The beliefs of omnivores have been so carefully constructed that despite how obvious its flaws, we do not question them. In elementary school, you learn about the four required food groups. You learn that protein comes from the muscle tissue of animals, but for one reason or another, they don't mention broccoli, or bananas, or beans. We are taught not to inflict pain on other living creatures, and so we don't. We let anyone else do it for us. And so there is a disassociation between the product and the cruelty. A child that tortures a dog is sent to therapy, as would be a child that tortures a cow. But if we move that cow into a factory it becomes a product, and despite there being no difference in suffering, we do not question that this conflict arises. If we did, we might wonder why we value certain living animals more than others. We might see the extent of our selective compassion for life.
We are guided to believe that because we think, we are entitled to the planet and everything on it. We are not. Because we think, we experience more of the world around us, but it is not ours. We did not come to this world, we came from it.
All matter in existence is made up of the same atoms arranged differently. Some of those atoms form cells, and some cells form living creatures, and within those creatures, some cells form a complex system of nerves that feel a sensation known as pain. Human beings are not the only ones with this system. The pain we feel is exactly the same as the pain any living creature feels. It has been guided into our mentality that we do not acknowledge this, or that if we do, we are not affected by it. When a person consumes an animal, they know that it has died. They know this, but they do not understand it because they are detached from the physical act of killing. They do not hear the animal crying out as its life is taken for reasons beyond its comprehension. For reasons beyond our needs.
We claim ourselves civil but that does not explain the horror that we either perform or ignore when we consume animals. We claim ourselves rational, but that does not explain why we maintain a system that we cannot justify; not ethically, not economically, and not nutritionally. Man is the only animal on the planet that must cook muscle tissue in order to safely consume it, yet it is engrained into us to overlook this and insist that it is natural. It is not. The natural consumption of animals leaves our bodies weakened and sick. Early man did not hunt and cook animals because it wanted to. Preference was not the objective; it was to survive. And we are not early man. We have communities, and gardens, and technology. We have changed our habits but our objective is still the same. To survive.
To believe that animal consumption is necessary is to ignore all reasoning proving otherwise. To believe that our personal tastes justify the inconceivable pain inflicted on living animals is barbaric. To believe that animals give us their lives without resistance, without fighting with every last bit of strength they have, is naive. And to know all of this and not be affected by it is a tragedy.
Our detachment from the action of taking a life gives us complete ambivalence towards it. Animals that we consume were once breathing, just like us; they were feeling, just like us; and they bled, just like us. What separates us is the extent of our choices and to feel the sensation of joy or guilt that comes from those consequences.
The longer a person remains of a belief - no matter how questionable - the harder it is for them to analyze this belief objectively. I have found that nearly all omnivores are resistant to the information that I present in my arguments towards vegetarianism. It is important to understand where that resistance comes from. Carl Jung said that people will do anything but examine their self. If your mind is closed, then no matter how compelling the evidence is, you cannot evaluate it without bias. All communication is wasted. I do not blame anyone for their consumption of animals, but I do blame them if they have not questioned it. Anyone can question anything at any time; we are all entitled that freedom of thought. And if you have questioned it but not changed your mind, you have not considered it enough. You have heard a section of the orchestra but not the entire song. And the song is beautiful, the song is life.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Trivial and the Banal
An excerpt from the third chapter of I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges.
James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, spoke of the "old triumvirate of tyrants in the human soul, the libido sciendi, the libido sentiendi, and the libido dominandi" [The lust of the mind, the lust of the flesh and the lust for power]. Adams, who worked with the anti-Nazi church leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1935 and 1936 in Germany, warned us that these lusts are universal and intractable. They lurk beneath the surface of the most refined cultures and civilizations. "We may call these tendencies by any name we wish," he said, "but we do not escape their destructive influence by a conspiracy of silence concerning them."
