ending animal violence

does a man has more right to live than a camel?

2011-06-11T16:09:00.000-07:00

does a man has more right to live than a camel?

Moses Seenarine
‎"The government wants the killing of wild camels to be officially registered as a means of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions under a proposed law to be voted on in parliament next week, with the shooters earning so-called carbon credits."
Australian camels in sights of federal law that could have them shot for methane emissions
www.washingtonpost.com

CANBERRA, Australia — Marksmen could be paid to slaughter Australia’s vast population of methane-belching camels that roam the Outback as part of an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Thursday at 12:58am

Moses Seenarine ‎
"If culling is registered, industrial polluters around the world would be able to offset their own carbon emissions by buying carbon credits from the shooters.

Lawmaker Mark Dreyfus said Thursday that he hopes attaching carbon credits to each camel killed leads to their extinction in the Australian wild."

Yvonne
Moses did you know the camels were used to explore the interior and search for places to put the rail way and the cameleers were Afghans bought over to look after them...they mostly didn't go back so there are many families descended from Afghan men there now.

Tony
this is fucked up

Monique
fucking dispicable

Yvonne
What is despicable? killing camels?

Monique
yes, of couse killing camels is bad enough, but then for companies to claim carbon credits on that killing is REALLY dispicable. there are many things that make me ashamed to be human, but for some reason it's things like this that make me *hate* being human. while i know it's a patriarchal world and men are ruling it, i'm still associated to those horrid things (patriarchal men) by default.

Elaine
It's always easier to find a scapegoat than to go after the real culprits.

Monique
the original concept of carbon credits was a good one. but like most things it has corrupted in a most vile way.

Kevin
Thge truth is...if you actually read the article instead of just using the poor animal part of the story...that these camels are destroying the land and even tearing up people's homes and public property looking for water. They take food from other native animals, trample wild areas and they are a significant problem. They have been culling them for years...but they continue to gain population. This is simply a way to help get people to kill as many as possible. Go for it...!!!

Monique
Oh, so it's the "poor people" angle then. I see. Got a problem, just grab that rifle. A solution that's worked just fine for many a year. pffffft.

Kevin
Dam right and poor nature. They are not native and I have ZERO quams about taking them out and using their meat to feed people...you bet.

Monique
Damn right! [macho idiot]

Kevin
Whatever you moron. Mocho has nothing to do with being a supporter of native habitat. People like you need to go get some more cats

Terri
What kind of insult is "people like you need to get some more cats"? Strange.

Terri
Human beings aren't native to a lot of places in the workld and their activities emit lots of carbon. Should we shot them too?

Kevin
You equate killing people to animals...talk about strange. I suppose you don't eat meat?

Terri
I see the environmentalists point about getting rid of non-native species, but I lean towards letting the camels live. Perhaps the Australians can try putting the camels on birth control.

Kevin
I would support that too..but there are already over a million and they are destroying habitat of many animals that only exist in Australia. They need to reduce the population first.

Moses Seenarine
Dead men should also be registered as carbon credit, and maybe some of them would decide to exit voluntarily... How about you, kevin, willing to take one for team human?

Moses Seenarine
can anyone give me a single reason why a man has more right to live than a camel? what purpose do men serve? is there any lost to the ecosystem if all men were carbon credited?

Moses Seenarine
men created this problem, and their solution is equally callous; what if we reduce this clueless group to insignificant power and influence, think of how much of our environmental issues would go away, from wars and genocide to patriarchal capitalism and specieism; to be proactive, we should fix the cause, not merely deal with the symptoms of patriarchy

Oli
Hey Moses, since you are ALF (Animal Liberation Forum) and there are about 10 of you and 1m camels, we will just send 100k to each of you near-do-wells.

Moses Seenarine
i'm not alf, and i have no place to put 100k camels since there are seven billion people next to me; what's wrong in leaving them there and gradually reducing their population through birth control?

Carol
Dare I say... "gone with the wind"...

Kevin
@Moses...what's wrong with waitng is that they are doing immense damage to pristine wild areas and they do not belong there. I hear their meat is popular, so I say we feed some hungry people and deal with the numbers at the same time. They are domesticated animal allowed to run wild.

Moses Seenarine
the ecological argument is baseless!

there is far more greenhouse gasses released thru factory farming and wool production in a day, than all these poor animals in their entire lifetimes

there is far more loss of irreplaceable habitat due to housing and growing crops to feed billions of factory animals

as usual, men have got their heads up their asses on this and every other issue on this cursed planet

Kevin
It is not about green house gasses. It is about trampling land, destroying plant life, eating vegetation other animals need, and other issues. I couldn't care less about green house gasses it is nothing more than another industry created so some big business and big government people can get rich and further erode freedoms. And for the record, building houses in the outback is not an issue...nice try.

Moses Seenarine
how convenient - you don't care about ecological contradictions...

i also care about native plants and animals; but these animals didn't swim to get there; they were taken there by european men along with a whole bunch of other europeans and other invasive species; so who gets to stay, who gets culled, and who decides? european men, of course!

are you ever going to set a human limit, or does only apply to non-human animals and plants

Patrick
the georgia guidestones call for a 'sustainable' human population of 500 million, which is < 1/12 of the existing population... who will decide, which people comprise the 'surplus' population..? and how will they be, umm, 'taken care of' (disposed of)..?

The myth of India's sacred cow and reverent exploitation

2010-05-19T22:34:00.000-07:00

January 4, 8:11 PM · Corey Wrenn - Roanoke Vegan Examiner

India is often cited as a site of harmony and respect between human and non-human animals. As the cow is considered sacred by Hindus, many in India forgo the eating of beef and draw religious inspiration from the cow. To injure or kill a cow might even entail imprisonment or other punitive action. Unfortunately, the more accurate role that the cow plays in Indian culture challenges this notion of reverent coexistence.

The reality is that Indian cows remains property, and thus, their interests are invariably secondary to those of human animals, no matter how frivolous. As consumption of non-human animal products increases exponentially with Westernization, exploitation of the Indian cow is also increasing as traditional protections for the cow are eroded.

Meat
The slaughter of cattle is actually legal in many Indian states . In the land of the sacred cow, at least 14 million cattle were slaughtered for meat in 2004. All of these animals slaughtered for meat are expended dairy and labor animals or their offspring. Furthermore, as Western diets become normalized and subsidized in India, consuming cow flesh is becoming less and less taboo .

Dairy
Factory farming is becoming the norm in India to meet rising demands created by population growth and the changing tastes and markets of globalization. This means more and more non-human animals are raised and exploited as resources. Indian cows used for dairy suffer in very similar ways to those in the West . Indian dairy cows endure disease, infection, hormonal injections, excessive milk production, immediate separation from offspring, artificial insemination, and multiple pregnancies. The calves are separated from their mothers and denied their mother’s milk. Male calves are often left to die with their feet and mouths bound to prevent escape or crying which would distract their working mothers. Others are simply tethered which often leads to strangulation as the babies become tangled as they struggle to reach their mothers. Many calves are left to wander or are used for their hides and meat. Unfortunately, the powerful religious significance of cow milk and Western aggravation of milk demand could be exacerbating efforts to challenge human reliance on non-human animal products.

Leather
India is one of the largest producers of leather in the world. Treatment of Indian cattle used for leather has been heavily documented and publicized by PETA . Cattle are often deliberately injured or poisoned as healthy cattle are not legally eligible for slaughter. Transport to slaughter entails grueling marches and cramped vehicular transportation in scorching heat without food or water. Cows are prodded to comply with sticks, whips, broken tails, and chilies rubbed in their eyes. At the end of the journey, cattle are slaughtered in open view of one another.

Strays
Stray cattle are often left to wander the streets and slums of major cities. Free-roaming cattle are subject to automobile injury, malnutrition, and lack of veterinary care. Increasingly, these animals are considered a nuisance and are rounded up for removal.

The Myth of Respectful Use
The image of the sacred Indian cow is exemplary of idealized relationships between human and non-human animals which perpetuate the fantasy that non-human animals are somehow enjoying or benefiting from their exploitation. In reality, Indian cows (and other supposedly "respected" or "revered" non-human animals exploited by humans across all cultures) remain property and are increasingly treated as mere resources. Furthermore, what little preferential treatment that is allotted to the cow is not provided to other species. India has critical issues with pet overpopulation, wildlife extinction, non-human animals used for tourism, entertainment, and begging, and growing consumption of other non-human animals and their products. Globalization continues to challenge Indian culture, disintegrating religious traditions and other lifestyles which have the potential to respect non-human animals as persons. Given these difficulties, we must be particularly alert to encroaching Western norms of domination and exploitation and wary of fantastical notions of the happily exploited, respectfully treated, or humanely resourced non-human animal.

Instead of glorifying faulty examples like the Indian cow, which only serves to mask and perpetuate exploitation, we should instead promote veganism. Veganism respects non-human animals as persons and denies exploitation no matter the location, religion, culture, or species. And, the compassion and justice integral to veganism is no myth.

"Eating rice is faith in women." - Carol Adams

2010-03-02T19:28:00.000-08:00

Moses Seenarine
Our meals either embody or negate feminist principles by the food choices they enact. Our dietary choices reflect and reinforce our cosmology, our politics. It is as though we could say, "Eating rice is faith in women." - Carol Adams

Chris
Disturbing....does that mean that the meat-eating men in our lives are misogynists? And is it conscious or unconscious behavior?

Moses Seenarine
Moses Seenarine
good questions, chris; i suggest you read carol's book, "the sexual politics of meat" where these questions are covered in depth, and brilliantly so;

briefly, male control over females is linked to male control over other animals, and since corpse-eating is so prevalent, it mostly remains unconscious for most men, although this is not necessarily the case; for example, the lack of meat in a meal is often used as a excuse by men to abuse and batter women

answers to your questions also depend upon your definition of misogyny; since the commodification and sexualization of the female body is so prevalent, doesn't that make all women participants, conscious or unconscious? yes and no; the crucial difference between patriarchy and female complicity, is of course, power...

with each instance of corpse-eating and pornography, women's work, status and history are devalued and they are collectively dis-empowered, while simultaneously male power, violence and worldview are reinforced and becomes further entrenched

Chris
Deep stuff. I will buy Carol Adams book , but am now sure I want to know all the answers. I know I cannot change the eating habits of my sons, for example, all I can do is try to subtly pass the information along.

As for women being complicit in the matter, I see your point. We have enabled the situation by often making meat the center of the meal, not realizing that we have been sabotaging ourselves in doing so.

Monica
The link between animal agriculture and misogyny is a very blatant one. The majority of pigs, cows, and all domesticated turkeys are "artificially inseminated", a nice euphemism for "raped." There is actually a factory farm device known as a "rape rack" used for this purpose. Domesticated turkeys have been selectively bred to grow so unnaturally fast that it is physically impossible for them to mate naturally. Instead, some worker has the job of "milking" the semen from the male and then "breaking" the female (inserting a semen-filled syringe deep inside her). Workers report that this seems to be quite painful for the female (and degrading for the workers).

Pregnant pigs are kept in gestation crates so small they can't take a step in any direction and can't even lie down comfortably. (What better time to make a female incredibly uncomfortable than when she's pregnant?)

The dairy industry is, in and of itself, another obvious example of utter contempt and disregard for females. Female cows are kept pregnant so that they will produce milk so that humans can steal and consume the milk. Having been a nursing mother for 6 years straight, I can't think of a much greater insult and humiliation than being repeatedly impregnated via rape, having your baby stolen from you within a day or two of birth, and then having the milk your own body makes for your stolen baby taken from you, and having this repeated for about 4-5 years until you're so lame, sick, and calcium-depleted that you're no longer able to produce "enough" milk to make you worthy of the cost of your food. Then you're hauled off to slaughter and your daughters are forced to take your place on the milk production line

Cows, chickens, and other farmed animals care about their babies and if allowed to, guard them protectively and ensure that they are safe and secure. The term "mother hen" came about for a reason. It's only a lack of empathy that would allow someone who cares about feminism to accept what happens to mothers, females, and their daughters in the animal agriculture industry and to continue to financially support this industry through their consumer purchases.

Monique
damn!

Moses Seenarine
monica, even though i knew all of this, it still brought me to tears reading it again; thanks for caring enough to type this much out

----------------------------------------------------

EAT RICE, HAVE FAITH IN WOMEN by Fran Winant

eat rice have faith in women
what I don’t know now
I can still learn
if I am alone now
I will be with them later
if I am weak now
I can become strong
slowly slowly
if I learn I can teach others
if others learn first
I must believe
they will come back and teach me
they will not go away
to the country with their knowledge
and send me a letter sometime
we must study all our lives
women coming from women going to women
trying to do all we can with words
then trying to work with tools
or with our bodies
trying to stand the time it takes
reading books when there are no teachers
or they are too far away
teaching ourselves
imagining others struggling
I must believe we will be together
and build enough concern
so when I have to fight alone
there will be sisters who
would help if they knew
sisters who will come
to support me later

women demanding loyalty
each with our needs
our whole lives torn by
the old society
never given the love or work
or strength or safety or information
we could use
never helped by the institutions
that imprison us
so when we need medical care
we are butchered
when we need police
we are insulted ignored
when we need parents

we find robots
trained to keep us in our places
when we need work we are told
to become part of
the system that destroys us
when we need friends
other women tell us
I have to be selfish
you will have to forgive me
but there is only so much time
energy money concern
to go around
I have to think of myself
because who else will...
I have to save things for myself
because I am not sure you could save me
if our places were reversed
because I suspect
you won’t even be around
to save me when I need you
I am alone on the streets
at 5 in the morning
I am alone cooking my rice

I see you getting knowledge
and having friends I don’t have
I see you already stronger than me
and I don’t see you coming back
to help me
I imagine myself getting old
I imagine I will have to go away
when I am too old to fight my way
down the streets
my friends getting younger and younger
women my age hidden in corners
in the establishment
or curled up with a few friends
isolated at home
or in the madhouse
getting their last shot of
motivation to compete
or grinding out position papers
in the movement
like old commies
waiting to be swept away
by the revolution
or in a hospital
dying of complications
nurse or nun
lesbian in clean clothes
reach out a hand to me
scientists have found
touching is necessary
and the drive to speak our needs
is basic as breath
but there isn’t time
none of my needs has been met
and although I am often comfortable
this situation is painful

slowly we begin
giving back what was taken away
our right to the control of our bodies
knowledge of how to fight and build
food that nourishes
medicine that heals
songs that remind us of ourselves
and make us want to keep on with
what matters to us
lets come out again
joining women coming out
for the first time
knowing this love makes
a good difference in us
affirming a continuing life with women
we must be lovers doctors soldiers
artists mechanics farmers
all our lives
waves of women
trembling with love and anger

singing we must rage
kissing, turn and
break the old society
without becoming the names it praises
the minds it pays

eat rice have faith in women
what I don’t know now
I can still learn
slowly slowly
if I learn I can teach others
if others learn first
I must believe
they will come back and teach me

Copyright: Fran Winant; reprinted in the Lesbian Reader, an Amazon Quarterly anthology

Eating animals acts as mirror and representation of patriarchal values

2010-02-22T22:13:00.000-08:00

"Eating animals acts as mirror and representation of patriarchal values. Meat eating is the re-inscription of male power at every meal. The patriarchal gaze sees not the fragmented flesh of dead animals but appetizing food." - Carol Adams

Moses Seenarine
continued:
"If our appetites re-inscribe patriarchy, our actions regarding eating animals will either reify or challenge this received culture. If meat is a symbol of male dominance then the presence of meat proclaims the dis-empowering of women."

Harry
if god didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Moses Seenarine
god? which god? the patriarchal illusion of eternal fatherhood with its misogynistic blaming of the fall from "paradise" on women and an animal? the sky magic invention of men to distance themselves from the creative powers of women and nature? or the immoral blood-sacrifice ritualization of death to replace matriarchal power entrenched in the ... See Morecreative power of menstruation? if meat-eating is not immoral, why even in the myth of the golden age of eden, humans were vegetarian? there were two trees in eden, one vegetarian and the other of killing and meat-eating, and it was the extremely cunning patriarchal trickery of the abrahamic myths to blame our species devolution into cannibalism on women

Harry
thanx for affirming my suspicion that you are a complete nut job....one 'unfiriend' coming right up

Moses Seenarine
one less male asshole to deal with; i am blessed :)

Nicolle
Carol Adams is a great author

Salim
An Animal Manifesto: Gender, Identity, and Vegan-Feminism in the Twenty-First Century
Carol J. Adams Interviewed by Tom Tyler
http://www.caroljadams.com/text_interview7.html

Jack
I dunno, I like fish. Mainly raw fresh from the stream, or cooked. I don't like steak. I guess I'm part Bear.

Catherine
All this man hating stuff is a bit tiring. All men are not assholes.

Moses Seenarine
@ nicolle: thanks; i'm going to see carol in a week! i'm so excited
@ salim: great link! respect, as always :)
@ jack: bears cannot grow vegetables and have no access to vegetable markets; taste does not trump morality, and when it does, compassion and empathy is negatively affected
@ catherine: male violence is tiring, and men are completely apathetic about it, which makes them assholes; you are a rare woman having male feminists around; please suggest them as fb friends

Moses Seenarine
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one. - Charles Mackay

Mardi
ALL men aren't assholes, but I think around 98%-ish are - give and take. Ok, maybe 98%-ish of the straight ones. But there are plenty of queer assholes out there too - I think I know enough guys to vouch for that one. Also, what's with all the hating here? He just posted a quote from a Carol Adams book - big deal! Relax, folks!

Sucheta
I don't think meat-eating is related to patriarchy. In fact, I think humans evolved as omnivorous creatures and the presence of our set of canines (on both the upper and lower jaws) prove that. Why would meat-tearing teeth evolve if humans were supposed to be naturally vegetarian? Morality doesn't figure in this entire food chain equation at all.
Now don't get all angry, Moses. This is just my opinion. :-)

Sucheta
But I do think you're right about the inherently misogynistic nature of all Abrahamic religions. Anyway, this is out of context.

Moses Seenarine
ok, sucheta, i'll go light on ya' :)

commonly used false argument: taking a functional characteristic (canine teeth) and applying a causal relationship (for tearing flesh)

a fraction of an inch of longer teeth does not a meat eater make; if we're natural carnivores, why can't we kill animals and eat flesh naturally? we need tools to kill and have to cook flesh; unlike the intestines of carnivores which is three times the length of their bodies, our intestines is 12 times the length of our body, more like herbivores; our saliva contains enzymes to break down starch and we are missing a rasping tongue; there's more

abrahamic religions is the basis for the justification for the immorality of eating our fellow creatures and are very relevant

Mardi
Meat-eating is TOTALLY connected to patriarchy and racism on SOOOO many levels!! Hmmm... don't even know where to start. Half the reasons why meat-eating is so popular today is because many cultures are now "catching up" with the West and are now "higher class" and "rich enough" to eat at crap joints like McDs and KFC just like Americans. Anyone who's been to China in the last couple years can clearly see this "downfall" of their society. I think KFC owns most of China at this point! Also, traditionally in the West, the big piece of meat was for the "head of the household" man, and the women, kids, and "primitives" were given "primitive" food meant for people who "don't think as much" - vegetarian type stuff (racist AND sexist!). Also, hunting has traditionally been a male thing, while gathering was stuff the women did (kinda hard to hunt with a baby strapped to you!) - so of course it is connected to the building of patriarchy. This is covered in depth in "Rape of the Wild" and "The Sexual Politics of Meat". Both good reads.

Sandy
Not to mention it's disgusting!

"Animals" by Voltaire

2010-02-11T00:13:00.000-08:00

Philosophical Dictionary

What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their operations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect nothing, etc.!

What! that bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is attaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is in an angle, in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the same way? That hunting-dog which you have disclined for three months, does it not know more at the end of this time than it knew before your lessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat it at once? do you not spend a considerable time in teaching it? have you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself?

Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home looking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk where I remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure, that I have memory and understanding.

Bring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master, which has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters the house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs, from room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it loves, and which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its leaps, by its caresses.

Barbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so Prodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in order to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not feel? has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this impertinent contradiction in nature.

But the schoolmasters ask what the soul of animals is? I do not understand this question. A tree has the faculty of receiving in its fibres its sap which circulates, of unfolding the buds of its leaves and its fruit; will you ask what the soul of this tree is? it has received these gifts; the animal has received those of feeling, of memory, of a certain number of ideas. Who has bestowed these gifts? who has given these faculties? He who has made the grass of the fields to grow, and who makes the earth gravitate toward the sun.

"Animals' souls are substantial forms," said Aristotle, and after Aristotle, the Arab school, and after the Arab school, the angelical school, and after the angelical school, the Sorbonne, and after the Sorbonne, nobody at all.

