"Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating" by Erik Marcus. Please note the
usage of "vegan" as being a diet is the author's usage alone.
The animal rights movement is in bad shape. While somewhere on the scale of 50 billion animals (excluding marine life) are sent to death every year for our enjoyment, the animal movement has populated a false idea of animal rights to mean we should merely find more comfortable ways for these 50 billion animals to die and be used as ends to our means.
In the same way any other industry finds reformed, more efficient, and consumer-attractive ways to sell products, via new methods, the animal industry slaughters, confines, and exploits animals at higher rates and in more brutal ways than ever. Animal organizations have sold these reforms as "victories" to their donors, asserting these measures reduce suffering or somehow lead to ending our use of animals.
This is your activism, your monthly membership paycheck, your petition signature. The animal welfare movement has long been at work ameliorating the welfare not of the animals but of our own feeling of bringing these innocent beings into the world to be our steak, coat, or to give us milk, eggs, et cetera.
A dissenting voice
Twitter .png){kind=small}
FacebookEarlier this month, professor Gary Steiner published an article in the New York Times entitled "Animal, Vegetable, Miserable." In the article, Steiner examines society's attention merely to the treatment of our animal property making the case that anyone who regards animals as sentient, significant creatures cannot justify killing or using an animal regardless of how they are treated. Steiner clearly endorses veganism as a logical conclusion and regards supposed improvements in the treatment of animals as "marginal."
We have been trained by a history of thinking of which we are scarcely aware to view non-human animals as resources we are entitled to employ in whatever ways we see fit in order to satisfy our needs and desires. Yes, there are animal welfare laws. But these laws have been formulated by, and are enforced by, people who proceed from the proposition that animals are fundamentally inferior to human beings. At best, these laws make living conditions for animals marginally better than they would be otherwise — right up to the point when we send them to the slaughterhouse.
Steiner is not alone in his views. In fact, the Professor appears to agree with an abundance of factual, empirical evidence and an emerging abolitionist animal rights movement which calls for the abolition of animal exploitation and the spread of veganism. The movement has gradually gained in numbers via online activism and vegan education sans the dependency on animal charities and industry legislation.
Violent apathy
Enter Erik Marcus who criticized Steiner's piece in his blog at his unfortunately acquired "vegan.com." Marcus calls Steiner's work a "godawful piece," a "turd," and a "disaster" claiming the work causes potential vegans to be "frightened away." This contrasts greatly with mine and many others' view that the public can actually think for themselves and will not run away in fright when you tell them the truth. Let alone the fact that telling the truth is the right thing to do and that people deserve to know it.
This description should come as no surprise from an individual who consistently lauds the work of authors like Jonathan Safran Foer and Peter Singer. While Marcus maintains he wants the abolition of animal use and even has an "animal rights" section on his site, Foer and Singer have personally stated they object to animal rights*. These inconsistencies are just a sample of the moral schizophrenia that is vegan.com
Meanwhile, Marcus has championed the skill of naive and dishonest optimism especially in the promotion of cage-free eggs saying of Wendy's decision to buy a mere 2% of their eggs from cage free facilities (which are disgusting and miserable places):
...admittedly pathetically small, but it’s an important first step and puts pressure on McDonald’s to leapfrog Wendy’s commitment.
He continues to hypothesize that such a small percentage will only result in this percentage increasing to 100% cage-free sources. While cage-free facilities raise animals from deadly hatcheries, cramping the animals into uncomfortable crowds of birds in small poorly lit/ventilated enclosures where they live out part of their miserable lives only to end up in the slaughterhouse at their market age, Marcus defends these disgusting reforms as "win[s]," "great work," "incredible," "progress," praises those who switch to this brutality, and even asks advocates to throw cash at those who fight for the reform. The HSUS itself (whom Marcus often defends) has acknowledged** cage-free also means "beak cutting and forced molting through starvation are permitted. There is no third-party auditing."
