Glf:So Much Depends
Contents
Introduction
Just a few words about myself:
I write for the web site justiceforanimals.org, and for the last few years have spent most of my time traveling the country,
participating in various forms of activism, actually most any form of activism that doesn’t involve yelling at people,
and I occasionally giving a talk on veganism and animal rights to any victim who will listen.
If you wish to contact me or follow me you can find me on Facebook or email me at greg.fuller@justiceforanimals.org
We’ll have a question and answer session at the end of this talk.
I’m going to talk about what’s happening today with veganism, and how our food choices impact the animals, the planet, and our health.
History
But first let’s go back a bit in history.
The word vegan was coined by Donald Watson and his wife Dorothy in 1944 in rural Leicester England, which is a few miles east Birmingham England.
Over time, the word vegetarian had morphed to include those who consumed eggs and dairy, so Watson felt a new word was needed.
They formed the word vegan by taking the first three and the last two letters of the word vegetarian.
Even though the word vegan didn’t appear until 1944, the ideas of compassion and justice behind the word, go way back.
So I’ll quickly go over just a few of the many historical figures who were, what we would today call vegan.
In Ancient Greece, Pythagoras (570 BCE–490 BCE) abstained from eating animals because he believed that we have a special kinship with them—not because of their intelligence, but because they feel pleasure and pain just like we do.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) loved animals, refused to eat them, and abhorred the idea of causing them pain or restricting their freedom.
In the open markets on the streets of Florence Italy, he would see birds for sale in cages and buy them just so he could set them free.
The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822), was called the first celebrity vegan by one biographer. I hope you’re not disappointed that it wasn’t Beyoncé, or Miley Cyrus.
Shelley expressed dismay that humans, who were otherwise capable of the greatest sympathy, could slaughter and eat animals. He also wrote a book about the health advantages of a vegan diet, long before Doctor Fuhrman.
Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) felt that hurting animals suppressed our spiritual capacity for sympathy toward, not just animals, but humans as well. I think he was right about that—just ask Ted Bundy.
George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950) said “animals are my friends…and I don’t eat my friends." (—A quote that will definitely get you kicked out of the 4-H club—)
Mahatma Gandhi, (1869–1948) as a young law student in London, made the spread of what would now be called veganism his stated mission, and he carried out the mission by writing essays and giving speeches on the topic.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Gandhi honed his activist’s skills on being a voice for animals and then he later then used those skills to change the course of human history.
In the 70’s and 80’s, two philosophers, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, coming at it from entirely different philosophical perspectives, each published a classic book on animal rights. These books informed and motivated a new generation of activists.
Regan said that “the philosophy of animal rights stands for peace, and against violence,” and embraces justice as its highest principle.
Philosophy
At the time I graduated, James Rachels was the chair of the philosophy department here.
For those of you who don't know, he was recognized nationally and internationally in philosophy circles.
He had written the most used, at the time, textbook on ethics.
Unfortunately, he died of cancer in 2003.
Dr. Rachels was an advocate for animals, and his works were often referenced by other animal rights philosophers.
He authored a book himself touching on the topic titled Created from Animals, the Moral Implications of Darwinism.
It's a fascinating book and a great read. I think it's out of print, but you can get a used copy on Amazon, it’s in the Stern library, or you can read it free online at jamesrachels.org.
I came across this delightful 70s looking picture of Rachels, presumably at an animal rights event, because in the picture was Peter Singer and Tom Regan, the two most influential animal rights philosophers of our time. Also in the picture were English philosopher Stephen RL Clark, and Henry Spira, an activist in the movement.
They were decked out in their 70s garb: Checkered coats, white belts, denim pantsuits, floral prints with matching ties, scruffy beards and mustaches. There they were arm in arm, Rachels in the middle with a big smile.
So, being curious about the picture, I contacted Peter Singer through his website, not expecting a reply.
But Singer did reply, and his reply was not at all terse.
He said the photo was taken at a conference on “Ethics and Animals" at Virginia Polytechnic in 1979.
He added that “Jim was a wonderful person, an excellent philosopher, and a great friend. “
He also shared an anecdote about Rachels:
Singer had published his first essay on animal liberation in the NY Review of Books in 1973. He said he got a few letters of encouragement, but only one from an academic philosopher—Rachels.
In his letter to Singer, Rachels said: "I've often thought about what exactly it is that justifies the differences in the way we treat humans and animals. After reading your essay, I have come to think that the proper answer is: Nothing." . Two years after that, in 1975, Singer's classic book, Animal Liberation was published.
