An Animal-Friendly Life, the Podcast

Listen to this entry as a podcast (MP3, 30MB)

Since my review of Capers in the Churchyard, I've been attempting to put together a follow-up with commentary inspired by and cut out of that review for practical purposes.

Lee Hall's book has certainly come out at just about the right time. Over the past year, since I attended the Animal Rights 2005 conference, it seems the conflict between animal welfare versus rights continued by the book has fomented to a point where people are ready to discuss it openly, which despite the apparent conflict is a good thing for the animal protection movement. You can't deal with an issue unless you discuss it openly first.

In recent weeks, the subject was examined at AR2006, taken up in an Erik's Diner podcast, picked apart in an essay by Vegan Outreach's Matt Ball, and it dominates the most recent issue of Satya. I strongly recommend visiting those links as a companion to what I'm contributing here.

What follows is a sort of essay in the spirit of this continued debate, cobbled together and pared down from notes provoked by the book's ideas as I reviewed it back at the beginning of August. I'm only just now able to carve out enough time to shape this into something cohesive enough to share. At over 6,000 words, it was a bit unwieldy to put together with my limited time, and should not be taken as any sort of dissertation. For the sake of convenience, you might want to print it out for later reading if you're not interested in downloading the podcast (AAC, 16MB) for your portable digital device (you can subscribe at the iTunes Music Store for my very infrequent podcasts). Apologies in advance for the quality of recording. It is literally all over the map, with some places sounding great, and others sounding like dirt. I have no idea why. This is my first podcast using the new features of the most updated version of Apple's GarageBand, which is designed for podcasting, but I haven't really had time to study it, and right now my most pressing concern is getting this piece up and out there.

Apologies also for a few small, last-minute edits to the piece after recording and uploading the podcast. I don't have time to redo the entire thing, but my thinking continues even now. I'm still sifting through my thoughts on this complex issue, and feel that in writing a piece to comment on and even balance my review with some criticism I may have extended myself further than I'm fully able to stand by. I really haven't had as much time as I'd like to fully develop the thoughts jotted down as mere notes a month ago.

For example, though I'm a huge fan of large welfare organizations ending battery cage egg operations, foie gras production, and promoting vegan diets with their literature and media, I'm not a fan of animal protection organizations condoning the sale of any animal product just because certain conditions have been met. In my mind, protecting animals means not allowing them to be exploited or consumed at all.

I don't think having that opinion means you necessarily have to be against improvements in conditions at factory farms, or that you have to avoid stores that profit from animal exploitation, but I think it does mean you have to step back as an animal advocate and say, "What am I doing to actually stop people from eating these products altogether? What campaigns would reach people where they're at in their thinking, convince them that even less inhumanely produced animal products are still cruel and end their consumption of animal products entirely, rather than sending them to some humane-certified animal product?"

Hopefully mine will be only one of many voices taking the conversation beyond this adversarial schism. Please contribute to the discussion in the comments for this post and/or at the Satya forums, especially since their next issue will keep this subject alive for some time.

To refresh, Capers in the Churchyard focuses on failings of both militant animal activism (ALF, et al) and welfare-oriented approaches (HSUS, et al) to make the case for animal rights to the public, focusing as they do on animals as victims, and exploiting them in their own way to create support for what they do.

Now, in summarizing so succinctly, I've already done an injustice to the book. Would that Hall had warned readers similarly, as Capers roundly condemns numerous animal welfare organizations and even veg-oriented magazines without taking the opportunity to balance that criticism with a look at what they have accomplished on behalf of animals and continue to do, from lobbying against foie gras and horse slaughter to vegetarian and vegan outreach.

Of course, vegetarianism has been around far longer than factory farming. Many wise and revered figures have shunned the flesh of animals for reasons many animal-friendly people will find familiar and agreeable, primarily that killing another living being for no other reason than enjoying the taste of flesh is barbaric. Even the best welfare reforms will get us no further than our vegetarian forbearers. Where's the progress?

We will still have to consider the question of whether it is appropriate for a compassionate, self-aware civilization to traffic in the lives of autonomous, sentient creatures for our own gain, and that is ultimately the point of Capers in the Churchyard. Regardless of the status of animal welfare, that question underlies everything. Hall thus calls on activists to focus less on the mechanics of animal welfare and rescuing individual animals, and more on educating others on the need to abolish the injustice that puts all of the individual cases in a common context. In other words, not to make killing more palatable, but to end the killing. Or, as some have put it, not bigger cages, but empty cages.