Marcus writes that battery cage operations are cruel while suggesting cage-free operations are a worthwhile alternative--they are not. In fact, Marcus himself acknowledges at least that "a surprising amount of suffering may be left unaddressed." This is an understatement and does not acknowledge Marcus's stated position that he "absolutely believe[s] that animals are not property."
Marcus's site, whose tag line is "cutting through the BS", surely uses "cutting" in the sense of slicing and serving the BS right to your computer monitor. Marcus represents the archetype of terrible vegan advocacy (if that's what you want to call it) supporting organizations who regard veganism as "fanatical"*** while lauding reforms which benefit the animal industry and make the public feel better about exploiting animals.
And finally, I must salute this debate between Erik Marcus and Gary Francione. If my abridged points are not making it clear that animal welfarism is a horrible and immoral campaign for animal rights, it would benefit the reader greatly to hear Marcus and Francione debate this matter themselves. (See transcript.)
Abolishing the property status of animals
This article is not intended to attack the character of Mr. Marcus via frank honesty. I would bet Marcus is not a bad person and genuinely believes his work is in the best interests of animals despite being objectively shown his approach is flawed. Indeed, Marcus is a friend of friends so I can only hope the mountain of evidence supporting abolitionism will someday turn him around. However, my friends, the animals deserve better than this. We cannot be consistent with a belief that it is wrong to harm animals simply because it makes us feel good or produces tasty food if we are at the same time fighting for the industry to employ methods of animal use which are appealing to consumers, increase the efficiency of animal use, and really make no significant difference in the "happiness" of these innocent individuals.
Going vegan is one of the best things you can do with your life. I've been a vegan for just about three years now and am very satisfied. I've come to love the food, I love having my vegan friends who support me in all that I do, but most importantly, I nor you can unlearn what we know to be true. Animal use cannot be made right based on our amusement of enjoyment of it. Anyone can go vegan and we can work incrementally to abolish the property status of animals one vegan at a time.
Notes
*In Animal Liberation, Singer rejects animal rights as being "irrelevant to the cause of animal liberation" and that rights are "in no way necessary," calling the language of rights "convenient political shorthand" (8).
While Singer explicitly states that the basis of species alone is inadequate to determine the "wrongness" of killing or inflicting pain, adding that such a basis is speciesist as is the basis of race is for racism, Singer also denies personhood asserting that many nonhuman animals should not be considered persons because they are not rational and self-conscious (Practical Ethics, 101)
Foer has stated on numerous occasions he is not a vegan and is merely concerned with the treatment of animals.
**The HSUS has mysteriously removed this page. However, a Google cache can be found here.
***See Vegan Outreach in which the organization regards veganism as merely one of many tools for reducing suffering (along with options where animals are necessarily killed for consumption,) equating the insistence on being vegan and eschewing certain animal products as "fanatical." (e.g. 1: "The movement also attracts many with an extremist / fanatical personality – people who obsess over purity," 2: "Not only have I known many fanatical vegans, I was one....inefficient tactics, obsessing over ingredients, arguing minutiae, etc." 3: "There often appears to be a contest among vegans for discovering new connections to animal exploitation...this attitude makes us appear fanatical...there is no real reason to force other people to worry about them [animal products] in order to call themselves 'vegan'.")
Comments
I agree that Erik Marcus is a buffoon, and does veganism NO good. He would do better to simply shut his pie hole, and leave activism to those who can do more than endlessly rationalize their deluded ideas.
Thanks for writing this Adam!
I totally agree with you. Erik Marcus' ideas are detrimental to animal rights and veganism, I really wish he would promote abolitionist veganism. I love it how you didn't initially link to his very flawed website.
Criticising Singer for rejecting animal rights is slightly missing the point of Singer's ethics. There are better ways to criticise Singer, ways that actually engage with his argument. Singer is a classical utilitarian. Therefore, from a meta-ethical level on down, Singer rejects the concept of rights. Singer describes animal rights as a political shorthand, because - by a utilitarian ethical framework - all rights, human or otherwise, are merely political claims, not ethical concepts.
