Moral Schizophrenia

I was having a conversation with a friend at work and he pointed out this story to me, about a Tundra Swan with an injured left wing who had to be flown back to Alberta, otherwise he might have died.

The friend expressed what I might call outrage that such resources were put into helping one animal. He pointed to another story (which I'm having trouble finding right now) about a deer in New Brunswick (I believe) that was stranded on a lake, injured, and wandering around, obviously suffering. Members of the public were fairly outraged that officials didn't get to the deer more quickly and end its suffering. Meanwhile, probably 100 yards away, there were numerous people... hunting deer:

"Why don't they just hunt that deer instead, put it out of its misery, and everyone just shut up," said my friend.

One local ended up boating out to where the deer was and killing it. The CBC story ended, by the way, with a thankful, "The deer meat did not go to waste."

While I don't necessarily agree with my friend (or CBC's) conclusion on the matter, I do agree there is a serious disconnect between how we treat and view animals in different situations. Why does it matter if a deer suffers if we see no value in the creature's life anyway? Or do we just feel less bad when it's a "quick kill" or when the suffering is done in slaughterhouses, hidden from view?

My experiences have shown me that most people have at least some problem with animal cruelty, though where they draw the line between "cruel" and "acceptable" may be vastly different. Maybe they draw the line with companion animal abuse, cruelty with no purpose or with what goes on in our meat and dairy industries.

I know a number of people who will become irate when hearing about Michael Vick or the Toronto Humane Society, and then turn around and eat a steak. Or people who look down on hunters, but have no problem eating meat from animals that had far less of a fair chance at life, and far less of a pleasurable life. I've even seen someone eat bacon while looking up cute pictures of pigs online. Of course, I dare not bring up that pigs often have their tails chopped off and are castrated at a young age (by hand and with no anesthetic).

Prof. Gary L Francione refers to this as a type of moral schizophrenia, where we place animals in different categories for no logical reason. Animals A, B, and C are our friends; animals D, E, and F are our food. An organization out of Toronto had a great series of ads that showed animals from each category and bluntly asked, "Why love one, but eat the other?"

While there are no simple answers for what we deem cruel and what we deem "the natural order of things," I nonetheless think this is worthy of consideration. Are our instincts to feel bad flawed or wrong? Or should we recognize our moral considerations towards all animals and find ways to incorporate them into our daily lives?

Objectification

Mae Mua Loi didn't feel like an object. Yet, she had slowly figured out that this was, in fact, the case. She knew this by the way she seemed to exist for the sole purpose of her owners' whims, even those that seemed relatively frivolous. And by the fact that she even had owners. As she walked through the streets of Bangkok, doing tricks for a few hundred baht, she noticed how no other person seemed to have owners. Every person seemed quite free--particularly the young, lighter-skinned ones wearing backpacks--her owners' best customers.

The only logical conclusion was that she was not deserving of personhood. Mae had no choice but to make these trips. It didn't matter that her sensitive feet were cracked and hurting. It didn't matter that the city absolutely overwhelmed and confused her. She was going to get her owners the money, like it or not.

Of course, Mae Mua Loi couldn't vocalize--or even rationalize--any of this. But the transformation from a self-perceived person to an object could be seen in every aspect of her demeanor. Instead of moving with haste, eager for what may come next as she once did, she simply moved along as instructed.

The problem was, Mae Mua Loi didn't particularly like being an object. She felt like she had goals, albeit maybe not as socially complex as that of her owners. She liked meeting other elephants. She enjoyed strolling through bushes, looking for leaves and fruit to eat. In fact, those times were the only ones where she felt... normal. But those instincts were wrong. They had to be. Why else would she be in this position? Perhaps it was some sort of design flaw.

The first time she suspected she was an object was when she was a very young elephant, about three years old. She was separated from her mother by several men with sticks with nails on the end. Of course, she did not know this was the last time she would see her mother. If she had, she might have fought a little harder to be with her for even just a few moments longer, before the pain from the stabbings became too unbearable.

Instead, she did as the men seemed to want. She had learned that if she listened to commands, they would have no reason to stab her. It was a lesson she could not forget, because of the still-fresh wounds on her backside. But when she saw where she was being driven, she suddenly lost her calm sense of obedience. She was being led towards a small, wooden cage. Too small, or so she thought, to fit her elephant girth.