SMILE
The book had a significant influence on moral and animal rights philosophy, and activism. And it moved the curve a little on how society as a whole thinks about animals.
In this book Singer pointed out that the roots of oppression are the same, whether it be oppression against blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, native populations, or animals.
In all these cases oppression is based on an arbitrary characteristic like race, gender, sexual identity, or species—characteristics that are morally irrelevant to the question at hand.
Popularized word speciesism, Richard Ryder.
He espoused a principle called equal consideration of interests.
For example, we have, as do animals, an interest in not suffering pain.
If Esther the wonder pig feels pain, and Paul Manafort the human feels less pain, and you have only one dose of pain medicine, you give it to the Esther.
You can decide for yourself who to medicate if the pain is equal.
The idea is that we shouldn’t give humans an advantage, because there is no reason to think that pigs don’t feel pain as intensely as humans.
We have the same interest as pigs as related to pain.
Even as a utilitarian, Singer believed that animals should have rights, but felt these rights arise from utilitarian considerations, not from a rights based or deontological framework.
His friend, Tom Regan, the deontologist squeezed between two utilitarians in the picture, would beg to differ.
(They’re getting along nicely; they’re afriends and this is one reason I like philosophers better than I like politicians)
Regan wrote the book, another class work in animal rights, The Case for Animal Rights, published in 1983.
He felt Singer’s utilitarianism didn’t recognize the inherent worth of an individual, and for animals, the inherent worth of an animal is independent of their usefulness to humans.
Animals, like humans have inherent value because they are "subjects of a life."
Which means that animals, to paraphrase Regan, "are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also [aware] of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them.”
Now that’s a very summarized and oversimplified overview of Regan and Singers ideas on animal rights.
Between these two approaches, the rights-based approach appeals to me more, but in a sense it doesn’t matter,
because I also believe that you could come at the problem of justice for animals from any direction and reach the same conclusion on a remedy for the lack of justice and fairness.
I'm sure that Singer would agree with Regan when he said, "there is an undeclared war being waged every day against countless millions of nonhuman animals."
To my way of thinking, though, neither of these approaches reflect why most people think that cruelty to animals is wrong: it’s wrong because it goes against the values of compassion and justice that members of a moral community should exhibit.
The case for veganism, the case for not exploiting animals is simple and, doesn’t require a framework, and I will touch on that later.
Resurgence of Interest
Which brings us to today, and the resurgence of interest in animal rights and veganism.
According to a high dollar market research firm (Global Data), between 2014 and 2017 the number of people in this country who identify as vegan increased 500%, and the momentum has continued since.
People are getting interested because of an increasing awareness of
what's happening to the animals,
the impact of animal agriculture on the environment,
and its link to poverty and impoverishment,
and for health reasons.
We’re going to take a brief look at all these issues.
I really like this quote by Dr. Dean Ornish. He said that, "So many things converge around the intersection of what we put in our mouths every day.”
Environment
One of those things that converge is the environment:
A United Nations study in 2006 said that livestock accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions,
but a study by World Watch Institute three years later said the U.N. report failed to consider some of the factors, and put the figure at 51%.
Even at the lower number, animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than all cars, trucks, trains, buses, airplanes, and ships combined—more than the entire transportation sector, which the EPA pegs at 14% globally.
You would think that might have some ramifications for personal action, and it does.
Researchers from the University of Chicago determined that you reduce your personal contribution to global warming more by changing to a vegan diet than you do by switching to a Prius, which apparently you would later donate to NPR anyway.
In 2017, over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued a "Warning to Humanity," promoting plant-based eating as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Just last year, the Oxford Study was published. It was called the most comprehensive analysis to date of its kind.
Joseph Poore, who led the research said "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth"—"It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”
(—Elon Musk was not amused.—)
Global warming is a serious problem, threatening all life on earth but it’s not the only environmental issue with animal agriculture.
It would be an understatement to say that meat-based diets are strongly implicated in water wastage and water pollution, ocean dead zones, fish depletion, species extinction, and deforestation.
I wish I had time to give over all these, but I’ll just barely expound on one. The World Bank concluded that animal agriculture is responsible for 90% of Amazon Rainforest destruction.
And rainforest destruction of just one of the ways animal ag contributes to species extension.[1] Scientists say we are in the 6th mass extinction, the last one being the age of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, and that we are losing dozens of species every day, and that, unlike extinctions in the past, current extinctions are caused almost entirely by human activities.