So, in effect, you're criticising Singer's (very flawed) theory at a semantic level, because he rejects the language of rights and embraces the language interests, pleasure, and pain, rather than criticising him in substance - which, again, isn't especially difficult.
Why is it that vegans are so ready to tear another vegan's good works for the animals apart in an instant? Like Erik Marcus, I too believe Wendy's decision to buy
2% of its eggs from cage-free suppliers will help the plight of animals in the long run
especially once Mc Donald's decides to make changes to do at least what Wendy's is doing, if not more.
We can all sit around calling for abolition, and animal rights immediately, and frighten the average meat eater and the general public, or we can encourage people to take baby steps and do something for animals, save some animals, rather than make no difference at all.
The plight of animals and veganism as a way of eating (as well as living) are both consistently addressed by Erik Marcus, and I personally know people who have become vegan after being exposed to these ideas on Erik's vegan.com site.
Finally, I think before one chooses to write a whole article criticising a fellow vegan, you should at least know how to spell h
And of course I ran out of space in my last comment. My sentence was sopposed to be "if you decide to write a whole article criticising someone, you should at least know how to spell his name"
It was Erik himself that criticized Gary Steiner's article so he also engages in criticism. Gary Steiner's article was so TRUE and said so many things that I have been dying to say, without tip-toeing around it.
Vegan Advocacy at its Worst - indeed Eric! Indeed vegan.com needs to be in other hands (At least his podcasting has ceased. ). Maybe we should start a petition? And why are the comments on the articles on that site always closed.
What an incredibly disingenuous hack job. Even a cursory reading of Marcus's books reveals that he agrees with Steiner that veganism should be the goal. Marcus's criticism relates only to Steiner's claim (cited in Marcus's original post!) that veganism is "a constant ordeal", etc. It isn't.
While Steiner may be well-intentioned, statements like this merely feed the popular stereotype of vegans as a bunch of joyless, self-depriving, weenies. A stereotype which your ridiculous attack on Marcus merely reinforces, I should add.
The good news is that the debate between anti-welfare reform abolitionists and pro-welfare reform abolitionists will be moot when in vitro meat replaces animal agriculture.
All anyone need do is listen to the Francione/Marcus debate...the problems of new welfarism become painfully apparent.
While I agree that Erik should forget about animal welfare improvements and gets too excited about things that don't make much difference for animals, it seems inappropriate to write a whole attack piece on someone who does spend a lot of effort promoting veganism, which is the whole point of the abolitionist movement. Instead of spending his time criticizing other activists, he is actually doing something for veganism. Also, his name is spelled Erik, not Eric.
Btw, Bob Torres does an excellent critique of Marcus' work in "Making a Killing" Chapter 4
Erik Marcus is a frend of mine who has taught me a lot about Veganism and compassion. He's also introduced countless people to a more compassionate way of living. While I respect and admire the position of the 'Abolitionist', I don't understand how bashing those who don't do 'enough', according to the Abolitionists, does OUR cause any good at all. That passage in Gary Steiner's piece could've concluded by saying that it's nearly impossible to avoid ALL animal products but it IS possible to do your best. Some people may've read that article and seen that paragraph and thought, "Well damn, if it's so much trouble, why bother even trying then..." And like Erik, I personally think he missed an opportunity there. I'm sure some readers were scared away. We don't want to scare ANYONE away. I ALWAYS try to tell people how easy it is to be Vegan. Why scare them away with all of the miniscule things we can't do so much about. I'm an actor...should I stop because of the gelatin in film?
Are you gonna stop going to movies? Or driving there because the tires on your car contain animal products? There are SO many things we can worry about and feel overwhelmed by rather than showing people how easy it is to transition into Veganism. Baby steps lead to bigger steps. Four years ago, I had no plans on becoming Vegetarian. I certainly had no plans on becoming Vegan. But one thing led to another. And Erik's book Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating was one of the first I read and it helped educate me in a way that wasn't scary...for me.
