AHC, one of many organizations avoiding the
abolition of animal use by instead bargaining
with how they are treated.
Many such reforms are actually introduced to 
improve the efficiency of animal production.
These reforms are marketed as "minimizations 
of suffering."

If you're a non-vegan individual, I don't want you to feel judged by this article but I do want you to think critically about some hypothetical questions.  Let's begin with this one: What would be the difference between impaling a dog with a lead pipe versus a copper one?

Before we list the physical differences between copper and lead, let's understand there is no difference.  Of course one could say the difference would be the metal coating or composing the pipe, but common sense would tell you that's not really what is being asked.  There is no ethical difference.

Let's do another one: What is the difference between impaling a dog with a lead pipe 15 times in a day versus 30 times?  The animal welfarist would argue the first impalement is a more humane option because it is a minimization of suffering.  However, I would vehemently disagree there is any difference.  A dog is being treated with violence and that is all.  Dog "15" does not think about dog "30" happily because his own suffering has been minimized "by half."

Bargaining

Typical conditions and injuries of "Free Range" chickens.  Organizations who
seek to ensure the "highest welfare possible" for animals laud such conditions
because they supposedly minimize suffering.  Consumers do not see these
pictures.  Instead, they are ensured the humane treatment of chickens with a 
logo with which such organizations receive royalties from producers.  This is
simple marketing, not a step in the right direction.

At this point, I hope I've got you saying to yourself, "wow, that is an idiotic hypothesis." If so, surely you're firing your first neuron of understanding how we help defeatists to bargain their way out of making any real progress.  I agree the question of "humane-ness" is downright ridiculous in this situation yet this is a question asked constantly in animal rights circles.  If you hear of people beating dogs 15 times a day from a traditional 30, I should hope you would ask why they are being beaten at all rather than accepting this as a step in the direction, somehow, of them never being beaten.

Though it may be less apparent, we use this kind of logic when we advise our peers to use animals who are purportedly treated better or raised more ethically (proven only by the fact these words are printed on the container of their remains or secretions.)  Surely such people are well-meaning but they are also being lead into bargaining their way out of actually making any change.

My objection to using resources for mitigating the painfulness of pain in institutions of exploitation is made more difficult to persuade when multimillion dollar organizations perpetuate the unhealthy coping mechanism of bargaining as the animal rights authorities which, to some, they appear to be.  However, I have high hopes that some of my readers and viewers will be motivated to fight for real progress while casting doubt on organizations whose existence is absolutely dependent on their top donors.

Animals are factory farms

No matter how animals like pigs are treated, they do not lead a
"long and happy life."  To reach profit requirements, pigs must be
slaughtered at their optimal "market weight."  In the case of a pig,
this is usually defined as "3 months, 3 weeks, 3 days" pigs and
many other food animals are killed as children.

While visiting a vegan friend here in Lincoln, Nebraska, she and I found ourselves in agreement over both of our naive beginnings in veganism and the general misunderstanding our peers have about how one should live as members of a nation of "animal lovers"

Some of my friends have told me they abstain from eating meat but continue to consume dairy, eggs, and also non-food animal products like leather, wool, et cetera because "one need not kill animals to get milk or leather.  The animal is already dead" 

"What people don't understand," I told my friend, "is that animals aren't just killed for meat while vagrant leather traders sift through the hides in the dumpsters of slaughter houses.  An animal is just a source of goods and labor.  Owners pick up an animal and do this..." I then put my hands in front of me and made a twisting motion as if wringing out a wet towel.  "Whatever they can get from the animal is put on the market." Animals are resources for construction, medicine, chemicals, food, labor, entertainment, research, and textiles.  Forget animals on factory farms, animals are the factory farm.

For this very simplified reason, I am compelled to educate the public that the removal only of meat from one's diet is no better a stepwise approach than removing only products from animals from the eastern side of the country.  If you're against animals being wrung of their value and existence, does it really make any sense to tell someone to ask for no chicken on their egg and cheese omelet?  Does it make any sense to applaud a clothing store who has ended their selling of fur while they still sell leather?  Does it send the right message when the public is already lost in naive assumptions about animals as property?

"How do we minimize suffering?"

This UEP Certified logo is notorious for being
exposed as a label for birds enduring the
exact same conditions (if not worse) as 
factory farmed and abused birds on farms
not carrying this logo.
Other certifications are no different.

Programs and legislation against certain practices in the animal industry are a conclusion of defeatism--a way of thinking beginning with believing one cannot succeed.  Defeatists are those who are utter statements like "we can't get everyone to go vegan" or "the best we can do is to make sure animals have a happy life while we raise them"  While it appears the speaker is attempting progress, (s)he is being vastly enabled to bargain their way into doing something comfortably useless.  It floors me how many approaches claim "giving up" as step #1.

"How do we minimize suffering" is the wrong question for an animal rights advocate to ask.  It is no better than asking "how do we make the experience of rape more pleasant?" or "how can we soften the emotional impact of murdering someone's loved one?"  Nevertheless, AR advocates cling to this mission in the fallicious belief such reforms actually do minimize suffering.  In truth, welfare reforms lead to increased and more efficient processing of animals and pushes the cultural paradigm into thinking the support of animal exploitation is increasingly more ethical.

By trying not to do anything terribly difficult you'll prevent doing anything terribly meaningful.   Want to take a step in the right direction?  Go vegan.  Stop bargaining.

Find Adam Kochanowicz on TwitterFacebook