"Animals' souls are material," cry other philosophers. These have not been in any better fortune than the others. In vain have they been asked what a material soul is; they have to admit that it is matter which has sensation: but what has given it this sensation? It is a material soul, that is to say that it is matter which gives sensation to matter; they cannot issue from this circle.

Listen to other brutes reasoning about the brutes; their soul is a spiritual soul which dies with the body; but what proof have you of it? what idea have you of this spiritual soul, which, in truth, has feeling, memory, and its measure of ideas and ingenuity; but which will never be able to know what a child of six knows? On what ground do you imagine that this being, which is not body, dies with the body? The greatest fools are those who have advanced that this soul is neither body nor spirit. There is a fine system. By spirit we can understand only some unknown thing which is not body. Thus these gentlemen's system comes back to this, that the animals' soul is a substance which is neither body nor something which is not body.

Whence can come so many contradictory errors? From the habit men have always had of examining what a thing is, before knowing if it exists. The clapper, the valve of a bellows, is called in French the "soul" of a bellows. What is this soul? It is a name that I have given to this valve which falls, lets air enter, rises again, and thrusts it through a pipe, when I make the bellows move.

There is not there a distinct soul in the machine: but what makes animals' bellows move? I have already told you, what makes the stars move. The philosopher who said, "Deus est anima brutorium," was right; but he should go further.

"The Ethic of Reverence for Life" by Albert Schweitzer

2010-02-11T00:10:00.000-08:00

Excerpted from Civilization and Ethics (Part II of The Philosophy of Civilization)
translated by John Naish

Descartes tells us that philosophizing is based on the judgment: "I think, therefore I am." From this meagre and arbitrarily selected beginning it is inevitable that it should wander into the path of the abstract. It does not find the entrance to the ethical realm, and remains held fast in a dead view of the world and of life. True philosophy must commence with the most immediate and comprehensive facts of consciousness. And this may be formulated as follows: "I am life which wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live." This is no mere excogitated subtlety. Day after day and hour after hour I proceed on my way invested in it. In every moment of reflection it forces itself on me anew. A living world- and life-view, informing all the facts of life, gushes forth from it continually, as from an eternal spring. A mystically ethical oneness with existence grows forth from it unceasingly.

Just as in my own will-to-live there is a yearning for more life, and for that mysterious exaltation of the will-to-live which is called pleasure, and terror in face of annihilation and that injury to the will-to-live which is called pain; so the same obtains in all the will-to-live around me, equally whether it can express itself to my comprehension or whether it remains unvoiced.

Ethics thus consists in this, that I experience the necessity of practising the same reverence for life toward all will-to-live, as toward my own. Therein I have already the needed fundamental principle of morality. It is good to maintain and cherish life; it is evil to destroy and to check life.

As a matter of fact, everything which in the usual ethical valuation of inter-human relations is looked upon as good can be traced back to the material and spiritual maintenance or enhancement of human life and to the effort to raise it to its highest level of value. And contrariwise everything in human relations which is considered as evil, is in the final analysis found to be material or spiritual destruction or checking of human life and slackening of the effort to raise it to its highest value. Individual concepts of good and evil which are widely divergent and apparently unconnected fit into one another like pieces which belong together, the moment they are comprehended and their essential nature is grasped in this general notion.

The fundamental principle of morality which we seek as a necessity for thought is not, however, a matter only of arranging and deepening current views of good and evil, but also of expanding and extending these. A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to help all life which he is able to succour, and when he goes out of his way to avoid injuring anything living. He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy as valuable in itself, nor how far it is capable of feeling. To him life as such is sacred. He shatters no ice crystal that sparkles in the sun, tears no leaf from its tree, breaks off no flower, and is careful not to crush any insect as he walks. If he works by lamplight on a summer evening, he prefers to keep the window shut and to breathe stifling air, rather than to see insect after insect fall on his table with singed and sinking wings.

If he goes out into the street after a rainstorm and sees a worm which has strayed there, he reflects that it will certainly dry up in the sunshine, if it does not quickly regain the damp soil into which it can creep, and so he helps it back from the deadly paving stones into the lush grass. Should he pass by an insect which has fallen into a pool, he spares the time to reach it a leaf or stalk on which it may clamber and save itself.

He is not afraid of being laughed at as sentimental. It is indeed the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed. It was once considered foolish to suppose that coloured men were really human beings and ought to be treated as such. What was once foolishness has now become a recognized truth. Today it is considered as exaggeration to proclaim constant respect for every form of life as being the serious demand of a rational ethic. But the time is coming when people will be amazed that the human race was so long before it recognized thoughtless injury to life as incompatible with real ethics. Ethics is in its unqualified form extended responsibility with regard to everything that has life.

The general idea of ethics as a partaking of the mental atmosphere of reverence for life is not perhaps attractive. But it is the only complete notion possible. Mere sympathy is too narrow a concept to serve as the intellectual expression of the ethical element. It denotes, indeed, only a sharing of the suffering of the will-to-live. But to be ethical is to share the whole experience of all the circumstances and aspirations of the will-to-live, to live with it in its pleasures, in its yearnings, in its struggles toward perfection.

Love is a more inclusive term, since it signifies fellowship in suffering, in joy, and in effort. But it describes the ethical element only as it were by a simile, however natural and profound that simile may be. It places the solidarity created by ethics in analogy to that which nature has caused to come into being in a more or less superficial physical manner, and with a view to the fulfilment of their destiny, between two sexually attracted existences, or between these and their offspring.

Thought must strive to find a formula for the essential nature of the ethical. In so doing it is led to characterize ethics as self-devotion for the sake of life, motivated by reverence for life. Although the phrase "reverence for life" may perhaps sound a trifle unreal, yet that which it denotes is something which never lets go its hold of the man in whose thought it has once found a place. Sympathy, love, and, in general, all enthusiastic feeling of real value are summed up in it. It works with restless vitality on the mental nature in which it has found a footing and flings this into the restless activity of a responsibility which never ceases and stops nowhere. Reverence for life drives a man on as the whirling thrashing screw forces a ship through the water.

The ethic of reverence for life, arising as it does out of an inward necessity, is not dependent on the question as to how far or how little it is capable of development into a satisfactory view of life. It does not need to prove that the action of ethical men, as directed to maintaining, enhancing and exalting life, has any significance for the total course of the world-process. Nor is it disturbed by the consideration that the Preservation and enhancement of life which it practises are of almost no account at all beside the mighty destruction of life which takes place every moment as the result of natural forces. Determined as it is to act, it is yet able to ignore all the problems raised as to the result of its action. The fact that in the man who has become ethical a will informed by reverence for life and self-sacrifice for the sake of life exists in the world, is itself significant for the world.

The universal will-to-live experiences itself in my personal will-to-live otherwise than it does in other phenomena. For here it enters on an individualization, which, so far as I am able to gather in trying to view it from the outside, struggles only to live itself out, and not at all to become one with will-to-live external to itself. The world is indeed the grisly drama of will-to-live at variance with itself. One existence survives at the expense of another of which it yet knows nothing. But in me the will-to-live has become cognizant of the existence of other will-to-live. There is in it a yearning for unity with itself, a longing to become universal.

Why is it that the will-to-live has this experience only in myself? Is it a result of my having become capable of reflection about the totality of existence? Whither will the evolution lead which has thus begun in me?

There is no answer to these questions. It remains a painful enigma how I am to live by the rule of reverence for life in a world ruled by creative will which is at the same time destructive will, and by destructive will which is also creative.

I can do no other than hold on to the fact that the will-to-live appears in me as will-to-live which aims at becoming one with other will-to-live. This fact is the light which shines for me in the darkness. My ignorance regarding the real nature of the objective world no longer troubles me. I am set free from the world. I have been cast by my reverence for life into a state of unrest foreign to the world. By this, too, I am placed in a state of beatitude which the world cannot give. If in the happiness induced by our independence of the world I and another afford each other mutual help in understanding and in forgiveness, when otherwise will would harass other will, then the will-to-live is no longer at variance with itself. If I rescue an insect from a pool of water, then life has given itself for life, and again the self-contradiction of the will-to-live has been removed. Whenever my life has given itself out in any way for other life, my eternal will-to-live experiences union with the eternal, since all life is one. I possess a cordial which secures me from dying of thirst in the desert of life.

Therefore I recognize it as the destiny of my existence to be obedient to the higher revelation of the will-to-live which I find in myself. I choose as my activity the removal of the self-contradiction of the will-to-live, as far as the influence of my own existence extends. Knowing as I do the one thing needful, I am content to offer no opinion about the enigma of the objective world and my own being.

Thought becomes religious when it thinks itself out to the end. The ethic of reverence for life is the ethic of Jesus brought to philosophical expression, extended into cosmical form, and conceived as intellectually necessary.

The surmising and longing of all deeply religious personalities is comprehended and contained in the ethic of reverence for life. This, however, does not build up a world-view as a completed system, but resigns itself to leave the cathedral perforce incomplete. It is only able to finish the choir. Yet in this true piety celebrates a living and continuous divine service. . . .

What does reverence for life teach us about the relations of man and the nonhuman animals?

Whenever I injure life of any kind I must be quite clear as to whether this is necessary or not. I ought never to pass the limits of the unavoidable, even in apparently insignificant cases. The countryman who has mowed down a thousand blossoms in his meadow as fodder for his cows should take care that on the way home he does not, in wanton pastime, switch off the head of a single flower growing on the edge of the road, for in so doing he injures life without being forced to do so by necessity.

Those who test operations or drugs on animals, or who inoculate them with diseases so that they may be able to help human beings by means of the results thus obtained, ought never to rest satisfied with the general idea that their dreadful doings are performed in pursuit of a worthy aim. It is their duty to ponder in every separate case whether it is really and truly necessary thus to sacrifice an animal for humanity. They ought to be filled with anxious care to alleviate as much as possible the pain which they cause. How many outrages are committed in this way in scientific institutions where narcotics are often omitted to save time and trouble! How many also when animals are made to suffer agonizing tortures, only in order to demonstrate to students scientific truths which are perfectly well known. The very fact that the animal, as a victim of research, has in his pain rendered such services to suffering men, has itself created a new and unique relation of solidarity between him and ourselves. The result is that a fresh obligation is laid on each of us to do as much good as we possibly can to all creatures in all sorts of circumstances. When I help an insect out of his troubles all that I do 15 to attempt to remove some of the guilt contracted through these crimes against animals.

Wherever any animal is forced into the service of man, the sufferings which it has to bear on that account are the concern of every one of us. No one ought to permit, in so far as he can prevent it, pain or suffering for which he will not take the responsibility. No one ought to rest at ease in the thought that in so doing he would mix himself up in affairs which are not his business. Let no one shirk the burden of his responsibility. When there is so much maltreatment of animals, when the cries of thirsting creatures go up unnoticed from the railway trucks, when there is so much roughness in our slaughter-houses, when in our kitchens so many animals suffer horrible deaths from unskilful hands, when animals endure unheard-of agonies from heartless men, or are delivered to the dreadful play of children, then we are all guilty and must bear the blame.

We are afraid of shocking or offending by showing too plainly how deeply we are moved by the sufferings which man causes to the non-human creatures. We tend to reflect that others are more "rational" than we are, and would consider that which so disturbs us as customary and as a matter of course. And then, suddenly, they let fall some expression which shows us that they, too, are not really satisfied with the situation. Strangers to us hitherto, they are now quite near our own position. The masks, in which we had each concealed ourselves from the other, fall off. We now know that neither of us can cut ourselves free from the horrible necessity which plays ceaselessly around us. What a wonderful thing it is thus to get to know each other!

The ethic of reverence for life forbids any of us to deduce from the silence of our contemporaries that they, or in their case we, have ceased to feel what as thinking men we all cannot but feel. It prompts us to keep a mutual watch in this atmosphere of suffering and endurance, and to speak and act without panic according to the responsibility which we feel. It inspires us to join in a search for opportunities to afford help of some kind or other to the animals, to make up for the great amount of misery which they endure at our hands, and thus to escape for a moment from the inconceivable horrors of existence.

"The Carnivorous Custom and Human Vanity" by Bernard Mandeville

2010-02-11T00:06:00.000-08:00

Excerpted from The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits, vol. 1, Oxford, 1705, pp. 172-181

In what concerns the fashions and manners of the ages men live in, they never examine into the real worth or merit of the cause, and generally judge of things not as their reason, but custom directs them. Time was when the funeral rites in the disposing of the dead were performed by fire, and the cadavers of the greatest emperors were burnt to ashes. Then burying the corpse in the ground was a funeral for slaves, or made a punishment for the worst of malefactors. Now nothing is decent or honorable but interring, and burning the body is reserved for crimes of the blackest dye. At some times we look upon trifles with horror, at other times we can behold enormities without concern. If we see a man walk with his hat on in a church, though out of service time, it shocks us, but if on a Sunday night we meet half a dozen fellows drunk in the street, the sight makes little or no impression upon us. If a woman at a merry-making dresses in man's clothes, it is reckoned a frolic amongst friends, and he that finds too much fault with it is counted censorious: upon the stage it is done without reproach, and the most virtuous ladies will dispense with it in an actress, though everybody has a full view of her legs and thighs; but if the same woman, as soon as she has petticoats on again, should show her leg to a man as high as her knee, it would be a very immodest action, and everybody will call her impudent for it.

I have often thought, if it was not for this tyranny which custom usurps over us, that men of any tolerable good nature could never be reconciled to the killing of so many animals for their daily food, as long as the bountiful earth so plentifully provides them with varieties of vegetable dainties. I know that reason excites our compassion but faintly, and therefore I would not wonder how men should so little commiserate such imperfect creatures as crayfish, oysters, cockles, and indeed all fish in general: as they are mute, and their inward formation, as well as outward figure, vastly different from ours, they express themselves unintelligibly to us, and therefore 'tis not strange that their grief should not affect our understanding which it cannot reach; for nothing stirs us to pity so effectually, as when the symptoms of misery strike immediately upon our senses, and I have seen people moved at the noise a live lobster makes upon the spit, that could have killed half a dozen fowls with pleasure. But in such perfect animals as sheep and oxen, in whom the heart, the brain and nerves differ so little from ours, and in whom the separation of the spirits from the blood, the organs of sense, and consequently feeling itself, are the same as they are in human creatures; I can't imagine how a man not hardened in blood and massacre, is able to see a violent death, and the pangs of it, without concern.

In answer to this, most people will think it sufficient to say, that all things being allowed to be made for the service of man, there can be no cruelty in putting creatures to the use they were designed for; but I have heard men make this reply, while their nature within them has reproached them with the falsehood of the assertion. There is of all the multitude not one man in ten but what will own (if he was not brought up in a slaughter house) that of all trades he could never have been a butcher; and I question whether ever anybody so much as killed a chicken without reluctancy the first time. Some people are not to be persuaded to taste of any creatures they have daily seen and been acquainted with, while they were alive; others extend their scruple no further than to their own poultry, and refuse to eat what they fed and took care of themselves; yet all of them will feed heartily and without remorse on beef, mutton and fowls when they are bought in the market. In this behavior, methinks, there appears something like a consciousness of guilt, it looks as if they endeavored to save themselves from the imputation of a crime (which they know sticks somewhere) by removing the cause of it as far as they can from themselves; and I can discover in it some strong remains of primitive pity and innocence, which all the arbitrary power of custom, and the violence of luxury, have not yet been able to conquer.

What I build upon I shall be told is a folly, that wise men are not guilty of: I own it; but while it proceeds from a real passion inherent in our nature, it is sufficient to demonstrate that we are born with a repugnancy to the killing, and consequently the eating of animals; for it is impossible that a natural appetite should ever prompt us to act, or desire others to do, what we have an aversion to, be it as foolish as it will.

Everybody knows, that surgeons in the cure of dangerous wounds and fractures, the extirpations of limbs, and other dreadful operations, are often compelled to put their patients to extraordinary torments, and that the more desperate and calamitous cases occur to them, the more the outcries and bodily sufferings of others must become familiar to them; for this reason, our English law, out of a most affectionate regard to the lives of the subject, allows them not to be of any jury upon life and death, as supposing that their practice itself is sufficient to harden and extinguish in them that tenderness, without which no man is capable of setting a true value upon the lives of his fellow-creatures. Now if we ought to have no concern for what we do to brute beasts, and there was not imagined to be any cruelty in killing them, why should of all callings butchers, and only they jointly with surgeons, be excluded from being jurymen by the same law?

I shall urge nothing of what Pythagoras and many other wise men have said concerning this barbarity of eating flesh; I have gone too much out of my way already, and shall therefore beg the reader, if he would have any more of this, to run over the following fable, or else, if he be tired, to let it alone, with an assurance that in doing of either he shall equally oblige me.

A Roman merchant in one of the Carthaginian Wars was cast away upon the coast of Africa: himself and his slave with great difficulty got safe ashore; but going in quest of relief, were met by a lion of a mighty size. It happened to be one of the breed that ranged in Aesop's days, and one that could not only speak several languages, but seemed moreover very well acquainted with human affairs. The slave got upon a tree, but his master not thinking himself safe there, and having heard much of the generosity of lions, fell down prostrate before him, with all the signs of fear and submission. The lion, who had lately filled his belly, bids him rise, and for a while lay by his fears, assuring him withal, that he should not be touched, if he could give him any tolerable reasons why he should not be devoured. The merchant obeyed; and having now received some glimmering hopes of safety, gave a dismal account of the shipwreak he had suffered, and endeavoring from thence to raise the lion's pity, pleaded his cause with abundance of good rhetoric; but observing by the countenance of the beast that flattery and fine words made very little impression, he betook himself to arguments of greater solidity, and reasoning from the excellency of man's nature and abilities, remonstrated how improbable it was that the gods should not have designed him for a better use than to be eaten by savage beasts. Upon this the lion became more attentive, and vouchsafed now and then a reply, till at last the following dialogue ensued between them.

Oh vain and covetous animal (said the lion), whose pride and avarice can make him leave his native soil, where his natural wants might be plentifully supplied, and try rough seas and dangerous mountains to find out superfluities, why should you esteem your species above ours? And if the gods have given you a superiority over all creatures, then why beg you of an inferior? Our superiority (answered the merchant) consists not in bodily force but strength of understanding; the gods have endued us with a rational soul, which, though invisible, is much the better part of us. I desire to touch nothing of you but what is good to eat; but why do you value your self so much upon that part which is invisible? Because it is immortal, and shall meet with rewards after death for the actions of this life, and the just shall enjoy eternal bliss and tranquillity with the heroes and demi-gods in the Elysian Fields. What life had you led? / have honored the gods, and studied to be beneficial to man. Then why do you fear death, if you think the gods as just as you have been? / have a wife and five small children that must come to want if they lose me. I have two whelps that are not big enough to shift for themselves, that are in want now, and must actually be starved if I can provide nothing for them: your children will be provided for one way or another; at least as well when I have eaten you as if you had been drowned.

As to the excellency of either species, the value of things among you has ever increased with the scarcity of them, and to a million of men there is hardly one lion; besides that, in the great veneration man pretends to have for his kind, there is little sincerity farther than it concerns the share which everyone's pride has in it for himself; 'tis a folly to boast of the tenderness shewn and attendance given to your young ones, or the excessive and lasting trouble bestowed in the education of them: man being born the most necessitous and most helpless animal, this is only an instinct of nature, which in all creatures has ever proportioned the care of the parents to the wants and imbecilities of the offspring. But if a man had a real value for his kind, how is it possible that often ten thousand of them, and sometimes ten times as many, should be destroyed in few hours for the caprice of two? All degrees of men despise those that are inferior to them, and if you could enter into the hearts of kings and princes, you would hardly find any but what have less value for the greatest part of the multitudes they rule over, than those have for the cattle that belong to them. Why should so many pretend to derive their race, though but spuriously, from the immortal gods; why should all of them suffer others to kneel down before them, and more or less take delight in having divine honors paid them, but to insinuate that themselves are of a more exalted nature, and a species superior to that of their subjects?

Savage I am, but no creature can be called cruel but what either by malice or insensibility extinguishes his natural pity: the lion was born without compassion; we follow the instinct of our nature; the gods have appointed us to live upon the waste and spoil of other animals, and as long as we can meet with dead ones, we never hunt after the living. 'Tis only man, mischievous man, that can make death a sport. Nature taught your stomach to crave nothing but vegetables; but your violent fondness to change, and greater eagerness after novelties, have prompted you to the destruction of animals without justice or necessity, perverted your nature and warped your appetites which way soever your pride or luxury have called them. The lion has a ferment within him that consumes the toughest skin and hardest bones as well as the flesh of all animals without exception: your squeamish stomach, in which the digestive heat is weak and inconsiderable, won't so much as admit of the most tender parts of them, unless above half the concoction has been performed by artificial fire beforehand; and yet what animal have you spared to satisfy the caprices of a languid appetite? Languid I say; for what is man's hunger if compared to the lion's? Yours, when it is at the worst, makes you faint, mine makes me mad: oft have I tried with roots and herbs to allay the violence of it, but in vain; nothing but large quantities of flesh can any ways appease it.