I have so many friends who've become full Vegan because of HSUS's Prop 2 campaign. And now also more friends because of Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals.
I believe there's a place for The Abolitionist Approach, for the Humane Society of the United States, for Mercy for Animals, for PETA (if it hadn't been for one of their billboards, I might still be eating animals), for the ALF...each position, each group, reaches different people who may or may not respond to one of the others.
Isn't that what's important? Isn't that the ultimate goal? However people get there...that they DO get there?
I'd like to raise objection to the comments that Erik Marcus is campaigning for veganism. Erik has clearly demonstrated his position merely accepts veganism as one of many tools having equal merit with actually supporting the slaughter of animals (because the slaughter is "better").
We cannot honestly claim to take animals seriously if we accept that it is morally permissible to treat them as objects of property and consume of them. That some people have supposedly decided to go vegan because of Erik's lies is irrelevant.
I'd also like to clarify that my argument does not say merely that Erik "is not doing enough." His position and his work is deceitful and inherently speciesist.
How many insects are killed so that your average soybean field can prosper? Please begin with the original tilling of the property and move on through the cultivation phase, including the harvest.
Honestly, Adam, can’t you find a way to advocate for animals without being so nasty and unkind? Do you really think articles like this do anything to move things forward for the animals? I think the effect is far more damaging to this cause than you realize. Your article is either dishonest or uninformed and it’s extraordinarily arrogant and mean-spirited. It’s fine to disagree with Erik and there is nothing wrong with saying so. But while you and the rest of the “abolitionists” are running around making malicious and sarcastic comments about everyone with whom they disagree, people like Erik are actually working to promote veganism and abolition. And his understanding of effective advocacy is far more sophisticated than yours. You have a forum through which you could do so much good. Instead you use it to sow discord and to make our movement look ridiculous.
I don't agree that discord within our movement makes us look ridiculous. I think it's vital for progress and clarity.
It's a lie to pretend that 'we all agree', because we don't. And the way some present veganism is utterly false. No one is above critique, and honest, open discussion is essential.
Just as vegans must challenge those who exploit animals, we must challenge those who further enable exploiters, and even justify it (while calling it 'veganism').
Toleration of this behavior and mentality is what makes us look ridiculous, disorganized, and confused.
Larry - we don't need PETA's and HSUS's 'activism'. We should be opposing animal killing, not enabling it (as they do with cats and dogs, and participating in the exploitative process). They are fraudulent 'activists'.
i see you have your pc blinders on there dave, PETA has done more and continues to do more for the AR movement than others have with their uneven approach. PETA does things that no one even thinks of doing and they hardly exploit dogs and cats, no they directly address the issues and do everything that they humanly can to alleviate animal suffering.
Adam,
I didn't mean that YOU were saying some people don't 'do enough'...it just seems that to some, it's either the Abolitionist Approach or nothing else is good enough. And I truly believe whatever group, approach, method, whatever inspires and educates someone to become Vegan and more compassionate toward ALL living creatures, that is what is most important.
Dave,
You may believe that. And that's fine. But it was PETA that had a simple billboard up in LA that read kentuckyfriedcruelty.com . And it was that billboard that led me to see what I was a part of for far too long. Do I agree with everything they do? No. But do I owe them much gratitude for opening my eyes? I sure do. And I know a lot of animals that I have not eaten or worn since are probably thankful, too. And I've inspired many to rethink their own ways since. And again, that's all because of PETA's billboard. So do we need them? *I* did.
Dave, I didn't say that discord makes us look ridiculous. In fact, I said very clearly that there is nothing wrong with expressing disagreement with others in the movement. I never hesitate to state my disagreement with those who think we're going to change the world through vegan abolitionist education alone; I think it's naive and I don't mind saying so. That's quite different, though, from the constant personal and mean-spirited attacks I see from so many and that I saw here. Those are the things that harm the movement--not respectful disagreement.