We are losing the rainforests, which are the lungs of our planet,
we are losing the diversity of life on our planet,
and we are losing the ability of our planet to sustain life,
To a large degree because of animal agriculture.
Hunger
World hunger is a related problem.
In developing countries, over 5 million children under the age of five die of starvation every year and another 800 million are unable to lead a normal life because of chronic hunger.
And yet, eighty percent of these starving children live in countries where food is grown for livestock that will then be shipped to and eaten in more affluent countries.
That seems criminal.
One study shows that by feeding the soy, vegetables and grains now grown for animals, by feeding them directly to people, we can feed an additional 3.5 billion people in the world,
and a separate study shows that we could feed an additional 400 million just in the United States.
Now, you may be wondering how this could be. Wouldn’t we have to grow crops for people anyway?
Well yes, but as it turns out, we would have to grow far fewer crops, because animals are so inefficient at turning their feed, which is crop-based, into meat, dairy, and eggs.
This is because most of the calories we feed an animals go toward daily energy for living, as well as creating tissue and body parts that we don't eat, such as bones. Very few of the calories go toward synthesizing the meat, eggs, and milk we do consume
One comprehensive analysis showed that it takes, on average, 24 calories of plant feed to produce just one calorie of food from animals.
Grazing
Some say that grazing, which doesn’t require as many cultivated crops, is the answer.
But studies show that grazing, even regenerative, rotational grazing, and so-called holistic land management techniques
actually harm the land,
don’t provide near enough land for current demands,
take up land that could be inhabited by wildlife,
and increase greenhouse gas emissions, all contrary to what its proponents claim.
Grazing is not the answer.
Health
Consensus
Running plant calories through animals rather than consuming them directly has consequences for health as well.
Leading medical organizations and dietetic associations have explicitly stated, that not only is eating a plant-based diet adequate, but it is also advantageous to good health.
Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Public Health, Kaiser Permanente and others are all on board.
These prominent organizations and others point out the ability of a plant-based diet to prevent, reverse, or lower your risk of
heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, cancer, hypertension, osteoporosis, and other diseases and conditions.
Cleveland Clinic says there are no disadvantages to a herbivorous diet;
Kaiser Permanente even advises their doctors to recommend a plant-based diet to their patients.
And it's not just the clinics, hospitals, and research organizations I just mentioned.
The real experts on human nutrition are the dietetic associations.
The U.S.-based Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the largest dietetic association in the world with over 100,000 credentialed professionals,
says that a vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, the elderly and for athletes. (2009, 2016)
The dietetic associations in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia have issued similar statements.
Whole Foods Plant Base Movement
You might have noticed is a world-wide plant-based health movement, which runs parallel to the animal rights movement.
In this country it’s led by people like:
Dr. Kim Williams, past president of the American College of Cardiology. Doctor Williams says that "there are two kinds of cardiologists—vegans and those who haven't read the data."
Some of you may be familiar with Dr. Michael Gregor who points to a large body of research showing that 14 of the 15 leading causes of death are linked to eating animal products.
There are lots of initiatives in the country like Plant Pure Nation, as documented by the movie of the same name.
They went into rural communities and fed volunteers vegan versions of the kinds of meals they would normally eat, like veggie burgers and vegan lasagna,
And after just two weeks, many saw their cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, blood sugar and other markers improve dramatically.
People were getting off of, or reducing their medications.
The independent lab tester said that in his 25 years of experience, he had never seen results like these.
This matches my own personal story, and It also matches stories I’ve heard from Birmingham Vegans, and stories I often hear as I travel around the country.
Costs
Think about not only the cost of suffering from these diseases, but the monetary costs to society and to individuals.
A study published by the National Academy of Sciences calculates an annual health-care savings of over $3,000 for each person on a plant-based diet in the United States.
Eating vegan, the food itself, is not more expensive - quite the contrary.
Mayo Clinic says that meatless meals are not only healthier, but they’re budget friendly and can be used to save money.
A study published in the Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition—apparently there’s a journal for everything—this study reaches the same conclusion.
This is consistent my own personal experience. I saved a ton of money when I went vegan.
Athletes
This plant-based and vegan movement is also reflected in a surge in the number of professional athletes who are vegan.
Endurance athletes like Ultra-marathoner Fiona Oakes, who holds 4 world records, and Scott Jurek, the most accomplished male ultra marathoner, are both vegan.
