After a recent trip away I have decided that there is definitely a market for a vegan tour company in this farm obsessed nation of ours. Twice we ate out and were very clear about our dietary needs, and twice we were served animal products - paneer (Indian cottage cheese) in the local Indian place the first night, and a very fishy tasting stir fry for lunch the next day (they repeatedly assured us no shrimp paste, no oyster sauce, but honestly, it tasted like sea shells). However, as we wandered around the small, south island town we were quite astonished at the number of places selling gluten free wares. There were signs everywhere declaring the gluten free nature of their meals and baked goods.
I understan that gluten intolerance is an allergy, not a diet engaged in by choice (though I'm sure at least some people are jumping on the dietary bandwagon) but it seems to me terribly unbalanced that so many places will cater to the GF diet and at the same time look at you like you're from another planet if you request something vegan. (Or vaygun, as they pronounce it)
And on the surface of it, I would argue that veganism as a concept is far easier to understand than gluten free. I first heard of veganism when I was ten years old, and though I didn't agree with the idea till 12 years later (no ice cream?! Um, I don't think so!) I did at least understand what it meant. How hard is it to know which products came from animals and which do not? At the Indian place the waiter found it necessary to confirm whether or not we could eat both coconut milk (comes from coconuts!) and canola oil (comes from seeds!) but yet he saw fit to bring us fucking cheese in a meal he had confirmed mere minutes before could (and presumably would) be made without dairy.
Gluten free as a concept is actually quite confusing. Gluten an invisible ingredient is found in most types of flour (including, contrary to popular belief, spelt and amaranth and other fucked up hippy flour. Putting that shit in your "gluten free" baking is like serving yoghurt to a lactose intolerant person, it might be less problematic but it is kind of missing the point). Gluten is not found in corn, rice, or potatoes, so there are still plenty of things you can eat, but some products which have never contained gluten, such as corn chips are curiously labelled "gluten free!!!" as the diet becomes more mainstream. The jury is out on whether or not oats contain gluten, so even the experts can't agree on some aspects of the gluten free diet.
In contrast, the vegan diet is fairly black and white, No Animal Products. Some vegans might disagree about things like honey, or additives such as shellac, but for the most part it is reasonably straightforward. I have had people make bizarre kinds of rules to help them understand, like: "Oh, right you don't eat anything with a face" and that shit is just confusing. What the hell does a face have to do with it? I don't eat shellfish either and they don't have a face. I have also had people think that although I can't eat cows milk, I can eat for example feta, because it comes from goats (?!). Those people are probably just talking before they think, but it makes me want to hit my head against a wall. I don't eat ANIMALS or the stuff that comes out of them. I'm pretty sure the main differences between plants and animals were explained during primary school science. Were you away that day or something?
According to Wikipedia (a totally credible source as we all know, but bear with me) about 1% of the population suffer from clinical Coeliac disease with an additional .1% suffering from another major gluten intolerant condition known as dermatitis herpetiformis. Though I am sure that there are a number of other people that have had medical advice to eat a gluten free diet to treat other or related problems, I suspect that some are self diagnosed, trying it out or following the diet as some kind of fad. I am not sure of the statistics of the number of vegans in NZ, but in the United States, 1% of the population are thought to be vegan, and in the UK, 2%.
I am not disrespecting those people who choose to live a gluten free lifestyle (and certainly not those who absolutely MUST eat a gluten free diet or have been told to by a medical professional) I just find it odd that a dietary requirement that is confusing in it's rules and affects a little over 1% of the population is so readily catered for, when the vegan diet, which probably affects a similar number of people, and is reasonably straightforward in its execution, is virtually unheard of and poorly understood outside of the major towns and cities of New Zealand.
