Are you an abolitionist or a welfarist?

[Clueless Git]

I also find it mildly insulting that you made the point, Cupid, about pure and simple marketing working on pure and simple minds (unless the "pure" part refers to innocence rather than lack of intelligence), because - albeit for a short stint - I was one of those minds...

".. works on both pure and simple minds .. ", I said PeaBrain.

i.e. It works on a mind that is simple but not necesarily pure, a mind that is pure but not simple or a mind that is both simple and pure.

Intended as a compliment to the welfarists who may or may not be simple but are definitely in every single instance motivated by 'purity' of mind, that was.

On things that relate to awareness that meat comes from animals being killed, animals having a slight preference for life over death, etc; The idea of a genuinely innocent adult (as opposed to an adult disengeniously feigning innocence) is quite absurd, don't you think?

[Peabrain]

Okay CS I shall take my mildly insulted-ness down a notch... *steps backwards and bumps into absurdity* Your last comment is true indeed, but absurd as it is, innocence in this subject does exist (insofar as lacking knowledge, rather than lacking culpability).

Unfortunately many meat eaters genuinely think it's necessary, and as human animals many of us respect nature even if we don't like it; we don't think owls are evil for catching and eating mice, and we don't think lions are evil for doing the same to antelope... Then in addition to that many really truly think there is no such thing as factory farming and that animals lead charmed lives, essentially be cared for very well and kindly by their farmers, before being slain as quickly and as painlessly as possible. In essence they believe therefore, that farm animals are having better lives than they would left in the wild where predation, illness or injury may cause way more suffering, than their captive lives would.

That may well then translate to being simple minded, but there it is... *steps back again and bumps into a mirror*

Unfortunately it is what I thought until I had the rose tinted spectacles torn away from my face and stamped into a thousand pieces.

But of course, we're not so much talking about meat eaters, as vegans who believe welfare should matter (despite them wanting the abolishment of any harm to animals whatsoever).

Are they pure? Simple? A bit of both?

If they (we/I whatever) are assisting harm in some way (unintentionally), should we be really be implying simple-mindedness/pointing the finger of blame, or is it not better to try to find alternatives together?

[harpy]

The first vegans I ever remember meeting were at a CIWF demo against live exports, and I didn't have any trouble grasping that they were against consumption of animal products but for improving the way animals are treated in the meantime. So I don't see why anyone else would either, really.

[Peabrain]

Exactly harpy.

As an afterthought to anyone reading this BTW, the rose tinted specs weren't ripped off my face literally, just metaphorically, I'm not suggesting aggressively spreading the message.

[Peabrain]

I'm gonna go ahead and quote myself here, and repeat my questions (no big fat ego here I promise)... *guffaw*

...we could instead be asking "How can we work towards abolition, yet do what we can for animals in the meantime in such a way that does not seem to promote animal use?"... AND ...is it not better to try to find alternatives together [rather than quibbling on terminology/the better approach]?

...and repeat my suggestions...

I suppose what we need more of [...] is at the very least adding to those welfare management issues that some people will take up, with more charity to sanctuaries, more publicity of such sanctuaries and why the animals are there in the first place, more education for the masses, more vegan school/hospital food, more accurate (and CLEAR edit: VISIBLE) labelling (so non-vegans see that veganism isn't such a "fringe" movement), more positive discussion, and working further towards the criminalisation of harm to animals.

Anybody else got some straightforward suggestions on how to reach abolition sooner, and dare I say, help the animals in the meantime (even though we are clearly rejecting the label of "welfarist" in the sense of the maniacal baddies; the meat industry fat cats)?

[Clueless Git]

The first vegans I ever remember meeting were at a CIWF demo against live exports, and I didn't have any trouble grasping that they were against consumption of animal products but for improving the way animals are treated in the meantime. So I don't see why anyone else would either, really.

That many welfarists are also against the consumption of animals is not in dispute Harpy.

That welfarism is actualy increasing the consumption of animals seems, despite empirical evidence, to be the difficult thing to grasp.

[Clueless Git]

Anybody else got some straightforward suggestions on how to reach abolition sooner, and dare I say, help the animals in the meantime (even though we are clearly rejecting the label of "welfarist" in the sense of the maniacal baddies; the meat industry fat cats)?

Let me bounce something off of you and see if it leads anywhere PB?

Analogy (p-poor one, as always!): You (abolitionist) take a weapon (welfarism) into a fight. Opponent (meat industry) picks up exact same weapon (welfarism) and soundly whoops yo' butt (increased meat sales as people become happier that all pigs/cows/chicken have pet names, personal attendants, etc ..) with it.

Even in the abscence of an alternative weapon is it not insanity to take that exact same weapon back into the fight again?

[harpy]

That many welfarists are also against the consumption of animals is not in dispute Harpy.

That welfarism is actualy increasing the consumption of animals seems, despite empirical evidence, to be the difficult thing to grasp.

Which empirical evidence?

[Clueless Git]

Anybody else got some straightforward suggestions on how to reach abolition sooner, and dare I say, help the animals in the meantime ..

Seperate answer to same question ..

I do have one very straightforward idea that, I reckon would make massive inroads into both things; A concerted campaign to level cruelty laws between livestock and pets with a nasty twist.

The nasty twist being that such a campaign need not argue for livestock to be elevated to the same protection levels as domestic animals.

It need simply argue for levelment. I.e. Propose an equal choice between either upgrading protection for livestock OR downgrading protection for pets.

Thinking being this:

1. A campaign simply to upgrade livestock is easy to resist.

2. A campaign simply to downgrade pets is absolutely unnacceptable.

3. A campaign simply aimed at exposing the ridiculosity and blatant hypocracy of arguments defending a differential could hardly fail to succeed.

