fear of putting their pets in danger. When natural disaster strikes, restoring animals is a major step toward restoring lives, whether you're in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina survivors needed the emotional support of their pets after losing their homes, or you're in Haiti, where earthquake victims rely on livestock for food and income.
For extra credit, I'll refer back to a post on Malcolm Gladwell's essays on the human-canine connection. Gladwell (like others before him) has written several fascinating articles about interactions with dogs that provide valuable insight into the human condition.
For the 21 percent of the population choosing to spend today with their companion animals instead of a spouse, and for the untold number whose hearts are with the suffering animals of the world, happy Valentine's Day.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Quote of the Day
"Every decision we make about food is a vote for the kind of world that we want to live in." From Diet for a Small Planet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)