Additionally, and this might chap the assess of GF people too, I am sick of both diets being meshed together in some kind of confusing compromise that benefits neither party, though is possibly ideal for a (presumably even smaller) number of people affected by multiple allergies. I am sick of my vegan cookies being gluten free and GF people are probably sick of their cookies being vegan. I'm sorry but your fucking bread tastes terrible and dry and it crumbles all wrong, and to vegans, bread is pretty important and can usually be relied on to be animal product free. Yet I am served weird "bread" made out of rice when I eat in cafes, because the foodie types want to put milk in their bread and just make a catch all "alternative diet" bread to shut other people up. Once, on an 23 hour flight from Australia to Austria, my partner and I, at the time vegetarians, were served a meal that was at once vegetarian,vegan, gluten free and raw, and as such was exclusively comprised of vegetable sticks. We were fed this "meal" four times, and had to chase the bread basket around the plane, trying to get more than our fair share of croissants to compensate. This is just so the airline could make one meal for all those groups, catering to all and none at the same time. I could probably write a similar blog entry about raw diets too, as I feel that these also further dilute public comprehension of veganism, but I will leave that for another time.
So although the market for it might be small, I think that a vegan tour company would be really nice for those people that need it. Repeatedly explaining your dietary requirements is really tiresome when you came to relax, and nothing can ruin a holiday quite like being fed stuff you don't eat. Whether you're allergic to it or not.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Man bites Dog. Oh wait. I mean the other one.
There hasn't been an emotional, irrational "dogs hate kids" story in the news for a while so the herald this morning came out with this. As an ex journalism student and an ex dog control officer, the way this story is written really chaps my ass. First of all, a non-factual and totally irrelevant assessment of the dogs breed is made, as usual, in the form of the line "believed to be a pit bull". From a journalistic perspective, this completely lacks credibility. WHO thought it was a pit bull? The little girl? Her parents? The owner? The dog control officer? The police? This is about as credible as the much touted "according to a source" cliché. Additionally, it is also pretty irrelevant in terms of giving any weight to the story. I mean you didn't point out the supposed breeding of the family involved, though it might actually be a bit more informative (in terms of assessing which sectors of the community need education and assistance in dealing with their dogs). But you don't do it, because it may have been racist, non-factual and totally inappropriate to do so.
Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).
And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.
It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past.
I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.
The problem here, as usual is a human one.
Secondly, this story groups together several, unrelated incidences in order to make it appear as if there is some kind of dog attack epidemic going on. Like the dogs were in on it together. But, as the commentary from one Rodney Hide makes clear, this is just another emotive pre-election issue. (I wish they had made HIM go on "Make the politician Work" at the SPCA).
And as usual, the father of Carolina Anderson, a girl mauled by a dog in a park (a dog which, by the way, was NOT a pit bull, or any breed on the "dangerous dogs" list, but a Staffordshire Bull Terrier) is called in for comment. I'm sorry, but just cus some guy's kid got severely injured by a single dog almost a decade ago does NOT make him some kind of go-to expert on the subject. In fact, this article makes him appear quite ignorant. His comment: "If it's not the animal, why don't we have tigers and lions as pets?" shows complete lack of understanding for the process of domestication that has occurred over the past 14,000 years in our interactions with dogs. Even after successive generations of captive breeding, no one could ever suggest that lions and tigers have been domesticated. They are fucking wild animals. The fact you don't even understand the difference suggests you are not the man to ask about this. There are so many behaviourists and scientists and academics whose opinion the Herald could ask, but instead they choose a man whose interests in the subject are completely based in emotion having had ONE bad experience with ONE dog.
It is clear that this man was unsuccessful in protecting his daughter from a dog, and he expects the law to do it. If there is reform, I am sure that banning breeds is not the way to fix the problem. (The number of German Shepherds involved in dog attacks and bites worldwide confirms this). The best thing we could do, to prevent dog bites is make it a legal requirement that dog free access be granted to the front door of every home. That alone would have a great impact on the safety of people who have to go door to door to do their job. I also believe a dog is more relaxed and happy when they are not given the job of defending the territory from every single person/dog who walks past.