While it's true that few beings enjoy such confined accommodations, Mae Mui Loi had a particularly strong aversion. She began to look for an escape route when she realized that, in her panic, she hadn't noticed a rope slipping around her neck. She jerked hard, trying to pull away. The rope tightened. She noticed the men closing in on her, sticks held high. Her lungs emptied with a scream as the first jab hit her behind her back-left leg. Her eyes rolled back as she struggled to find a position of relative calm. As the second jab hit her right side and she felt another rope tighten around her, she knew she had to submit. If she would just enter the cage, maybe she would be left alone. Two holes in her thick, but sensitive, skin was enough.

Defeated, she walked towards the cage. The man with the rope around her neck pulled her forward with force. And then, a moment of calm. This didn't seem so bad to Mae. But the calm did not last for more than that moment. The next thing she knew, she was being jabbed again, this time from behind. She felt vague feelings of shock, confusion, betrayal. Had she not done what they wanted her to do? Suddenly, it was loud all around her. Men chattering was all she could hear. Soon they had ropes tied around her extremities. She felt the vibrations of one man climbing on top of the cage. And then, blinding pain from all directions. Her eyes rolled back again and she let out a low, rumbling sound that surprised even her. Her legs almost gave out as the pain seared through her body. But the vicious attack did not stop there. For three days, the men would sporadically stab her. She no longer believed they wanted her to do something for them. She didn't know what to believe. In her limited knowledge, she could imagine no reason for one being to do this to another. Towards the end of this cruel, ritualistic experiment was the first time Mae considered the possibility she was an it.

But now, walking down the streets of Bangkok, towards Mae decided she was going to listen to her instincts, no matter how inappropriate they may have been.  The vibrations in her feet, the noise, the potholes--it had all become too much for her. Her giant body turned, much to the surprise of her Mahout, and she was moving away from the busy market.

She was an object. Running away. A ball rolling away from a child who never appreciated it in the first place.

A Brief Response to as Many Anti-Vegan Arguments I Can Drum up

Hey all,

As much as I don't necessarily want to make this a vegan blog, I think it's obvious to anyone who knows me well at this point in my life that it's something that matters a great deal to me. I was thinking I could use this entry as a somewhat definitive explanation of the ideas and thoughts through the art of refutatio (Latin makes you feel good about yourself).

Many of these are arguments I face almost once a week: some of them are valid, some just plain nonsense. But I'm always willing to hear people out because I'm certainly interested in hearing contrary opinions, as my vegan lifestyle is something I stand by. Having said that, if I'm certainly not unwavering. If I found a definitive study that veganism involved health risks or had other negative side effects, I would certainly consider it and react accordingly. I think it's extremely important to think about why we believe what we do and whether those reasons are sufficient to justify our choices. Here goes:

Isn't veganism unhealthy?/isn't consuming meat or dairy healthy?

Short answer, no. I'm certainly no dietician, but the American Dietetics Association is made up of some. They released a statement (and they're not the only ones) saying veganism is perfectly healthy. Search it yourself. In fact, I've been reading the book, The China Study, which is centred around the largest biomedical study of nutrition and disease ever conducted. The conclusion of the book (which is written by one of the authors of the study, a respected researcher) is essentially that the more plants we eat, and the less meat/dairy we consume, the healthier we are and the less prone we are for heart disease and cancer. He cites a wide variety of studies from around the world to back this up.

Aren't there some conflicting reports?/I heard the jury's still out on science...

There have been millions of studies and not all of them say the exact same thing. But from the vast majority of what I've seen backs up exactly what The China Study reports: the three leading causes of death (heart disease, diabetes and cancer) all drop drastically on a low-fat, plant-based diet. I implore you to find one that says otherwise.

What about iron/protein/calcium/B12?

Again, not a dietician, but this is all available online on various websites and in those things with words that are made out of paper that some people use to level their desks.

Iron: calorie for calorie, there are many plant foods whose iron amounts far exceed that in meat

Protein: The RDA of protein can easily be met by anyone, unless you're eating all fruit, all junk food or all air (by that, I mean not consuming enough calories).

calcium: There are a number of studies that show veg/veegs have equal calcium stores than non-veggies/veegs. Related article:

http://www.examiner.com/x-6753-Philadelphia-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m7d10-Do-vegetarians-really-have-weaker-bones

B12: It's true, there are no reliable vegan dietary sources of B12. But that doesn't mean we're meant to eat meat. We used to get this from our soil, but since pesticides and other contaminants came into the mix, we've wisely started washing our veggies better. And B12 is not specifically in meat, but rather it is produced in bacteria. There are a number of plant-based supplements that are readily available.