The only fly in the ointment there being that it is ever increasingly seen as 'clever' to defend ridiculosities and hypocracies that are popular and people will do so without shame.

- - - Updated - - -

Which empirical evidence?

That the meat and dairy industries are increasingly harnessing welfarism (organics, free range etc, too) as a marketing strategy because it successfully increases their sales.

Is the empirical evidence of increasing numbers of meat/dairy building welfarism into their marketing campaigns something you would dispute?

[Peabrain]

Let me bounce something off of you and see if it leads anywhere PB?

Analogy (p-poor one, as always!): You (abolitionist) take a weapon (welfarism) into a fight. Opponent (meat industry) picks up exact same weapon (welfarism) and soundly whoops yo' butt (increased meat sales as people become happier that all pigs/cows/chicken have pet names, personal attendants, etc ..) with it.

Even in the abscence of an alternative weapon is it not insanity to take that exact same weapon back into the fight again?

Theoretically, if there were no weapon there would be no fight. Not really an option, so... If there were absolutely no alternative weapon, then adaptation of the aforementioned weapon would be the only answer... Which leads on to this:

Seperate answer to same question ..

I do have one very straightforward idea that, I reckon would make massive inroads into both things; A concerted campaign to level cruelty laws between livestock and pets with a nasty twist.

The nasty twist being that such a campaign need not argue for livestock to be elevated to the same protection levels as domestic animals.

It need simply argue for levelment. I.e. Propose an equal choice between either upgrading protection for livestock OR downgrading protection for pets.

Thinking being this:

1. A campaign simply to upgrade livestock is easy to resist.

2. A campaign simply to downgrade pets is absolutely unnacceptable.

3. A campaign simply aimed at exposing the ridiculosity and blatant hypocracy of arguments defending a differential could hardly fail to succeed.

The only fly in the ointment there being that it is ever increasingly seen as 'clever' to defend ridiculosities and hypocracies that are popular and people will do so without shame.

That is diabolically genius! I like it a lot... Nay, I love it! Because the beauty of it would be, even if there were no "win" it would expose an extremely hard to ignore truth.

I've always thought that laws needed to change for the biggest inroads to be made, and to the end that I wanted to understand how the "higher welfare" standards differed to other farms (so I looked into it in detail - hard reading but I wanted to understand what was being done)...

With the FTA guidelines it was extremely lax, with the Soil Association a little bit better in terms of living conditions and some changes made that I don't know are better or not (for instance dairy calves get to stay with their mums until they are 2 years old - thereby getting even more bonded before they are torn away from their families and sold on - albeit they have to go to "approved" farmers with better welfare standards), and RSPCA was much more detailed, for instance; they advise the "killers" at slaughterhouses ensure that the chickens are not able to see other chickens being killed, and are carfeful not to break legs or wings through rough handling), and did mention laws about certain levels of care being taken on farms etc...

But what was glaringly obvious was that even with strict guidelines, what the animals had to endure was horrible...

I would personally suggest that for any such "levelling" campaign to even get enough of a hearing by the public, it would have to have been shown to Government officials first...

My personal feeling is that most meat eaters do not understand that there is an alternative, and that may well be the foundation of any kind of successful campaign... If people know that animals are harmed but still think it's okay, it has to be because they think it's necessary...

First, they need to learn about the alternatives, WITHOUT the emotive, painful, and scary stories... Or at the very least this information needs to come alongside the campaign, and to add to that, farmers and industry people need to find other ways to get money (because as we all know, they WILL contend any justified argument with the "crackpots" line, if they fear their business will fall)...

So a many pronged approach; Education about alternative foods/clothing/toiletries etc. AND support for businesses and farmers to grow/sell/create these alternatives AND your dastardly plan of asking people to consider placing all creatures on a level playing field, legally. But all first, to government officials, who can then spread the message through hospitals, school, GP's, health visitors... THAT is when the public will listen.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes me wonder how many vegans are in office here in the UK. Interesting...

- - - Updated - - -

http://theveganoption.org/2011/12/13...n-day-mccarth/ This might be of some interest... Admins please let me know if this link is not appropriate but I am certain it doesn't advocate illegal activity etc...

[harpy]

That the meat and dairy industries are increasingly harnessing welfarism (organics, free range etc, too) as a marketing strategy because it successfully increases their sales.

Is the empirical evidence of increasing numbers of meat/dairy building welfarism into their marketing campaigns something you would dispute?

Not sure what you mean by "increasing numbers of meat/dairy building welfarisim into their marketing campaigns". If you meant that retailers use messages about animal welfare in their advertising, I agree they do.

However, please can you cite your evidence that this type of activity increases the overall size of the market for animal products? The messages I'm aware of seem to be about "upselling", and/or increasing a specific retailer's (or producer's or country's) market share rather than expanding the overall market. If people switch to an item with higher unit costs then they are generally likely to buy less of it, not more.

[Clueless Git]

Not sure what you mean by "increasing numbers of meat/dairy building welfarisim into their marketing campaigns". If you meant that retailers use messages about animal welfare in their advertising, I agree they do.

K - no argument there

However, please can you cite your evidence that this type of activity increases the overall size of the market for animal products? The messages I'm aware of seem to be about "upselling", and/or increasing a specific retailers' (or producer's or country's) market share rather than expanding the overall market. If people switch to an item with higher unit costs then they are generally likely to buy less of it, not more.

Only in as much as that increased use of welfarism in meat marketing 'coincides' with the sales of meat (by volume) increasing too ...