Like Hall, I wholeheartedly advocate honest, ethical, non-violent efforts to move forward and spark a paradigm shift away from exploiting animals, and I agree that the intimidation tactics of the more militant liberationists will never lead to such a necessary shift. As Hall and others have wisely noted, people cannot be forced to change their minds by external pressure, violent or otherwise; they have to decide for themselves.

I agree also that when a society changes its values and withdraws its support for a system, the foundations that allowed the system to function will crumble, welfare reforms will no longer be necessary, nor will rescues, nor direct action. But I'm leery of a strategy that eliminates the opportunity to make palpable changes now, and to open the door to discussions that address the root rationale for animal exploitation, grounded in real-world scenarios like the foie gras campaign, for example.

Such a strategy would eliminate the gains achieved by dedicated and influential welfare advocates, who not only strive to improve the daily lives of animals that will for the forseeable future continue to be bred, mistreated, and slaughtered regardless of what we think about the practice, but who also raise awareness of animal conditions in the industry (and do greatly aggravate the industry with their successes), playing a vital role in pursuading many animal-friendly people to adopt a plant-based diet and beyond. This is to say nothing of many groups' efforts on behalf of companion animals and especially wild animals, which is a dreadful omission from Capers, I dare say.

A lot of the current backlash within the animal protection movement I referred to from the outset is against the dialectic between animal rights and animal welfare, with many calling it an over-simplification. I tend to concur. I don't know many animal activists that intend to settle for bigger cages once that victory is complete. That's one step in a much bigger goal. The debate appears not to be over the goal, but the approach, and that's where Hall's biggest criticisms are aimed.

The very first chapter of Capers argues that those who pursue a means-to-an-end strategy breed an atmosphere of distrust, whether it's the militant activists that will do anything to bring down vivisectors or whalers, because all's fair in war, or the media-chasing tactics of the animal welfare groups that trot out spokespeople to claim success on behalf of the victimized animals we're here to protect, and if you send your donation now we'll be able to help so many more. After all, what is incremental welfare, but another means to and end (i.e., abolition)?

Hall asks "How can you trust someone with that brand of integrity?" Everyone becomes a pawn subservient to the charismatic "swashbuckling" activist's hierarchical message, which Hall calls "one of most effective silencers of the ethically consistent activist's voice." In pointing out the ego-driven nature of these individuals, Hall criticizes the words and actions of some of the animal rights movement's darlings, but it's hard not to see the truth at the core of what she's saying. In a world that celebrates means-to-an-end tactics, that almost cries out for leaders and followers, victims and heroes, activists that play into these constructs -- who play by the 'rules" -- actually validate them.

The messages that swashbuckling figures like Capt. Paul Watson and Dr. Jerry Vlasak send the public may gratify activists, as some sort of success for having broken through, Hall argues, but those people misunderstand animal rights, and their messages could set activists back in their attempts to find common ethical ground with the public, who find them unrelatable, if not downright scary. "To agree with animal rights means, at essence," Hall says, "to repudiate violence, and to transcend the habit of seeing others as instruments to our ends, of taking advantage." She specifically words it this way to include all beings, not just non-human animals. In other words, animal rights isn't just about animals; it's also about us. Animal rights is about seeking a world in which respect prevails and love without coercion is possible. It's about challenging our hierarchical paradigm. Doing so will impact subjected peoples and animals alike.

Rather than challenging this paradigm, Hall says, welfare organizations have actually become gatekeepers -- arbiters might be more accurate -- letting their members know what is okay to eat, sometimes going so far as to certify products made from animals, so long as the product falls within the boundaries of their members' meat- and egg-eating ethics, allowing the root cause of animal exploitation to continue: the accepted culture of domination over animals, of objectifying them to serve our ends. Thus these organizations codify the human right to use animals, as long as the property is treated with care, whereas true welfare would not allow for animals to be fashioned into commodities at all.

In other words, to the average consumer, if a large animal welfare organization (often called animal rights by the media) says that a producer is doing the right thing by, say, euthanizing chickens humanely, then it must be okay to eat at KFC, or so the thinking goes. This is not an argument that should be shooed away. A rather large number of people actually think this way. As long as the animals have a good life and die gently, as if in their sleep, what's the big deal?