The point that most of you seem to miss is that veganism is not a personal choice. The only time it is personal is when you are supporting animal-using industries.
Now is not the time to say "I wish you would be gentler towards me." I have been following Adam's articles for quite awhile and I don't recall him ever being mean-spirited. He is speaking very truthfully and this is what the AR movement desperately needs. We are causing a great disservice to the animals by shying away and saying things like "let's take baby steps", "abolitionist vegans are self-righteous and unrealistic" and "I'm vegan but I won't push my beliefs on you." In the end, the animals are falling victim to not only the usual torture and slaughter but now the mislabelling and the greenwashing. This is urgent. Abolitionist vegans work very hard to dispel the myths and are not only battling exploitative industries but are battling have animal welfarist groups and fellow vegans who don't "want to appear extreme."
I am also beginning to believe that non-abolitionist vegans feel the same amount of guilt as vegetarians and omnivores when faced with the truth.
I wonder what would happen if we didn't have Gary Francione stepping in and calling out the hypocrisy and the rampant moral schizophrenia (I love that term) present. How frightening would that be?
I've had the opportunity to leaflet at over 300 colleges across the country over the last seven years. Whenever someone comes up to say that they're vegetarian or vegan, I ask them what led to this. Not once has someone mentioned the groups/writers that you admire, Adam. And time after time, I am hearing individuals mentioning those you dismiss as having an impact on their veganism. This is not to say that you and your ilk are not making an impact or that you wouldn't if you spent more of your energy interacting constructively with the general public on veganism as opposed to interacting with vegans about animal advocacy organizations/writers you don't like. But to have the certainty that so many of you have, I would think that you would prefer to have some more feedback to back up claims about the effectiveness of your approach. We all want to do what we think is in the best interests of animals and we're naturally going to gravitate towards the tactics that yield the results.
I think it's a shame that many folks who identify as vegans promote welfare reforms when veganism, since it's inception, was opposed to that. In fact, the originators of veganism had to differentiate themselves from the vegetarians and welfarists of their time because they saw how ineffective and nonsensical it was.
In 1951 Leslie Cross, VP of the UK Vegan Society, issued a statement to "clarify the goal towards which the movement aspires." The statement was titled Veganism Defined and can easily be found online.
A couple excerpts:
"'The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and 'The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals."
The Society pledges itself 'in pursuance of its object" to 'seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man."
Veganism has always been abolitionist! Not welfarist...
More excerpts:
"The effect of this development is to make veganism unique among movements concerned with animal welfare. For it has crystallised as a whole and not, as are all other such movements, as an abstraction.
Where every other movement deals with a segment - and therefore deals directly with practices rather than with principles - veganism is itself a principle, from which certain practices logically flow.
If, for example, the vegan principle is applied to diet, it can at once be seen why it must be vegetarian in the strictest sense and why it cannot contain any foods derived from animals. One may become a vegetarian for a variety of reasons - humanitarian, health, or mere preference for such a diet; The principle is a smatter of personal feeling, and varies accordingly. Veganism, however, is a principle - that man has no right to exploit the creatures for his own ends - and no variation occurs."
Thanks for helping uphold the original aims of veganism, Adam.
One more excerpt from Cross's powerful statement:
"...veganism is not so much welfare as liberation, for the creatures and for the mind and heart of man; not so much an effort to make the present relationship bearable, as an uncompromising recognition that because it is in the main one of master and slave, it has to be abolished before something better and finer can be built."
Animal welfare regulation undermines the vegan ideal of non exploitation. Anyone who promotes the things Markus promotes (listed in Adam's entry) should, in reality, not even consider themselves to be vegan.
Very useful words from Lucas, thank you!
Larry - i'm sure if PETA didn't exist, other animal advocacy groups would fill the gap, and maybe you'd have seen a billboard from a group that doesn't routinely murder animals themselves as policy.