Vegans are taking podium positions in bicycle racing, track, soccer, surfing, and tennis.
A number of NBA and NFL players are vegan.
Body builders and weight lifters are in on this too.
Pat Baboumian, who holds the world deadlift record and has been called the strongest man in the world, says a vegan diet only made him stronger.
When someone asked him how he could be as strong as an ox without eating meat, he replied, "have you ever seen an ox eating meat?"
The only USA male weightlifter to qualify for the last Winter Olympics, Kendrick Ferris, is vegan,
Vegan bodybuilding is a thing now.
When you look at their interviews, these athletes say that eating vegan has resulted in more strength, better endurance, quicker recovery times, and fewer friends.
Veganism
But it's interesting that many of the athletes going vegan were motivated out of a concern for animals…
and that's only appropriate, according to the most commonly used definition of veganism.
Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals, for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
The “possible and practicable" part is telling. Animal ingredients are near ubiquitous—they are sometimes found in car tires, plastic bags, and other products you might not expect.
There’s even a joke about this, “How many vegans does it take to change a light bulb? Two, one to change it and one to check for animal ingredients.”
Because animal products are in unsuspected places, vegans cannot be perfect. But just because we can’t do everything does not mean that we shouldn't do what we can do.
The case for veganism is simple: it's wrong to unnecessarily harm animals. We all agree on this.
Vegan values are everyone’s values.
But we may disagree on what exactly is necessary and what exactly we consider harm.
I’ve already covered necessity as it relates to food. There is a scientific consensus that there are no animal ingredients we need for nutrition and good health, not a single one.
Animals
Harms
As far as harm, we harm animals by the way we treat them when they are alive, and we harm them by depriving them of a life.
Animals used for meat are slaughtered after living less than 10% of their natural lifespan, and those used for milk and eggs are slaughtered after living less than one fourth of their lifespan.
But many feel that we are not harming animals when we use them for food as long as we treat them well while they are living.
The justification given for this view is that animals don't have a sense of the future, and thus don’t have an interest in continuing to live.
However, current research in cognitive ethology and neurobiology says otherwise.
Humane
But if one holds this belief, in spite of the science, and wants to live by their own values, they might, with good intentions, decide to buy only products from animals that have some sort of humane label or certification.
So we go to the grocery store and buy some
free range chicken breasts,
some cage-free eggs,
some Whole Foods Global Animal Partnership, that’s GAP, G-A-P, GAP certified hamburger meat,
and some milk with a certified humanly raised sticker on the carton.
We feel we’ve done the right thing, and all is well.
But let’s take a closer look.
Consumer Reports says that the free range label is misleading. The free-range space itself may be nothing more than an enclosed concrete slab that the chickens never use. They also advise you ignore cage-free claims.
Because of loopholes in the USDA definitions, most cage free and free range birds live in crowded chicken houses, the same as those without such a label.
They lack the room to engage in their natural behaviors of preening, nesting, foraging, dust bathing, and perching.
And the ammonia-laden air in these buildings is often so noxious that humans dare not enter without a gas mask;
consequently, the birds commonly suffer respiratory disorders, severe flesh and eye burns, and sometimes blindness.
How about hamburger meat with the Whole Foods GAP certification?
The Open Philanthropy Project criticized GAP for having weak enforcement and for providing only slight improvements over standard factory farming conditions.
And the Certified Humane milk?
Consumer Reports says that “we do not rate Certified Humane as a highly meaningful label for animal welfare”.
It’s the same for other labels and certifications.
Standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.
Humane labels and certifications are, for the most part, marketing ploys.
They are designed to assuage our guilt, and they can engender higher profits, because the industry knows that concerned, kindhearted consumers are willing to pay more for products they perceive to be humanely produced.
Chickens
But what about birds that really are free range?
They represent only a small fraction of chicken products that are labeled free range, which in turn represent only a small fraction of total chicken products. That’s a lot of leading zeros after the decimal point.
While they may actually be free range, there are other systemic cruelties, shared with warehoused birds, just as bad or worse than being confined.
for example, in laying hen hatcheries that supply chickens to producers, even free range and cage-free producers, the male chicks are useless because they are bred specifically for eggs, so the newly-hatched male chicks are thrown down a chute to spinning blades that grind them up alive. Millions a year.
Laying hens are bred to lay not only larger eggs, which strain their orifice, but 30 times more eggs than the jungle fowl from which they are mutated.