I'm not sure what we can do about the number of people who are attacked in their own home, or the kids who get hurt. But as I've mentioned, I'm a bit of a libertarian and a fan of individual responsibility. Was anyone watching the kid and dog interact? Who are these parents/caregivers letting their kid, TWO and FOUR years old for fucks sake - interact closely with a pit bull terrier?! A dog bred for fighting and much maligned (fairly or not) by the media. How could they be so relaxed about that? And further more, how could the owners be cool with it? Like, I know my dogs are fine with kids, but I would certainly not be comfortable with a two or four year old in their face.
The problem here, as usual is a human one.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Vegan and Child Free
Just this weekend I met my latest nephew. He was a pretty relaxed little dude, he didn't cry, and he didn't smell, so we were cool. My brother in law says to my partner, "well, there's no squealing about how cute he is, so you're probably safe."
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
And he's right. But my ambivalent feelings towards the issue of child rearing are turning into more staunch ones thanks to the number of people who are suggesting I should/will have babies, which fucking annoys me. Polly Vernon is right, it is downright patronizing when people say "you'll change your mind".
I had a lecturer tell me I'd change my mind the other day. And he of all people should be the last to suggest that the intelligent, idealistic decision-making part of my brain will be trumped by some ridiculous, biological desire to pop out a few sprogs.
My sister-in-law posted on my facebook "what's wrong with babies?" after some thoughtless comment I made, and I answered with "the birthing process, for a start" but I could have gone on and on. I try to refrain from going too ranty on this subject, because Murphy's Law dictates I'll get knocked up and have to retract my ramblings.
But to support my strengthening anti-baby stance (anti-myself-having-babies that is, I couldn't give a fuck if you do it) I have been reading up on the subject on the internet at large, and found some wonderful points written by some forward thinking and clear headed women. Because the decision not to have children doesn't come from an emotional position, it comes from a rational one.
A very interesting piece described a vegan woman who decided never to have kids because of the ecological impact, echoing Doug Stanhope's insightful "Don't Fuck in the Front Hole" rant on YouTube. And as a vegan, this reason has definitely crossed my mind. Even beyond the content of the anti-vegan lecture I revived from a masseuse telling me "It's really important to eat right, especially if you're thinking of having kids." Not that I am, but thanks for the advice Ms. Nutritionist - no, wait, you're a masseur so why don't you SHUT THE HELL UP?!
Kids take up resources, and they might choose not to be vegan when they grow up, move out of home and do some procreation of their own. However, veganism in itself is not a reason for remaining childless as demonstrated by the Vegansaurus Happy Vege Kids Series - known to speed up the slow/non existent biological clocks of a generation of vegans.
In addition,and this comes from the position of a staunch animal rescue advocate, adoption is a far better alternative, morally. These kids already exist, on a planet overrun with human beings, and it makes sense to take these ones in (and make them vegan :P) rather than create more. Adopt, don't breed! Also, spay your kids.
Then there are the other lifestyle factors: Kids cost money. Fuckloads of it. And I don't think I'll ever make enough to feel like I ought to squander it on a tiny, loud human being. And time, I like my time. And sleep. Oh and I like to travel, and drink, and study and live in a squalid mess at times. Yeah, I'm selfish like that.
My grandmother describes my one childless aunt as "selfish" and said therefore she would have made a terrible mother. Not to suggest that I think my aunt is selfish, (I think a better word would be "sensible") but I feel, as an evolutionist, that the opposite would in fact be the case. Selfish animals make excellent mothers - always looking out for their own (genetic) interests, which off course, includes the interests of their beloved offspring! And fuck the rest of the world. Gwyneth Lewis's description of the four wheel drive as a "symbol of the desire to protect my family at the cost of everybody else" is the perfect example of this. I'm not sure if the cost to everyone else is that of physical endangerment due to the number of accidents involving four wheel drives, or the carbon footprint impact, but the symbol holds either way.