The belief that science or religion can eradicate these lusts leads to the worship of human potential and human power. These lusts are woven into our genetic map. We can ameliorate them, but they are always with us; we will never ultimately defeat them. The attempt to deny the lusts within us empowers this triumvirate. They surface, unexamined and unheeded, to commit evil in the name of good. We are not saved by reason. We are not saved by religion. We are saved by turning away from projects that tempt us to become God, and by accepting our own contamination and the limitations of being human.
The belief in moral advancement implicitly calls on us to ignore the common good and place our faith in the empowerment of the state. It teaches that everything should be dedicated to private gain. The corporate state – the engine, we are assured, of our great moral progress - instructs us on how to view the world. Corporatism is about placing our faith in unchecked corporate advancement, as well as in the neutral disciplines of science and technology. The effect on the individual in the emergent corporate state is a kind of numbing acceptance of our political, economic and social disempowerment. We give over our rights as citizens because we are taught to believe these forces will lead us to utopia. There is, as John Ralston Saul wrote, a passivity and conformity "in those areas which matter and nonconformism in those which don't." We view the status quo as an unadulterated good. We are assured it is leading us to a wonderful and glorious future. We do not question. We are left to seek our individuality and our identity in the trivial and the banal.
James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, spoke of the "old triumvirate of tyrants in the human soul, the libido sciendi, the libido sentiendi, and the libido dominandi" [The lust of the mind, the lust of the flesh and the lust for power]. Adams, who worked with the anti-Nazi church leader Dietrich Bonhoeffer in 1935 and 1936 in Germany, warned us that these lusts are universal and intractable. They lurk beneath the surface of the most refined cultures and civilizations. "We may call these tendencies by any name we wish," he said, "but we do not escape their destructive influence by a conspiracy of silence concerning them."
The belief that science or religion can eradicate these lusts leads to the worship of human potential and human power. These lusts are woven into our genetic map. We can ameliorate them, but they are always with us; we will never ultimately defeat them. The attempt to deny the lusts within us empowers this triumvirate. They surface, unexamined and unheeded, to commit evil in the name of good. We are not saved by reason. We are not saved by religion. We are saved by turning away from projects that tempt us to become God, and by accepting our own contamination and the limitations of being human.
The belief in moral advancement implicitly calls on us to ignore the common good and place our faith in the empowerment of the state. It teaches that everything should be dedicated to private gain. The corporate state – the engine, we are assured, of our great moral progress - instructs us on how to view the world. Corporatism is about placing our faith in unchecked corporate advancement, as well as in the neutral disciplines of science and technology. The effect on the individual in the emergent corporate state is a kind of numbing acceptance of our political, economic and social disempowerment. We give over our rights as citizens because we are taught to believe these forces will lead us to utopia. There is, as John Ralston Saul wrote, a passivity and conformity "in those areas which matter and nonconformism in those which don't." We view the status quo as an unadulterated good. We are assured it is leading us to a wonderful and glorious future. We do not question. We are left to seek our individuality and our identity in the trivial and the banal.
Q: Worst President?
A friend of mine had the following thing on his profile:
Who do you think is the worst president of the past 3 decades?
Of the possible answers of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, he chose George W.
That's the stock answer that people give that makes them feel better. Bad things really happened under his lead, it's the most recent major tragedy so it sticks with us. So yes, he did a lot of bad things, but these were superficial and obvious.
I replied to his Posted Thing:
Michael Lagace at 12:44am July 5
Sure, but let's be real about it. Clinton set up the possibility for Bush Jr to fail. George went extreme, but as far as Democrats go, Billy wasn't a good one. He was just a little better than the Republicans. He started the insurance de-regulations. He was fiscally conservative, which is the problem that the U.S. faces now. So yeah, I'd give George W. Bush a failing grade, but Clinton would barely pass too. And what would I give Obama? Maybe a C, probably a C-. It's relatively early, but he hasn't executed at all since he took throne. Dude just talks tough. So did Dubya. A two-party system isn't a choice when they're both supported by the same corporate interests.
Who do you think is the worst president of the past 3 decades?
Of the possible answers of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, he chose George W.