There is currently no animal rights answer to this question that has successfully resonated with the majority of consumers, which is why they go right on eating animal products, if only those that are organic, grass-fed, free range, cage-free, etc., etc. I talk to non-vegans constantly (most of whom don't know I'm vegan), and the pervasive attitude is that animals are ours to do with what we want, and that our only moral obligation is to make their lives as free of suffering as possible before we take them.

Hall implies that part of the reason welfare organizations capitalize on this paradigm and validate animal husbandry improvements is to grow their organizations for financial reasons, much as the Center for Consumer Freedom accuses them of doing (this after criticizing the CCF earlier in the book). After all, they don't want to turn off potential donors. A lot of grassroots activists criticize the bigger organizations for their concern over turning off the mainstream and losing donors. Some even go so far as to consider it a betrayal. As if the primary goal of these dedicated career activists is to make money and perpetuate their jobs.

To be fair, most of these organizations do utilize imagery of suffering animals in order to raise campaign funds, but most also fund operations that promote veganism, either as part of their organization, or by providing financial support to smaller organizations and offering up their media libraries for free (without requests for credit) to simply raise awareness so that people might pause to think before ordering a hamburger the next time they eat. One only has to read the criticisms of PETA and HSUS among the more strident pro-meat writers to see that they all know the ultimate goal of both organizations is the elimination of all animal consumption. It's not a well-kept secret, after all.

However, it appears that Hall would consider leaning on this imagery a misuse of animals that does more to perpetuate the perception of animals as victims than to liberate them. Of course, with approximately 10 billion land animals killed in the U.S. every year for food, I have a hard time arguing with the notion that these animals are victims.

Under this same basic reasoning it is not acceptable to turn farmed animals into cuddly pets or mascots at sanctuaries, who use images of captive and rescued animals to raise large amounts of funding for campaigns against foie gras, gestation crates, and other cruel practices. I have little problem with supporting organizations that have successfully helped outlaw foie gras, as an example. Not only is a glaring example of cruelty for luxury on the defense and losing, but the controversy stirred up by these bans circle around a slippery slope argument ("What's next? Hens have it just as bad."). This is taking the conversation exactly where it needs to go. "Yeah, how about those hens?"

And, while it can be a bit infantilizing for the animals, I don't really have a problem with humans falling for cuddly imagery. As the movie The Witness demonstrated, sometimes an unlikely human-animal bond can be the catalyst for a paradigm shift. Hall does not provide an alternative catalyst. Don't get me wrong. I'm not looking for a silver bullet here, but it's remarkable how many people respond favorably to the comparison between species we call pets and the species we call food when they really think about it. I certainly don't want to see cows, chickens, and pigs raised to be companion animals, but if consumers can see these beings as more than meat and cheese machines, then we're really on to something.

As if welfare organizations are so far off-course, Hall recommends returning to vegan advocacy, making people aware of their complicity in horrors they never knew or wanted to know were imaginable. Funny, but haven't I already established that most of them do this, too, and quite successfully?

All large organizations -- private or public, for-profit or non-profit -- have their pros and cons. PETA, in my view, frequently goes out on a limb to raise awareness. This occasionally results in startling or refreshing insight or perspectives for a small number of people, but more often brings mockery and derision on the subject of animal rights, which many dedicated and decidedly less controversial activists work so hard every day to have taken seriously. PETA means well, of course, but some of its campaigns have arguably made the efforts of less outrageous campaigners more difficult while achieving controversy, increased donations, and little more than prurient outside interest, if any.

That said, and at the same time, PETA offers one of the most aggressive campaigns for promoting a cruelty-free lifestyle, with free veg starter kits, mainstream campaigns to generate debate in newspapers or even amongst friends and family, provocative media like up-to-the-minute music videos, online support, and a free library of devastating animal footage and photos from inside factory farms and slaughterhouses. "Meet Your Meat," in fact, is one of the most powerful tools I've seen turn people away from animal products, and it's available free online at their site, YouTube, and just about everywhere for anyone to copy and show to friends or use for outreach activities. As if to prove my point, as of the moment I'm writing this, PETA has in the upper right-hand corner of its home page a link to its Animal Liberation Project, which reminds us that we are all animals.