It must be so hard/expensive./I guess you can never eat out again.

Short answer again, it is not hard, nor is it that expensive nor do I spend inordinate amounts of time cooking or preparing food. Most of my stand-by recipes take about ten minutes to prepare and you can find plenty at veganyumyum.com or vivelevegan.blogspot.com and in various cookbooks. Ask for suggestions if you're interested. I will also add the cost can be quite minimal if you're eating well and if you don't want to eat those fake veggie meats all the time. The most expensive things you typically buy at a grocery store are meats/dairy products/ processed foods. Regarding eating out, yeah, it's not always the easiest thing to do as a vegan, but most places will have something--you just have to ask or clarify ingredients. And as far as feeling bad about being a difficult customer, you wouldn't feel bad if it was an allergy or a facet of your religion keeping you from eating whatever food, so why feel bad about a deeply held, moral belief?

Who cares about stupid animals, anyway?

This is a tough argument to have because it usually comes from a meat-eater who suddenly feels on the defensive as soon as you mention you're a vegetarian. But my rationality for caring about the treatment of animals is quite simple, really: if other beings don't need to suffer for my food, why would I make them?

And suffer they do. Factory farms are virtually animal hell. There's a wealth of information around, and plenty of absolutely appalling videos that represent standard industry practices. Things like de-beaking and removing the tail of a pig seems pretty horrible, but it's essentially par for the course. Not to mention how little room the animals have to move around and how often they get sick, break limbs... the list of atrocities goes on.

But why vegan? Why not just vegetarian?

Again, the ideas behind this shouldn't be difficult to understand. No, animals don't have to be harmed for people to take milk and eggs from them, but they almost invariably are. Some of the worst animal abuses happen in dairy and egg production--not to mention the fact that the dairy industry is very closely tied to the meat and veal industry. In fact, cows (much like humans) create milk for their young. So by default, if we're drinking cow's milk, we're taking that milk from a baby cow. What happens to the baby, you ask? Well that's what veal is. Even on so-called "ethical" farms, the baby is almost always sold to be killed at a young age for veal. 

And even if that wasn't the case, using animal products lends itself to the idea that these animals exist purely to satisfy human wants. I think that is an absolute fallacy and any rational person, I expect, would agree. For me, it's a Ghandi-esque non-participation in anything I believe to be evil. I've heard arguments that the net suffering for a glass of milk or an egg is actually more than that of meat. But I don't care, because I'd rather just not participate in the whole, cruel mess.

But no one can ever be purely vegan. Aren't you just a big hypocrite?

Yes. I am.

At some point in my life, I'm going to accidentally or unknowingly consume an animal product. Even while driving a car, I'm killing bugs left right and centre. Certainly, that can be considered hypocritical. But isn't everyone?

I certainly don't see how that's any more hypocritical (I would argue far less by matter of intention) than saying you like animals and then participating in the slaughter or commodification of animals--For example, by loving a dog and eating a pig. Or by getting outraged over Michael Vick getting pleasure from dogs suffering while simultaneously getting pleasure from watching a sport in which a ball covered in the skin of a cow is thrown around.

At least I'm trying to participate in as little suffering as possible.

But what about free-range/organic/family farms? Isn't that okay because the animals are treated better?

While I don't disagree animals being treated better is a good thing, this is still operating on the presupposition that these animals exist for the purposes of our food enjoyment. I don't think that should be considered self-evident, just because we have created a system in which it appears to be. I don't care if the animals are tickled and you hire a string quartet to play as you slit their throats. I do not accept the idea that they are ours to eat/use.

How do you know plants don't have feelings?

I have actually gotten this one several times, believe it or not, and it's probably the easiest to refute. Even without getting into a biological argument about the existence of a nervous system and a brain, or the concept of sentience, the simple fact is meat is a much less efficient way of producing food. It takes up to sixteen pounds of protein from wheat to create one pound of protein meat. Therefore, vegetarians actually require far less plant food than meat eaters. So if you're truly concerned about your poor, defenseless corn, steak is not the right answer.

But I like meat.

So? What if baby brains tasted good? Would that be justified?

Don't you miss the taste?