Again, to paraphrase Polly Vernon, what exactly is 'selfless' about having a child? I really can't stand the whole martyrdom of motherhood - like you're doing the world a favour by spreading your genes? Get over yourself. Similarly, I feel those "your mother gave you LIFE" sentiments a bit vomitous. Ah, she didn't do it FOR you, she either did it because she WANTED to, or you were an accident. And even if you were an accident there's a chance you were wanted to some extent, because babies on the whole, are actually quite avoidable in this day and age.
So to conclude, there a number of green/vegan/evolution/animal rescue based reasons why remaining child free is a valid choice. You can see I am a post grad student just by the number of references I have included here, please take the time to read them, even if you disagree with my thoughts. It might just stop you being the person who asks why a person is child free by choice, when the question should actually be, "why not?"
I'm childless so your kids will have enough food to eat, and clean air to breathe. That's why.
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Vegan Imperialism
I read today on this Food Politics blog about New York thinking of introducing a law forbidding people from buying "soda" with their food stamps. My first reaction to this is: sucks for the poor people! They have so few luxuries in life, and now you want to take away their sugar water too? In the end, you have to accept that people are adults and have the right to eat and drink whatever they choose - even if the money was given to them by the government. Plenty of "if you want soda you can pay for it with your own money" is coming out of this debate. I take exception to people self righteously complaining about "their" taxes paying for people on the benefit. We all pay tax for things we don't agree with and social welfare is just one small piece of the equation. Taxes also pay for defence, even though some of the population don't support war, and just the other day our government voted on this $850,000 injection for the red meat industry. People with no kids still pay for education and people who don't drive still pay for roads. So there is no point in whining about it, we just have to accept that as a society we have some socialist policies and we support each other through taxes. We have to live and let live, it is totally condescending to tell people what they can and cannot buy to eat. And at the end of the day, I don't give a shit. If they get diabetes, if they give their kids diabetes, that's none of my damn business. Even if I have to subsidise their healthcare with my taxes. I am a libertarian in that sense.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
The only exception to this rule - my ethics in reference to veganism. I suppose, as a vegan, I am telling people what is best for them and for the animals. But the key difference is this - I don't actually tell people they shouldn't eat meat, dairy or eggs, I just raise the point with them that it is in fact a choice. Just like choosing to farm animals is a choice. Nobody made you. So many people assume that the omnivorous diet is the only option, for nutrition, convenience and societal reasons, and that just isn't the case. Some of the arguments for eating meat are just so inherently weak, so it is important to make people consider that the real reasons they eat meat are: they like the taste, they don't know what else to eat, or they just haven't thought about it. Not that they will die without it. Not that they can't afford the alternatives.
Friday, 29 April 2011
Human Privilege Checklist
Boganette pointed me to this Adult Privilege Checklist and it got me thinking about "personhood" and how a list for Human Privileges might also be in order. Similar to the children's checklist is might be easier to write it from the perspective of the animal, rather than the human privilege haver, because whilst most human beings do not have their children forcibly removed from them, and most human beings are not held in captivity, some of them (usually the naughty ones) are. Needless to say this applies to animals managed and owned by human beings, NOT to wild ones. Here goes, in no particular order, my attempt:
1. I am forced to reproduce for the monetary gain of others
2. My children are forcibly removed from me
3. When I go missing there is no state of emergency called and no search and rescue teams sent to find me
4.When I am hurt or injured, I may remain that way for extended periods or have my life ended as a means of mitigating my suffering
5. My life can legally be deprived from me.
6. I can be owned by another person, and legally am their property
7. I can be confined at length or for my entire life, in conditions that do not suit me
8. I cannot access food or water without a human providing it for me
9. I cannot access medical treatment without the assistance of a human being
10. I cannot express my pain, anguish, and distress in ways that are clear to other beings.
11. I cannot vote, even though the government makes decisions that affect me and other beings like me
12. I can be physically assaulted in a number of ways without the law becoming involved. If the law is involved the likelihood of a fine or jail time for my abuser is unlikely.