If, as Hall maintains, this media becomes fetishized by some in the movement as a way of holding the animals continually victimized, and thus exploiting the animals' plight for further donations, the fact is that this footage will become moot if the conditions no longer exist, and as long as the footage represents the vast majority of real conditions, it is what will continue to give the average, uninformed person a window into barbarities that are more and more restricted from public access, for obvious reasons. As such, it will generate donations that are used to further increase this awareness and fight factory farming conditions. Frankly, if it weren't for the photos and video footage that I saw one fateful day (the majority of which surely were most likely offered online by PETA), I don't know if I would be vegan and advocating for animal rights today. And I'm positive I speak for a lot of people when I say that. It's hard to conceive of people being moved purely by abstract reasoning, or even numbers. But to see animal cruelty with one's own eyes is to abhor it.

Hall certainly has a point in finding fault with welfare approaches that offer businesses and concerned consumers the appearance of "guilt-free meat." "Ethical consumerism" is a rather hot category right now, led by a massive surge in organics, and I have zero interest in making it easier for corporations to sell people products they don't need, especially when they result in death for billions of sentient creatures every year, but I do think that the growing awareness of the origins of one's food is a pivotal shift in the modern history of animal advocacy.

Just as people have wanted to know how their clothes were manufactured, are rejecting the political status quo, and are seeking the truth about global warming, many are now seeking to know what goes into producing their food. This is an opportunity to guide people to make choices that are better aligned with their own compassionate views, and welfare-oriented organizations are better-suited to reach out to these people than militants, if for no other reason than the language is couched in terminology that doesn't scare them. The first thing that concerns people around those going vegan -- friends, family, spouses -- is whether the new vegan is going to become all radical and militant and unrelatable. People may want to choose a more compassionate lifestyle, but they don't want to lose all their friends, alienate their family, or change or lose their job. It's just too huge.

There is something to be said for picking apart the carnist mindset with different tactics. After all, you can't very well expect people to jump across a vast canyon in hopes they'll land next to you on the other side. One only has to read what the average meat-eater has to say about vegetarians to realize this. After all, the vast majority of the world continues to see our dominion over animals as perfectly normal and acceptable. But some tactics seem to cause more harm than good. Attacking meat-eaters physically or by calling them murderers or comparing them to Nazis will not win them to your way of thinking. To change people's paradigms, you have to meet them where they are, take them by the hand, and walk them across the bridge.

Even this doesn't guarantee a new wave of veganism. While some people will choose to eliminate as many animal products as is sanely practical when confronted with the realities of modern animal agriculture, others may only decide we've gone far off course from their idyllic memory of Grandma and Grandpa's farm. Maybe they'll only go "flexitarian," or maybe they'll start purchasing meat raised and slaughtered organically and locally from ranchers they trust.

At least they're thinking about their food at this point, and they're exercising the power of their monetary vote. Perhaps they will be more open to the other problems of animal agriculture that do not go away with more environmentally sustainable and "humane" farming practices. They may well be receptive to arguments that animals reared in this way are still subjected to the horrors of the slaughterhouse, and may find that they can't abide that. There are simply some people that will not flip the switch from a meat-eating lifestyle to one devoid of animal products without first moving in that direction in a more subtle way.

Another valid concern is that people may give up, shut down, and just eat whatever's handy, simply because it's all too much. I've seen it happen with a lot of compassionate people facing the troubles in our modern world. They're overwhelmed by all that's crying out for their attention, but they just want to live their lives and make their monthly mortgage, and so on. They may not believe ignorance is bliss, but they have to create a dissociation in order to maintain the status quo. This is where it's important to keep reaching out, to continue supporting vegan businesses, so they'll be there to support potential vegans, making it easier than ever to not give up, to simply throw one's hands up and dismiss animal agriculture altogether without having to change one's entire life. It has to be easier to go vegan than to worry about whether this or that meat or dairy is humanely raised, or whether the advertising is snowing you. Animal welfare activism, with its incremental approach, moves the mainstream in this general direction.

This isn't to say that groups that focus on liberation and animal rights over animal welfare wouldn't have a place here as well; they most certainly would. While a lot of mainstream consumers might find it easier to slide into a plant-based lifestyle with nudges from welfare groups rather than rights groups, which require a broader paradigm shift that people resist without even realizing how deeply it scares them, this only demonstrates the necessity for rights or liberation organizations to continue their work. It must be easier to address people with liberation ideas after they've accepted that cruelty toward farmed animals is just as unacceptable as it is to companion animals, for instance.