Yet the fierceness of our hunger notwithstanding, lions have often requited benefits received; but ungrateful and perfidious man feeds on the sheep that clothes him, and spares not her innocent young ones, whom he has taken into his care and custody. If you tell me the gods made man master over all other creatures, what tyranny was it then to destroy them out of wantonness? No, fickle timorous animal, the gods have made you for society, and designed that millions of you, when well joined together, should compose the strong Leviathan. A single lion bears some sway in the creation, but what is a single man? A small and inconsiderable part, a trifling atom of one great beast. What nature designs she executes, and 'tis not safe to judge of what she proposed, but from the effects she shews: if she had intended that man, as man from a superiority of species, should lord it over all other animals, the tiger, nay, the whale and the eagle, would have obeyed his voice.

But if your wit and understanding exceeds ours, ought not the lion in deference to that superiority to follow the maxims of men, with whom nothing is more sacred than that the reason of the strongest is ever the most prevalent? Whole multitudes of you have conspired and compassed the destruction of one, after they had owned the gods had made him their superior; and one has often ruined and cut off whole multitudes, whom by the same gods he had sworn to defend and maintain. Man never acknowledged superiority without power, and why should I? The excellence I boast of is visible, all animals tremble at the sight of the lion, not out of panic fear. The gods have given me swiftness to overtake, and strength to conquer whatever comes near me. Where is there a creature that has teeth and claws like mine; behold the thickness of these massy jaw bones, consider the width of them, and feel the firmness of this brawny neck. The nimblest deer, the wildest boar, the stoutest horse, and strongest bull are my prey wherever I meet them. Thus spoke the lion, and the merchant fainted away.

The lion, in my opinion, has stretched the point too far; yet when to soften the flesh of male animals, we have by castration prevented the firmness their tendons and every fibre would have come to without it, I confess, I think it ought to move a human creature when he reflects upon the cruel care with which they are fattened for destruction. When a large and gentle bullock, after having resisted a ten times greater force of blows than would have killed his murderer, falls stunned at last, and his armed head is fastened to the ground with cords; as soon as the wide wound is made, and the jugulars are cut asunder, what mortal can without compassion hear the painful bellowings intercepted by his blood, the bitter sighs that speak the sharpness of his anguish, and the deep sounding groans with loud anxiety fetched from the bottom of his strong and palpitating heart; look on the trembling and violent convulsions of his limbs; see, while his reeking gore streams from him, his eyes become dim and languid, and behold his strugglings, gasps and last efforts for life, the certain signs of his approach fate? When a creature has given such convincing and undeniable proofs of the terrors upon him, and the pains and agonies he feels, is there a follower of Descartes so inured to blood, as not to refute, by his commiseration, the philosophy of that vain reasoner?

"The Essence of True Justice" by Anna Kingsford

2010-02-11T00:03:00.000-08:00

Excerpted from ANNA KINGSFORD & EDWARD MAITLAND. Addresses and Essays on Vegetarianism. London: John M. Watkins, 1912, pp. 145-150

I always speak with the greatest delight and satisfaction in the presence of my friends the members of the Vegetarian Society. With them I am quite at my ease, I have no reservation, I have no dissatisfaction. This is not the case when I speak for my friends the Anti-Vivisectionists, the Anti-Vaccinationists, the Spiritualists, or the advocates of freedom for women. I always feel that such of these as are not abstainers from flesh-food have unstable ground under their feet, and it is my great regret that, when helping them in their good works, I cannot openly and publicly maintain what I so ardently believe—that the Vegetarian movement is the bottom and basis of all other movements towards Purity, Freedom, Justice, and Happiness.

I think it was Benjamin D'Israeli who said that we had stopped short at Comfort, and had mistaken it for Civilisation, content to increase the former at the expense of the latter. Not a day passes without the perspicacity of this remark coming forcibly before me. Comfort, luxury, indulgence, and ease abound in this age, and in this part of the world; but, alas! Of Civilisation we have as yet acquired but the veriest rudiments. Civilisation means not mere physical ease, but moral and spiritual Freedom—Sweetness and Light—with which the customs of the age are in most respects at dire enmity. I named just now freedom for women. One of the greatest hindrances to the advancement and enfranchisement of the sex is due to the luxury of the age, which demands so much time, study, money, and thought to be devoted to what is called the "pleasures of the table." A large class of men seems to believe that women were created chiefly to be "housekeepers," a term which they apply almost exclusively to ordering dinners and superintending their preparation. Were this office connected only with the garden, the field, and the orchard, the occupation might be truly said to be refined, refining, and worthy of the best and most gentle lady in the land. But, connected as it is actually with slaughter-houses, butchers' shops, and dead carcases, it is an occupation at once unwomanly, inhuman, and barbarous in the extreme. Mr. Ruskin has said that the criterion of a beautiful action or of a noble thought is to be found in song, and that an action about which we cannot make a poem is not fit for humanity. Did he ever apply this test to flesh-eating? Many a lovely poem, many a beautiful picture, may be made about gardens and fruit-gathering, and the bringing home of the golden produce of harvest, or the burden of the vineyards, with groups of happy boys and girls, and placid, mild-eyed oxen bending their necks under their fragrant load. But I defy anyone to make beautiful verse or to paint beautiful pictures about slaughterhouses, running with streams of steaming blood, and terrified, struggling animals felled to the ground with pole-axes; or of a butcher's stall hung round with rows of gory corpses, and folks in the midst of them bargaining with the ogre who keeps the place for legs and shoulders and thighs and heads of the murdered creatures! What horrible surroundings are these for gentle and beautiful ladies! The word "wife" means, in the old Saxon tongue, a "weaver," and that of "husband" means, of course, a "husbandman." "Lady," too, is a word originally signifying "loaf-giver." In these old words have come down to us a glimpse of a fair picture of past times. The wife, or weaver, is the spinner, the maker, whose function it is to create forms of beauty and decorative art, to brighten, adorn, and make life lovely. Or if, as "lady" of the house, we look on her in the light of the provider and dispenser of good things, it is not loathsome flesh of beasts that she gives, but bread—sweet and pure, and innocent type of all human food. As for the man, he is the cultivator of the ground, a sower of grain, a tiller of the field. I would like to see these old times back, with all their sweet and tender Arcadian homeliness, in the place of the ugly lives which most folks lead in our modern towns, whose streets are hideous, above all at night with their crowded gin-palaces, blood-smeared butchers' stalls, reeling drunkards, and fighting women. People talk to me sometimes about peace conventions, and ask me to join societies for putting down war. I always say: "You are beginning at the wrong end, and putting the cart before the horse." If you want people to leave off fighting like beasts of prey, you must first get them to leave off living like beasts of prey. You cannot reform institutions without first reforming men. Teach men to live as human beings ought to live, to think wisely, purely, and beautifully, and to have noble ideas of the purpose and meaning of Humanity, and they will themselves reform their institutions. Any other mode of proceeding will result only in a patchwork on a worthless fabric, a whitening of a sepulchre full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Flesh-meats and intoxicating drinks—the pabulum of Luxury—are the baneful coil of hydra-headed Vice, whose ever-renewing heads we vainly strike, while leaving the body of the dragon still untouched. Strike there—at the heart—at the vitals of the destructive monster, and the work of Heracles, the Redeemer, is accomplished. […]

I have stood so often on this and on other platforms throughout England, as well as in Scotland and Switzerland, to speak to my friends about the physiological, chemical, anatomical, and economical aspects of the non-flesh diet, that tonight, for a change, I am going to take another and a higher line. We will, therefore, if you please, take "as read" all the vindications of our mode of living furnished by various scientific arguments: that we have the organisation of the fruit-eater; that the constituent elements of vegetable food furnish all the necessary force and material of bodily vigour; that it is cheaper to buy beans and meal than to buy pork and suet; that land goes further and supports more people under a vegetable cultivation than when laid out for pasture, and so forth. All these arguments, more or less eloquently and clearly formulated, most of you have by heart, and those who have not may buy them all for sixpence of the Vegetarian Society. So I am going to talk to you tonight about quite another branch of our subject, the loftiest and fruitfulest branch of the whole tree. I am going to tell you that I see in the doctrine we are here to preach the very culmination and crown of the Gentle Life, that Life which, in some way, we all of us in our best moments long to live, but which it is only given now and again to some great and noble soul, almost divine, fully to realise and glorify in the eyes of the world. I said just now that "in our best moments" we all long to lead the Ideal Life. Some of us have many "best moments," and long ones too: moments that dominate and top our work-a-day efforts always, like a light of stars overhead, through which the Heaven looks down on us. Some of us, again, have very few "best moments," short and feeble, like lights over a marsh, never steadfast, always flickering in and out, and paling and flitting when we get abreast of them. With this class of persons the Ideal is very faint and unstable, while with the former it is strong and masterful. Societies like ours are made to encourage the "best moments" of the weakly, and to glorify those of the strong. Societies like ours are made to train soldiers and provide them with leaders to fight for the Ideal. Beginners and feeble folk cannot stand without encouragement in the teeth of a hot fire, nor rush upon the enemy unless some hero heads them and shows the way. The Ideal Life, the Gentle Life, has many enemies, and the weapons used by these are various. They are pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious, pseudo-philanthropic, pseudo-aesthetic, and pseudo-utilitarian. And the enemies are of all ranks, professions, and interests. But of all the weapons used, the most deadly, the most terrific, is—Ridicule. Yes, Ridicule slays its tens of thousands!

To be laughed at is far more awful to average mortals than to be preached at, groaned at, cursed at. It is the weapon which the journalists almost always handle with the greatest facility. These are the men who laugh for their living. They have replaced, in modern days, the paid domestic jesters of olden times. Every town keeps its paid jester now in the office of its local paper, just as, a few centuries back, great nobles kept their man in cap and motley to crack jokes on the guests at table. We have not changed in manners, but in manner only. And the very first thing that Reformers have to do is to get over minding the man in motley. Let him laugh. He cannot argue. Laughing is his stock-in-trade. If he laugh not too coarsely, and avoid blaspheming, he is, after all, very harmless. It is his privilege to laugh at all that is new and unwonted. All children do that, and the man in motley is but a clever child. Why let him knock you down with his fool's truncheon? Wince, and shrink, and expostulate: he sees his advantage then, and belabours you pitilessly. But heed him not, and go on doing your work with a great heart as though it were a royal thing to do, and he will soon be off to some other quarry. Only be sure in your own mind that you are right; only be set in dead earnest on keeping that royal thing in clear view and working up to it, and the Ideal will reward you by becoming the Real and Actual. It is not necessary to go very far afield to find this royal work. It does not lie—for most of us—in setting out to accomplish some vast task. Most of us will find it in just simply and calmly shaping out and lifting up our own lives so as to beautify and perfect and unify them, being just and merciful to all men and all creatures. We Vegetarians carry the Ideal a stage lower, and therefore a stage higher than do other folk. We find the duty to the lowliest the duty completest in blessing. Let me tell you a story. Once, in the far-away old days of romance, there was a Christian Knight of peerless repute, whose greatest longing and dearest hope it was to have the Vision of the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail is the name given in chivalry to the Chalice of the Altar containing the Sacred Blood of Christ, and this was said to be shown in a Vision by God to those whom He judged worthy of the sight of this supreme symbol of His Grace, in the moment when they pleased Him most. Well, the Knight of whom I speak, in pursuance of the Object of his desire, joined the Crusaders, and performed prodigies of valour and wonderful feats of arms in battle against the Infidels, but all in vain; he had no Vision and remained unblessed. Then he left Palestine and went and laid aside his sword in a monastery, and lived a life of long penance and meditation, desiring always a sight of the Holy Grail. But that, too, was in vain. At last, sorrowful and almost despairing, he returned homeward to his domain. As he drew near his castle, he saw gathered about its gates a crowd of beggars, sick, maimed, aged and infirm, old men, women, babes, and children-all who were left behind on the land while the hale and hearty went to fight the Saracens. Then he said to his squire: "What are these?" "They are beggars," the squire answered, "who can neither work nor fight. They clamour for bread; but why heed such a herd of useless, despicable wretches? Let me drive them away." "Nay," said the Knight, touched to the heart, "I have slain many abroad, let me save some at home. Call these poor folk together, give them bread and drink; let them be warmed and clothed." And lo! As the words passed his lips, a light from heaven fell upon him, and looking up, he saw, at last, the longed-for vision of the Holy Grail! Yes, that humble, simple, homely duty of charity was more precious in the Eyes Divine than all his deeds of prowess in the field of arms, or his long devotions in the cloister!

And so with us. Who so poor, so oppressed, so helpless, so mute and uncared for, as the dumb creatures who serve us—they who, but for us, must starve, and who have no friend on earth if man be their enemy? Even these are not too low for pity, nor too base for justice. And, without fear of irreverence or slight on the holy name that Christians love, we may truly say of them, as of the captive, the sick, and the hungry: "Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me."

For, as St. Francis of Assisi has told us, all the creatures of God's hand are brethren. "My sisters the birds," he was wont to say, "My brothers the kine in the meadows." The essential of true justice is the sense of solidarity. All creatures, from highest to lowest, stand hand in hand before God. Nor shall we ever begin to spiritualise our lives and thoughts, to lighten and lift ourselves higher, until we recognise this solidarity, until we learn to look upon the creatures of God's hand, not as mere subjects for hunting and butchery, for dissecting and experimentation, but as living souls with whom, as well as with the sons of men, God's covenant is made.

"The First Step" by Leo Tolstoy

2010-02-10T23:58:00.000-08:00

In Essays and Letters. New York: H. Frowde, 1909, pp. 82-91
translated by Aylmer Maude

Fasting is an indispensable condition of a good life; but in fasting, as in self-control in general, the question arises, with what shall we begin—how to fast, how often to eat, what to eat, what to avoid eating? And as we can do no work seriously without regarding the necessary order of sequence, so also we cannot fast without knowing where to begin—with what to commence self-control in food.

Fasting! And even an analysis of how to fast, and where to begin! The notion seems ridiculous and wild to the majority of men.

I remember how, with pride at his originality, an Evangelical preacher, who was attacking monastic asceticism, once said to me "Ours is not a Christianity of fasting and privations, but of beefsteaks." Christianity, or virtue in general—and beefsteaks!

During a long period of darkness and lack of all guidance, Pagan or Christian, so many wild, immoral ideas have made their way into our life (especially into that lower region of the first steps toward a good life—our relation to food, to which no one paid any attention), that it is difficult for us even to understand the audacity and senselessness of upholding, in our days, Christianity or virtue with beefsteaks.

We are not horrified by this association, solely because a strange thing has befallen us. We look and see not: listen and hear not. There is no bad odor, no sound, no monstrosity, to which man cannot become so accustomed that he ceases to remark what would strike a man unaccustomed to it. Precisely so it is in the moral region. Christianity and morality with beefsteaks!

A few days ago I visited the slaughter house in our town of Toula. It is built on the new and improved system practised in large towns, with a view to causing the animals as little suffering as possible. It was on a Friday, two days before Trinity Sunday. There were many cattle there. […]

Long before this […], I had wished to visit a slaughter house, in order to see with my own eyes the reality of the question raised when vegetarianism is discussed. But at first I felt ashamed to do so, as one is always ashamed of going to look at suffering which one knows is about to take place, but which one cannot avert; and so I kept putting off my visit.

But a little while ago I met on the road a butcher returning to Toula after a visit to his home. He is not yet an experienced butcher, and his duty is to stab with a knife. I asked him whether he did not feel sorry for the animals that he killed. He gave me the usual answer: "Why should I feel sorry? It is necessary." But when I told him that eating flesh is not necessary, but is only a luxury, he agreed; and then he admitted that he was sorry for the animals.

"But what can I do? I must earn my bread," he said. "At first I was afraid to kill. My father, he never even killed a chicken in all his life." The majority of Russians cannot kill; they feel pity, and express the feeling by the word "fear." This man had also been "afraid," but he was so no longer. He told me that most of the work was done on Fridays, when it continues until the evening.

Not long ago I also had a talk with a retired soldier, a butcher, and he, too, was surprised at my assertion that it was a pity to kill, and said the usual things about its being ordained; but afterwards he agreed with me: "Especially when they are quiet, tame cattle. They come, poor things! trusting you. It is very pitiful."

This is dreadful! Not the suffering and death of the animals, but that man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity—that of sympathy and pity toward living creatures like himself—and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. And how deeply seated in the human heart is the injunction not to take life!

Once, when walking from Moscow, I was offered a lift by some carters who were going from Serpouhof to a neighboring forest to fetch wood. It was the Thursday before Easter. I was seated in the first cart, with a strong, red, coarse carman, who evidently drank. On entering a village we saw a well-fed, naked, pink pig being dragged out of the first yard to be slaughtered. It squealed in a dreadful voice, resembling the shriek of a man. Just as we were passing they began to kill it. A man gashed its throat with a knife. The pig squealed still more loudly and piercingly, broke away from the men, and ran off covered with blood. Being near-sighted I did not see all the details. I saw only the human-looking pink body of the pig and heard its desperate squeal; but the carter saw all the details and watched closely. They caught the pig, knocked it down, and finished cutting its throat. When its squeals ceased the carter sighed heavily. "Do men really not have to answer for such things?" he said.

So strong is man's aversion to all killing. But by example, by encouraging greediness, by the assertion that God has allowed it, and, above all, by habit, people entirely lose this natural feeling.

On Friday I decided to go to Toula, and, meeting a meek, kind acquaintance of mine, I invited him to accompany me.

"Yes, I have heard that the arrangements are good, and have been wishing to go and see it; but if they are slaughtering I will not go in."

"Why not? That's just what I want to see! If we eat flesh it must be killed."

"No, no, I cannot!"

It is worth remarking that this man is a sportsman and himself kills animals and birds.

So we went to the slaughter house. Even at the entrance one noticed the heavy, disgusting, fetid smell, as of carpenter's glue, or paint on glue. The nearer we approached, the stronger became the smell. The building is of red brick, very large, with vaults and high chimneys. We entered the gates. To the right was a spacious enclosed yard, three-quarters of an acre in extent—twice a week cattle are driven in here for sale—and adjoining this enclosure was the porter's lodge. To the left were the chambers, as they are called—i.e., rooms with arched entrances, sloping asphalt floors, and contrivances for moving and hanging up the carcasses. On a bench against the wall of the porter's lodge were seated half a dozen butchers, in aprons covered with blood, their tucked-up sleeves disclosing their muscular arms also besmeared with blood. They had finished their work half an hour before, so that day we could only see the empty chambers. Though these chambers were open on both sides, there was an oppressive smell of warm blood; the floor was brown and shining, with congealed black blood in the cavities.

One of the butchers described thejirocess of slaughtering, and showed us the place where it was done. I did not quite understand him, and formed a wrong, but very horrible, idea of the way the animals are slaughtered; and I fancied that, as is often the case, the reality would very likely produce upon me a weaker impression than the imagination. But in this I was mistaken.

The next time I visited the slaughter house I went in good time. It was the Friday before Trinity—a warm day in June. The smell of glue and blood was even stronger and more penetrating than on my first visit. The work was at its height. The duty yard was full of cattle, and animals had been driven into all the enclosures beside the chambers.

In the street, before the entrance, stood carts to which oxen, calves, and cows were tied. Other carts drawn by good horses and filled with live calves, whose heads hung down and swayed about, drew up and were unloaded; and similar carts containing the carcasses of oxen, with trembling legs sticking out, with heads and bright red lungs and brown livers, drove away from the slaughter house. The dealers themselves, in their long coats, with their whips and knouts in their hands, were walking about the yard, either marking with tar cattle belonging to the same owner, or bargaining, or else guiding oxen and bulls from the great yard into the enclosures which lead into the chambers. These men were evidently all preoccupied with money matters and calculations, and any thought as to whether it was right or wrong to kill these animals was as far from their minds as were questions about the chemical composition of the blood that covered the floor of the chambers.

No butchers were to be seen in the yard; they were all in the chambers at work. That day about a hundred head of cattle were slaughtered. I was on the point of entering one of the chambers, but stopped short at the door. I stopped both because the chamber was crowded with carcasses which were being moved about, and also because blood was flowing on the floor and dripping from above. All the butchers present were besmeared with blood, and had I entered I, too, should certainly have been covered with it. One suspended carcass was being taken down, another was being moved toward the door, a third, a slaughtered ox, was lying with its white legs raised, while a butcher with strong hand was ripping up its tight-stretched hide.