That's the stock answer that people give that makes them feel better. Bad things really happened under his lead, it's the most recent major tragedy so it sticks with us. So yes, he did a lot of bad things, but these were superficial and obvious.
I replied to his Posted Thing:
Michael Lagace at 12:44am July 5
Sure, but let's be real about it. Clinton set up the possibility for Bush Jr to fail. George went extreme, but as far as Democrats go, Billy wasn't a good one. He was just a little better than the Republicans. He started the insurance de-regulations. He was fiscally conservative, which is the problem that the U.S. faces now. So yeah, I'd give George W. Bush a failing grade, but Clinton would barely pass too. And what would I give Obama? Maybe a C, probably a C-. It's relatively early, but he hasn't executed at all since he took throne. Dude just talks tough. So did Dubya. A two-party system isn't a choice when they're both supported by the same corporate interests.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Vegetarian Option
Any restaurant owner that doesn't have at least one vegetarian entrée on their menu does not know how to run a restaurant. It's happened three times in the past months that I've left a restaurant because of this. Three different salads just don't cut it; neither does having a main dish with a vegetarian option, which is basically leave out the meat and replace it with nothing. Vegetarianism isn't a passing fancy; it's a movement that is gaining popularity. And a business that doesn't take this into consideration is out of touch with reality.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Direct and Indirect Consequences
From thetrigger.net/2009/06/direct-and-indirect-consequences/
There are direct and indirect consequences to actions. One can perform a well-intentioned action and still have an indirect negative consequence, just as one can do something bad and indirectly do something good. We are not always, if ever, aware of indirect consequences because we are not actively looking for them; indeed, sometimes they can't be seen unless pointed out. At these times it is easy to deny that we had any part in an indirect negative consequence, especially when we had good intentions. However, the success of our action is not determined by our intention, it is determined by the sum of its consequences.
For example, when the United States initially invaded Iraq, if you discount the more plausible explanation of middle east oil control and take the official statement at face value, their intentions were good. Liberate a nation where, as far as the United States could see, the citizens were oppressed, and help set up a form of government that would benefit them. Although narcissistically flawed, this could still be seen as a noble action. But if we look at the indirect consequences, we see that the Iraq war was an immense failure based on American casualties, Iraqi casualties, and other criteria. Iraq is no more liberated now than it was before the invasion began.
Another example of this relates to money. It is abundantly clear that economy is the dominating force of the majority of the world, and it is the developed nations that control the base of this economic system. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are the three main controls over the global economy. Their actions and policies impact every nation in the world - again, either directly or indirectly - and as I stated before, they may not even be aware of the negative consequences to these actions. The IMF will frequently give loans to undeveloped nations in order to stimulate economic growth; however, these loans contain stipulations that leave the country in a worse condition than it was beforehand, like Thailand and Indonesia during the Asian Crisis of 1997.
Speaking in absolute generality, people want to be good. Our beliefs and actions are easily justified this way. Even those people that are fully aware they are doing something wrong do so because it makes them feel good. When we think along these lines, we ignore anything bad that might happen because of what we've done. This is why it's impossible to objectively evaluate the sum of our actions as good or bad. To be axiomatic, when you feed the wildlife, they forget how to forage; so, whereas it may make you feel good, you've done nothing of the sort. Keep that in mind the next time you're going to invade a country or extend a ridiculously inflated loan to an impoverished country.
There are direct and indirect consequences to actions. One can perform a well-intentioned action and still have an indirect negative consequence, just as one can do something bad and indirectly do something good. We are not always, if ever, aware of indirect consequences because we are not actively looking for them; indeed, sometimes they can't be seen unless pointed out. At these times it is easy to deny that we had any part in an indirect negative consequence, especially when we had good intentions. However, the success of our action is not determined by our intention, it is determined by the sum of its consequences.