I know that when I went vegan overnight years ago, I had not really considered animal testing, zoos, circuses, and all that. It started with removing my support from factory farming. In that sense, one could argue that I started out with an animal welfare viewpoint, though I never did not seek out more "humanely" raised animal products. That one day, I simply accepted that there was no need to eat animal products at all if it was possible to be healthy and happy without them. I also drew the connection early on between the many companion animals I'd had in my life and the animals we saw as food. I did not immediately look at these issues from an animal liberation framework or otherwise embrace all the complexities underlying a vegan point of view. These take time to develop, and came after being vegan for a while and doing a lot more reading.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume a large number of experienced vegans followed a similar path, and I'd also go so far as to suggest it's a much easier, even more logical path to follow. One draws the connection between suffering and diet, and cuts it off, even without understanding the ripple effect inherent in that decision. That awareness comes later, and changes the way one looks at the world. The full paradigm shift may well not come until after going vegan, though I do think it's essential for staying vegan.

I'm convinced that many lapsed vegans give it up because they never rejected animal exploitation altogether. They make that initial leap to withdraw their support of cruelty. But as they discover cage-free eggs and similar products, they start consuming those items, thinking they're still rejecting cruelty, but in a more "reasonable" way.

This is why I think liberation and rights activism are so important. Liberation and rights concepts will continue to meet with a lot of resistance in the broader public eye, but where they have breakthrough potential is with new vegetarians and vegans, who are now highly receptive to pro-animal messages and may need some help seeing just how far the rabbit hole goes.

But embracing the concept of liberty and rights for animals does not necessarily preclude support for animal welfare work. True and complete animal welfare reform of both animal husbandry and slaughter necessitate dismantling factory farms and a creating a drastic reduction of animal product consumption out of sheer financial and physical necessity, which is what has the large-scale producers of animal products up in arms.

While there is concern that the expansion of non-factory-farmed animals in a sort of corporatized version of land-based family farming could endanger wildlife further, since such operations would require even more land for grazing, the limitations of this approach should be readily apparent. Even if we removed all wildlife from the United States, there simply wouldn't be enough land to sustain current levels of animal agriculture on a non-CAFO basis, which would lead to higher prices.

Imports from regions with laxer regulations would become more common and undercut U.S. businesses as people cling to the notion of cheap animal products, and we would be unable to compete with those businesses on any other front than the "humanely raised" aspect, for those willing to pay much more for that. Hardly a sustainable model, which has producers in this country fighting animal welfare to preserve their livelihoods.

Surely this is a strong position for animal welfare organizations to be in. Cargill, Tyson and their front groups can easily ridicule animal rights and "militant extremists" because the average consumer doesn't relate and, in many cases, disagrees with their goals, much less their tactics. On the other hand, most Americans agree with an obligation for better treatment of animals. This is where animal activists have the strongest connection with Americans, and it would be foolish to discard it simply because it does not directly serve the goal of abolition, especially if it means inconveniencing large-scale animal agriculture.

The big producers are aware of consumers' concern for animals, and exploit this with false imagery in all their ads. This provides a huge wedge for activists to drive between those companies and their customers. When compassionate, civilized people realize where their food comes from and reject en masse the propaganda of the industry, then the producers will have a huge problem, and that can only mean positive changes for animals as producers rally to meet the ethical demands of their consumers.

There is some concern that these for-profits will consistently outstrip non-profits with their ability to dream up novel uses for animals that create a moving target for welfare groups, whereas a fundamental approach to animal protection that rejects our right to exploit them as we see fit undercuts the basis for these companies' activities. If the public no longer wants to see animals used for any commercial reason, then it doesn't matter what novel product or "humane" reform they adopt, the public will reject the product.

What Hall argues for is a more concerted effort to build up this fundamental approach, to go to the underlying root mentality that justifies the use of animals whether they are in cages or not. Rather than focus on attacking the industry, cultivate an alternative viewpoint in popular culture, one that takes hold, gains energy, and becomes plausible to enough people to effect a paradigm shift. I like this idea, but how does an ethical animal rights activist convince people that the dominant paradigm is wrong, especially when so many people accept without question that our dominion over animals is simply a matter of course, an understood and widely agreed-upon way of things?

This is where the welfarists come in again. There already is a paradigm shift underway. It's not a wholesale shift toward not exploiting animals, but it is an intermediate step toward recognizing that animals are not machines and that we are obligated to treat them as thinking, feeling creatures. The shift is nascent, but it's taking off with the help of animal welfare organizations and their donors, gathering that energy to take hold, and it is having an effect on how people shop. As mentioned, some people are going veg, while others are buying animal products they feel are produced more humanely, which may even be recommended by groups claiming to advocate on behalf of animals.