Through the door opposite the one at which I was standing, a big, red, well-fed ox was led in. Two men were dragging it, and hardly had it entered when I saw a butcher raise a knife above its neck and stab it. The ox, as if all four legs had suddenly given way, fell heavily upon its belly, immediately turned over on one side, and began to work its legs and all its hind-quarters. Another butcher at once threw himself upon the ox from the side opposite to the twitching legs, caught its horns and twisted its head down to the ground, while another butcher cut its throat with a knife. From beneath the head there flowed a stream of blackish-red blood, which a besmeared boy caught in a tin basin. All the time this was going on the ox kept incessantly twitching its head as if trying to get up, and waved its four legs in the air. The basin was quickly filling, but the ox still lived, and, its stomach heaving heavily, both hind and fore legs worked so violently that the butchers held aloof. When one basin was full, the boy carried it away on his head to the albumen factory, while another boy placed a fresh basin, which also soon began to fill up. But still the ox heaved its body and worked its hind legs.

When the blood ceased to flow the butcher raised the animal's head and began to skin it. The ox continued to writhe. The head, stripped of its skin, showed red with white veins, and kept the position given it by the butcher; on both sides hung the skin. Still the animal did not cease to writhe. Than another butcher caught hold of one of the legs, broke it, and cut it off. In the remaining legs and the stomach the convulsions still continued. The other legs were cut off and thrown aside, together with those of other oxen belonging to the same owner. Then the carcass was dragged to the hoist and hung up, and the convulsions were over.

Thus I looked on from the door at the second, third, fourth ox. It was the same with each: the same cutting off of the head with bitten tongue, and the same convulsed members. The only difference was that the butcher did not always strike at once so as to cause the animal's fall. Sometimes he missed his aim, whereupon the ox leaped up, bellowed, and, covered with blood, tried to escape. But then his head was pulled under a bar, struck a second time, and he fell.

I afterwards entered by the door at which the oxen were led in. Here I saw the same thing, only nearer, and therefore more plainly. But chiefly I saw here, what I had not seen before, how the oxen were forced to enter this door. Each time an ox was seized in the enclosure and pulled forward by a rope tied to its horns, the animal, smelling blood, refused to advance, and sometimes bellowed and drew back. It would have been beyond the strength of two men to drag it in by force, so one of the butchers went round each time, grasped the animal's tail and twisted it so violently that the gristle crackled, and the ox advanced.

When they had finished with the cattle of one owner, they brought in those of another. The first animal of his next lot was not an ox, but a bull —a fine, well-bred creature, black, with white spots on its legs, young, muscular, full of energy. He was dragged forward, but he lowered his head and resisted sturdily. Then the butcher who followed behind seized the tail, like an engine-driver grasping the handle of a whistle, twisted it, the gristle crackled, and the bull rushed forward, upsetting the men who held the rope. Then it stopped, looking sideways with its black eyes, the whites of which had filled with blood. But again the tail crackled, and the bull sprang forward and reached the required spot. The striker approached, took aim, and struck. But the blow missed the mark. The bull leaped up, shook his head, bellowed, and, covered with blood, broke free and rushed back. The men at the doorway all sprang aside: but the experienced butchers, with the dash of men inured to danger, quickly caught the rope; again the tail operation was repeated, and again the bull was in the chamber, where he was dragged under the bar, from which he did not again escape. The striker quickly took aim at the spot where the hair divides like a star, and, notwithstanding the blood, found it, struck, and the fine animal, full of life, collapsed, its head and legs writhing while it was bled and the head skinned.

"There, the cursed devil hasn't even fallen the right way!" grumbled the butcher as he cut the skin from the head.

Five minutes later the head was stuck up, red instead of black, without skin; the eyes, that had shone with such splendid color five minutes before, fixed and glassy.

Afterwards I went into the compartment where small animals are slaughtered—a very large chamber with asphalt floor, and tables with backs, on which sheep and calves are killed. Here the work was already finished; in the long room, impregnated with the smell of blood, were only two butchers. One was blowing into the leg of a dead lamb and patting the swollen stomach with his hand; the other, a young fellow in an apron besmeared with blood, was smoking a bent cigarette. There was no one else in the long, dark chamber, filled with a heavy smell. After me there entered a man, apparently an ex-soldier, bringing in a young yearling ram, black with a white mark on its neck, and its legs tied. This animal he placed upon one of the tables, as if upon a bed. The old soldier greeted the butchers, with whom he was evidently acquainted, and began to ask when their master allowed them leave. The fellow with the cigarette approached with a knife, sharpened it on the edge of the table, and answered that they were free on holidays. The live ram was lying as quietly as the dead inflated one, except that it was briskly wagging its short little tail and its sides were heaving more quickly than usual. The soldier pressed down its uplifted head gently, without effort; the butcher, still continuing the conversation, grasped with his left hand the head of the ram and cut its throat. The ram quivered, and the little tail stiffened and ceased to wave. The fellow, while waiting for the blood to flow, began to relight his cigarette, which had gone out. The blood flowed and the ram began to writhe. The conversation continued without the slightest interruption. It was horribly revolting. […]

[A]nd how about those hens and chickens which daily, in thousands of kitchens, with heads cut off and streaming with blood, comically, dreadfully, flop about, jerking their wings?

And see, a kind, refined lady will devour the carcasses of these animals with full assurance that she is doing right, at the same time asserting two contradictory propositions:

First, that she is, as her doctor assures her, so delicate that she cannot be sustained by vegetable food alone, and that for her feeble organism flesh is indispensable; and, secondly, that she is so sensitive that she is unable, not only herself to inflict suffering on animals, but even to bear the sight of suffering.

Whereas the poor lady is weak precisely because she has been taught to live upon food unnatural to man; and she cannot avoid causing suffering to animals—for she eats them.

will inevitably follow one definite sequence, and in this sequence the first thing will be self-control in food—fasting. And in fasting, if he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal food, because, to say nothing of the excitation of the passions caused by such food, its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to the moral feeling—killing; and is called forth only by greediness and the desire for tasty food. […]

[W]e cannot pretend that we do not know this. We are not ostriches, and cannot believe that if we refuse to look at what we do not wish to see, it will not exist. This is especially the case when what we do not wish to see is what we wish to eat. If it were really indispensable, or, if not indispensable, at least in some way useful! But it is quite unnecessary, and only serves to develop animal feelings, to excite desire, and to promote fornication and drunkenness. And this is continually being confirmed by the fact that young, kind, undepraved people—especially women and girls—without knowing how it logically follows, feel that virtue is incompatible with beefsteaks, and, as soon as they wish to be good, give up eating flesh.

What, then, do I wish to say? That in order to be moral people must cease to eat meat? Not at all.

I only wish to say that for a good life a certain order of good actions is indispensable; that if a man's aspirations toward right living be serious they will inevitably follow one definite sequence; and that in this sequence the first virtue a man will strive after will be self-control, self-restraint. And in seeking for self-control a man will inevitably follow one definite sequence, and in this sequence the first thing will be self-control in food –fasting. And in fasting, if he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal, food, because, to say nothing of the excitation of the passions caused by such food, its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to the moral feeling –killing; and is called forth only by greediness and the desire for tasty food.

"A Critique of Kant" by Arthur Schopenhauer

2010-02-10T23:51:00.000-08:00

Excerpted from "On the Basis of Morality" (1839) translated by E. F. J. Payne

On the Derived Forms of the Supreme Principle of the Kantian Ethics

It is well known that Kant laid down the supreme principle of his ethics in yet a second and quite different form in which it is expressed not merely indirectly as in the first, as an instruction on how it is to be sought, but directly.[1] Starting at page 63, R. 55, he prepares the way for this, and indeed by very strange, stilted, and even distorted definitions of the concepts end and means, which, however, may be much more simply and correctly defined thus: End is the direct motive of an act of will, means the indirect motive (simplex sigillum veri). Kant, however, slips through his strange definitions to the proposition: "Man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself." But I must say frankly that "to exist as an end in oneself" is an unthinkable expression, a contradictio in adjecto. To be an end or aim means to be willed. Every aim or end in view exists only in reference to a will, and is the end of the will, that is (as I have said), the direct motive of it. Only in this relation has the concept end any meaning, which it loses as soon as it is torn away. But this essential relation necessarily excludes all in itself. "End in itself" is exactly like saying "friend in himself, enemy in himself, uncle in himself, north or east in itself, above or below in itself," and so on. Basically, however, the case is the same with "end in itself" as with the "absolute ought." Secretly, and even unconsciously underlying both, as their condition, is the same idea, namely, the theological. Nor does the absolute worth that is said to attach to such an alleged but inconceivable end in itself fare any better, for this too I must without mercy stamp as a contradictio in adjecto. Every worth is a quantity of comparison and even stands necessarily in a double relation. First, it is relative, in that it exists for someone; and secondly, it is comparative, in that it exists in comparison with something else by which it is valued or assessed. Outside these two relations, the concept worth loses all meaning; this is so clear that there is no need for further discussion. Now just as those two definitions offend against logic, so is genuine morality outraged by the proposition (page 65, R. 56) that beings devoid of reason (hence animals) are things and therefore should be treated merely as means that are not at the same time an end. In agreement with this, it is expressly stated in the Metaphysical Principles of the Doctrine of Virtue, §16, that "man can have no duty to any beings except human"; and then it says in §17 that "cruelty to animals is contrary to man's duty to himself, because it deadens in him the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a natural tendency that is very useful to morality in relation to other human beings is weakened." Thus only for practice are we to have sympathy for animals, and they are, so to speak, the pathological phantom for the purpose of practicing sympathy for human beings. In common with the whole of Asia not tainted with Islam (that is, Judaism), I regard such propositions as revolting and abominable.

Confirmations of the Expounded Basis of Morals

Boundless compassion for all living beings is the firmest and surest guarantee of pure moral conduct, and needs no casuistry. Whoever is inspired with it will assuredly injure no one, will wrong no one, will encroach on no one's rights; on the contrary, he will be lenient and patient with everyone, will forgive everyone, will help everyone as much as he cares, and all his actions will bear the stamp of justice, philanthropy, and Wing-kindness. On the other hand, if we attempt to say, "This man is virtuous but knows no compassion," or, "He is an unjust and malicious man yet he is very compassionate," the contradiction is obvious. Tastes differ, but I know of no finer prayer than the one which ends old Indian dramas (just as in former times English plays ended with a prayer for the King). It runs: "May all living beings remain free from pain." . . .

The moral incentive advanced by me as the genuine, is further confirmed by the fact that the animals are also taken under its protection. In other European systems of morality they are badly provided for, which is most inexcusable. They are said to have no rights, and there is the erroneous idea that our behavior to them is without moral significance, or, as it is said in the language of that morality, there are no duties to animals. All this is revoltingly crude, a barbarism of the West, the source of which is to be found in Judaism. In philosophy it rests, despite all evidence to the contrary, on the assumed total difference between man and animal. We all know that such difference was expressed most definitely and strikingly by Descartes as a necessary consequence of his errors. Thus when the philosophy of Descartes, Leibniz, and Wolff built up rational psychology out of abstract concepts and constructed an immortal anima rationales, the natural claims of the animal world obviously stood up against this exclusive privilege, this patent of immortality of the human species, and nature, as always on such occasions, entered her silent protest. With an uneasy intellectual conscience, the philosophers then had to try to support rational psychology by means of the empirical. They were therefore concerned to open up a vast chasm, an immeasurable gulf between man and animal in order to represent them as fundamentally different, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. ... In the end animals would be quite incapable of distinguishing themselves from the external world and would have no consciousness of themselves, no ego! To answer such absurd statements, we can point simply to the boundless egoism inherent in every animal, even the smallest and lowest, which shows clearly enough how very conscious they are of their ego in face of the world or the non-ego. If any Cartesian were to find himself clawed by a tiger, he would become aware in the clearest possible manner of the sharp distinction such a beast draws between its ego and the non-ego. In keeping with such sophisms of philosophers, we find a popular peculiarity in many languages, especially German, of giving animals special words of their own for eating, drinking, pregnancy, parturition, dying, and their bodies, so that we need not use the same words which describe those acts among human beings: and thus we conceal under a diversity or words the perfect and complete identity of the thing. Since the ancient languages did not recognize any such duplication, but rather frankly and openly denoted the same thing by the same word, that miserable artifice is undoubtedly the work of European priests and parsons. In their profanity these men think they cannot go far enough in disavowing and reviling the eternal essence that lives in all animals, and thus have laid the foundation of that harshness and cruelty to animals which is customary in Europe, but which no native of the Asiatic uplands can look at without righteous horror. In the English language we do not meet with this contemptible trick, doubtless because the Saxons, when they conquered England, were not yet Christians. On the other hand, we do find an analogy to it in the strange fact that in English all animals are of the neuter gender and so are represented by the pronoun "it," just as if they were inanimate things. The effect of this artifice is quite revolting, especially in the case of primates, such as dogs, monkeys, and the like; it is unmistakably a priestly trick for the purpose of reducing animals to the level of things. The ancient Egyptians, whose whole life was dedicated to religious purposes, put the mummies of the ibis, crocodile, and so on, in the same vault with those of human beings. In Europe, however, it is an abomination and a crime for a faithful dog to be buried beside the resting place of his master, though at times, from a faithfulness and attachment not to be found among the human race, he there awaited his own death. Nothing leads more definitely to a recognition of the identity of the essential nature in animal and human phenomena than a study of zoology and anatomy. What, then, are we to say when in these days [1839] a bigoted and canting zootomist has the audacity to emphasize an absolute and radical difference between man and animal, and goes so far as to attack and disparage honest zoologists who keep aloof from all priestly guile, toadyism, and hypocrisy, and pursue their course under the guidance of nature and truth? One must be really quite blind or totally chloroformed by the factor Judaicus not to recognize that the essential or principal thing in the animal and man is the same, and that what distinguishes the one from the other is not to be found in the primary and original principle, in the archaeus, in the inner nature, in the kernel of the two phenomena, such kernel being in both alike the will of the individual; but only in the secondary, in the intellect, in the degree of the cognitive faculty. In man this degree is incomparably higher through the addition of the faculty of abstract knowledge, called reason. Yet this superiority is traceable only to a greater cerebral development, and hence to the somatic difference of a single part, the brain, and in particular, its quantity. On the other hand, the similarity between animal and man is incomparably greater, both psychically and somatically. And so we must remind the Western, Judaized despiser of animals and idolater of the faculty of reason that, just as he was suckled by his mother, so too was the dog by his. Even Kant fell into this mistake of his contemporaries and countrymen; this I have already censured. The morality of Christianity has no consideration for animals, a defect that is better admitted than perpetuated. . . .

Since compassion for animals is so intimately associated with goodness of character, it may be confidently asserted that whoever is cruel to animals cannot be a good man. This compassion also appears to have sprung from the same source as the virtue that is shown to human beings has. Thus, for example, persons of delicate feelings, on realizing that in a bad mood, in anger, or under the influence of wine, they unnecessarily or excessively, or beyond propriety, ill-treated their dog, horse, or monkey—these people will feel the same remorse, the same dissatisfaction with themselves as is felt when they recall a wrong done to human beings, where it is called the voice of reproving conscience.

[1] Kant's first formulation of the supreme principle of morality reads: "Act so that maxima of your action may be adopted as a universal law." His second formulation (the one Schopenhauer attacks) reads: "Act so as to treat humanity, both in thine own person and in the person of every other, always as an end, never merely as a means

"A Vindication of Natural Diet" by Percy Bysshe Shelley

2010-02-10T23:33:00.000-08:00

London, 1813

I hold that the depravity of the physical and moral nature of man originated in his unnatural habits of life. The origin of man, like that of the universe of which he is a part, is enveloped in impenetrable mystery. His generations either had a beginning, or they had not. The weight of evidence in favour of each of these suppositions seems tolerably equal; and it is perfectly unimportant to the present argument which is assumed. The language spoken however by the mythology of nearly all religions seems to prove, that at some distant period man forsook the path of nature, and sacrificed the purity and happiness of his being to unnatural appetites. The date of this event, seems to have also been that of some great change in the climates of the earth, with which it has an obvious correspondence. The allegory of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of evil, and entailing upon their posterity the wrath of God, and the loss of everlasting life, admits of no other explanation, than the disease and crime that have flowed from unnatural diet. Milton was so well aware of this, that he makes Raphael thus exhibit to Adam the consequence of his disobedience.

_________________Immediately a place,
Before his eyes appeared: sad, noisome, dark:
A lazar-house it seem'd; wherein were laid
Numbers of all diseased: all maladies
Of ghastly spasm, or racking torture, qualms
Of heart-sick agony, all feverous kinds,
Convulsions, epilepsies, fierce catarrhs,
Intestine stone and ulcer, cholic pangs,
Dæmoniac frenzy, moping melancholy,
And moon-struck madness, pining atrophy,
Marasmus, and wide-wasting pestilence,
Dropsies, and asthmas, and joint-racking rheums.

And how many thousand more might not be added to this frightful catalogue!

The story of Prometheus, is one likewise which, although universally admitted to be allegorical, has never been satisfactorily explained. Prometheus stole fire from heaven, and was chained for this crime to mount Caucasus, where a vulture continually devoured his liver, that grew to meet its hunger. - Hesiod says, that before the time of Prometheus, mankind were exempt from suffering; that they enjoyed a vigorous youth, and that death, when at length it came, approached like sleep, and gently closed their eyes. - Again, so general was this opinion, that Horace, a poet of the Augustan age, writes-

Audax omnia perpeti,
Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas,
Audax Iapeti genus,
Ignem fraude mala gentibus intulit,
Post ignem ætheriâ domo,
Subductum, macies et nova febrium,
Terris incubuit cohors
Semotique prius tarda necessitas,
Lethi corripuit gradum.-

How plain a language is spoken by all this. - Prometheus, (who represents the human race) effected some great change in the condition of his nature, and applied fire to culinary purposes; thus inventing an expedient for screening from his disgust the horrors of the shambles. From this moment his vitals were devoured by the vulture of disease. It consumed his being in every shape of its loathsome and infinite variety, inducing the soul-quelling sinkings of premature and violent death. All vice arose from the ruin of healthful innocence. Tyranny, superstition, commerce, and inequality, were then first known, when reason vainly attempted to guide the wanderings of exacerbated passion. I conclude this part of the subject with an extract from Mr. Newton’s Defence of Vegetable Regimen, from whom I have borrowed this interpretation of the fable of Prometheus.

“Making allowance for such transposition of the events of the allegory, as time might produce after the important truths were forgotten, which the portion of the antient mythology was intended to transmit, the drift of the fable seems to be this: - Man at his creation was endowed with the gift of perpetual youth; that is, he was not formed to be a sickly suffering creature as we now see him, but to enjoy health, and to sink by slow degrees into the bosom of his parent earth without disease or pain. Prometheus first taught the use of animal food (primus bovem occidit Prometheus[1]) and of fire, with which to render it more digestible and pleasing to the taste. Jupiter, and the rest of the gods, foreseeing the consequences of the inventions, were amused or irritated at the short-sighted devices of the newly-formed creature, and left him to experience the sad effects of them. Thirst, the necessary concomitant of a flesh diet,” (perhaps of all diet vitiated by culinary preparation) “ensued; water was resorted to, and man forfeited the inestimable gift of health which he had received from heaven: he became diseased, the partaker of a precarious existence, and no longer descended slowly to his grave” (pp. 8-9 ).

But just disease to luxury succeeds,
And every death its own avenger breeds;
The fury passions from that blood began,
And turned on man a fiercer savage - Man.

Man, and the animals whom he has infected with his society, or depraved by his dominion, are alone diseased. The wild hog, the mouflon, the bison, and the wolf, are perfectly exempt from malady, and invariably die either from external violence, or natural old age. But the domestic hog, the sheep, the cow, and the dog, are subject to an incredible variety of distempers; and, like the corrupters of their nature, have physicians who thrive upon their miseries. The supereminence of man is like Satan's, a supereminence of pain; and the majority of his species, doomed to penury , disease, and crime, have reason to curse the untoward event, that by enabling him to communicate his sensations, raised him above the level of his fellow animals. But the steps that have been taken are irrevocable. The whole of human science is comprised in one question: - How can the advantages of intellect and civilization, be reconciled with the liberty and pure pleasures of natural life? How can we take the benefits, and reject the evils of the system, which is now interwoven with all the fibres of our being? - I believe that abstinence from animal food and spirituous liquors, would in a great measure capacitate us for the solution of this important question.

Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles frugivorous animals in every thing, and carnivorous in nothing; he has neither claws wherewith to seize his prey, nor distinct and pointed teeth to tear the living fibre. A Mandarin of the first class, with nails two inches long, would probably find them alone inefficient to hold even a hare. After every subterfuge of gluttony, the bull must be degraded into the ox, and the ram into the wether, by an unnatural and inhuman operation, that the flaccid fibre may offer a fainter resistance to rebellious nature. It is only by softening and disguising, dead flesh by culinary preparation, that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion; and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror, does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. Let the advocate of animal food, force himself to a decisive experiment on its fitness, and as Plutarch recommends, tear a living lamb with his teeth, and plunging his head into its vitals, slake his thirst with the steaming blood; when fresh from the deed ofhorror let him revert to the irresistible instincts of nature that would rise in judgment against it, and say, Nature formed me for such work as this. Then, and then only, would he be consistent.

Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, except man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons.

The orang-outang perfectly resembles man both in the order and number of his teeth. The orang-outang is the most anthropomorphous of the ape tribe, all of which are strictly frugivorous. There is no other species of animals in which this analogy exists[2]. In many frugivorous animals, the canine teeth are more pointed and distinct than those of man. The resemblance also of the human stomach to that of the orang-outang, is greater than to that of any other animal.

The intestines are also identical with those of herbivorous animals, which present a larger surface for absorption, and have ample and cellulated colons. The cæcum also, though short, is larger than that of carnivorous animals; and even here the orang-outang retains its accustomed similarity. The structure of the human frame then is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet, in every essential particular. It is true, that the reluctance to abstain from animal food, in those who have been long accustomed to its stimulus, is so great in some persons of weak minds, as to be scarcely overcome; but this is far from bringing any argument in its favour. - A lamb, which was fed for some time on flesh by a ship's crew, refused its natural diet at the end of the voyage. There are numerous instances of horses, sheep, oxen, and even wood-pigeons, having been taught to live upon flesh, until they have loathed their accustomed aliment. Young children evidently prefer pastry, oranges, apples, and other fruit, to the flesh of animals; until, by the gradual depravation of the digestive organs, the free use of vegetables has for a time produced serious inconveniences; for a time, I say, since there never was an instance wherein a change from spirituous liquors and animal food, to vegetables and pure water, has failed ultimately to invigorate the body, by rendering its juices bland and consentaneous, and to restore to the mind that cheerfulness and elasticity, which not one in fifty possess on the present system. A love of strong liquors is also with difficulty taught to infants. Almost every one remembers the wry faces, which the first glass of port produced. Unsophisticated instinct is invariably unerring; but to decide on the fitness of animal food, from the perverted appetites which its constrained adoption produces, is to make the criminal a judge in his own cause: - it is even worse, it is appealing to the infatuated drunkard in a question of the salubrity of brandy.

What is the cause of morbid action in the animal system? Not the air we breathe, for our fellow denizens of nature, breathe the same uninjured; not the water we drink, (if remote from the pollutions of man and his inventions[3]) for the animals drink it too; not the earth we tread upon; not the unobscured sight of glorious nature, in the wood, the field, or the expanse of sky and ocean; nothing that we are or do in common, with the undiseased inhabitants of the forest. Something then wherein we differ from them: our habit of altering our food by fire, so that our appetite is no longer a just criterion for the fitness of its gratification. Except in children there remain no traces of that instinct, which determines in all other animals what aliment is natural or otherwise, and so perfectly obliterated are they in the reasoning adults of our species, that it has become necessary to urge considerations drawn from comparative anatomy to prove that we are naturally frugivorous.

Crime is madness. Madness is disease. Whenever the cause of disease shall be discovered, the root from which all vice and misery have so long overshadowed the globe, will lay bare to the axe. All the exertions of man, from that moment, may be considered as tending to the clear profit of his species. No sane mind in a sane body resolves upon a real crime. It is a man of violent passions, blood-shot eyes, and swollen veins, that alone can grasp the knife of murder. The system of a simple diet promises no Utopian advantages. It is no mere reform of legislation, whilst the furious passions and evil propensities of the human heart, in which it had its origin, are still unassuaged. It strikes at the root of all evil, and is an experiment which may be tried with success, not alone by nations, but by small societies, families, and even individuals. In no cases has a return to vegetable diet produced the slightest injury; in most it has been attended with changes undeniably beneficial. Should ever a physician be born with the genius of Locke, I am persuaded that he might trace all bodily and mental derangements to our unnatural habits, as clearly as that philosopher has traced all knowledge to sensation. What prolific sources of disease are not those mineral and vegetable poisons that have been introduced for its extirpation! How many thousands have become murderers and robbers, bigots and domestic tyrants, dissolute and abandoned adventurers, from the use of fermented liquors; who, had they slaked their thirst only at the mountain stream, would have lived but to diffuse the happiness of their own unperverted feelings. How many groundless opinions and absurd institutions have not received a general sanction, from the sottishness and intemperance of individuals! Who will assert, that had the populace of Paris drank at the pure source of the Seine, and satisfied their hunger at the ever-furnished table of vegetable nature, that they would have lent their brutal suffrage to the proscription-list of Robespierre? Could a set of men, whose passions were not perverted by unnatural stimuli, look with coolness on an auto da fé? Is it to be believed that a being of gentle feelings, rising from his meal of roots, would take delight in sports of blood? Was Nero a man of temperate life? could you read calm health in his cheek, flushed with ungovernable propensities of hatred for the human race? Did Muley Ismael's pulse beat evenly, was his skin transparent, did his eyes beam with healthfulness, and its invariable concomitants cheerfulness and benignity? Though history has decided none of these questions, a child could not hesitate to answer in the negative. Surely the bile-suffused cheek of Buonaparte, his wrinkled brow, and yellow eye, the ceaseless inquietude of his nervous system, speak no less plainly the character of his unresting ambition than his murders and his victories. It is impossible, had Buonaparte descended from a race of vegetable feeders, that he could have had either the inclination or the power to ascend the throne of the Bourbons. The desire of tyranny could scarcely be excited in the individual, the power to tyrannize would certainly not be delegated by a society, neither frenzied by inebriation, nor rendered impotent and irrational by disease. Pregnant indeed with inexhaustible calamity, is the renunciation of instinct, as it concerns our physical nature; arithmetic cannot enumerate, nor reason perhaps suspect, the multitudinous sources of disease in civilized life. Even common water, that apparently innoxious pabulum, when corrupted by the filth of populous cities, is a deadly and insidious destroyer[4]. Who can wonder that all the inducements held out by God himself in the Bible to virtue, should have been vainer than a nurse's tale; and that those dogmas, apparently favourable to the intolerant and angry passions, should have alone been deemed essential; whilst christians [sic] are in the daily practice of all those habits, which have infected with disease and crime, not only the reprobate sons, but these favoured children of the common Father's love. Omnipotence itself could not save them from the consequences of this original and universal sin.

There is no disease, bodily or mental, which adoption of vegetable diet and pure water has not infallibly mitigated, wherever the experiment has been fairly tried. Debility is gradually converted into strength, disease into healthfulness; madness in all its hideous variety, from the ravings of the fettered maniac, to the unaccountable irrationalities of ill temper, that make a hell of domestic life, into a calm and considerate evenness of temper, that alone might offer a certain pledge of the future moral reformation of society. On a natural system of diet, old age would be our last and our only malady; the term of our existence would be protracted; we should enjoy life, and no longer preclude others from the enjoyment of it. All sensational delights would be infinitely more exquisite and perfect. The very sense of being would then be a continued pleasure, such as we now feel it in some few and favoured moments of our youth. By all that is sacred in our hopes for the human race, I conjure those who love happiness and truth, to give a fair trial to the vegetable system. Reasoning is surely superfluous on a subject, whose merits an experience of six months would set for ever at rest. But it is only among the enlightened and benevolent, that so great a sacrifice of appetite and prejudice can be expected, even though its ultimate excellence should not admit of dispute. It is found easier, by the short-sighted victims of disease, to palliate their torments by medicine, than to prevent them by regimen. The vulgar of all ranks are invariably sensual and indocile; yet I cannot but feel myself persuaded, that when the benefits of vegetable diet are mathematically proved; when it is as clear, that those who live naturally are exempt from premature death, as that nine is not one, the most sottish of mankind will feel a preference towards a long and tranquil, contrasted with a short and painful life. On the average, out of sixty persons, four die in three years. In April 1814, a statement will be given, that sixty persons, all having lived more than three years on vegetables and pure water, are then inperfect health. More than two years have now elapsed; not one of them has died; no such example will be found in any sixty persons taken at random. Seventeen persons of all ages (the families of Dr. Lambe and Mr. Newton) have lived for seven years on this diet, without a death and al most without the slightest illness. Surely when we consider that some of these were infants, and one a martyr to asthma now nearly subdued, we may challenge any seventeen persons taken at random in this city to exhibit a parallel case. Those who may have been excited to question the rectitude of established habits of diet, by these loose remarks, should consult Mr. Newton's luminous and eloquent essay[5]. It is from that book, and from the conversation of its excellent and enlightened author, that I have derived the materials which I here present to the public.

When these proofs come fairly before the world, and are clearly seen by all who understand arithmetic, it is scarcely possible that abstinence from aliments demonstrably pernicious should not become universal. In proportion to the number of proselytes, so will be the weight of evidence, and when a thousand persons can be produced living on vegetables and distilled water, who have to dread no disease but old age, the world will be compelled to regard animal flesh and fermented liquors, as slow, but certain poisons. The change which would be produced by simpler habits on political economy is sufficiently remarkable. The monopolizing eater of animal flesh would no longer destroy his constitution by devouring an acre at a meal, and many loaves of bread would cease to contribute to gout, madness and apoplexy , in the shape of a pint of porter, or a dram of gin, when appeasing the long-protracted famine of the hard-working peasant's hungry babes. The quantity of nutritious vegetable matter, consumed in fattening the carcase of an ox, would afford ten times the sustenance, undepraving indeed, and incapable of generating disease, if gathered immediately from the bosom of the earth. The most fertile districts of the habitable globe are now actually cultivated by men for animals, at a delay and waste of aliment absolutely incapable of calculation. It is only the wealthy that can, to any great degree, even now, indulge the unnatural craving for de ad flesh, and they pay for the greater licence of the privilege by subjection to supernumerary diseases. Again, the spirit of the nation that should take lead in this great reform, would insensibly become agricultural; commerce, with all its vice, selfishness and corruption, would gradually decline; more natural habits would produce gender manners, and the excessive complication of political relations would be so far simplified, that every individual might feel and understand why he loved his country, and took a personal interest in its welfare. How would England, for example, depend on the caprices of foreign rulers, if she contained within herself all the necessaries, and despised whatever they possessed of the luxuries of life? How could they starve her into compliance with their views? Of what consequence would it be, that they refused to take her woollen manufactures, when large and fertile tracts of the island ceased to be allotted to the waste of pasturage? On a natural system of diet, we should require no spices from India; no wines from Portugal, Spain, France, or Madeira; none of those multitudinous articles of luxury , for which every comer of the globe is rifled, and which are the causes of so much individual rivalship, such calamitous and sanguinary national disputes. In the history of modern times, the avarice of commercial monopoly, no less than the ambition of weak and wicked chiefs, seems to have fomented the universal discord, to have added stubbornness to the mistakes of cabinets, and indocility to the infatuation of the people. Let it ever be remembered, that it is the direct influence of commerce to make the interval between the richest and the poorest man wider and more unconquerable. Let it be remembered, that it is a foe to every thing of real worth and excellence in the human character. The odious and disgusting aristocracy of wealth, is built upon the ruins of all that is good in chivalry or republicanism; and luxury is the forerunner of a barbarism scarce capable of cure. Is it impossible to realize a state of society, where all the energies of man shall be directed to the production of his solid happiness? Certainly if this advantage (the object of all political speculation) be in any degree attainable, it is attainable only by a community, which holds out no factitious incentives to the avarice and ambition of the few, and which is internally organized for the liberty, security and comfort of the many. None must be entrusted with power (and money is the completest species of power) who do not stand pledged to use it exclusively for the general benefit. But the use of animal flesh and fermented liquors, directly militates with this equality of the rights of man. The peasant cannot gratify these fashionable cravings without leaving his family to starve. Without disease and war, those sweeping curtailers of population, pasturage would include a waste too great to be afforded. The labour requisite to support a family is far lighter[6] than is usually supposed. The peasantry work, not only for themselves, but for the aristocracy, the army and the manufacturers.

The advantage of a reform in diet, is obviously greater than that of any other. It strikes at the root of the evil. To remedy the abuses of legislation, before we annihilate the propensities by which they are produced, is to suppose, that by taking away the effect, the cause will cease to operate. But the efficacy of this system depends entirely on the proselytism of individuals, and grounds its merits as a benefit to the community , upon the total change of the dietetic habits in its members. It proceeds securely from a number of particular cases, to one that is universal, and has this advantage over the contrary mode, that one error does not invalidate all that has gone before.

Let not too much however be expected from this system. The healthiest among us is not exempt from hereditary disease. The most symmetrical, athletic, and long-lived, is a being inexpressibly inferior to what he would have been, had not the unnatural habits of his ancestors accumulated for him a certain portion of malady and deformity. In the most perfect specimen of civilized man, something is still found wanting, by the physiological critic. Can a return to nature, then, instantaneously eradicate predispositions that have been slowly taking root in the silence of innumerable ages? Indubitably not. All that I contend for is, that from the moment of the relinquishing all unnatural habits, no new disease is generated; and that the predisposition to hereditary maladies, gradually perishes, for want of its accustomed supply. In cases of consumption, cancer, gout, asthma and scrofula, such is the invariable tendency of a diet of vegetables and pure water.

Those who may be induced by these remarks to give the vegetable system a fair trial, should, in the first place, date the commencement of their practice from the moment of their conviction. All depends upon breaking through a pernicious habit, resolutely and at once. Dr. Trotter[7] asserts, that no drunkard was ever reformed by gradually relinquishing his dram. Animal flesh in its effects on the human stomach is analogous to a dram. It is similar in the kind, though differing in the degree, of its operation. The proselyte to a pure diet, must be warned to expect a temporary diminution of muscular strength. The subtraction of a powerful stimulus will suffice to account for this event. But it is only temporary, and is succeeded by an equable capability for exertion, far surpassing his former various and fluctuating strength. Above all, he will acquire an easiness of breathing, by which the same exertion is performed, with a remarkable exemption from that painful and difficult panting now felt by almost every one, after hastily climbing an ordinary mountain. He will be equally capable of bodily exertion, or mental application, after as before his simple meal. He will feel none of the narcotic effects of ordinary diet. Irritability , the direct consequence, of exhausting stimuli, would yield to the power of natural and tranquil impulses. He will no longer pine under the lethargy of ennui, that unconquerable weariness of life, more dreaded than death itself. He will escape the epidemic madness, that broods over its own injurious notions of the Deity , and "realizes the hell that priests and beldams feign." Every man forms as it were his god from his own character; to the divinity of one of simple habits, no offering would be more acceptable than the happiness of his creatures. He would be incapable of hating or persecuting others for the love of God. He will find, moreover, a system of simple diet to be a system of perfect epicurism. He will no longer be incessantly occupied in blunting and destroying those organs, from which he expects his gratification. The pleasures of taste to be derived from a dinner of potatoes, beans, peas, turnips, lettice, with a dessert of apples, gooseberries, strawberries, currants, raspberries, and in winter, oranges, apples and pears, is far greater than is supposed. Those who wait until they can eat this plain fare, with the sauce of appetite, will scarcely join with the hypocritical sensualist at a lord mayor's feast, who declaims against the pleasures of the table. Solomon kept a thousand concubines, and owned in despair that all was vanity. The man whose happiness is constituted by the society of one amiable woman, would find some difficulty in sympathizing with the disappointment of this venerable debauchee.

I address myself not only to the young enthusiast: the ardent devotee of truth and virtue; the pure and passionate moralist, yet unvitiated by the contagion of the world. He will embrace a pure system, from its abstract truth, its beauty, its simplicity, and its promise of wide-extended benefit; unless custom has turned poison into food, he will hate the brutal pleasures of the chace by instinct; it will be a contemplation full of horror and disappointment to his mind, that beings capable of the gentlest and most admirable sympathies, should take delight in the death-pangs and last convulsions of dying animals. The elderly man, whose youth has been poisoned by intemperance, or who has lived with apparent moderation, and is afflicted with a variety of painful maladies, would find his account in a beneficial change produced without the risk of poisonous medicines. The mother, to whom the perpetual restlessness of disease, and unaccountable deaths incident to her children, are the causes of incurable unhappiness, would on this diet experience the satisfaction of beholding their perpetual healths and natural playfulness[8]. The most valuable lives are daily destroyed by diseases, that it is dangerous to palliate and impossible to cure by medicine. How much longer will man continue to pimp for the gluttony of death, his most insidious, implacable, and eternal foe?
The proselyte to a simple and natural diet who desires health, must from the moment of his conversion attend to these rules –

NEVER TAKE ANY SUBSTANCE INTO THE STOMACH THAT
ONCE HAD LIFE.

DRINK NO LIQUID BUT WATER RESTORED TO ITS
ORIGINAL PURITY BY DISTILLATION.

Appendix

Persons on vegetable diet have been remarkable for longevity. The first Christians practised abstinence from animal flesh, on a principle of self-mortification.

1 Old Parr 152
2 Mary Patten 136
3 A shepherd in Hungary 126
4 Patrick O'Neale 113
5 Joseph Elkins 103
6 Elizabeth de Val. 101
7 Aurungzebe 100[9]
St. Anthony 105
James the Hermit 104
Arsenius 120
St. Epiphanius 115
Simeon 112
Rombald 120

Mr. Newton's mode of reasoning on longevity is ingenious and conclusive.

"Old Parr, healthy as the wild animals, attained to the age of 152 years.
"All men might be as healthy as the wild animals.
"Therefore all men might attain to the age of 152 years."[10]

The conclusion is sufficiently modest. Old Parr cannot be supposed to have escaped the inheritance of disease, amassed by the unnatural habits of his ancestors. The term of human life may be expected to be infinitely greater, taking into the consideration all the circumstances that must have contributed to abridge even that of Parr.

It may be here remarked, that the author and his wife have lived on vegetables for eight months. The improvements of health and temper here stated is the result of his own experience.

[1] Plin(y,) Nat(uralis) Hist(oria) lib. vii. sect. 57.

[2] (Georges) Cuvier, Lecons d’Anat(omie) Comp(arée,) tom. iii. p(p). 169,373, 448,465,480. Rees's Cyclopædia, article Man.

[3] The necessity of resorting to some means of purifying water, and the disease which arises from its adulteration in civilized countries, is sufficiently apparent.-See Dr. (William) Lambe's Reports on Cancer. I do not assert that the use of water is in itself unnatural, but that the unperverted palate would swallow no liquid capable of occasioning disease.

[4] (William) Lambe's Reports an Cancer.

[5] (John Frank Newton,) Return to Nature, or Defence of Vegetable Regimen. Cadell, 1811.

[6] It has come under the author's experience, that some of the workmen on an embankment in North Wales, who, in consequence of the inability of the proprietor to pay them, seldom received their wages, have supported large families by cultivating small spots of sterile ground by moonlight. In the notes to Pratt's Poem, "Bread, or the Poor," is an account of an industrious labourer, who, by working in a small garden, before and after his day's task, attained to an enviable state of independence.

[7] (Thomas) Trotter, (A View of) the Nervous Temperament.

[8] See Mr. Newton's Book. His children are the most beautiful and healthy creatures it is possible to conceive; the girls are perfect models for a sculptor; their dispositions are also the most gentle and conciliating; the judicious treatment, which they experience in other points, may be a correlative cause of this. In the first five years of their life, of 18000 children that are born, 7500 die of various diseases; and how many more of those that survive are not rendered miserable by maladies not immediately mortal? The quality and quantity of a woman's milk, are materially injured by the use of dead flesh. In an island near Iceland, where no vegetables are to be got, the children invariably die of tetanus, before they are three weeks old, and the population is supplied from the mainland.-Sir G( eorge ) Mackenzie's (Travels in the Island) of Iceland, (p. 413). See also (Rousseau's) Emile, i, p(p). 53, 54, 56.

[9] 1 Cheyne's Essay an Health, p. 62.

2 Gentleman 's Magazine, vii. 449.

3 Morning Post, Jan. 28, 1800.

4 Emile, i. 44.

5 He died at Coombe in Northumberland.

6 Scot's Magazine, xxxiv. 696.

7 Aurungzebe, from the time of his Usurpation adhered strictly to the Vegetable System.

[10] Return to Nature (p. 64 n., slightly modified).

"On the Eating of Flesh" by Plutarch

2010-02-10T23:25:00.000-08:00

Tract I

1. You ask of me then for what reason it was that Pythagoras abstained from eating of flesh. I for my part do much admire in what humor, with what soul or reason, the first man with his mouth touched slaughter, and reached to his lips the flesh of a dead animal, and having set before people courses of ghastly corpses and ghosts, could give those parts the names of meat and victuals, that but a little before lowed, cried, moved, and saw; how his sight could endure the blood of the slaughtered, flayed, and mangled bodies; how his smell could bear their scent; and how the very nastiness happened not to offend the taste, while it chewed the sores of others, and participated of the sap and juices of deadly wounds.