However, total sales of meat and poultry are increasing. Between 2005 and last year sales of red meat and poultry rose from 10.9 billion pounds to 12 billion pounds, peaking during the recession of 2009 at 12.2 billion pounds.

http://www.themeatsite.com/articles/...-the-recession

Quite a good article on the correlation can be found here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/.../#.UPL1M2dIrL4

[Clueless Git]

That is diabolically genius! I like it a lot... Nay, I love it! Because the beauty of it would be, even if there were no "win" it would expose an extremely hard to ignore truth..

I can 100% vouch that that particular 'debate' does indeed expose the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth PB.

I can vouch that because if anyone ever fails to heed my "you really do not want to know ..." warning then that is exactly what happens every single time.

[harpy]

Only in as much as that increased use of welfarism in meat marketing 'coincides' with the sales of meat (by volume) increasing too ...

I don't think this is true in the UK - for example, according to http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/f...ocketbook-2011 "The proportion of spend on meat has remained virtually unchanged over the previous ten years." (to 2009) and figure 2.3 shows that the price of meat went up more than average, suggesting that volume sales decreased.

Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, even if there was a correlation, it wouldn't prove the existence of a causal relationship - there could be all sorts of reasons. As I'm sure you're also aware, consumption of meat is soaring in countries like China where I think I'm right in saying that the welfare messages are pretty limited.

Nor can the causal relationship be proved by a string of anecdotes about people who have been influenced to eat more meat by welfare messages - any more than it can be disproved by anecdotes about people who have been influenced to eat less meat by thinking about welfare issues. TBH I haven't seen any convincing research evidence on either side of this argument, but the burden of proof rests with those who assert that there is a causal relationship.

[Clueless Git]

I would personally suggest that for any such "levelling" campaign to even get enough of a hearing by the public, it would have to have been shown to Government officials first...

The reason that our Governments allowed a differential in the first place is because the implications of not having a differential are already very well known.

The implications of raising cruelty protection for livestock to that of domesticated animals being, very simply, an immediate end to affordable meat.

An end to affordable meat means an end to livestock feed subsidies.

An end to livestock feed subsidies means an end to subsidised livestock feed growing land.

An end to land subsidies hits high volume land owners very hard in the pocket right across the board.

The majority of high volume land owners are either in Govt or are very generous to the political parties ever likely to be part of government; In the UK we actualy have a special club for the very highest volume land owners. It is called 'The House of Lords'.

- - - Updated - - -

TBH I haven't seen any convincing research evidence on either side of this argument, but the burden of proof rests with those who assert that there is a causal relationship.

I think that would suit the meat and dairy marketing men just fine.

[harpy]

What would suit them?

[Clueless Git]

More industry harping about the success of 'Happy' meat again ..

Good meat sales boost organic sector

- Published: 06 March, 2012

Strong sales of organic meat, particularly lamb and chicken, helped strengthen a dip in the organic sector, the Soil Association’s annual market report revealed.

While the overall organic market in the UK was down by 3.7%, there were strong sales in red meat and poultry, with lamb up 16% and poultry also enjoying a revival, up 5.8%. There was a 2.5% lift for organic chicken, while sales of organic turkey increased by 56%, underlining evidence that consumers increasingly choose organic for special occasions.

Despite a contraction in organically managed land in Scotland, there was strong demand for organic Scottish beef and lamb throughout the year, with beef prices reaching unprecedented levels and the Scottish Government’s new action plan boosting confidence in the sector. Organically farmed land also fell in Wales, but the number of Welsh lambs and beef was significantly higher, up 26% and 44% respectively. However, statistics showed that half of organically produced Welsh lambs were sold as non-organic, suggesting that organic producers may be considering switching to non-organic production.

Organic farming rose by 3.4% in England and 15% overall in Northern Ireland, with around 78% of newly converted organic farm land in England being used as pasture land, in response to growth in the beef and lamb markets, combined with good support through the Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. Numbers of organically raised cattle and sheep in England increased by 13% and 5% respectively, while the SA abattoir survey showed that the number of organic beef cattle at slaughter in 2011 was up 8.2% to 33,113, although lamb remained largely unchanged (0.6%).

http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/archi...ic_sector.html

This one suggesting that 'Happy' meat is protecting profits whilst volume sales are in decline ...


http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/.../49804.article

Retail price counters lower red meat sales

22 September 2012
THE latest Kantar Worldpanel report has revealed increases in expenditure on both beef and lamb across the UK over the 52-week period ending August 5, 2012.

The increase has come about despite declines in the total volumes purchased of both.
The Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC), Northern Ireland suggests while this is good news for the beef industry, the increases in the value of beef purchases were driven by higher retail prices and not as a result of increased sales.
Volume decline

The amount of beef purchased in terms of volume actually declined by 2 per cent during the same period.
However, LMC suggests it is promising almost 87 per cent of the population purchased beef in the last 52 weeks compared to 77 per cent purchasing pork - a cheaper product.
With the volume of lamb sold down 3 per cent year-on-year, the increase in expenditure can be viewed - like the increase in the value of beef sales - as the result of the increasing retail price.

- - - Updated - - -

More industry harping about the success of 'Happy' meat again ..

Good meat sales boost organic sector

- Published: 06 March, 2012

Strong sales of organic meat, particularly lamb and chicken, helped strengthen a dip in the organic sector, the Soil Association’s annual market report revealed.

While the overall organic market in the UK was down by 3.7%, there were strong sales in red meat and poultry, with lamb up 16% and poultry also enjoying a revival, up 5.8%. There was a 2.5% lift for organic chicken, while sales of organic turkey increased by 56%, underlining evidence that consumers increasingly choose organic for special occasions.