This burdens them with high rates of osteoporosis, bone breakage, and uterus prolapse.
Chickens bred for meat don't have it any better. They have been bred to grow at an unnaturally fast rate and have breasts three times as large as their forebears.
As you can easily imagine, This leads to high rates of leg and skeletal disorders, degenerative diseases; as well as heart, lung and respiratory problems.
Chickens deserve better. A prominent neurobiologist—she’s probably the worlds leading animal neurobiologist—Leslie J Rogers, says “birds have cognitive capacities equivalent to those of mammals, even primates.”
And by the way, numerous studies show that fish feel pain and have mental powers that can exceed those of some mammals.
Now, I’m not suggesting that we base our degree of moral consideration on cognitive abilities, but most of us, I think, are unaware of the rich mental and emotional lives of chickens and fish.
On the positive side, many are aware that pigs outperform 3-year-olds on cognition tests. But they’re still not allowed in pre-school.
Back on topic.
Cows
What about dairy cows?
Very early in her life a dairy cow will be dehorned—yes both female and male bovines do have horns and both are dehorned.
The dehorning is done by gouging the horns out with a sharp blade, —picture that in your mind—or burning them off with a torch, another troubling image.
These procedures are excruciatingly painful and almost always done without pain medication.
Cows must be pregnant to produce milk. They are forcefully impregnated through artificial insemination, which involves an entire human arm stuck up her anus to guide the semen injection gun which has been inserted into her vulva. Not a pretty picture.
It's not like bulls are on vacation either. To artificially inseminate a cow, semen must be collected.
This involves a teaser-bull, usually a male, and an involuntary donor bull, so we have two males, and the only thing female in the picture is female pheromones that are released to get the donor bull aroused.
In the process, the teaser bull often, to put it mildly, suffers tissue damage, as semen is collected in what the industry has the audacity to call a loving cup.
I will leave the details of that procedure to your imagination.
Back to the cow. She gets pregnant, and like humans, 9 months later, her calf is born.
Cows are very maternal; they love their young. There is no reason to think they don’t love their babies as much as our mothers love us.
But their calves are taken away, separated from their mothers soon after birth. The mothers have been known to grieve and bellow for weeks after.
And the baby calves? They will never know the love and nourishment of their own mothers. The common practice is that they will be isolated and fed a sugary solution instead of their mothers milk, so we can take their milk.
But If they are male, because they have been bred for milk not meat, they will be slaughtered as waste and thrown in the trash shortly after they are born, or they’ll be raised as veal.
Veal—where calves are constrained and intentionally deprived of nutrients to yield a more desirable quality of flesh.
Veal is a product of the dairy industry.
If the calf is female, she will enter the same life of servitude as her mother.
Dairy cows are made to stand for hours a day with machines attached to their udders. Their udders become painfully irritated and often become infected and inflamed, a condition called mastitis, which calls for antibiotics.
As an aside, 80% of antibiotics used in this country are used on farmed animals. They get passed on to humans, causing antibiotic resistance, yet another serious problem with animal agriculture.
The mother cow’s agony is repeated for 4 or 5 years, 4 or 5 cycles of insemination, pregnancy, birth, separation from their babies, and daily mechanical milking.
After that her reproductive system is used up and she is no longer profitable,
so she is slaughtered, sometimes for hamburger meat. sometimes to be discarded as waste.
But when we go to the grocery store, we see the picture of a happy cow on the carton of milk or the package of cheese.
But you know, also in the grocery store is almond milk, soy milk, rice milk, flax milk, macadamia nut milk, and a variety of vegan cheeses, which are improving in flavor and texture all the time.
Animals Endure
This is what these animals endure. You can see it for yourself in industry-produced training videos, and in undercover investigation videos,
and you can read about it in interviews with former and current farm workers.
Slaughterhouses
And I haven't even covered what happens in slaughterhouses.
Numerous firsthand accounts, some from USDA inspectors who have been fired for talking,
show that the increased production line speeds compel workers to move animals toward their death rapidly by any means necessary.
They are rushed through the killing line and often still alive, twitching and writhing, when they are hung up on hooks to be cut open, bled out and skinned.
A slaughterhouse is truly a house of horrors. There is a reason that visitors are not allowed inside their bloody walls.
Harms are Systemic
There is no plausible deniability that these abuses happen, and they are, either standard practice or not unusual, and that they happen in certified humane facilities.