Crept the raw hides, and with a bellowing sound
Roared the dead limbs; the burning entrails groaned.

This indeed is but a fiction and fancy; but the fare itself is truly monstrous and prodigious—that a man should have a stomach to creatures while they yet bellow, and that he should be giving directions which of things yet alive and speaking is fittest to make food of, and ordering the several manners of the seasoning and dressing them and serving them up to tables. You ought rather, in my opinion, to have enquired who first began this practice, than who of late times left it off.

2- And truly, as for those people who first ventured upon eating of flesh, it is very probable that the whole reason of their so doing was scarcity and want of other food; for it is not likely that their living together in lawless and extravagant lusts, or their growing wanton and capricious through the excessive variety of provisions then among them, brought them to such unsociable pleasures as these, against Nature. Yea, had they at this instant but their sense and voice restored to them, I am persuaded they would express themselves to this purpose:

"Oh! happy you, and highly favored of the Gods, who now live! Into what an age of the world are you fallen, who share and enjoy among you a plentiful portion of good things! What abundance of things spring up for your use! What fruitful vineyards you enjoy! What wealth you gather from the fields! What delicacies from trees and plants, which you may gather! You may glut and fill yourselves without being polluted. As for us, we fell upon the most dismal and affrighting part of time, in which we were exposed by our first production to manifold and inextricable wants and necessities. As yet the thickened air concealed the heaven from our view, and the stars were as yet confused with a disorderly huddle of fire and moisture and violent fluxions of winds. As yet the sun was not fixed to an unwandering and certain course, so as to distinguish morning and evening, nor did he bring back the seasons in order crowned with wreaths from the fruitful harvest. The land was also spoiled by the inundations of disorderly rivers; and a great part of it was deformed with sloughs, and utterly wild by reason of deep quagmires, unfertile forests, and woods. There was then no production of tame fruits, nor any instruments of art or invention of wit. And hunger gave no time, nor did seed-time then stay for the yearly season. What wonder is it if we made use of the flesh of beasts contrary to Nature, when mud was eaten and the bark of wood, and when it was thought a happy thing to find either a sprouting grass or a root of any plant! But when they had by chance tasted of or eaten an acorn, they danced for very joy about some oak or esculus, calling it by the names of life-giver, mother, and nourisher. And this was the only festival that those times were acquainted with; upon all other occasions, all things were full of anguish and dismal sadness. But whence is it that a certain ravenousness and frenzy drives you in these happy days to pollute yourselves with blood, since you have such an abundance of things necessary for your subsistence? Why do you belie the earth as unable to maintain you? Why do you profane the lawgiver Ceres, and shame the mild and gentle Bacchus, as not furnishing y°" with sufficiency? Are you not ashamed to mix tame fruits with blood and slaughter? You are indeed wont to call serpents, leopards, and lions savage creatures; but yet yourselves are defiled with blood, and come nothing behind them in cruelty. What they kill is their ordinary nourishment, but what you kill is your better fare."

3. For we eat not lions and wolves by way of revenge; but we let those go, and catch the harmless and tame sort, and such as have neither stings nor teeth to bite with, and slay them; which, so may Jove help us, Nature seems to us to have produced for their beauty and comeliness only.

4. But we are nothing put out of countenance, either by the beauteous gayety of the colors, or by the charmingness of the musical voices, or by the rare sagacity of the intellects, or by the cleanliness and neatness of diet, or by the rare discretion and prudence of these poor unfortunate animals; but for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. And then we fancy that the voices it utters and screams forth to us are nothing else but certain inarticulate sounds and noises, and not the several deprecations, entreaties, and pleadings of each of them, as it were saying thus to us: "I deprecate not thy necessity (if such there be), but thy wantonness. Kill me for thy feeding, but do not take me off for thy better feeding." O horrible cruelty ! It is truly an affecting sight to see the very table of rich people laid before them, who keep them cooks and caterers to furnish them with dead corpses for their daily fare; but it is yet more affecting to see it taken away, for the mammocks left are more than that which was eaten. These therefore were slain to no purpose. Others there are, who are so sparing of what is set before them that they will not suffer it to be cut or sliced; thus abstaining from them when dead, while they would not spare them when alive.

5. Well then, we understand that that sort of men are used to say, that in eating of flesh they follow the conduct and direction of Nature. But that it is not natural to mankind to feed on flesh, we first of all demonstrate from the very shape and figure of the body. For a human body no ways resembles those that were born for ravenousness; it hath no hawk's bill, no sharp talon, no roughness of teeth, no such strength °f stomach or heat of digestion, as can be sufficient to convert or alter such heavy and fleshy fare. But even from hence, that is, from the smoothness of the tongue, and the slowness of the stomach to digest, Nature seems to disclaim all pretence to fleshy victuals. But if you will contend that yourself was born to an inclination to such food as you have now a mind to eat, do you then yourself kill what you would eat. But do it yourself, without the help of a chopping-knife, mallet, or axe –as wolves, bears, and lions do, who kill and eat at once. Rend an ox with thy teeth, worry a hog with thy mouth, tear a lamb or a hare in pieces, and fall on and eat it alive as they do. But if thou hadst rather stay until what thou eatest is to become dead, and if thou art loath to a soul out of its body, why then dost thou against Nature eat an thing? Nay, there is nobody that is willing to eat even a lifeless and a dead thing as it is; but they boil it, and roast it, and alter it by fire and medicines, as it were, changing and quenching the slaughtered gore with thousands of sweet sauces, that the palate being thereby deceived may admit of such uncouth fare. It was indeed a witty expression of a Lacedaemonian, who, having purchased a small fish in a certain inn, delivered it to his landlord to be dressed; and as he demanded cheese, and vinegar, and oil to make sauce, he replied, if I had had those, I would not have bought the fish. But we are grown so wanton in our bloody luxury, that we have bestowed upon flesh the name of meat [Greek omitted], and then require another seasoning [Greek omitted], to this same flesh, mixing oil, wine, honey, pickle, and vinegar, with Syrian and Arabian spices, as though we really meant to embalm it after its disease. Indeed when things are dissolved and made thus tender and soft, and are as it were turned into a sort of a carrionly corruption, it must needs be a great difficulty for concoction to master them, and when it hath mastered them, they must needs cause grievous oppressions and qualmy indigestions.

Diogenes ventured once to eat a raw pourcontrel, that he might disuse himself from meat dressed by fire; and as several priests and other people stood round him, he wrapped his head in his cassock, and so putting the fish to his mouth, he thus said unto them: It is for your sake, sirs, that I undergo this danger, and run this risk. A noble and gallant risk, by Jupiter! For far otherwise than as Pelopidas ventured his life for the liberty of the Thebans, and Harmodius and Aristogiton for that of the Athenians, did this philosopher encounter with a raw pourcontrel, to the end he might make human life more brutish. Moreover, these same flesh-eatings not only are preternatural to men's bodies, but also by clogging and cloying them, they render their very minds and intellects gross. For it is well known to most, that wine and much flesh-eating make the body indeed strong and lusty, but the mind weak and feeble. And that I may not offend the wrestlers, I will make use of examples out of my own country. The Athenians are wont to call us Boeotians gross, senseless, and stupid fellows, for no other reason but our over-much eating; by Pindar we are called hogs, for the same reason. Menander the comedian calls us "fellows with long jaws." It is observed also that, according to the saying of Heraclitus, "the wisest soul is like a dry light." Earthen jars, if you strike them, will sound; but if they be full, they perceive not the strokes that are given them. Copper vessels also that are thin communicate the sound round about them, unless some one stop and dull the ambient stroke with his fingers. Moreover, the eye, when seized with an over-great plenitude of humors, grows dim and feeble for its ordinary work. When we behold the sun through a humid air and a great quantity of gross and indigested vapors, we see it not clear and bright, but obscure and cloudy, and with glimmering beams. Just so in a muddy and clogged body, that is swagged down with heavy and unnatural nourishments; it must needs happen that the gayety and splendor of the mind be confused and dulled, and that it ramble and roll after little and scarce discernible objects, since it wants clearness and vigor for higher things.

But to pass by these considerations, is not accustoming one's self to mildness and a human temper of mind an admirable thing? For who would wrong or injure a man that is so sweetly and humanly disposed with respect to the ills of strangers that are not of his kind? I remember that three days ago, as I was discoursing, I made mention of a saying of Xenocrates, and how the Athenians gave judgment upon a certain person who had flayed a living ram. For my part I cannot think him a worse criminal that torments a poor creature while living, than a man that shall take away its life and murder it. But (as it seems) we are more sensible of what is done against custom than against Nature. There, however, I discussed these matters in a more popular style. But as for that grand and mysterious principle which (as Plato speaks) is incredible to base minds and to such as affect only mortal things, I as little care to move it in this discourse as a pilot doth a ship in a storm, or a comedian his machine while the scenes are moving; but perhaps it would not be amiss, by way of introduction and preface, to repeat certain verses of Empedocles. ... For in these, by way of allegory, he hints at men's souls, as that they are tied to mortal bodies, to be punished for murders, eating of flesh and of one another, although this doctrine seems much, ancienter than his time. For the fables that are storied and related about the discerption of Bacchus, and the attempts of the Titans upon him, and of their tasting of his slain body, and of their several punishments and fulminations afterwards, are but a representation of the regeneration. For what in us is unreasonable, disorderly, and boisterous, being not divine but demoniac, the ancients termed Titans, that is, TORMENTED and PUNISHED (from [Greek omitted]). ...

Tract II

1. Reason persuades us now to return with fresh cogitations and dispositions to what we left cold yesterday of our discourse about flesh-eating. It is indeed a hard and a difficult task to undertake (as Cato once said ) to dispute with men's bellies, that have no ears; since most have already drunk that draught of custom, which is like that of Circe.

Of groans and frauds and sorcery replete.

And it is no easy task to pull out the hook of flesh-eating from the jaws of such as have gorged themselves with luxury and are (as it were) nailed down with it. It would indeed be a good action, if as the Egyptians draw out the stomach of a dead body, and cut it open and expose it to the sun, as the only cause of all its evil actions, so we could, by cutting out our gluttony and blood-shedding, purify and cleanse the remainder of our lives. For the stomach itself is not guilty of bloodshed, but is involuntarily polluted by our intemperance. But if this may not be, and we are ashamed by reason of custom to live unblamably, let us at least sin with discretion. Let us eat flesh; but let it be for hunger and not for wantonness. Let us kill an animal; but let us do it with sorrow and pity, and not abusing and tormenting it, as many nowadays are used to do, while some run red-hot spits through the bodies of swine, that by the tincture of the quenched iron the blood may be to that degree mortified, that it may sweeten and soften the flesh in its circulation; others jump and stamp upon the udders of sows that are ready to pig/ that so they may trample into one mass (O Piacular Jupiter!) in the very pangs of delivery, blood, milk, and the corruption of the crushed and mangled young ones, and so eat the most inflamed part of the animal; others sew up the eyes of cranes and swans, and so shut them up in darkness to be fattened, and then souse up their flesh with certain monstrous mixtures and pickles.

2. By all which it is most manifest, that it is not for nourishment, or want, or any necessity, but for mere gluttony, wantonness, and expensiveness, that they make a pleasure of villany. Just as it happens in persons who cannot satiate their intemperance upon women, and having made trial of every thing else and falling into vagaries, at last attempt things not to be mentioned; even so inordinateness in feeding, when it hath once passed the bounds of nature and necessity, studies at last to diversify the lusts of its intemperate appetite by cruelty and villany. For the senses, when they once quit their natural measures, sympathize with each other in their distempers, and are enticed by each other to the same consent and intemperance. Thus a distempered ear first debauched music, the soft and effeminate notes of which provoke immodest touches and lascivious tickling. These things first taught the eye not to delight in Pyrrhic dances, gesticulations of hands, or elegant pantomimes, nor in statues and fine paintings; but to reckon the slaughtering and death of mankind and wounds and duels the most sumptuous of shows and spectacles. Thus unlawful tables are accompanied with intemperate copulations, with unmusicianlike balls, and theatres become monstrous through shameful songs and rehearsals; and barbarous and brutish shows are again accompanied with an unrelenting temper and savage cruelty towards mankind. Hence it was that the divine Lycurgus in his Three Books of Laws gave orders that the doors and ridges of men's houses should be made with a saw and an axe, and that no other instrument should so much as be brought to any house. Not that he did hereby intend to declare war against augers and planes and other instruments of finer work; but because he very well knew that with such tools as these you will never bring into your house a gilded couch, and that you will never attempt to bring into a slender cottage either silver tables, purple carpets, or costly stones; but that a plain supper and a homely dinner must accompany such a house, couch table, and cup. The beginning of a vicious diet is presently followed by all sorts of luxury and expensiveness,

Ev'n as a mare is by her thirsty colt.

3. And what meal is not expensive? That for which no animal is put to death. Shall we reckon a soul to be a small expense. I will not say perhaps of a mother, or a father, or of some friend, or child, as Empedocles did; but one participating of feeling, of seeing, of hearing, of imagination, and of intellection; which each animal hath received from Nature for the acquiring of what is agreeable to it, and the avoiding what is disagreeable. Do but consider this with yourself now, which sort of philosophers render us most tame and civil, they who bid people to feed on their children, friends, fathers, and wives, when they are dead; or Pythagoras and Empedocles, that accustom men to be just towards even the other members of the creation. You laugh at a man that will not eat a sheep: but we (they will say again)—when we see you cutting off the parts of your dead father or mother, and sending it to your absent friends, and calling upon and inviting your present friends to eat the rest freely and heartily—shall we not smile?

4. Who then were the first authors of this opinion, that we owe no justice to dumb animals?

Who first beat out accursed steel,
And made the lab'ring ox a knife to feel.

In the very same manner oppressors and tyrants begin first to shed blood. For example, the first man that the Athenians ever put to death was one of the basest of all knaves, whom all thought deserving of death; after him they put to death a second and a third. After this, being now accustomed to blood, they patiently saw Niceratus the son of Nicias, and their own general Theramenes, and Polemarchus the philosopher suffer death. Even so, in the beginning, some wild and mischie-vous beast was killed and eaten, and then some little bird or fish was entrapped. And the love of slaughter, being first experimented and exercised in these, at last passed even to the laboring ox, and the sheep that clothes us, and to the poor cock that keeps the house; until by little and little, unsatiableness being strengthened by use, men came to the slaughter of men, to bloodshed and wars. Now even if one cannot demonstrate and make out, that souls in their regenerations make a promiscuous use of all bodies, and that that which is now rational will at another time be irrational, and that again tame which is now wild—for that Nature changes and transmutes every thing,

With different fleshy coats new clothing all—

this thing should be sufficient to change and reclaim men, that it is a savage and intemperate habit, that it brings sickness and heaviness upon the body, and that it inclines the mind the more brutishly to bloodshed and destruction, when we have once accustomed ourselves neither to entertain a guest nor keep a wedding nor to treat our friends without blood and slaughter.

5. And if what is argued about the return of souls into bodies is not of force enough to beget faith, yet methinks the very uncertainty of the thing should fill us with apprehension and fear. Suppose, for instance, one should in some night-engagement run on with his drawn sword upon one that had fallen down and covered his body with his arms, and should in the mean time hear one say, that he was not very sure, but that he fancied and believed, that the party lying there was his own son, brother, father, or tent-companion; which were more advisable, think you—to hearken to a false suggestion, and so to let go an enemy under the notion of a friend, or to slight an authority not sufficient to beget faith, and to slay a friend instead of a foe? This you will say would be insupportable. Do but consider the famous Merope in the tragedy, who taking up a hatchet, and lifting it at her son's head, whom she took for her son's murderer, speaks thus as she was ready to give the fatal blow,

Villain, this pious blow shall cleave thy head;

what a bustle she raises in the whole theatre while she raises herself to give the blow, and what a fear they are all in, lest she should prevent the old man that comes to stop her hand, and should wound the youth. Now if another old man should stand by her and say, "Strike, it is thy enemy," and this, "Hold, it is thy son"; which, think you, would be the greater injustice, to omit the punishing of an enemy for the sake of one's child, or to suffer one's self to be so transported with anger at an enemy as to kill one's child? Since then neither hatred nor wrath nor any revenge nor fear for ourselves carries us to the slaughter of a beast, but the poor sacrifice stands with an inclined neck, only to satisfy thy lust and pleasure, and then one philosopher stands by and tells thee, "Cut him down, it is but an unreasonable animal," and another cries, "Hold, what if there should be the soul of some kinsman or God inclosed in him"?—good Gods! is there the like danger if I refuse to eat flesh, as if I for want of faith murder my child or some other friend?

6. The Stoics' way of reasoning upon this subject of flesh-eating is no way equal nor consonant with themselves. Who is this that hath so many mouths for his belly and the kitchen? Whence comes it to pass, that they so very much womanize and reproach pleasure, as a thing that they will not allow to be either good or preferable, or so much as agreeable, and yet all on a sudden become so zealous advocates for pleasures? It were indeed but a reasonable consequence of their doctrine, that, since they banish perfumes and cakes from their banquets, they should be much more averse to blood and flesh. But now, just as if they would reduce their philosophy to their day-books, they lessen the expenses of their suppers in certain unnecessary and needless matters, but the untamed and murderous part of their expense they nothing boggle at. "Well! What then?" say they. "We have nothing to do with brute beasts." Nor have you any with perfumes, nor with foreign sauces, may some one answer; therefore expel these from your banquets, if you are driving out every thing that is both useless and needless.

7. Let us therefore in the next place consider, whether we owe any justice to the brute beasts. Neither shall we handle this point artificially or like subtle sophisters, but by casting our eye into our own breasts, and conversing with ourselves as men, we will weigh and examine the whole matter. . . . [The remainder of the manuscript, if it was ever completed, is missing.]

how patriarchy and white racism causes a daily animal holocaust

2010-02-10T22:50:00.000-08:00

quotes from Carol Adams' immensely important book, "The Sexual Politics of Meat"
http://tinyurl.com/yldka7h
http://www.caroljadams.com/

- The fused oppression of women and animals through the power of naming can be traced to the story of the Fall in Genesis in which women and an animal, the serpent, are blamed for the Fall.
- Manhood is constructed in our culture, in part, by access to meat eating and control of other bodies.
- People with power have always eaten meat. Dietary habits proclaim class distinctions, but they also proclaim patriarchal distinctions as well. Women, second class citizens, are more likely to eat what are considered to be second-class foods in a patriarchal culture - vegetables, fruits and grains rather than meat.
- The sexism in meat eating recapitulates the class distinctions with an added twist: a mythology permeates all classes that meat is a masculine food and meat eating a male activity.
- Ford credited the idea of the assembly line to the fragmented activities of animal slaughtering.
- The more important meat is in their life, the greater relative dominance will the men command. On the other hand, plant-based economies are more likely to be egalitarian.
- We have no bodily agency for killing and dismembering the animals we eat; we require implements.
- Rape, too, is implemental violence in which the penis is the implement of violation.
- In pornography the camera lens takes the place of the knife, committing implemental violence.
- Batterers, rapists, serial killers, and child sexual abusers have victimized animals.
- Women are starving at a rate disproportionate to men.
- Women engage in deliberate self-deprivation, offering men the "best" foods at the expense of their own nutritional needs... In fact, men's protein needs are less than those of pregnant and nursing women and the disproportionate distribution of the main protein source occurs when women's need for protein is the greatest.
- By charging indigenous peoples with cannibalism (and thus demonstrating their utterly savage ways, for they supposedly did to humans what Europeans only did to animals) one justification for colonization was provided.
- Racism is perpetuated each time meat is thought to be the best protein source. The emphasis on the nutritional strengths of animal protein distorts the dietary history of most cultures in which complete protein dishes were made of vegetables and grains. Information about these dishes is overwhelmed by an ongoing cultural and political commitment to meat eating.
- If androcentrism through white racism eliminates competing models for relationships between men and women, white racism upholds a model of consumption that fixates on animalized protein and obscures the use of alternative protein sources.
- White racism distorts cultures that were or are gynocentric and not completely dependent on animalized protein.
- Animalized and feminized protein made up two out of the four basic food groups. Seventy percent of protein for Americans is derived from these two food groups; in contrast, 80 percent of the protein in the Far East is from vegetable proteins.
- Through detachment, concealment, misrepresentation and shifting the blame, the structure of the absent referent prevails: we see ourselves as eating pork chops, hamburger, sirloins, and so on, rather than 43 pigs, 3 lambs, 11 cows, 4 "veal" calves, 2,555 chickens and turkeys, and 861 fishes that the average American eats in a lifetime.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Monique
some vegans I know will be interested in this...sharing, thanks

Carolyn
Thanks so much for tagging me, this is great! ♥

Troy
"- The more important meat is in their life, the greater relative dominance will the men command. On the other hand, plant-based economies are more likely to be egalitarian." That doesn't seem to be true or necessarily true in an industrialized nation's context. Good exploratory piece, though.