Despite a contraction in organically managed land in Scotland, there was strong demand for organic Scottish beef and lamb throughout the year, with beef prices reaching unprecedented levels and the Scottish Government’s new action plan boosting confidence in the sector. Organically farmed land also fell in Wales, but the number of Welsh lambs and beef was significantly higher, up 26% and 44% respectively. However, statistics showed that half of organically produced Welsh lambs were sold as non-organic, suggesting that organic producers may be considering switching to non-organic production.

Organic farming rose by 3.4% in England and 15% overall in Northern Ireland, with around 78% of newly converted organic farm land in England being used as pasture land, in response to growth in the beef and lamb markets, combined with good support through the Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. Numbers of organically raised cattle and sheep in England increased by 13% and 5% respectively, while the SA abattoir survey showed that the number of organic beef cattle at slaughter in 2011 was up 8.2% to 33,113, although lamb remained largely unchanged (0.6%).

http://www.meatinfo.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/13769/Good_meat_sales_boost_organic_sector.html

This one suggesting that 'Happy' meat is protecting profits whilst volume sales are in decline ...


http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/business/business-news/retail-price-counters-lower-red-meat-sales/49804.article

Retail price counters lower red meat sales

22 September 2012
THE latest Kantar Worldpanel report has revealed increases in expenditure on both beef and lamb across the UK over the 52-week period ending August 5, 2012.

The increase has come about despite declines in the total volumes purchased of both.
The Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC), Northern Ireland suggests while this is good news for the beef industry, the increases in the value of beef purchases were driven by higher retail prices and not as a result of increased sales.
Volume decline

The amount of beef purchased in terms of volume actually declined by 2 per cent during the same period.
However, LMC suggests it is promising almost 87 per cent of the population purchased beef in the last 52 weeks compared to 77 per cent purchasing pork - a cheaper product.
With the volume of lamb sold down 3 per cent year-on-year, the increase in expenditure can be viewed - like the increase in the value of beef sales - as the result of the increasing retail price.

[harpy]

This one suggesting that 'Happy' meat is protecting profits whilst volume sales are in decline ...

So you agree that volume sales in the UK are in decline, but you don't think the decline is to be welcomed? If in 2050 (say) 1 person in the UK bought 1 pork chop and paid £5,000,000 for it while everyone else was vegan, would that be better or worse than what happens now?

[Peabrain]

Okay okay mister, no need to presume I don't know that stuff (Peabrain is, after all, a cunning disguise)... I know it wouldn't actually work, but of course it'd make the point... And the government, although the majority are dirty, does contain the odd good influence... You seemed to have argued yourself out of your own suggestion.

With all due respect, you do almost seem to enjoy finding reasons why any kind of action - either abolitionist or welfare based - will inevitably not work. Which begs the question; what do you think is more effective than working for the welfare of animals, if abolition laws seem so pointless? Doing nothing at all?

Bear in mind, my sarcastic tone is meant to be taken with a friendly undertone...

[Andy_T]

The majority of high volume land owners are either in Govt or are very generous to the political parties ever likely to be part of government; In the UK we actualy have a special club for the very highest volume land owners. It is called 'The House of Lords'.

Let us also not forget that 99 % of both "lawmakers" (i.e. elected government officials) and their constituents (i.e. "the voters") like "a good steak" and would most likely not see much compelling action to make it illegal.

That is already quite clear with an issue like smoking, that has a much lower "approval rating" than eating animals, and where most of the people in favour of it do not think that it is really very healthy. Nevertheless, regardless of the public health issue, the common consensus is still very much "everybody should decide himself whether or not to do it", although most experts concide that there would be a big improvement of people's health if it was banned outright. And here we are not "just" talking about the health and life benefits for some poor animals, but about people's lives (which is obviously much more important to the average person).

So I really do not expect legislation to work in favour of banning cruelty to animals in the short term (before a major paradign shift in the general public can be observed).

Actually, right now, cruelty to animals *is* banned absolutely in most countries, that is unless there are some *very important reasons* (e.g. "animals taste so good" or the economic importance of the animal industry) that are considered more imporant than the poor animals' plight by society.

Best regards,
Andy

[Clueless Git]

Hi Andy, you make good points, the comparison between smoking and meat eating particularly.

I don't know about in Germany but here in the UK cigars used to be taxed at a much lower rate than cigarettes and rolling tobbaco. The former being the prefered 'puff' for the lawmaking classes and the latter being all those the laws were made for could afford. Same with the working mans beer, always taxed higher than the spirits and wines enjoyed by those with a bit more 'cash on the hip'.

Point there being that, on smoking, the law makers did eventualy legislate against their own vice once sufficient public dissaproval had been aroused.

Don't think they will be so easily moved on meat though. Those with much land benefit when land is scarce. It forces the price of land used for human housing, industry, etc up. A meat-centric diet, by virtue of its inneficient use of land, serves the purpose of making land scarce too well.

Add the subsidies that the law making classes award themselves for using their land innefficiently (forcing the rents and mortgages of the non landing owning classes through the ceiling) into the equation and you have a pretty nightmarish scenario?

[tickled onion]

I was staying away from this thread, but..... the comparison between banning smoking and banning meat irked me, everyone knows smoking is bad, yes, but the compelling thing that stops the lawmakers banning smoking outright is not that the government cares about the health of smokers, it isnt that "everybody should decide himself whether or not to do it", after all, they dont let us decide whether we smoke marajuana or inject heroin, I doubt it cares a jot whether the smokers die early without the need for a pension and looking after in their old age, but that smoking creates billions of pounds in tax revenue (2011-12 it was 12.1 billion pounds, the government can't afford to not collect) whilst meat and dairy farming actually costs us money in subsidies to the land owners/farmers/dairymen

[Clueless Git]

Hmmmm, neither my 'reply with quote' nor my 'edit post' buttons seem to be working this week!