Let's argue for a moment that this surge in consumer interest, as part of the overall "ethical eater" movement, gains hold and becomes the new dominant paradigm. We're a ways off from that, first of all. Second, the changes this would require from animal agriculture are so massive as to be unpredictable. How will the companies adapt to a flexitarian consumer base? Will the majority of their products end up going to China and other markets? Will ethical consumers allow animals to be treated the way they are now even for other markets? Or, much like the recent Congressional ban on horse slaughter suggests, will they legislate against factory farms in this country altogether? It's hard to say where this could lead us, but it's certain that even this slight paradigm shift would result in huge changes for animal agriculture, most of them generally positive for the animals who remain a part of the system.

As I argued earlier, increased awareness of animal sentience and consciousness raises moral questions that many thoughtful people will respond to by eliminating animal products from their lives as much as possible, as some already do. The difference in this new paradigm is that not only will this notion be more common and acceptable, but it will be more widespread, with a sizable marketplace to entice more people to the fold, all without necessarily requiring the acceptance of animal rights, per se.

As this marketplace grows, we will see the rise of a much more mindful population. Eating flesh will be looked down upon. Guardianship will take the place of ownership as animals finally gain standing for their own intrinsic worth. More advanced theories and laws guiding our treatment of animals will replace our primitive attitudes and legislation, where currently even welfare laws only scratch the surface.

In this new climate, the idea of providing liberty to animals will gain traction, as they become a major moral concern to a majority of humans. With the values of those that make the laws changed, the laws that hold animals captive will also change. We'll see exotic animals disappear from circuses and increased pressure on zoos to do more for the animals they keep in captivity, as well as their brethren in the wild. Present welfare codes specifying the use of animals will transform into laws governing our relationship to them altogether, no longer perceiving animals as commodities but as individuals, which is very much what Hall calls for in asking that we nurture an alternative viewpoint rather than merely opposing animal exploiters.

That said, the foundation needs to be laid in the lawbooks now, almost like training wheels. Look how difficult it is to get animals considered as more than mere property, much less for them to gain standing in the eyes of the law. We start where we're at or, in other words, we get where we're going by meeting people where they are.

We certainly don't get there by giving up and turning the majority into our enemy, which describes the out-sized public reaction to more militant animal activism, leading us back to the inspiration for Capers in the Churchyard.

Three of the activists implicated in the Newchurch grave robbery described by the book's title were convicted and sentenced last May to twelve years in prison, setting a precedent the likes of which, Hall argues, paves the way for animal industries and law enforcement agencies to increase surveillance on activists, pass new laws protecting corporations further, and even more severe punishments. We're already seeing these effects in the news. So, Hall argues, militant "direct action" is no more effective at changing the root thinking that allows for animals to be subjected to testing. It puts the focus instead on the corporations as victims and the activists as criminals and aggressors -- even terrorists -- and the animals get lost in the fray. In the long-run, these activists may well be harming more animals with their tactics.

Violence, intimidation, and criminal behavior have a negative effect. They don't change values; they harden them, like a turtle withdrawing into its defensive shell. Violence increases misunderstanding and ridicule and further obstruct mainstream acceptance. Despite the rejection for mainstream approval voiced by influential people within the movement that support these actions, animals will never be free without majority support of society.

The means-to-an-end reductionism in the logic of militant activists -- taking down HLS to end cruel lab experiments on animals, for example -- misses the big picture. As long as the government requires animal testing, some company is going to take on the job, and the government is going to take on the responsibility of ensuring their safety by drafting ever more draconian laws and spending more money on law enforcement, which also happens to benefit the companies that privately manage the prisons to which twenty-something activists may well be dispatched upon sentencing.

What's more, as the media freely associates these acts of intimidation with animal rights activists, the public is hardened even more to the notion of animal rights, and is more liable to support their institutions in stopping these crimes.

Widespread public support for animal liberation would change all this. But, as Hall suggests, no type of lab protest against using animals that people already eat will be broadly successful until consumers stop seeing these same animals as food, much less inferior. Given mainstream acceptance of the subjugation of pigs as porkchops, it's a small leap to harvest their organs for potential transplant into humans. Especially when one considers that an organ might save a life, while a porkchop might only fill a belly for a short while.

While my own path did indeed take me from rejecting animals in my food to rejecting other uses of animals, I'm not so sure the leap is as small as Hall suggests, at least not for everyone. There are a lot of people who realize they're only eating meat because they "like it," and consider maybe that's not a very good reason, but most of these same people are terrified of death and would be happy to sacrifice as many animal lives as researchers see fit for that speculative hope that some human benefit might come of it. After all, it's necessary.