KFC??! PETA toured across Canada ENCOURAGING people to eat at KFC. And with their awful, sexist 'Lettuce Ladies' no less. Activists in my group and city, Victoria BC, were compelled to protest their presence. (See veganmeans.com/how_veganism/KFC_Victoria.htm .)
Simply having the $$ to put up a billboard isn't really reason to exempt a group from their downfalls. I originally went vegan because of cancer -- several family members died from it. So should i thank cancer? Should i send money to cancer-causing companies?
It's a ridiculous justification.
Ginny - i think it's naive to believe that 'everything helps' when there's no data to back this up, and much is contrary. No where has reform led to abolition, and it's naive to believe it'l
Donald Watson, who founded the Vegan Society and coined the word "vegan", defined veganism as a philosophy or lifestyle that seeks to exclude exploitation of animals wherever possible and practical.
That definition doesn't preclude support for incremental reforms or halfway measures. Indeed, Watson acknowledged that vegetarianism, while imperfect, is nevertheless for many people a necessary stepping stone to veganism.
Wow...it truly blows my mind that those of us who care about animals are arguing with EACH OTHER rather than spending time supporting each other and working together...or instead going after people TRULY abusing animals...we are sitting here and telling people they shouldn't call themselves VEGAN and they shouldn't be okay with the fact that a certain animal group changed their life and opened their eyes for the better.
Dave, I am forever grateful to PETA. How do I know if another animal group would've put a billboard up? I DON'T. All I know is what affected me. And what kind of a difference I'm making now in my daily choices because of that group. I said I didn't agree with everything they did.
Why is that not good enough? Ya know what, it doesn't have to be good enough for anyone else but those that it is. I'm so grateful that you chose to be Vegan. And I'm not telling you to "thank cancer".
Can't we all just be glad that we are the compassionate people we are?
People put down HSUS and the Prop 2 campaigns, etc. Do you think another animal organization would've gotten a FULL HOUR on the Oprah Winfrey Show? Reaching several MILLION people?!?! These groups ARE needed. So many people saw footage they'd have NEVER seen before because of the Prop 2 campaign and its commercials and Oprah and Ellen, etc. So many MILLIONS. And so many have either made the transition to Veganism or they're much more closer to it then they were. Isn't that what's important?
Again, I believe the Abolitionist Approach, HSUS, FOA, ALF, PETA, MFA...they are ALL reaching people and putting us closer to the goal post.
I thank each and every person trying to educate people and spread the word about how important it is to be Vegan.
We are all making a difference. Some more than others? Maybe. But ALL making a difference and that's what's important.
Larry: I find it rather difficult to side with those groups and campaigns because all they're doing is causing confusion and giving animal rights a really bad name. I've known about PETA since I was 5 and I remember reading their "The Compassionate Cook" cookbook and thinking "but why do they get to eat baby chickens (obviously I was 5 when I thought that) and drink milk?" I was lucky to make that connection as a child. However, a lot of us don't. We now have fierce opponents--"humanely" produced products, animal welfare organizations and campaigns using donors' money to applaud the guilty, fellow "vegans" who say "support free-range and humane products!" and now In Vitro meat.
Who's thinking of the animals? Certainly not any of the above. We need abolitionist groups to go mainstream because the abusers are finding ways to make animal cruelty more palatable and somehow "compassionate" (scoff). Nevermind that there are glaring reports telling us to stop consuming animals.
And humans can be a very stubborn bunch. We need to help spread abolitionism. Animals cannot afford to have half ass groups and campaigns who will say "oh don't worry about it, at least you treated him/her well." We need to bring it to the mainstream because PETA, HSUS and all of those other guys should not be polluting the media the way they are.