Harpy: So you agree that volume sales in the UK are in decline, but you don't think the decline is to be welcomed?

I don't know about UK being in decline. One article seems to say it is and one seems to say it isn't. A third meat industry journal was talking about massive rises in sales of game and 'game shot' meat too.

Globaly, the World Watch Institution says this ...

Meat Production Continues to Rise
Product Number:
VST116


In 2007, meat production remained steady at an estimated 275 million tons; in 2008, output is expected to top 280 million tons.¹ (See Figure 1.) Experts predict that by 2050 nearly twice as much meat will be produced as today, for a projected total of more than 465 million tons.² For more than a decade, the strongest increases in production have been in the developing world-in 1995 more meat and dairy products were produced in developing than in industrial countries for the first time, and this trend has continued ever since.³ In fact, in 2007 at least 60 percent of meat was produced in developing nations.⁴


http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5443

If in 2050 (say) 1 person in the UK bought 1 pork chop and paid £5,000,000 for it while everyone else was vegan, would that be better or worse than what happens now?

You still get the odd rich bitch' strutting around in a Mink coat today dewspite what has been done to the image and price of fur?

Better if abuses are affordable to only a few who have more money than moral fibre, rather than abuse on industrial scales to make cheap stuff for the unwashed massses, I would say. Yes.

Doesn't alter the fact that any abuse is still major suckage though?

- - - Updated - - -

I was staying away from this thread, but..... the comparison between banning smoking and banning meat irked me, everyone knows smoking is bad, yes, but the compelling thing that stops the lawmakers banning smoking outright is not that the government cares about the health of smokers, it isnt that "everybody should decide himself whether or not to do it", after all, they dont let us decide whether we smoke marajuana or inject heroin, I doubt it cares a jot whether the smokers die early without the need for a pension and looking after in their old age, but that smoking creates billions of pounds in tax revenue (2011-12 it was 12.1 billion pounds, the government can't afford to not collect) whilst meat and dairy farming actually costs us money in subsidies to the land owners/farmers/dairymen

One thing on that Tickled ..

Unlike the 'voluntary' tax revenue from tobbaco that goes into Govt coffers; Farming subsidies divert a part of non-voluntary taxation directly into the pockets of the rich.

[tickled onion]

the involuntary part of EU subsidies was kind of my point on the farmers/landowners, it irks me immenseley as a vegan my taxes contribute to the 57 billion euro subsidies to farming landowners who still have immense power with the lawmakers, any other business failing so badly would be bankrupted and have to stop production/sales, yet the merchants of death and suffering are actually paid to carry on regardless

[Clueless Git]

With all due respect, you do almost seem to enjoy finding reasons why any kind of action - either abolitionist or welfare based - will inevitably not work.

Kind of, yes. Eliminating things that are not working or will not work is just part of a process of finding things that do work though.

Which begs the question; what do you think is more effective than working for the welfare of animals, if abolition laws seem so pointless? Doing nothing at all?

Identify the root problem which is people.

Identify what the root problem with people is.

The root problem, imho, with people is selfishness.

Identify the root of selfishness which is 'ego'.

Identify problem with ego.

Imho the problem is not ego itself but how ego has been manipulated. The meat industry, and it's related machinations, has fooled it's ultimate prey (people) into thinking they are the apex predator. Fooled it's mice into believing they are the cats, as it were.

Small evidence in support of that theory; Did any of us vegans not feel slightly miffed, at the least, at how we had been fooled, fooled into fooling ourselves even, when the penny finaly dropped?

Personaly I think the solution lies in vegans having no fear in doing whatever it takes to 'un-fool' peoples minds.

- - - Updated - - -

the involuntary part of EU subsidies was kind of my point on the farmers/landowners, it irks me immenseley as a vegan my taxes contribute to the 57 billion euro subsidies to farming landowners who still have immense power with the lawmakers, any other business failing so badly would be bankrupted and have to stop production/sales, yet the merchants of death and suffering are actually paid to carry on regardless

Aye, as a business owner who stands or falls on his efficiency alone, without subsidies, that irks me immensely too.

[Peabrain]

Small evidence in support of that theory; Did any of us vegans not feel slightly miffed, at the least, at how we had been fooled, fooled into fooling ourselves even, when the penny finaly dropped?

I know I did, that's for sure... In fact, at first I was so annoyed about being enlightened to the fact that I didn't NEED meat, that I tried to disprove the idea (despite still wanting to be vegan for the sake of the animals, thereby rendering it purely a "choice" rather than a decision based purely on logic), but of course my research revealed more to argue against meat eating than it did to excuse my previous meat eating.

HOWEVER, I do actually think that at some point in our evolution, we were dependent on meat for healthy survival... (Shock horror - did she actually say that?)

I think we may have started as omnivores (or at some point have originally been herbivores, who then became omnivores through observation of carnivorous animal behaviour or perhaps a lack of plant food or both); evolved physical attributes which exposed a need for an omnivorous* diet; evolved (or devolved) further still, to invent strict cleanliness (which may be behind the sparse natural B12 sources), then even further to invent the horror that is factory farming; then we simply became completely dependent on this new way of doing things...

*NB: Although there are arguments for and against the idea that we were "meant" to be omnivores originally; I'm taking of behaviour, rather than physical make-up.

Then finally, we more recently started to understand the body's needs, and invent fortified foods, as well as discovering lots of different alternatives as we (as a race) became/become more and more aware that animals are really truly living creatures that deserve respect and protection...