Don't you think slave owners missed having someone else to do their work for them? I mean, these last two answers are obviously a little bit hyperbolic, but I'm using that to show how thin such arguments actually are. And I consider them only a little hyperbolic because, as I described above, these conditions essentially amount to torture.

anyone who knows me, knows I'm very particular about my food and if vegan food weren't delicious, I would not be as happy as I am right now. But even if meat was the best tasting thing in the universe, I certainly don't think food and "good eating" is the pinnacle of human existence.

Yeah, animals may not be able to play chess or talk about the government. But what does that matter? There is quotations that I've become quite fond of that basically explains my feelings on the people vs. animals thing, and the artificial and superficial barriers we create to justify our awful treatments of creatures that are, for all intents and purposes, extremely similar to us.

"...a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

-Jeremy Bentham, philosopher

As I mentioned before, I'm happy to debate anyone or answer any other criticisms you may have. So hit me with it.

Dream Farm Turns into Slaughterhouse...

Hey all y'all,

Apologies for the lateness of this post. I hope the article to which I'm referring has not been taken down by the time you, dear reader, come across it:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Health/Swine+turns+dream+farm+into+slaughterhouse/1581664/story.html

I stumbled across this a while ago and, really, it flat-out irritated me. The article is about an Alberta pig farmer who had to quarantine, and eventually kill, 500 pigs because they were infected with H1N1. The article talks about how he came over from Holland and the wonderful life he made for himself in Alberta before the tragedy struck. What I take serious issue with it the definition of "tragedy."

I think the part of the article that most bothers me is the title: Swine flu turns 'dream' farm into slaughterhouse. Because the slaughterhouse is the exact place the pigs would have been sent next if they hadn't come down with swine flu.

The supposed tragedy, then, is not that these pigs were killed--it's that no profit was made from these pigs being killed. I'm sure you could also make an argument for wasted "food," but I obviously take at least some issue with that.

I know picking on a poor farmer who just lost thousands of dollars is not going to make me the most favourable of folks. It certainly doesn't make me happy to hear about Van Ginkel, or any other farmer for that matter, losing large sums of money. But at the end of the day ( I'm paraphrasing a quotation from the movie, Your Mommy Kills Animals here), him making a profit off of those animals would have ensured more animals would have been moved in to take their place. At least now, there's a bit of uncertainty on that.

I would also like to add that there's a lot of speculation that factory farming might have played a major role in creating the Swine flu outbreak:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/swineflufarm/
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/30/did-factory-farming-cause-the-swine-flu-outbreak/

For those of you who don't think factory farming is an issue in Alberta, here's one for you:
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2001/06/factory_farm.html

That is a 2001 article, so that 1/3 number has probably changed. One thing history tells us about factory farms is they grow almost as fast as the sickly animals on their farm.

And on that note, I'm officially going to continue calling it Swine Flu whenever possible.

A Vegan Preamble

Hello anyone who might be listening,

I'm planning on a series of blogs based around my beliefs regarding veganism and animal rights. I just wanted to explain myself before I do for all the people who don't understand that my belief in animal rights doesn't have to coincide with me being a crazy.

I'm not radical... in any real way. I've never really been a contrarian, nor have I ever really wanted to offend anyone. I don't particularly like debating, because I think it's pretty useless for the most part. People don't really listen to you anyway and they're going to believe what they're going to believe.

The reason I do debate, however, is for that rare person who is actually willing to listen or take what was said and think about it and do their own research. If they don't come to my conclusion, fine, but at least they've considered it and are truly better for having given whatever issue a reasonable amount of thought.

I feel the way we eat has become such a mindless process to most people because we're so far removed from the system of production. I obviously think that's dangerous from an animal rights perspective, but also from a health perspective--and what we call the Standard American Diet (SAD). I'm no nutritionist, but I find people's concepts of health have become these vague statements about how we "need a ton of protein" or about how milk "does the body good." The more I read on these subjects, the more I take issue with them.

But I had these same preconceptions and, after reflecting on where they might have come from, the only thing I could come up with is from advertisements. But I digress.

The extent of my "radicalism" can be summed up as follows:

1. I want to minimize suffering in any living being wherever possible.

2. Meat, dairy and egg production--or any production that involves animals--almost invariable results in suffering.

3. It is very much possible to live and thrive without eating or wearing anything that comes from an animal.

I'm not trying to shake the system to its core, nor do I think everyone is going to all of a sudden turn vegan--but if I can make just one person think about the philosophy behind such consumption than I am happy.

Thanks for reading.