13. I am likely to be smaller than my abuser and if I do retaliate I am likely to be killed.
14. If a human being enters my territory and I defend it against them I am liable to be destroyed.
15. If I wander into another animal's property and am killed by that animal, they or their owner are not responsible for my death
16. I am often yelled at and/or punished for behaving in a way that is normal for my species.
17. People feel it is their right to touch or interact with me and if I react inappropriately I will be punished or put to death
18. I am not given a choice about my living conditions, my food type or amount, or my level of interaction with people or other animals.
19. I am not allowed to perform sexual behaviour that is normal for me and I may well be deprived of the ability to reproduce by being surgically altered.
20. I am not able to own any belongings.
20 seems a good amount. Please note that I do not really believe that giving animals personhood is a practical idea, or even good idea in theory. Much the same way that I think that children need to be guided in a world that wasn't made for them, animals have the same need, as they probably would infringe the rights of others if they did everything that felt right to them. However I do think that animals should have certain rights, e.g. the right to bodily integrity and to perform behaviours that are normal for them, and harmless to others. And just to reiterate, I do believe spaying and neutering is essential to reducing the unwanted animal population, and I don't know of any animal rights activists that would disagree with me.
1. I am forced to reproduce for the monetary gain of others
2. My children are forcibly removed from me
3. When I go missing there is no state of emergency called and no search and rescue teams sent to find me
4.When I am hurt or injured, I may remain that way for extended periods or have my life ended as a means of mitigating my suffering
5. My life can legally be deprived from me.
6. I can be owned by another person, and legally am their property
7. I can be confined at length or for my entire life, in conditions that do not suit me
8. I cannot access food or water without a human providing it for me
9. I cannot access medical treatment without the assistance of a human being
10. I cannot express my pain, anguish, and distress in ways that are clear to other beings.
11. I cannot vote, even though the government makes decisions that affect me and other beings like me
12. I can be physically assaulted in a number of ways without the law becoming involved. If the law is involved the likelihood of a fine or jail time for my abuser is unlikely.
13. I am likely to be smaller than my abuser and if I do retaliate I am likely to be killed.
14. If a human being enters my territory and I defend it against them I am liable to be destroyed.
15. If I wander into another animal's property and am killed by that animal, they or their owner are not responsible for my death
16. I am often yelled at and/or punished for behaving in a way that is normal for my species.
17. People feel it is their right to touch or interact with me and if I react inappropriately I will be punished or put to death
18. I am not given a choice about my living conditions, my food type or amount, or my level of interaction with people or other animals.
19. I am not allowed to perform sexual behaviour that is normal for me and I may well be deprived of the ability to reproduce by being surgically altered.
20. I am not able to own any belongings.
20 seems a good amount. Please note that I do not really believe that giving animals personhood is a practical idea, or even good idea in theory. Much the same way that I think that children need to be guided in a world that wasn't made for them, animals have the same need, as they probably would infringe the rights of others if they did everything that felt right to them. However I do think that animals should have certain rights, e.g. the right to bodily integrity and to perform behaviours that are normal for them, and harmless to others. And just to reiterate, I do believe spaying and neutering is essential to reducing the unwanted animal population, and I don't know of any animal rights activists that would disagree with me.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Shit, I hope I'm not becoming conservative in my old age.
Now as you can probably tell from my last post, I've never been a really militant sort of vegan, though I have always probably more sympathetic to the ALF than their targets. But in the last two months I have visited two animal research facilities (for completely unrelated reasons) and have been quite calm about the whole thing. I still can't shake the NQR* feeling about either place, but I'm not sure they lived up to the idea of animal research facility that I had in my head either.
In fact I didn't even think of one as "that" type of facility until I googled for directions and all these ALF and PETA related thingies popped up.