This means we are in a state of flux in our evolution again, and imho, it will take a few more generations for the wider world to see the sense we have the privilege and burden of having come to so early...

Which brings me back around to my original thought, that abolition on it's own, is perhaps missing opportunities for the betterment of the animal kingdom NOW... But yes, bringing veganism to the fore is probably the closest to a successful abolitionist change we can get...

Personaly I think the solution lies in vegans having no fear in doing whatever it takes to 'un-fool' peoples minds.

Your "levelling" campaign idea still seems like a great one. So wouldn't it be a shame to deem it unsuccessful before it's even been tried, eh? Maybe it's just something we should be putting into discussion with every day people. Instead of working from the top down, we can go straight to the consumers. There are more of us now (or at least more knowledge and acceptance of our existence in the mainstream world), but I think the main thing is to peaceably share these ideas with others, not forgetting the way we came to such knowledge in the first place, and understanding that for true abolition to happen, people have to agree with us, and whether we like it or not, that means showing compassion...

Just like you said one day...

A very kindly person once asked me [what do you eat?] with the distress of genuine sympathy (for the vegan plight) clearly written all over her face.

I was stumped for a bit... then the penny dropped...

Lady in question was a meat, spuds and 2 veg person. She knew nothing else. All she could invision a vegan living on was spuds and 2 veg without the meat.

Never really thought about the omni-plight in that light before. Remember her face changing to an expression of total non comprehension as a look of even deeper genuine sympathy spread over mine.

- - - Updated - - -

This one suggesting that 'Happy' meat is protecting profits whilst volume sales are in decline ...


So you agree that volume sales in the UK are in decline, but you don't think the decline is to be welcomed? If in 2050 (say) 1 person in the UK bought 1 pork chop and paid £5,000,000 for it while everyone else was vegan, would that be better or worse than what happens now?

I for one, certainly think it would be better.

[tickled onion]

just also have to throw this into the mix.....

Whilst meat consumption may be on the decline in the uk, it is growing in other parts of the world. The chinese, as they become more and more affluent, are eating more and more meat, they already eat over half the worlds consumption of pork and it's growing, along with more mechanised production. I doubt welfarism is held in high regard in China.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/vide...eo?INTCMP=SRCH

[Peabrain]

Bluergh! Considering it is the law in China to test on animals, I'm not surprised though...

[tickled onion]

ooh, almost forgot this snippet too from countryfile either last week or the week before, animal rustling is on the rise as the recession takes hold. Farmers are losing animals to thieves in huge numbers, 40 or 50 sheep at a go, and the bones from the self slaughter and butchery are being found left in hedges and surrounding areas.... this may not in itself increase meat consumption, but as times get tougher it will certainly increase suffering and the welfare of animals will not be high on the agenda of most people who dont know there is another way of eating (amazingly farmers reckon they are worth a fortune when stolen, yet when it comes to asking for subsidies they reckon they get very little for the animal when it goes to legitimate slaughter, wish they'd make their mind up which it is!)

[pat sommer]

Regarding Chinese:

Symbol of pig with a roof over it has become the character for 'home', so integral is pig-eating to the identity of the Chinese: slaughtering and serving pig is essentially their New Year celebration (plus pyromaniac fireworks). More pig on the table equates with more wealth (no ingenious marketing necessary here Cupidstunt).

Paradoxically, the Chinese psyche abhors animal cruelty. They are going to have to work this out. The internet (Weibo) is becoming a great AR tool.

I am willing to admit that I can't foresee the future. I don't have an answer as to how to make the world vegan. I'm just going to use what opportunities I find to say and do what compels me. I expect others to do what compels them. Let's see where it leads.

[harpy]

Given that we know different things turn different people vegan, that sounds like a Plan, pat!

Interesting about the abhorrence of cruelty. I think I read somewhere that you don't see the hideous practices in markets etc that I saw when I was there 30+ years ago, though I assume that depends whereabouts you go?

[pat sommer]

weighing live fish and dispatching them to order? Birds packed in ridiculously tight? I should have said gratuitous cruelty. Dog and cat eating are on the way out (a South China thing). Bear gall farming is gaining opposition. What we see as cruelty passes as animal husbandry in most of the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and Cupidstunt, concerted marketing strategy in China is the only reason they now consume dairy everywhere -total penetration. The Aussies started their first actions around 2003 getting luxury cheese displays in city supermarkets. I watch agricultural news to know what really goes on in politics.
Wouldn't point to marketing for well-entrenched consumption on balance of causes. (sure execs make themselves out to be indispensable)

[Smint]

I know this discussion hasn't been going for a few months, but I saw this very informative talk on the thread-subject. It's about whether we should use abolitionism vs. reformism (that's basically welfarism) in animal activism and how one can achieve the most with activism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMqGWymJHVA

Personally I'm an abolitionist, but I would do anything to improve animal welfare. Even if I have to endorse about welfarism

[Egesa]

It really comes down to which strategy is more effective, doesn't it? As vegans, of course we all want total abolition of all AR abuses. If that goal is ever to be reached, how will it happen? By incremental progress, or instant veganism? Evidently there's a small percentage of the population who does become vegan. We should of course do all we can to maximise that. But the rest, who just won't, may be willing to support incremental reforms, such as those demanded by the Great Ape Project, and so on. Both approaches can and are being pursued, and their successes shouldn't be sneezed at.

[Smint]

It really comes down to which strategy is more effective, doesn't it?