With the current mindset, it certainly is. If we can conquer disease and death in humans, our society sees it as a moral obligation to do so, with the ends justifying the means (witness the disgraced researchers who violated rules of ethics in order to achieve "progress," much less the daily disposal of mice that have served their purpose). And yet, this is a depraved, morally bankrupt, and mentally disturbed view of life. It goes back to that vested interest, putting ourselves above others. Ugly, but true. One wonders how many people would be willing to sacrifice a few brain-dead humans if it meant a cure for cancer might be found.

We all know our deaths are inevitable, yet we discard millions of other animals annually in order to find a way to postpone it, as if someday we'll become so medically proficient as to become immortal, as if this is somehow desirable to us or our planet. Before all our technology allowed us to live longer lives, we maintained populations that were healthier for the environment, even if that meant some of us died from some pretty nasty and (now) easily curable diseases. These days, people live long enough to see their great, great-grandchildren, and the population of our species has risen to unsupportable numbers, with one billion living in poverty while about a billion live in affluence. Meanwhile, the rest of the planet's species are in decline, with many animals going extinct every day, and many more important species in a precipitous state of endangerment.

The popular mindset is that I'd have to be crazy not to want to prolong my life, but no one can give me a good reason, other than their own fear of dying. But what's so wrong about living a full, happy life and dying an honest, unprolonged death with a healthy attitude? You have to die sometime, after all. Why burden the public or your family with all the healthcare costs associated with (often unsuccessfully) fighting terminal disease? Why put your family through all the grief of suffering a cure almost as hazardous as the disease, only to relapse and go through it all over again a year later? Put a smile on your face, wish everyone goodbye, and die with dignity.

I realize such a well-adjusted approach to death is a lot to ask of people, and easier to say than do, but is it too much to ask that one become aware of what predisposes people to fall prey to many of these diseases, and to change their lifestyles to minimize their occurrence preventatively? After all, many of our most deadly Western diseases are diseases of affluence, stemming as they do from the environmental wastes of an affluent society, and the over-consumption of such unnecessary goods as processed food and animal proteins.

We're out of touch with our planet and ourselves. As Hall writes, "We've literally alienated ourselves from life." We've lost touch with the notion of living on a healthy, living planet, one that contains risks we're apparently unwilling to accept. When wildlife "invades" a housing development at the outer reaches of town, the people -- those that invaded the wild and attempted to tame the animals' habitat -- are made to be the victim, instead of admitting this is the price of never-ending expansion. These are all aspects of the same thinking, the mindset that if we keep on the path we're on, we'll eventually dig our way out of this hole, when we're only digging deeper. In other words, we attempt to solve our problems using the same thinking that created them. As Albert Einstein noted, that doesn't work so well.

Despite opposing of some of Hall's criticisms, I imagine it's clear from what I've written here and in my review that I find the overall message behind Capers in the Churchyard invaluable, and so I will end with a quote from the Epilogue with which I think all animal-friendly people can agree:

Social justice movements everywhere find guidance in the idea that another world is possible, and that once an idea can be conceived, it can be achieved. Theories can indeed be put into practice overnight, for example, by simply declining to buy what the animal vendors are selling. With each person who decides to do that, a movement takes a step in the direction of ending oppressive industries and replacing them with life-affirming ones.

I think we're on our way to doing just that.

ADDENDUM (not included in podcast): This is a difficult subject, which should be obvious in my poor attempt to wrangle some meaningful ideas out of all this... but taking over 6000 words to do so. Then again, Satya's devoting 2 magazine issues to it, and the animal protection movement has been wrestling with it for some time now, with some of the movement's brightest minds strongly disagreeing on the best course to animal liberation. My views above do not represent my complete thoughts on the subject, nor are they set in stone. We all need to keep an open mind, and to consider how each of us might better reduce and eliminate not merely the suffering of animals, but how we might decrease the exploitation of animals altogether.

[iTMS] (iTunes Music Store page)
[MP3] (MP3 version of the podcast online, 30MB)
[AAC] (AAC version for downloading, 16MB)
[Vote] (Vote at Podcast Alley)

Tags: Capers in the Churchyard | animal rights | animal welfare

After many technical difficulties (including a recurring note from Blogger as I tried to post this that the blog was not found!), here is an all-too-brief podcast to follow up on the Sunday New York Times Magazine article by Michael Pollan, along with some related links.