Ramin
Shame on us; May we open our eyes and hearts, and create the fair future, as it HAS TO become! (Thanks, Moses, for including me in the discussion.)

Stacey
This is fascinating, Moses, thank you for sharing.

Rev
I use this text in some of my classes. It drives interesting discussions pro and con..

Moses Seenarine
con? lemme guess - men who argue that women have all the rights and that humans do animals a favor by breeding them, right?

Rev
Not really, most of my students are beyond that level of simplicity. Some take on the biological reductionism that runs underneath the thesis of the text and that runs under many theories of patriarchy and anti-patriarchy which argues men are naturally x and women are naturally x and then kind of picks a side from that framework. That framework is Platonic and Euro-centric and doesn't work as you move across many cultures. Even the construction of meat doesn't work. So their arguments are about how the text presents itself as global, but constructs men, women, meat, and the relationship between in a way that we recognize largely because we grew up in Western societies. We read a lot of global feminisms which have a vastly different perspectives. for example, Islamic dress, which many Western feminists roundly condemn is seen very differently by Islamic feminists. I could go on, but there is this tendency by Western feminists to speak for all women in the same way Marx believes he speaks for all economics and so on. The truth is the range of views in the world is far broader than that. So yes, you do get some patriarchal critiques which are easy to dismiss. More serious and thoughtful debates and critiques, though come from other feminists around the world and from non-vegetarian feminists who don't buy the connection she draws between vegetarianism and anti-patriarchal politics.

Moses Seenarine
patriarchal control of women and nature is a fact and are intricately linked; are your students arguing these don't exist?

drawing from dworkin, western feminists have strenuously argued against biological superiority by denying biological difference; however, men don't menstruate and can't have babies - this is not reductionist, but obvious fact - so opposing biological superiority through difference doesn't makes sense;

the sexes are different and every month women are reminded that they are closer to nature, but in a patriarchal world in which thought itself is gendered, women, especially western women, are indoctrinated into men's struggles against nature and in the construction of humans as superior non-animals; this is reductionist and our connection to the sacredness of all animal life is lost in this formulation; vegetarianism and anti-patriarchical politics are not western ideas; much earlier, non-western reformers like mahavira and buddha concluded that eating corpses was unnatural, and the greeks learned from them;

the fact is that from time immemorial, humans in every part of the world have subsisted on a mostly vegetarian diet; white racism is changing all that to the detriment of our health, that of animals, and of the entire planet, as the book clearly illustrates

Rev
No sister, that is a philosophical position whcih I respect but a lot of what Wstern philosophy considers as fact or more specifically biological based is understood in other philosophical systems as socially constructed. Even the definition of what constitutes a fact is not the same in all societies and all cutlrues at all times. I respect your ... See Moreperspective but it's one of many just as her book is not unilaterally accepted by all feminists. There are biological feminists, Marxist feminists, postmodern feminisms, literally hundreds of groups and not all them agree. they all agree about the reality of patriarchy. but they don't all agree about who constructs, who it benefits, how its maintained, and where its roots are. And if you go beyond Western feminism its even more complex. So while they are students who would agree with what you say here, there are those who start from other philosophical grounds and therefore would not and my job is not to push a particular ideology as much as expose students to different points of view.

Moses Seenarine
rev, respectfully, the everything goes, cultural relativism of post modernism is amoral and senseless; there is right and wrong and to accept another's opinion simply because its their opinion is abrogation of social responsibility, which is the duty of knowledge workers; the many strains of feminism each has limitations and advantages, but this does not rule out the possibility of objective truth

it's western feminists who posits that all gender is socially constructed without any basis in biological fact; drawing from ancient matriarchal cultures, women globally have maintained that they are different from men and that humans are part of nature; the fact that men subverted this argument to claim biological superiority over women and animals does not invalidate the fact of biological difference in the sexes

Rev
I respect what you're saying. That is your position. But that is your ideology. It's not the position within my discipline and I have an obligation to present a lot of theories, some I agree with personally., others I do not. I am not ideologue in class, nor do I feel that that is the proper role of a teacher. I don't think for example a Marxist professor should only give you Marxist readings and a Marxist view of the world. They should expose you to Marxism, but if they say Marxism is objective truth to everyone, they are being factually dishonest and also abusing, in my opinion, their role. The belief in objectivity is a philosophical position, but not one universally accepted or not debated. If you read Marimba Ani's book Yurugu you will see for example, that Afrikan traditional philosophies, among others, are deeply critical of that idea as are many other theorists.So like I said I have no disagreement with you believing whatever what you believe, but what you believe is not what everyone believes or must believe. I have studied theory for the better part of two decades and I have learned enough about the world to know that for every idea and philosophical concept there is at least one alternative theory and likely many others. What I try to do is to expose people to as many as I can and let them make a decision what they choose to ideologically accept. I do believe in facts, but I believe what we accept as facts has to do with our worldviews and the paradigms through which we view the world. But even that, is a point of view, which I can argue and you can potentially argue against.

Rev
Also, accept my apologies for the assumption that you were female. I don't often read profiles before responding to substance, so no offense was intended on that. Mea culpa.

Moses Seenarine
rev, i understand the danger of a eurocentric worldview, and its de facto reality, however, we must be wary of the greater moral dilemma in suggesting that as a result, there is no universal truth; gravity is not subjective, and regardless of how we may perceive or what we may call a tree, it is objective reality in that it exist; if there is truth in the physical realm, then the possibility exist for truth and morality to function in the social realm as well; if there is no objective truth or morality, then how does one go about critiquing oppression, murder and genocide?

the author is simply suggesting two truths - (1) patriarchy is a fact, and men's control is constructed in part on the domination of women and nature; and (2) white racism distorts the prevalence and consumption of vegetable protein;

these two facts are clearly borne out by anthropological and historical records, along with our current reality; this is not a theoretical position, and any substantial critique has to present overwhelming evidence to the contrary; simply maintaining a cultural relativist position is untenable and does not critically engage these truths

Rev
I am not wary of it with respect to the classroom since all ideas are presented there as ideas. It is not my job to decide what people chose to believe..at least not there. I have heard all of the arguments you have made. I am also familiar with all of the philosophical disagreements with that position. So what you are arguing for is your belief ... See Morethat people should agree with your position, That's ideology, the language of persuasion. But as a sociological theorist I have to tell you regardless of what you think of them, there are people that have a very different view of the facts and of reality as you have constructed it and as the author constructs it in the book. I agree personally with some of her work, not all. That's why we have intellectual debate. So I am not agreeing OR disagreeing. You are presenting your argument and that's fine, but that is not the only argument about these things. And that was point from the outset. People who have not studied theory often assume that the theories they believe are the only way human could or should look at it. That is usually a function of the ego, which says you should agree with me because I'm right. Ego is fine, but it just doesn't work in the classroom where there are many students with many theoretical and political perspectives and any teacher who becomes an ideologue will not last long and I believe rightfully so.

By the way I am not making an argument for cultural relativism which is entirely different argument than arguing for mere diversity of human perspective. You seem to be assuming that and I have made no such case. Cultural relativism argues that all diversities of views are equally valid. That I don't personally agree with.

Moses Seenarine
rev, thank you for an enlightening discussion and for helping me to clarify my thoughts on these important issues :)

diversity in perspective does exists; one doesn't have to be an advocate to make this a reality; but there is also unity in that diversity, for example, regardless of cultural differences, patriarchal control is a constant across all cultures; this is the contradiction in holding diversity on a pedestal, it serves to blind us to universal truths

respecting all diversity is relativist and amoral, for example, using the argument for the preeminence of diversity leads to justifying patriarchy based on minor cultural differences in practice; "it's their culture, and who are us to judge?" this negates the concept of universal human rights;... See More

if all diversities are not equally valid, then on what basis are we to decide? if we don't teach students how to de-construct diversity, are we not merely leaving them to the amorality of cultural relativism and the chaos of personal bias?

in our discussion, we have looked at the diversity of views regarding biological reductionism, euro-centric thought, vegetarianism and anti-patriarchal politics; in order to get out of the cultural relativist trap, how are we to determine which of these diversities are more valid than another, if not through the objective realities of the suffering of women and animals? "respecting" the views of men and meat-eaters does more than provide justification for continued victimization and oppression; it silences already muted voices crying out for justice

Carolina
Good stuff, thank you!

The Vegetarian Myth - Lierre Keith

2010-02-01T22:55:00.000-08:00

Excerpts from Vegans of Color discussion
http://vegansofcolor.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/

"her analysis comes from a very anti-civ/primitivist perspective à la Derrick Jensen/John Zerzan; that is, civilization, and not exploitation/oppression per se, is the root of all evil; Since Keith believes that civilization and vegetarianism are “substantially the same,” the book is fanatically anti-vegetarian. For
insta...nce, Keith makes an overzealous and misguided attempt to use the Haber-Bosch process to somehow link vegetarianism to the Holocaust.

"She was a vegan for a long time before her spinal degeneration started. She started blaming it on her diet after she started taking Qi Gong lessons and her instructor told her that her pain was due to not eating meat. Chinese folk medicine thinks meat is very healthy and therapeutic.

As if no meat eaters have spine problems. Spinal degeneration is a problem common to eaters of all types, and is probably more endemic to a “sitting” culture than anything else. That she blames her degeneration on her vegan diet is simply ridiculous."

"How tightly does one have to shut their eyes to the animals’ suffering in slaughterhouses and factory farms in order to say, with a straight face, that their relationship with humans is “reciprocal?”

Seems like the idea of anti-civilization is unrealistic at best and likely a waste of time unless you enjoy putting energy into thinking about things that will not yield any value beyond enjoyable discourse."

"She might have been vegan for 20 years, but she never was animal-rightist for 20 years.

“Saving the earth” so humans can master other species (and plants, if you so insist) is not a solution. Period."

"Sadly, Lierre has been snared, thoroughly conditioned by, and with this book has sold out to the vehemently pro-meat/dairy, anti-veg/vegan weston price foundation (wpf). This is a DC-based lobbying group whose members consist of “farmers”, which of course means they breed, confine and kill animals in order to sell their parts and fluids for profit (not to mention their own culinary enjoyment on top of that).

"They claim to be anti-industrial agriculture, eco-concerned, etc, but then instead of focusing their energies on eliminating animal agriculture (which is responsible for 80% or more of all industrial agriculture in existence due to the fact that the vast majority of all crops (including soy) grown, are funneled through animals for meat/dairy production), they instead attack the vegetarian lifestyle. It is a very selfish, sad agenda, and is yet another strike against the planet."

"For instance, the foundation is prominently listed under “Resources” in the back of the book. In fact, Keith made the Weston A. Price Foundation the first resource listed, which she call, “Hands down, the best nutrition site on the web.”

"The Foundation’s “political advocacy” includes promoting heterosexism and making insidious attack that make connections between homosexuality and the “primacy of traditional animal-source foods to human health,” From the Foundation so-called “best nutrition site on the web”:

“There is no doubt that the origins and ’causes’ of homosexuality are diverse, and that long before the invention of processed food, many cultures accepted same-sex relationships as normal. At the same time, there is also no doubt that a diet of imitation foods can disrupt the hormonal development of the growing child, as demonstrated by the studies of Pottenger and many others, resulting in same-sex orientation that would not otherwise have occurred. Chief culprits are margarine, MSG (which causes injury to the hypothalamus) and soy formula (which floods the infant’s bloodstream with estrogens). We believe that it is important to provide this information to prospective parents who also want to be grandparents.”

Moses Seenarine:
- i'm vegan for 25 years, and in perfect health; keith and derrick jensen are blatant opportunists who decided to embrace the slaughterhouses in order to stock their own mansions with the spoils of civilization; why don't they both set an example in reciprocity and feed themselves to some starving carnivores? its sad that environmentalists are falling for these two self-serving assholes

Alison
wow, a lot of issues there, this will take some time to read and understand
but it always come down to dollars

Salim
Yesterday I read your wall post with comments and the blog responses too - and posted the blog on http://www.facebook.com/vegangreen

Anai
Other points -- Derrick Jenson talks about the environment, yet his books are not even on recycled paper. Jenson is also quoted on the cover of Lierre's book - a book he published - again not on recycled materials.

Glad she sent me a free copy. I wouldn't have paid a penny for this garbage let alone wasted any effort scoping out the library shelves for it.

Andrew
Thanks for posting. I read it yesterday. Can't say I'm at all convinced but it did make me interested in this particular line of thinking.

Val
Thank you for sharing this, Moses.

Stacey
She is a relentless trollop, insistent on anti-veganism. Why do some people feel the need, feel compelled, to campaign against the AR or vegan movements? Oh, of course, money...It's so much more profitable involving oneself in and enabling the torture and murder of sentient beings, excusing specieism as our "right" and making ridiculous arguments trying to establish some asinine anti-environmental element to veg*sm. Oh, and what a novelty being a "reformed" vegan ~ no doubt people can now champion their "ethical" reasons for NOT embracing veganism. This is absolutely ludicrous. And angering...

Radha
Moses,look I'm not into converting who should eat meat or not.it's just that these days they're now feeding chickens with chickens,cow with cow,horse with horse meat etc.These species are vegetarians.There's got to be a boomerang effect when we imbibe such as mad cow etc. The woman is an IDIOT!

AN INDIAN'S OBSERVATION ON THE MATING OF GEESE

2010-02-01T22:51:00.000-08:00

"Having studied the habits and languages of beasts, birds, and insects of forest and field since early childhood, I have obtained a knowledge of them not learned in books.

In this article I shall present a few interesting peculiarities of the goose family. In springtime of each year these fowls have their courtship and marriage. All the geese-men select the oldest goose-woman of the flock or society, age being admired above all other qualifications of a good wife. Hence, in view of so many suitors for the oldest goose-woman, it can only be settled in a fair field fight in single combats. Everything must be fair on both sides.

Two men geese march out in front of the flock, straighten up in front of each other, firmly grasping in their bills the feathers on each other's necks, while they commence pounding each other with their wings in a most brutal manner, being cheered by the flock in wild strains of admiration. When one gives up the contest, another takes his turn, and so on until there is but one acknowledged hero, and he, amid cheers and shouts, marches off with his choice, the oldest dame goose of the flock, who congratulates him on his success, telling him how long and well he fought, and how proud she is of him; promising how she will strive to be a good wife, on account of the great sacrifice he has made for her, while he joyfully drinks in all her flattery, smiles and laughs, and, puffing, chats, telling her how he would sooner have died in the fight than to have lost her, his first and only choice.

And so the contest goes on, until each man goose in turn is the acknowledged hero of the remaining flock, and marches in turn with the oldest woman goose as his bride, all of which laugh and chat together, apparently well satisfied with the result; when all have paired off but the remaining woman goose, who may be a handsome bright-eyed maiden, the last man goose takes her as his bride with a disappointed heart, while she, poor maiden, accepts him through force of circumstances, with saddest of feelings, cheered by hopes alone that the time will come when on account of her age she will be sought for as her older sisters have been."

moses:
with the genocide of native americans, we've lost so much including this kind of priceless sensitivity and appreciation of the natural world

Claire
thank you

Clifford
love it. Would love to spend the time observing animals and somebody somewhere is paying me to do it. Nothing better than being on the ground watching.

shallow ecology - a critique of the deep ecology movement

2010-02-01T22:48:00.000-08:00

According to deep ecologists, the root, or “deep” cause of environmental destruction is anthropocentrism, the worldview that holds humans are (1) that which has highest or the only intrinsic value, (2) are fundamentally different and separate from nature, and (3) the dominant focus of our attention. This anthropocentric worldview has been particularly acute in urban societies since the rise first of agriculture and then of cities, and has been particularly virulent in the ongoing age of colonialism and industrialization.

There is a strong tendency to think of the ideal as vast wilderness areas with no or little human interference. Hunter-gatherer societies are praised as showing the least domination over nature’s processes, and the most “practical” ideal is bioregionalism, with decentralized, appropriate technology and organic agriculture that work within the natural systems and limits of the local bioregion in a sustainable way.

Deep ecologists think that humans can achieve a loss of the limited ego-self and the realization of our essential identity with the earth. This is not an experience monistic Oneness in which all distinctions disappear, but a realization of self-in-Self (ourselves as one part of a bigger life). This involves a deep identification with the whole of nature. “I am the rainforest that is being destroyed.” The ideal, then, is an expansion of “self” into Self-Realization, the fullness of all life.

The mirage of self-realization has been dangled by religions and self-help movements alike, leaving followers broke and brainwashed. By substituting regionalism for nationalism, ego is merely entrenched into smaller forms of aggrandizement and undue self-righteousness. Trapped within shallow egos, intellectual identification with nature is mere illusion, and is not the same as being ego-less or lacking self. Self glorification as an eco-warrior is simply used to mask tribalism, uncritical thinking, and violent behavior.

Furthermore, deep ecology fails to realize the nature-social connection. It fails to realize that our conceptions of and attitudes toward nature reflect our social structures and attitudes. The problem is not humans or human-centeredness but particular socio-economic systems. We cannot solve the problem of our relation to nature without solving fundamental social problems, such as sexism, racism, social hierarchy, and so on. Deep ecology ignores the plight of particular social groups that need particular attention because of the injustice and oppression they suffer. White males offering a fake panacea of self-realization is cruel and grossly insensitive to social groups suffering from centuries of white, male supremacy and misogyny.

Where does consciousness itself come from? Do animals have consciousness?

2010-01-27T01:30:00.000-08:00

http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/2334/
Documentary: From Science to God

Moses Seenarine
Synopsis - Peter Russell starts with the “hard problem” of consciousness - why do we have an inner world of experience? Diving into his eye, and into his mind, we enter a surreal world in which we discover that all we ever know directly are the forms and images arising in the mind. But, he asks, where does consciousness itself come from? Has conventional science got it wrong? Peter explores the mystery of consciousness from two perspectives - the mystery of its origins from matter, and the mystery of the "I", the self. Shot in high-quality digital, this production utilizes animation and innovative post-production to create an exciting experience that takes the viewer to the heart of the emerging new paradigm on human consciousness.

Andrew
thanks for posting this. I'll add it to my psych student blog.

Denise
It caught my attention when Peter said "The next great frontier is not outerspace, it's innerspace". I like it. Thanks for sharing this documentary.

Monique
if I may....here's another good book about consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis

Moses Seenarine
Crick's controversial message, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" [2] has caused some controversy over the physiological approach.

Monique
Well I'm not an educated woman and I don't know any of the hard sciences aside from the pop books i've read over the years, but i know enough to be satisfied with a vast assembly of nerve cells and their molecules as the foundation of my 'soul'....doesn't diminish the "me-ness" a'tall. Crick's outlook serves me, I'll take another helping of that meme.
At one point in time though, I had considered getting the book From Science to God. I've got his other book, very cool: The Global Brain Awakens.
Now I think I better actually look at the posted video before scribbling anymore....thanks Moses!

Andrew
What he's referring to seems to actually be more of an aspect of theory of mind. Also, he claims science says animals lack consciousness. This assertion is blatantly false. Science actually indicated various levels of consciousness in most all complex living organisms. Different animals, most noticeably chimpanzees, but perhaps others, also appear to have some levels of theory of mind as well.

There's a certain ego behind the idea that consciousness is all that unique, ours and at the center of things. He's preaching that because we don't know what gives rise to consciousness, then it must be a spiritual quality and he sort of over relies on social constructionist theory (which I do find quite a powerful one for describing a lot of human behaviour) in a way that would imply we are working diligently to deny a spiritual basis. I don't think that's quite the case of you look at the percentage of global religious belief. He also asserts that our primal need for happiness and and our consumerist tendencies is the result of denying our spiritual self, or the "real" nature of our consciousness, but this wouldn't pass the test of occam's razor, as evolutionary psychology offers a much more direct explanation of over consumption.

In the latter third he looks at meditation. The act of being in the present. This does bring about certain physiological changes, but there's no proven correlation of a spiritual change. As you sit still, focus on smooth, slow breathing, your heart beat slows down, neurons rest. This could be what we call "at peace," and is a phenomenal experience that is not diminished by being totally a chemical process....

We do have some great laboratory settings to investigate consciousness, and the exist in hospitals in almost every town around the world.
Ray Kurzweil recently discussed them in h+ Magazine. Anesthesiologists make people unconscious all the time. In studies of what happens to people when they go under, consciousness seems to correlate with gamma coherence; a certain synchrony between neurons that create gamma waves. Evidence shows that gamma coherence goes away with anesthesia and people enter the experience known as unconsciousness. Is that the whole story? Far from it. But it's an example of how the systems that give rise to consciousness can be explored and understood. At various points in human history it was thought that diseases were the work of devils and impure living. It was a great way to wash your hands of the sick and say they had it coming, but not much good for solving problems.