Exactly what I think. The research we have shows that the most effective interventions we have at the moment are leafletting and facebook-ads. The facebook-ads that link to this page (http://HiddenFaceOfFood.com) seem to be incredibly effective at making people turn vegetarian, vegan and informing them about factory farming. I wouldn't even be able to say if they are abolitionist or welfarist. They are run by The Humane League (not society). According to effectiveanimalacitism.org that is the most vegan influence you can get for your dollar at the moment. But Vegan Outreach who do leafletting on college campuses come quite close to that.

[Peabrain]

It really comes down to which strategy is more effective, doesn't it? As vegans, of course we all want total abolition of all AR abuses. If that goal is ever to be reached, how will it happen? By incremental progress, or instant veganism? Evidently there's a small percentage of the population who does become vegan. We should of course do all we can to maximise that. But the rest, who just won't, may be willing to support incremental reforms, such as those demanded by the Great Ape Project, and so on. Both approaches can and are being pursued, and their successes shouldn't be sneezed at.

This is the best, most succinct answer I've seen on this debate so far.

[Nemesiah]

Abolitionist here, however I believe that there are areas where it is hard to do away with animals (such as scientific research). I believe that no animal should be subjected to human needs or wants. On the other hand if I had a kid with diabetes I would be harpressed not to accept insuline that was researched using animals, to tell the truth.

[Egesa]

^^^ Smint, thanks for the references. Quality research on effective use of our resources should really be a high priority, and we should all be well informed of it. I'll look for the reports of the research you've referred to. The Human League does seem to be welfarist, from this statement:

“Since our founding in 2005, our mission has been to save the lives of as many animals as possible and to reduce as much animal cruelty as we can…We invest our time, money and energy where they will do the most good for the greatest number of animals. ...” ( from http://www.effectiveanimalactivism.org/thl )

The "greatest good for the greatest number" is on the right track, although I'm sure there will continue to be controversy about what this involves, or where to strike the balance e.g. reduced suffering for many in farms vs increasing the number of vegans in the world.

^^ Thanks PB, that's nice of you to say. You've made a strong, well-reasoned case yourself.

[scwendy]

Abolitionist here, however I believe that there are areas where it is hard to do away with animals (such as scientific research). I believe that no animal should be subjected to human needs or wants. On the other hand if I had a kid with diabetes I would be harpressed not to accept insuline that was researched using animals, to tell the truth.

As a mom, I so relate to your last statement. And then cue the guilt of realizing that all the research animals had "moms" as well

[Egesa]

So much of all medical/biological knowledge was developed with animal testing, and it's all interdependent. We can either avoid it all, or draw the line somewhere. I think the lesser evil is in the latter.

[fiver]

"How can we work towards abolition, yet do what we can for animals in the meantime in such a way that does not seem to promote animal use?"... AND ...is it not better to try to find alternatives together [rather than quibbling on terminology/the better approach]?

Good question. I tend to agree that welfarist reforms are attractive to people because it is unlikely that a mass change of consciousness will occur. However, as attractive as they seem I have noticed personally that they comfort people who might otherwise go vege / vegan, thus delaying that choice. We need more vegos out there, being seen and making omnis uncomfortable / giving them a hard time! Some omnivores don't like being associated with the coldness of slaughter and seek a way to soothe their conscience.

Focusing on the reduction of suffering distracts from more significant transgressions - 'harming for personal gain', 'denying the bodily integrity of individuals', 'treating like an object or renewable resource', 'subjugation'. Are these things non-issues if we try to lessen the suffering of those we abuse? If not, then why do we TELL people indirectly that they are?

[Egesa]

Good question. I tend to agree that welfarist reforms are attractive to people because it is unlikely that a mass change of consciousness will occur. However, as attractive as they seem I have noticed personally that they comfort people who might otherwise go vege / vegan, thus delaying that choice. We need more vegos out there, being seen and making omnis uncomfortable / giving them a hard time! Some omnivores don't like being associated with the coldness of slaughter and seek a way to soothe their conscience.

Focusing on the reduction of suffering distracts from more significant transgressions - 'harming for personal gain', 'denying the bodily integrity of individuals', 'treating like an object or renewable resource', 'subjugation'. Are these things non-issues if we try to lessen the suffering of those we abuse? If not, then why do we TELL people indirectly that they are?

Doesn't this suggest that we need animals to suffer to convert more people to veg*?

[fiver]

Doesn't this suggest that we need animals to suffer to convert more people to veg*?

No. According to an animal RIGHTS rather than WELFARE position, we must emphasise the ethical IMPERATIVE of treating past and present self-aware individuals with respect. We fail to treat them with respect when we regard them as mere objects, tools, commodities or renewable resources. There are likely other forms of disrespect. Assuming that individuals are treated with respect, we must also refrain from taking actions detrimental to their welfare without adequate ethical justification. We do this when we appeal only to self-interest, or the aggregation of the interests of those in a majority versus those in a minority. For further clarification, see Tom Regan's The Case For Animal Rights - specifically, the mini-ride and worse-off principles.

Can I walk into my neighbour's backyard and 'humanely' (according to the standards applied to animals) kill his children? Without any explanation for my disregard for the welfare of others, no judge cares about the severity of my victim's suffering, even if they are severely and terminally mentally incapacitated. The only explanation that might (controversially) count in my favour in the latter case is euthanasia - which is a limited OTHER-REGARDING defense. No such justification applies to mere murder or the harm inflicted by meat-eaters. They like the taste of meat. They believe the pleasure they get from eating meat overrules the welfare of others. Do these same people accept themselves, their friends or their families being brutalised for the benefit of others? NO. They have one set of standards for "their own" and another for those without the power to defend themselves.

[Egesa]

We're all vegans here; you don't need to convince me of that. Nobody here is advocating any of those things. I think this thread is going in circles, so I'll just leave it at there.