For example, when the United States initially invaded Iraq, if you discount the more plausible explanation of middle east oil control and take the official statement at face value, their intentions were good. Liberate a nation where, as far as the United States could see, the citizens were oppressed, and help set up a form of government that would benefit them. Although narcissistically flawed, this could still be seen as a noble action. But if we look at the indirect consequences, we see that the Iraq war was an immense failure based on American casualties, Iraqi casualties, and other criteria. Iraq is no more liberated now than it was before the invasion began.
Another example of this relates to money. It is abundantly clear that economy is the dominating force of the majority of the world, and it is the developed nations that control the base of this economic system. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are the three main controls over the global economy. Their actions and policies impact every nation in the world - again, either directly or indirectly - and as I stated before, they may not even be aware of the negative consequences to these actions. The IMF will frequently give loans to undeveloped nations in order to stimulate economic growth; however, these loans contain stipulations that leave the country in a worse condition than it was beforehand, like Thailand and Indonesia during the Asian Crisis of 1997.
Speaking in absolute generality, people want to be good. Our beliefs and actions are easily justified this way. Even those people that are fully aware they are doing something wrong do so because it makes them feel good. When we think along these lines, we ignore anything bad that might happen because of what we've done. This is why it's impossible to objectively evaluate the sum of our actions as good or bad. To be axiomatic, when you feed the wildlife, they forget how to forage; so, whereas it may make you feel good, you've done nothing of the sort. Keep that in mind the next time you're going to invade a country or extend a ridiculously inflated loan to an impoverished country.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Effective Advocacy
From the liner notes of Propagandhi's Supporting Caste.
Effective Advocacy 101 by Jesus H. Chris
Everyone knows that the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people. This rule is especially important in terms of advocating on behalf of animals, mostly due to the fact that meat-eaters tend to cry and whine like a bunch of fuckin’ shitty babies when you pull down the diapers of their revolting lifestyle. Haha, just kidding. Calm down babies.
No, for example though, you wouldn’t want to use terms like “moronic”, “self-absorbed”, “chickenshit” or “disgusting slob” when describing self-professed “radicals” who insist on killing defenseless animals for food while a perfectly good supply of pimps, stockbrokers, crooked cops, politicians and Habs fans–among other sociopathic sources of protein–range freely throughout our communities on a daily basis. No, you wouldn’t want to say something like that. That would be considered counter-productive.
You also wouldn’t want to walk up and down the back lanes of your Kentucky Fried City slicing the throats of your neighbors’ pets only to dismiss the community’s subsequent outrage as “childish sentimentality”, “infantile anthropomorphism” or “cultural imperialism”. That would be considered anti-social.
And you really, really, really, reeeaaaallllly wouldn’t want to set fire to a slaughterhouse or a fur store or a whaling-vessel or an under-construction hog-barn because ... well, I can’t actually think of a good reason why you shouldn’t do that (besides life in prison). But you get the point. It’s all about effective advocacy.
So here I am! At your service! Ready and willing to ensure that people who already know better aren’t made to feel guilty about their stupid, selfish, unimaginably cruel choices! Besides, haven’t you heard? Vegetarians are classist! At least that’s what all the white college kids are saying when they fly home for Thanksgiving dinner! Haha, asswipes. You’ll be the first ones I eat when I finally snap, you fuckin posers. Whoops! Where was I? Oh yeah, effective advocacy...
But seriously folks, every social movement has its peanut gallery. In fact, I believe every serious social movement needs its peanut gallery, and when it comes to the movement against the egomaniacal cruelty humans perpetually visit upon animals, you can sign me up for season tickets and a very big fuckin’ bag of the blessed arachis hypogaea to go along with my top-hat and monocle.
And while it may be true that I take great pleasure in ridiculingmorons rad dudes who eat animal corpses and their reproductive secretions, it’s important for me to be clear that veganism isn’t about purity or superiority. It’s simply about extending moral consideration to other inhabitants of a complex planet in a morally-ambivalent universe where, despite the statistical improbability of it all, we earthlings (human and non-human) appear to be the only instance of sentient life that is or ever has been.
That’s some heavy shit.