Of course, people will be startled, offended, guilty and all sorts of negative emotions but as abolitionists, it is our job to be patient but urgent. When I say patient, I don't mean "oh, take your time. Try being vegetarian first." I mean, really answer people's questions calmly, confidentally and rationally. Abolitionist veganism will begin to make sense to them once you do enough research and present it. There's almost no argument that someone can come up with once you get everything down pat. In the end, the abolitionists ARE right and if we are confident enough to present that, eventually things will change.
Hoss, incremental reforms can be abolitionist in nature. (Read Rain Without Thunder for some suggestions on how to incrementally strive for abolition.) However animal welfare regulation undermines the vegan ideal because it does not lead to abolition of animal exploitation. It leads to more exploitation. Watson and other pioneer vegans did not try to "make the present relationship bearable", as welfare regulation campaigns do. Veganism was (and should still be) an "uncompromising recognition that because it is in the main one of master and slave, it has to be abolished before something better and finer can be built."
And I never said Watson didn't see ovo-lacto vegetarianism as a step to veganism. I said he, and other vegans, "had to differentiate themselves from the vegetarians" ... "because they saw how ineffective and nonsensical it was." Read Watson's writings for proof. Although he accepted ovo-lactovorism as a step to veganism, he did not promote it. He promoted veganism.
Hoss, I also decided to quote Cross because it was his duty and desire to "clarify the goal towards which the movement aspires." Note how he does not include promoting vegetarianism or welfarism, but criticizes those things.
I think it's also important to note that veganism was founded in a time when no one thought veganism was physically possible, even vegetarians. Thus, Watson and others thought that ovo-lactovorism was a necessary "stepping stone" to veganism. That was 65 years ago. We now know that to live as a vegan is entirely possible. So then, why would we ever consider vegetarianism as a necessary step? It's only a step that many folks take to veganism because vegans today promote vegetarianism. If we stop doing that, based on the knowledge we have today -- that Watson did not have in 1944 -- then more people would go vegan. It's much simpler today than in 1944 or even 1984.
Still my point stands. Veganism was founded to distinguish vegans from vegetarians and welfarists.
Read "SHOULD THE VEGETARIAN MOVEMENT BE REFORMED?" written by Watson in 1948. It can be found by doing a simple google search.
Good comments, Lucas.
Knowing history helps us map out activism for the present and future. Let's align theory with practice and help transform society away from exploiting other animals. Half-measures endorse the oppressive system and perpetuate speciesism - veganism and rights advocacy endorse justice for nonhuman animals.
"Let's align theory with practice and help transform society away from exploiting other animals."
I'm with you, Brandon! Thanks!
It's a shame that animal rights groups, animal welfare organizations, and even vegan advocacy groups don't uphold the original aims of veganism (or are outright hostile toward veganism) and then dismiss veganism as a way to make the transformation you speak of.
I may not agree with how Adam approached this, but comments implying that Erik would never name-call or be arrogantly sarcastic toward or dismissive of those with whom he disagrees surprise me. He's done it too. Really, didn't even this stem from Erik using his heavily trafficked blog to ridicule another advocate whose approach he didn't like? Even this title is a play on Erik's own title. I honestly cringed at moments in Steiner's piece too, but Erik's response to it was anything but "respectful" disagreement. And Erik doesn't permit comment to discuss or defend. So why is it wrong for Adam to go on the attack but perfectly fine for Erik to do it? This isn’t an Erik problem or an Adam problem or an abolitionist problem or a welfarist problem. It's a movement problem. Everybody gets angry when someone writes something like this about one of his or her friends but shrugs his or her shoulders when it’s a friend doing the writing.
Hoss - Lucas sums it up well, but further, Watson was very explicit that when he was growing up, explaining how the 'idyllic' family farms were still nothing less than death camps for the animals there. I doubt he'd be in favor of, or advocate for *any* kind of death camp.
There are certainly abolitionist steps, but steps can be made without compromising the vegan's anti-exploitative position.