The recording was actually made on my personal voice recorder, not a video recorder, as I said absent-mindedly since I also use a personal or digital video recorder to capture TV programs (far more often, which is why it dropped so naturally into the wording). I have been planning to do podcasts like this since my last one over two months ago, and it sounds like I'll need to back off the mic quite a bit. (Popping those Ps!)

Fortunately it's a short podcast, so hopefully this won't detract from your enjoyment too much. As much trouble as this was on a technical level (all 3 of the tech problems I encountered added up to over 2 hours of work to get just over 6 minutes of audio posted to the blog... insane), I'm not tempted to try this again too soon, but hopefully it won't be as much of a nightmare next time.

• NY Times Letters to the Editor


• The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollen (from which the article is drawn)


• Excerpt from The Omnivore's Dilemma at Michael Pollan's home page, including the intro and beginning of the first section

TRT = 6'17"
[iTMS] Subscribe
[MP3] 6.1 MB
[AAC] 3 MB
[Vote] Podcast Alley

Categories: hunting | omnivorous | carnist | vegan | vegetarian | food | diet

Wired News

Well, I can attest to this phenomenon!

I hope to do occasional one-off podcasts with my digital voice recorder at some point, but that's not much of a plan, I admit. I was taking up to 8 hours to put together one show, and it's not that it wasn't worth it. It's just that I have a limited amount of time to focus on my various priorities and, once I realized how much time I was sinking into the podcast, I realized that I needed to put that time into those other priorities. At least for now.

Interesting story for those who podcast, or those who are considering it.

Categories: podfading

It has been a podcast-free year so far here at An Animal-Friendly Life, but I was finally able to put together a show. Apologies right up front about how fast I talk in various portions of the episode. I knew I had a long show, and I guess it came out in rushing what I wanted to say sometimes. Hopefully you can keep up!

One quick addition to the show that came up as it was uploading: supposedly the Farm Sanctuary in California has made arrangements to take in Molly B., which conflicts with media reports that she is staying at the packing plant. The Farm Sanctuary news is through the grapevine, and I don't have confirmation yet, but when you get to that part of the podcast, please keep this in mind, especially if an announcement about this change in Molly B.'s status is made publicly in the next day or so.

BTW, a quick shout-out also to Bob Torres for the review at the iTunes Music Store. So, uh, where are the rest of you? Please visit the iTunes home page for AAFL and review the show.

Here are the show notes for the Animal-Friendly Podcast dated January 13th, 2006:

The Week"Year" In Review

The following AAFL entries are discussed in today's Review:

• Toxic pet food limited to eastern states


• Diamond Recalls Pet Food Because of Toxic Chemical


• Aggression in Dogs: An Ethical Dilemma - Armaiti May


• Proposed Dog Rule Misguided


• Faking it - Real fur or faux?


• Is it weird that I'm a bit terrified by this?


• Activists Making a Difference


• Whales: In Deep Trouble


• Harpooned whale's agonizing death in whale sanctuary


• Greenpeace fights sea battle with rival anti-whaling ship


• Pennsylvania egg farm cited for animal cruelty


• EU Considers Food Labels to Improve Animal Welfare - Sean


• Bovine fugitive becomes runaway favorite


• Where now, black cow?

Today's News

• Great Falls Tribune: Molly B. to stay


• contactmusic.com: Jagger's daughter taunts animal activists

Upcoming Events

• Let Live!: January 20, 2006, in Portland, OR.


• Humane Society of the United States: Party to help Farmed Animals February 26, 2006 (discovered this one after I recorded and output the podcast, as I was preparing the show notes)


• Genesis Awards: March 18, 2006 on Animal Planet.

Blogwatch (Other people's news & commentary)

• Vegan Freak Radio: Interview with Josh Harper (SHAC7)


• Erik's Diner: Interview with Erica Meier (COK)


• The Veg Blog: Wrestling with Cannibal Holocaust, and:


• My response: Animal-Friendly Filmmaking

Animal-Friendly Recipe o' the Week

• Animal-free recipes: Bowtie pasta with tempeh and pine nuts


• Native Foods: Rodeo Ranch Dressing (after The Mad Cowboy recipe).


• Recipe Library: "Accidentally vegan" naan

Mail Bag

Writer risks losing her veg credentials; film at 11 (Elisa's comment)