And seriously, if we as a society can’t even bother to treat a simple, unassuming, stunningly gentle and demonstrably sentient creature like a cow or a deer with a modicum of decency, how the fuck do we ever expect to be able treat each other–infinitely more complex, wildly divergent and often exasperating individual human beings–with anything even remotely resembling civility? It just ain’t gonna happen.
So with that in mind, and in the spirit of the first rule of effective advocacy, I leave you with this short list of potentially transformative resources, created by better and more effective advocates for animals than myself. And see? I didn’t even have to insult you to make my point after all.Fuck are you ugly.
Read:
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat by Howard Lyman
Dominion : The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully
Watch:
Earthlings (AUTHOR'S ADVISORY NOTICE! EXTREMELY DISTURBING)
Listen:
compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm
veganfreakradio.com
Effective Advocacy 101 by Jesus H. Chris
Everyone knows that the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people. This rule is especially important in terms of advocating on behalf of animals, mostly due to the fact that meat-eaters tend to cry and whine like a bunch of fuckin’ shitty babies when you pull down the diapers of their revolting lifestyle. Haha, just kidding. Calm down babies.
No, for example though, you wouldn’t want to use terms like “moronic”, “self-absorbed”, “chickenshit” or “disgusting slob” when describing self-professed “radicals” who insist on killing defenseless animals for food while a perfectly good supply of pimps, stockbrokers, crooked cops, politicians and Habs fans–among other sociopathic sources of protein–range freely throughout our communities on a daily basis. No, you wouldn’t want to say something like that. That would be considered counter-productive.
You also wouldn’t want to walk up and down the back lanes of your Kentucky Fried City slicing the throats of your neighbors’ pets only to dismiss the community’s subsequent outrage as “childish sentimentality”, “infantile anthropomorphism” or “cultural imperialism”. That would be considered anti-social.
And you really, really, really, reeeaaaallllly wouldn’t want to set fire to a slaughterhouse or a fur store or a whaling-vessel or an under-construction hog-barn because ... well, I can’t actually think of a good reason why you shouldn’t do that (besides life in prison). But you get the point. It’s all about effective advocacy.
So here I am! At your service! Ready and willing to ensure that people who already know better aren’t made to feel guilty about their stupid, selfish, unimaginably cruel choices! Besides, haven’t you heard? Vegetarians are classist! At least that’s what all the white college kids are saying when they fly home for Thanksgiving dinner! Haha, asswipes. You’ll be the first ones I eat when I finally snap, you fuckin posers. Whoops! Where was I? Oh yeah, effective advocacy...
But seriously folks, every social movement has its peanut gallery. In fact, I believe every serious social movement needs its peanut gallery, and when it comes to the movement against the egomaniacal cruelty humans perpetually visit upon animals, you can sign me up for season tickets and a very big fuckin’ bag of the blessed arachis hypogaea to go along with my top-hat and monocle.
And while it may be true that I take great pleasure in ridiculing
That’s some heavy shit.
And seriously, if we as a society can’t even bother to treat a simple, unassuming, stunningly gentle and demonstrably sentient creature like a cow or a deer with a modicum of decency, how the fuck do we ever expect to be able treat each other–infinitely more complex, wildly divergent and often exasperating individual human beings–with anything even remotely resembling civility? It just ain’t gonna happen.
So with that in mind, and in the spirit of the first rule of effective advocacy, I leave you with this short list of potentially transformative resources, created by better and more effective advocates for animals than myself. And see? I didn’t even have to insult you to make my point after all.
Read:
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat by Howard Lyman
Dominion : The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully
Watch:
Earthlings (AUTHOR'S ADVISORY NOTICE! EXTREMELY DISTURBING)
Listen:
compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm
veganfreakradio.com
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Like Society
Have you noticed the word like making its irritating permanence in our vocabulary? It is almost completely synonymous with said. Everybody sounds like a valley girl when they talk. And this bugs the hell out of me.
Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.
In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.
This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.
Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.
In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.
This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