Getting people to STOP eating eggs is an abolitionist step. Getting them to eat cage-free eggs is not. Exploitation is neither being challenged nor ended. (Well, unless you're a cage. ;)
Some more ‘truth’ for the people. Remember when enjoying those vegetarian meals how pesticides affect crop insects:
BTs rupture cells in the stomach lining of insects, causing them to ‘bleed’ to death internally.
IGRs prevent insects from properly molting, a natural and necessary process in their complex life cycle, causing them to suffocate inside their own shells.
Synthetic pyrethroids cause insects to suffer the equivalent of Grand Mal seizures from which they can’t recover.
Not to mention the auxiliary damage done to wildlife. Ooops, guess I did mention it.
I know, I know. Go organic. Organic farms, which may still use pesticides, represent less than 1% of world farmland.
Pass the burgers, please.
Chris,
Seriously? I mean, come on...
We all know there is no such thing as a 'perfect Vegan'. Even The Janes in India unintentionally harm/kill some form of life.
The idea/intention is to do the least harm possible. At least, that's my idea/intention.
"Pass the burgers" is in NO way doing the least harm possible.
Just curious...could you kill the animal yourself? Not that that makes it okay. But I couldn't. So I certainly don't think paying someone else to do it for me is the answer. That is...if I thought eating animals was okay...which I don't.
Larry, In fact I have raised chickens and rabbits since I was a kid, yeah I kill them myself. I'm also a hunter. I believe vegans as a rule eschew eating honey, right? Obviously that places bees on the same plateau as those cows you love to protect. So what about all those corn weevils killed so you can enjoy your vegan nachos? All the sap beetles and rootworms? Come on, Larry, perfect? For Christ sake, you and your ilk are the culinary equivalent of the moral majority: Self-righteous hypocrites that couldn't hold up your end of an argument past the first intelligent rebuttal. You want to save the world? Sell your house, move to Africa and start looking after some AIDs orphans.
Chris, I encourage you to visit FarmKind(dot)org to learn about the agriculture of the future - vegan organic farming. The author of the website grew up a farm kid in a cow-milk industry and now strives to live his life in harmony with other animals.
Thanks, Brandon. Checked out the site you recommended. On the 'Good News' tab, the article on organic farming in Mozambique leads with:
"He didn't burn the cornstalks at the end of the season, but left them on the earth to rot. When mice started eating the decomposing vegetables, rather than clear the field, he brought in cats."
Nice vegan ideals, mate.
Come on, Brandon. Get real.
Chris, that's an article from the Christian Science Monitor. Did you read anything from the Farm Kind website? I'm interested in your opinion on Harold Brown's story under the "Animal Rights" tab.
Who cares where the article originated; it was on the site you recommended under ‘Good News’ and lauded the efforts of a fellow who rids his farm of mice by bringing in cats to kill them instead of cleaning up the mess that was attracting mice. I didn’t link the article or call it 'Good News'; Mr. Animal Rights did.
Yes, I read the whole site. The Animal Rights tab has a photo of Farmer Brown kissing an obviously domesticated cow. He spends two thousand words talking about himself, finally coming to his point: ‘Animal rights, to me, is quite simply respecting animals as the sentient beings that they are.’
Hence, the question: If he respects his cow, is it okay that he owns one? And if so, does he use her milk for consumption? Or does she simply exist in his life as a free-spirited sentient being he can kiss?
Chris,
Always jump to the "save orphans, fix and solve something else" argument. I'd like to think one is capable of helping not just one species...I know I try. That's all anyone can do...try. Do you?
Like I said....I *try* to do my best. No one is perfect. I already admitted to not being perfect. Something you chose to mock. And I certainly don't consider myself to be self-righteous. Just someone who cares deeply about all species...and someone trying to figure out how to make the world a better place for all of us.
I acknowledged the fact that some suffering is inevitable. No one is perfect. And no one person will save the world. But collectively, all of us can be a pretty powerful bunch and hopefully make a big difference. And many of us can help orphaned humans while at the same time trying to do as little harm to animals as possible. Try it...I bet you could succceed at both...if you try.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!