Without the systemic cruelty, driven by pressures of production and profit, meat, dairy, and eggs would be so expensive that only the most affluent could afford them, even with government subsidies. And you would still have to deprive them of their lives.
Catalog of Abuses
The catalog of abuses is long and draconian.
Horrid Living Conditions: Confinement, Crowding, Fecal Filth —having to stand in their own excrement.
Painful Mutilations: Dehorning, Debeaking, Tail Docking, Castration—all without pain relief.
Denial of Natural Behaviors: Courtship, Sex, Roosting, Rooting, foraging, preening.
Debilitating Breeding: Larger Breasts, More flesh, More Milk, More eggs, Bigger Eggs.
Reproductive Violations: Semen collection, Insemination, Separation of Offspring from their mother and from their family and from their communities.
Cruel Handling: Beating, Prodding, Transport in the heat without water or the cold without cover, Maceration—being ground up alive.
Disease and Mental Health
It's no wonder farmed animals suffer high disease and mortality rates, almost always without veterinary care.
And you can imagine what all these physical abuses do to their mental health, causing trauma, anxiety, and depression.
Buy in: Labels
So even if you buy into the idea that it’s OK to eat animal products as long as the animals are treated well, there is virtually no chance that the animals have, in fact, been treated well, regardless of what label is on the package.
While certain labels may represent less suffering for some of the abuses, other abuses remain. The mitigation of some of the cruelties does not justify the remaining ones.
Closing
The life of any farmed animal can only be described as one of commodified, abusive servitude ending in brutal slaughter.
When viewed objectively, free from the fog of our cultural norms, their treatment and slaughter, by any standard of fairness and justice — cannot be considered humane.
In all the ways that matter ethically, a dog is a cat is a cow is a pig is a chicken is a fish.
The animals we treat as mere commodities then slaughter for food are no less deserving of their lives than wild animals or those we keep as pets.
They have desires, preferences and emotions, just like us.
They have a sense of themselves, a sense of the future, and a will to live, just like us.
The have families, communities, and a social structure, just like us.
They feel pain, just like we do.
They are each individuals; they are somebodies not some things, and what happens to them matters to them.
They are here, sharing this beautiful little planet WITH us, not for us, and deserve to be treated with respect.
Not as property.
Not as living factories to convert feed into flesh.
Not as the raw material for maximum profits.
Not as carcasses to be consumed for pleasures of the palate.
The over 100 billion land animals and even more fish that are slaughtered every year have done nothing to deserve having their throats slit, then being hung up, bled out, passed around on conveyor belts, chopped into pieces, and wrapped in cellophane, just because we like the way they taste.
For us it’s a meal enjoyed then soon forgotten: for them it’s their very lives.
This cruelty will end only when we change our personal choices. There is power in the purse.
As we stop buying products made from animals for food and other uses, they will stop being bred, abused, and slaughtered for food and other uses.
So, finally, to sum it up,
if you believe animals are worthy of moral consideration,
if you wish to widen your circle of compassion and justice,
if you think it's good to be a voice for those least able to advocate for themselves…
consider making a change—connect to the best part of who you are.
I don’t think there’s any personal action you could take that would have such positive consequences on so many fronts, to the benefit of both humans and animals, than going vegan and leaving animal products off your plate.
Being vegan will prevent the suffering of many innocent lives who would otherwise be born or hatched into a system of brutality,
and being vegan will give you the peace of mind that comes with knowing you’re no longer contributing to the suffering that is a consequence of buying products made with violence.
In addition, as I have covered, the benefits to humans are substantial. The science is clear that it will lower your risk of chronic disease, diminish your footprint on the planet, and promote a more efficient food system better capable of feeding the world’s starving, hungry and impoverished.
Henry David Thoreau said he had no doubt that it’s the “destiny of the human race … to leave off eating animals.” I believe Thoreau was right about our future, and I believe this is our opportunity to be on the right side of history before it becomes the norm.
Imagine a future where all sentient beings are are spared the suffering they must now endure at human hands,
Imagine a future where we can feed every child on our planet without destroying the planet.
Imagine a future of better health and vitality for everyone.
This is our future, but only if we make it happen.
As Einstein said, “Those who have the privilege to know have the duty to act.”
Thank you for listening.
- ↑ “Evidence of Species Loss in Amazon Caused by Deforestation.” ScienceDaily. Accessed June 8, 2017. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150824064927.htm.