I've never liked the idea of using animals for research. Yes, even to cure cancer. In fact, maybe especially to cure cancer, because I think curing cancer is like curing old age, I don't think we ever will do it. Murphy's Law says that we already lost the only plant that can produce the compound we need to cure cancer in one of the 100+ rain-forest species we make extinct everyday. Even if it does happen, sometime in the future, we might kill a great many animals in vain until that day finally comes. Either way, I've never been entirely convinced by that "for the greater good" malarchy. Because the "good" is not guaranteed, but pain and suffering are. I especially got angry a couple years back when that beagle farm was on 60 minutes and the guy said that the beagles were "heroes" because they got to save lives. Oh, Hallmark-sentiment-induced vomit. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about animal testing.
So the question of whether I'm becoming a bit more conservative comes from my unexpected lack of discomfort at visiting these facilities. Part of it might come from my knowledge of animal shelters, where animals are killed every day for no good reason other than there isn't a loving home for them. Perhaps animal death for a specific purpose is far better than death for practically no reason at all. It also seems a bit daft to be bringing animals into the world for the specific use of testing when there are so many unwanted ones out their that could be used in their place. And it also makes me wonder why ALF don't target their local SPCA and municipal pound, as I'm sure these facilities put more animals to death each week than any animal testing facility. So whilst I'm not happy that animal testing goes on, I know that far more animals die in shelters and to produce our food, so I guess these things need to be prioritised.
I didn't like the facilities I visited, they had a slaughterhouse vibe about them and I wasn't actually that happy with the condition of the animals that I saw. For animals that had been there their entire lives, they seemed a bit stressed, like this wasn't quite normal for them. Which it of course isn't. Neither place was very clearly sign posted as to what the facilities actually were or what went on there, but they certainly weren't as security conscious as I'd heard such places need to be. So I was left with an uncomfortable feeling in my conscience, but I didn't feel the need to return after hours, free the animals and burn the place down, either. Confused.
Oh yeah, P.S. this sort of thing does exist in NZ. A lot.
*Not Quite Right - like the reject stores in Melbourne
In fact I didn't even think of one as "that" type of facility until I googled for directions and all these ALF and PETA related thingies popped up.
I've never liked the idea of using animals for research. Yes, even to cure cancer. In fact, maybe especially to cure cancer, because I think curing cancer is like curing old age, I don't think we ever will do it. Murphy's Law says that we already lost the only plant that can produce the compound we need to cure cancer in one of the 100+ rain-forest species we make extinct everyday. Even if it does happen, sometime in the future, we might kill a great many animals in vain until that day finally comes. Either way, I've never been entirely convinced by that "for the greater good" malarchy. Because the "good" is not guaranteed, but pain and suffering are. I especially got angry a couple years back when that beagle farm was on 60 minutes and the guy said that the beagles were "heroes" because they got to save lives. Oh, Hallmark-sentiment-induced vomit. There is nothing warm and fuzzy about animal testing.
So the question of whether I'm becoming a bit more conservative comes from my unexpected lack of discomfort at visiting these facilities. Part of it might come from my knowledge of animal shelters, where animals are killed every day for no good reason other than there isn't a loving home for them. Perhaps animal death for a specific purpose is far better than death for practically no reason at all. It also seems a bit daft to be bringing animals into the world for the specific use of testing when there are so many unwanted ones out their that could be used in their place. And it also makes me wonder why ALF don't target their local SPCA and municipal pound, as I'm sure these facilities put more animals to death each week than any animal testing facility. So whilst I'm not happy that animal testing goes on, I know that far more animals die in shelters and to produce our food, so I guess these things need to be prioritised.
I didn't like the facilities I visited, they had a slaughterhouse vibe about them and I wasn't actually that happy with the condition of the animals that I saw. For animals that had been there their entire lives, they seemed a bit stressed, like this wasn't quite normal for them. Which it of course isn't. Neither place was very clearly sign posted as to what the facilities actually were or what went on there, but they certainly weren't as security conscious as I'd heard such places need to be. So I was left with an uncomfortable feeling in my conscience, but I didn't feel the need to return after hours, free the animals and burn the place down, either. Confused.
Oh yeah, P.S. this sort of thing does exist in NZ. A lot.
*Not Quite Right - like the reject stores in Melbourne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)