[Nemesiah]

So much of all medical/biological knowledge was developed with animal testing, and it's all interdependent. We can either avoid it all, or draw the line somewhere. I think the lesser evil is in the latter.

I would like to make a clarification on my previous post:

It is one thing to use animals in search for the cure for cancer (not that I condone doing it but it is a legitimate goal even if the use of animals remains a cruel practice) and another very different is to blind rabbits by pouring mascara on their eyes to see if a new cosmetic is safe for use.

I don't like either of the uses but I can see how the former can be somewhat justified (even while I believe that humans should take care of human problems without using animals) but the later is absolutely unjustifiable and cruel.

There is also the useless "science". Is it really necesary for every kid in the world to gut open a frog at one point in their lives? I believe not. Human hubris and disconection with the feelings of animals makes this supposed "science" a lofty goal when it is really not.

[Robinwomb]

There is also the useless "science". Is it really necesary for every kid in the world to gut open a frog at one point in their lives? I believe not. Human hubris and disconection with the feelings of animals makes this supposed "science" a lofty goal when it is really not.

I was challenged with this when I signed up for human anatomy and physiology last year in college. It was a required course for my major. I had no idea the dissection of animals would be a part of a HUMAN anatomy and physiology class and it was not mentioned in the description of the class, but when I ordered a lab kit (I am an online student) I discovered it contained a cow brain and eye that we were to dissect. I objected and explained to the instructor that I am vegan and this is against my beliefs and I asked if there was some projects I could do in place of this. She would not back down. She claimed she was a vegetarian so she understood my feelings (though this really wasn't about my feelings) but she wanted her students to have the benefit of working with real tissues. She even admitted that the animal materials were byproducts of factory farming (and the store that they came from confirmed this). She claimed the animals were not being used in vain but for the benefit of students. She did mention that other instructors in her department teaching the same class used online simulations and fortunately I was able to get in another class at the last minute that used the simulation approach (though I had to beg the instructor to let me in because the class was full). It boggled me that someone claiming to be a vegetarian could justify using animal byproducts to teach a human anatomy and physiology lab. There is actually a college in my town that uses human cadavers for their anatomy and physiology class (the subjects volunteered their bodies for this before they passed away). I would gladly donate my body to science if it meant decreasing demand for use of animals for such a ridiculous purpose. I am going to school for health information management anyway, not to be a medical doctor. I really don't have any answers to the complicated conflict of animals vs. humans when it comes to finding cures for diseases like cancer and using animals for research. I am very much against it, but I will admit that we have come a long way in medicine because of the use of animals in research. Its a tough subject for sure.

[Egesa]

^^ I agree, N. I still oppose the use of animals in medical research, but I can see it's far closer to a grey area than cosmetic testing, which is unambiguously wrong.

^ That's a horrible situation, RW! In a neuroscience unit at uni some years ago, I felt that using photos of dissected sheep brains was an uncomfortable compromise. The professor spoke with a student in the class once about buying sheep brains from an abattoir the student worked at; so they do seem to be sourced that way. She said that each year, when she telephones abattoirs with her thick Hungarian accent asking for a thousand sheep brains, she wouldn't mind that they always laugh, but they often don't believe her.

[fiver]

A cancer sufferer with no other chance of recovery is hesitant to undergo an experimental therapy, without knowing whether it will cure them, worsen their condition or kill them. Hands up those who think we are justified in having other healthy individuals plucked off the street, deliberately given cancer, so that we can then test the therapy on them? So that the original patient does not have to risk so much. Same for those suffering from neurological conditions. Same for those with spinal injuries.

It's sad when the health of individuals is failing, but that is NOT the problem of others with good health. If you put someone (human or non-human) in harm's way, treat them like a mere tool so that you can personally benefit you are quite selfish.

This is entirely different to having two individuals with the same health condition, one of whom is comparatively mentally impaired, less aware of what is going on around them and less likely to be distressed. Someone who would likely consent to such a therapy if they were of sufficient mental capacity to make a judgment about the prospects for their welfare with and without it. In the latter case, we would be justified in applying the therapy to one individual BEFORE the other. Provided that the intention of treatment is to help the one being treated and not just another who seeks to gain from their USE.

Today's medical knowledge was built on the suffering and death of those who came before us. But, there is a difference between learning from past well-intentioned attempts to save others AND exploitation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

I have no problem with people donating their bodies to science.

[tickled onion]

Drugs that have been tested on animals are in the top five killers of the western world, these aren't heroin, or cocaine or any of the illegal ones, they are bona fide drugs administered by doctors and hospitals and taken according to manufacturers and professionals instructions, not misused or taken recklessly. They cause reactions, allergies, and side effects that kill thousands and thousands a year. These were all tested on animals....... and then tested on humans and all withdrawn because of problems in humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs testing on animals is in no way indicative of how a drug reacts in humans.

whilst testing drugs on animals may have lead to some valuable discoveries in the past, it is surely no longer neccesary with the technology we have to fake the human cell. we don't need more headache medicine, spot cream, or lotions for piles and any other stuff that still needs to go through the testing stages, we have plenty of them, it's just companies trying to sell us "new and improved" versions of stuff that works to charge more...

[harpy]

This is entirely different to having two individuals with the same health condition, one of whom is comparatively mentally impaired, less aware of what is going on around them and less likely to be distressed. Someone who would likely consent to such a therapy if they were of sufficient mental capacity to make a judgment about the prospects for their welfare with and without it. In the latter case, we would be justified in applying the therapy to one individual BEFORE the other. Provided that the intention of treatment is to help the one being treated and not just another who seeks to gain from their USE.

I don't understand your point about mental impairment, fiver?