Finally, he states that science describes the world but doesn't give us meaning, it gives us technology, but not guidance in how to use it. He sums up by saying we should combine the knowledge of science with the wisdom of religion. I couldn't imagine a better way to stunt both of them. The goal of discovering the root of conscious, he seems to assert here, is not identifiable and thus a matter of faith so let's stop worrying about it and just accept we're all spiritual beings. But that's the opposite of what science does.

To me, science gives us a lot of meaning: a dedication to exploration, study and wonder about the nature of all that's around us being one. It also does give us ideas about how to live: Science says don't eat all that crap fast food, you might want to cut down on smoking and boozing it up night after night might not be a good idea. If you want to see the people who are sapping these sorts of ideas out of our culture you'd have to find the corporate lobbyists.

I think this and other sort of spiritual arguments like it make the false assertion that science claims to "know" the truth. That's actually what religion does. Science puts forth what is the most likely explanation and then peers debate the studies, attempt to repeat them and either refute them or build upon them if they can be repeated with the same results.

He says that underneath it all, religions are all basically the same. To me, this would really only be true from an atheistic point of view. At some point we do also need to take into account that religions do differ, sometimes in fundamental ways (hence: fundamentalists). It's great the the interfaith groups are getting together. It's certainly better than the classical way of working things out, but the reason they're doing it is to overcome the obstacles.

There are certain things people are fond of considering to be miraculous, and consciousness, literally who we are, is one of them. We don't know yet what ultimately infuses us with it, but the arguments for a physiological explanation have a lot more going from them. I don't think it makes the reality any less incredible.

Monique
yeah, what Andrew said

Andrew
I store it up for a bi-monthly vomit of text it seems.

Moses Seenarine
my consciousness generated the same thoughts on russell that andrew points out; individualism is an illusion :)

consciousness and unconsciousness are both the product of thought, which is accumulated experiences and memories; this accumulation has been going on in the specie for thousands of years, and is part of of conditioning; thought does have a material basis that crick points to, however, thoughts are mostly unnecessary and mainly serve to limit our perception of reality by keeping us trapped in ego, in the past, in our conditioning; so, rather that seeing and meeting life anew, we operate from the known

the interesting point for me is why are other animals not so trapped in their thoughts, how come they are so much more alive to the ever-changing present? is is because of our fear and desire to change the unknown future? perhaps it all began when we set ourselves apart from nature and sought to control the uncontrollable...

Monique
lol @ Andrew
Ernest Becker theory also states that another pretty big thing that sets us apart from animals is our awareness of the eventuality of death...creates all sorts of anxieties that we have to have to deal with...thus, ego is born...we set up all sorts of rituals and institutions to make us feel like we are more than mortal and so overcome death. Religion is the obvious answer. With that stuff, you supposedly, literally overcome death. Other stuff include sports where we beat out over the 'other', thus giving us a symbolic sense of immortality.
Animals cannot look into the future or grasp memory in the way that we do, so their reaction to death is in-the-moment; fight-flight. They're pretty much happy-go-lucky without this morbid foreknowledge. etc., etc.

Andrew
I would agree that there's some basis for that Monique. I don't recall who said it or the actual quote, but to paraphrase: denial is our natural state.

George Orwell - Animal Farm

2010-01-27T00:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/index.html

I remember reading George Orwell's Animal Farm in middle school, as well as several times at home. It was the first animal rights text I read and it must have had a profound influence on me. The logic and truthfulness of his arguments are hard to refute. I especially like the beginning of the novel, where the pigs lays out the argument against animal exploitation:

"Comrades, you have heard already about the strange dream that I had last night. But I will come to the dream later. I have something else to say first. I do not think, comrades, that I shall be with you for many months longer, and before I die, I feel it my duty to pass on to you such wisdom as I have acquired. I have had a long life, I have had much time for thought as I lay alone in my stall, and I think I may say that I understand the nature of life on this earth as well as any animal now living. It is about this that I wish to speak to you.

"Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.

"But is this simply part of the order of nature? Is it because this land of ours is so poor that it cannot afford a decent life to those who dwell upon it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! The soil of England is fertile, its climate is good, it is capable of affording food in abundance to an enormously greater number of animals than now inhabit it. This single farm of ours would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of sheep--and all of them living in a comfort and a dignity that are now almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our problems. It is summed up in a single word--Man. Man is the only real enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished for ever.

"Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our labour tills the soil, our dung fertilises it, and yet there is not one of us that owns more than his bare skin. You cows that I see before me, how many thousands of gallons of milk have you given during this last year? And what has happened to that milk which should have been breeding up sturdy calves? Every drop of it has gone down the throats of our enemies.

And you hens, how many eggs have you laid in this last year, and how many of those eggs ever hatched into chickens? The rest have all gone to market to bring in money for Jones and his men. And you, Clover, where are those four foals you bore, who should have been the support and pleasure of your old age? Each was sold at a year old--you will never see one of them again. In return for your four confinements and all your labour in the fields, what have you ever had except your bare rations and a stall?

"And even the miserable lives we lead are not allowed to reach their natural span. For myself I do not grumble, for I am one of the lucky ones. I am twelve years old and have had over four hundred children. Such is the natural life of a pig. But no animal escapes the cruel knife in the end. You young porkers who are sitting in front of me, every one of you will scream your lives out at the block within a year. To that horror we all must come--cows, pigs, hens, sheep, everyone. Even the horses and the dogs have no better fate. You, Boxer, the very day that those great muscles of yours lose their power, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will cut your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds. As for the dogs, when they grow old and toothless, Jones ties a brick round their necks and drowns them in the nearest pond.

"Is it not crystal clear, then, comrades, that all the evils of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race! That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done. Fix your eyes on that, comrades, throughout the short remainder of your lives! And above all, pass on this message of mine to those who come after you, so that future generations shall carry on the struggle until it is victorious.

"And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades."

Sheep: Confessions of a meat eater 5

2009-05-10T03:43:00.000-07:00

Why did I ever eat sheep?

On occasions, I got to see sheep in the countryside, and I enjoyed following them around. They make the cutest sound, and the babies are a joy to watch as they playfully frolic where ever and whenever they get a chance. These gentle and docile animals would never harm a human being, and their warm, soft fur is heavenly to touch. They are occupied with eating grass and other green leaves, however the black pellets they poop are not smelly. In a group, they stick together and follow the leader, but one or two teenagers always tend to stray.

As a child, I knew sheep were raised for wool and food, and I derived no pleasure in seeing one killed. The animal screamed in fear and pain, its eyes budged out of their sockets, and there was blood spewing everywhere. Really gross. But then it gets worst as the process of taking the animal apart started. Raising sheep was uncommon where I grew up, and its flesh was more expensive than that of a cow. Lamb and mutton were delicacies, and although I was taught to desire them, I never really did.

Interestingly, most non-vegetarian parents object to their young children witnessing the slaughter of animals. This objection betrays a sensitivity present in parents and children alike. Maybe parents are afraid the violence might leave a harmful impression on children, who may grow to revel or abhor violence. Are non-vegetarian parents more scared of the latter outcome?

Why did I eat flesh for twenty-four years? Was it because I physically enjoyed eating meat? Cooked flesh, flavored in a hundred different ways, can be tasty. The odor of some meat dishes can also be pleasurable. The general opinion at the time was that eating meat not only helped to develop stronger muscles and bones, it was actually essential for survival.

There were psychological reasons for eating flesh as well. Take for example, the power over animals implicit in the act of eating flesh. For people at the bottom rung of the social scale, this boost in self esteem can be important, especially for women, minorities, children, the poor. You may not be able to enjoy the life of those above you, but at least you are not as bad off as the poor animals you are eating. In other words, you pick yourself up by putting others down.

Why did I do that? I've come to accept that almost all human behavior is conditional and situational. Under the conditions I was placed, and in the situation I was in, I did what was expected of me. I was socially conditioned and psychologically programmed to eat creatures I felt a natural affiliation toward, and the consequences for nonconformity as a child includedridicule and physical abuse. So, I towed the line and played sheep.

Children and teens eat flesh because as dependents they may not have a choice. But as adults, we continue to put our minds to sleep, and blindly follow one idea or another, this leader or that preacher. Deconstructing years of programming and abuse requires a critical mind, a willingness to question authority, and the courage to stand out from the crowd. Why was I able to do this while many others cannot or are unwilling to do so?

Can a sensitivity toward all life be taught, or is the propensity toward nonconformity an innate trait?

Milk Dud: Confessions of a meat eater 4

2009-05-10T03:42:00.000-07:00

I grew up in the third world, and as an infant, I was raised exclusively on cow's milk. Although there was fresh organic milk available from free range cows, the imported, powered form was considered better, and this is what I was fed. Over time, I was introduced to solid food, mostly fruits, nuts and vegetables. Later still, I was fed various meats, but it took many years to acquire a taste for meat. In the meantime, throughout childhood, I hated mom's food, and she ended up feeding me milk from a bottle with a nipple.

I drank milk this way until I was probably seven or eight years old. Mom gave it to me because I refused to eat solid food, with the exception of bread of course. I love bread. And biscuits. Umm. I grew up on toasted bread, buttered biscuits and tea. Typically, I had bread and tea for breakfast, snacked on fruit all day, and ate biscuits and tea for dinner. But my staple diet was powered milk in a bottle.

One day, my maternal uncle, Satro, came to visit. He saw me relaxing comfortably with my milk and lost it. "He's still drinking milk from a bottle?" Satro grabbed the bottle from my mouth and smashed the glass into the trash. Then he went and broke all the other bottles in the kitchen. I was so upset that it was the end of my powered milk days. After that, I drank milk from a glass, though not nearly as often. Occasionally, I drank chocolate milk, peanut butter shakes, and banana-flavored milk, and happiness was the rare can of sweetened condensed milk.

At 15 years of age, I migrated with my family to the USA and gained access to cheese and milk chocolate. I was ignorant of the fact that the milk in America is factory farmed, and quite unnatural. By that time, dairy products was causing me frequent bowel movements, but it took years to figure out I was suffering from a decrease in lactase that occurs after childhood. This decrease is genetically programmed.

Among Asian populations it is almost 100%, among American Indians it is 80%, and among blacks it is 70%; however, among American Caucasians the prevalence of lactase deficiency is only 20%. Among Asian populations, the symptoms of deficiency (intolerance) occur around the age of 5, among Blacks and Mexican-Americans by the age of 10, and among the Finnish by age 20. However, lactase deficiency is not the same as lactose intolerance. Persons with milder deficiencies of lactase often have no symptoms after the ingestion of milk, and even persons with moderate deficiencies may not have symptoms.

As an Asian, I was probably laco sensitive from age 10, but suffered from dairy consumption in ignorance and silence. As a teen, it became increasingly obvious that I had developed a sensitivity to milk products, and I tried to limit my consumption. Occasionally, I gorged on butter, cheese, ice cream, or chocolate, and regreted the stomach aches afterward. But acceptance of lacto sensitivity did not come easy since it meant having to give up many cherished pleasures. And even after I adopted the philosophy of non-violence and vegetarianism at age 24, I continued to consume dairy for a year. Not until I discovered animal rights a year later did I become vegan. I loved cows, and after learning the truth, I didn't want to enslave them and take calves away from mothers. At 25, I became vegan and I haven't eaten in a non-vegetarian restaurant since.

My lactose intolerance is really severe. A few years ago, I got into the terrible habit of drinking coffee. But whenever I ordered a soy latte, the tiny amount of remaining milk in the coffee press would result in pure torture for me - 10 trips to the restroom, starting 10 minutes after ingestion. Ditto for Indian vegetarian restaurants where many dishes are made with butter or yogurt.

Looking back, lactose intolerance made being vegan easier for me. I may have liked milk, but it didn't like me. Yet, this sensitivity remains the greatest challenge in eating out for me, since many vegetarian restaurants are unclear about their dairy ingredients. I'm grateful though. Twenty years ago, soy substitutes were rare and hard to find, but now I can buy chocolate soy milk, soy ice cream, soy cheese, you name it, at the local supermarket. Yea.

Don't Be a Goat: Confessions of a meat eater 3

2009-05-10T03:41:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I usually usually spent a month or more of summer vacation visiting my paternal grandparent's village, located on an eight-mile island in the middle of a muddy river. It was here that I learned the expression, "Don't be a goat."

I was called a goat many times, and knew it meant being obstinate and unwilling to compromise. But I was not offended.

All children are naturally idealistic, and I was no exception. I just happened to remain a goat all my life. After all, if you believed strongly in your principles, why would you ever change them? It didn't make sense to me. I felt that if someone planned on changing their principles, then whatever they say would be hypocritical. Since I held on to mine, being a goat was alright by me, and even though I ate goat meat on rare occasions, I became curious in learning about and meeting a fellow obstinate creature.

One summer in the village, I got a chance to meet my namesake firsthand. I must have been around seven years or so. Johnny, my dad's elder brother, had a brown, male with huge horns. I was probably a foot taller that the goat, but I was standing on two legs and it remained on all four. Besides, I was a miniature kid andthe mature fellow far outweighed me.

It stood majestically, tied to a stake on the roadside, happily chewing away on green leaves on a nearby shrub. After watching it for a while, I decided to move it down the road, closer to my grandparents house so I could watch it in the shade. I untied the knot, pulled up the stake, and tugged on the rope tied around the goat's neck. "Come on, let's go," I said as I stood in the back and on the rope. The ram kept on nibblingcalmly and completely ignored me. I pulled harder, but the animal refused to budge. I used all my strength, and strained with all my might before Ifinally got him to give me some attention.

But it was not the kind of attention I was seeking.

I had made the ram upset. Its eyes and nostrils flared and it lowered its head in preparation to ram me. Now I was the one on the rope. The goat was pulling me along as it backed up. I got so scared, I dropped the rope and ran. It chased me a few yards, then returned to grazing. My uncle was upset because his animal was no longer tethered, but I was too scared to do anything about it. I learned to leave goats alone and respected them a lot more after that.

At home, since goat meat was expensive, it was hardly served. At weddings and other special occasions, goat meat was usually available, but for whatever reason, I hated the taste of it and hardly ate my comrades.

Digging Chicks: Confessions of a meat eater 2

2009-05-10T03:38:00.000-07:00

As a child, I occasionally visited a maternal great-grandmother in the countryside. Nani lived in a small hut, behind her son's big house and store. I stayed in the big house and visited Nani from time to time. She loved company and would immediately set about making one of my favorite dishes, roasted plantains and corn. At close to 90 years old, her eyesight was poor and the vegetables were often burned beyond recognition, but I ate them happily and listened to her stories.

Nani had few possessions and was willing to share it with everyone. I rarely took advantage of her, but when I was around eight or so, on a quick trip to the countryside with my maternal grandmother, I noticed Nani had a whole brood of yellow, new born chicks. They were so small and cute, and I fell in love with them immediately. Of course, Nani, bless her heart, gave me a bunch of baby chickens to take back to the city. I was overwhelmed that she trusted me with the lives of these fragile creatures. I never had any pets before and was overjoyed at having such priceless gifts.

I took eight beautiful creatures carefully home and surprised mom. She was not keen on the idea, but I promised to take full responsibility for the chicks' care, and to keep the yard clean. Which I did. I loved my pets. I spent all my allowance on good grain and changed their water constantly. The chicks were all fun and I loved watching them run around before and after school. I felt very grown up taking care of them, and as they grew bigger, I built larger cages for them to sleep in at night. I got to know each one as they slowly changed into teens, and became more serious and competitive. They never pecked me, and still followed me around. With loving care, over six months or so, the small yellow chicks grew in beautiful tall white hens, and became a source of pride for the family. Everyone commented on how strong and healthy the hens looked.

Of course, visitors' next comment would be, "Those chickens would be great to eat." This drove fear into my heart and caused no end of stress. I would beg mom daily to respect my wishes and not to let anything happen to my beloved chicks. Which she did to a point. She didn't kill them, as she did others, but she did allow them to be killed. After all, who kept chickens as pets? I certainly did, and must have developed some sensitivity towards animals as a result. I never once saw the chicks as food, and this may have carried over into other areas of thinking regarding animals.

At the back of my mind, I must have known what was coming. It was a shock nevertheless.

One day, I came home from school and found my father's brother had killed four of my precious chickens. He kept parts for himself and gave mom some. I'm not sure what I ate that day or the next, but it was certainly not my pets. I was devastated for weeks. I was so upset, I felt like running away. I disliked that uncle ever since, and never fully forgave mom either. Me and the remaining chickens suffered our loss. I waited for the inevitable and soon they were gone as well. I gave up raising chickens and my mom was happy to see the cages go.

This episode cause dehumanization on so many levels. I understood and felt responsible for the killings, and as an eight-year old, resolved never to be a part of this process again. I quickly realized that I was helpless to do anything about what happened, and what was happening on a daily basis all around me. I was, and remain, the only vegetarian among thousands of relatives on all sides. As a psychological survival mechanism, that child was forced to develop detachment from chickens and many other creatures. With each passing day, I became less human(e).

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I was allowed to keep my chicks. Would I have become a vegetarian sooner? I separated from my family at eighteen, in part to get away from the daily onslaught of meat. I chose to live with roomates and friends instead, who first of all, ate a whole lot less than my obese family, and who, when they did get around to eating, it was almost always at a restaurant or take-out, since cooking was a rare occurrence. Like mom, I was no fan of fish, cow, goat or sheep. I preferred chicken, well done. For six years, while not actually considering myself vegetarian, I ordered spaghetti with marinara sauce, and ate Spanish rice, beans and plantains.

But after that trauma at eight, it took decades to break down the wall of indifference I had constructed to chicks. And it took a lot more than just time for me to finally be able see chicks as my friends again. Not just food. The six years of mostly being away from family was a period of vocational, philosophical and spiritual exploration, during which time I experimented with various raw fruit and nut diets, and fasted for days.

All these efforts eventually paid off, and one fine day I was able to make the leap. Thankfully, I see friends in all chicks now, as well as in all other creatures on our beautiful planet.

Joyless Eating: Confessions of a meat eater 1

2009-05-10T03:23:00.000-07:00

I ate meat for 24 years. There! I admitted it. I did, I did, I did. But during many of these years I did so reluctantly. Moreover, eating for me was more or less a chore until I became a vegan.

You see, as a child, I hated mom's cooking. I did not like her food in part because it always contained meat, and I felt that the meat was often undercooked. I hated the taste of rawish meat.

I hated mom's cooking also because she hated it too, and she hated to cook in general. It was strange, because mom cooked beef and fish for the family, even though she did not eat it herself. Her dietary restrictions was based on religious tradition (cow), and personal preference (fish). After she learned that fish eat people who drown in the river, she decided they were not for her.

Well, as a child, I must have picked up on this right away to get out of eating altogether. The contradictions were too glaring for me to ignore. Hey, if she didn't eat it, why was she forcing me to eat it? "Mom, I want what you are having only, and you can let the rest of the family eat that other stuff you made." Hey, you know, this just may well have been the origin of that infamous critical outlook of mine. You think?

Unfortunately, mom did not take kindly to me adopting her diet, and as a result, a large part of my childhood was spent fighting mom and her contradictions. It was pure hell, let me tell you. We fought over every meal, with her standing over me with a whip, me in tears for hours, and eventually throwing up in my plate, which occurred far too many times in my life. When it did, she would force me to eat from the part of the plate without vomit.

When I said I hated mom's food, I wasn't kidding. Eating was torture for me. Literally, every day.

Mom only liked chicken. Buying live chickens from the market was a weekly routine. When she got home, mom would be rushed for time since she needed to kill the chicken, boil the creature to remove its feathers, chop it up, and then cook it. There are few things in the world worst smelling that boiled chicken, and I usually flee the house to get away from that smell. Her chopping of the bird would lead to bits of flesh and blood splattering everywhere. Disgusting to children and adults alike.

When I was seven or so, mom started to force me to kill the live chickens she brought at the market. This was the most detestable thing I've ever done in my entire life. I could not bring myself to look at a harmless, active creature and then decide to take its life. But killing was men's work, and cooking was hers.

More fighting with mom resulted in me holding down the creature, and attempting to cut its neck with a blunt knife, but making little effort. All the while, I would be bawling. As I was watching fear increase in the creature's eyes, hearing its sad cry, feeling its body react to death, and seeing life ebb from its severed head, I felt I was dying along with it. Sometimes I got halfway and stopped after collapsing in tears. Someone else had to finish the killing while the creature screamed in pain. After a few times of this horror, I must have convinced mom, and thankfully she never asked me to perform this unbearable task again. She either did it herself or asked another brother.

Having said that, at times, I will admit to having enjoyed the smell and taste of burnt flesh. But I did not really seek bbq or any other form of meat out. I hated most prepared food. I enjoyed fruits and nuts, and I often ate fruit as a whole meal. Anything to avoid fighting with mom over eating her food.