Slaughter
-
What Kind of a Person Eats Katie the Lamb?
-
Willful Slow Food Ignorance and the Pain Animals Feel
-
Beheading Chickens Is OK; Beheading Cats Is "Over the Top"
Jonathan Safran Foer and Eating and Killing Animals
Published November 09, 2009 @ 08:16AM PT
I haven't read Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals yet. I don't know when I will, given lack of time, but I have seen a head-spinning number of reviews of and reactions to it lately. I get the impression, from these reviews and reactions, that there will be aspects of the book that will frustrate me, but I can also appreciate that he is telling mainstream America far more than most of them have read or heard before about who rather than what is on their plates and that he has done it in a way that is getting a lot of people thinking and talking. And though I've not read it myself, I've found other animal advocates' reactions to the book and Foer's approach interesting and worth considering, and I've read and watched some of his interviews.
For example, in a recent Facebook note, Josh Hooten of Herbivore posted a thoughtful response to the attention Foer's book is getting and the discussing it's sparking, in the mainstream and within the the vegan animal rights movement. And a SuperVegan post that is thoughtful and worth reading itself republished Josh's post in full.
Are Vegans Responsible for More Deaths in the Fields? No Way
Published October 31, 2009 @ 09:08AM PT
The comment threads around here have been home to a lot of arguments over the last year, and a few discussions have a habit of resurfacing from time to time. One of these typically starts with a defender of animal-eating accusing vegans of being responsible for more animals' deaths than animal-eaters because of the animals who die as a result of raising and harvesting crops. The person making the argument assumes that people who eat plant-based diets must be responsible for more deaths in the fields than those who eat animal-based diets full of flesh, dairy, and eggs, failing to acknowledge, of course, the enormous amounts of plant foods that must be raised and fed to the animals people kill to eat -- more than must be raised for direct consumption by vegans. As has been discussed in those comment threads each time, the logic fails. And recently, Animal Visuals gave animal advocates a great new tool to answer this weak but common argument. Continue after the jump to view the powerful graph settling the debate.
That "Hog" Over the Fire Is a Baby Piglet
Published October 26, 2009 @ 06:29AM PT
Many people assume, without ever really thinking about it, that the animals they're eating were killed as adults. But just like most of our assumptions about nonhuman animals -- from their capacities for thought and emotion and the bonds they build to how they live, suffer, and die on farms, in slaughterhouses, in labs, and elsewhere -- this assumption too is wrong. Not long ago, I shared a video with you, of Glenn Gaetz from Liberation BC pointing out that "We Eat Babies." And he was telling the truth.
But we don't use language that reflects this. And one example that always gets to me is the word "hog." It's the word we often use when we talk about "hog farms" and "hog farmers," and even as I used the word in a post recently, I was uncomfortable with doing it.
It Is Our Job to Fight for All of Them, Not Only Some of Them
Published October 07, 2009 @ 04:46PM PT
Babe Amaral, owner of Rancho Veal, acknowledged that the gathering was peaceful, but he said he was a little puzzled by the protest.
“I couldn’t figure why they were coming after us,” he said. “We sold the veal business in 2005.”
Amaral said his company still processes older cows and bulls, but any veal calves that are brought to the plant are taken to the Central Valley.
The above comes from a news report about a vigil that took place outside a slaughterhouse for World Farm Animals Day last Friday. I don't doubt for a moment that the man was sincere -- that he really didn't understand the activists' objections. Is this what happens when some animal rights and animal welfare organizations and advocates focus so narrowly, loudly, and/or exclusively on veal, foie gras, fur, battery-cage eggs, and so on? Do people thus assume that other animals are OK to kill; that for other so-called foods and indulgences, other animals don't suffer; and that other animals and pieces of animals are acceptable to eat and wear? You can probably guess my answer.
Wonderland Amusement Park Slaughter
Published October 02, 2009 @ 11:23AM PT
Yeah, you read that right: "amusement park" and "slaughter" in one phrase. I've just been introduced to the concept via TreeHugger, whose blogger writes,
Designboom shows us just about the coolest vertical farm yet, by Studio Tjep. Actually, it is much more than a farm; it is a restaurant and amusement park as well. It is designed to educate as well as produce; "The entire process is visible to the visitor, giving the complex a didactic function as to new agricultural developments."
Immediately following? A computer-generated image that shows cows and pigs wandering around on one level of the vertical structure, with what look to be hanging (bleeding-out) pigs dangling from the ceiling just one level up.
The design company's site gushes, "Oogst 1000 combines extreme fun with extreme usefulness. One can see this amusement park as a huge people processor. Hotel guests are also the farmers, when you work, you can stay for free."
Interesting word choice. Isn't "processor" the euphemism animal ag folks like to use for slaughterhouses? "Chicken processor," "beef processing plant," and so on? But in this world, apparently, "processor" is something fun and safe for humans, and killing animals has moved up to being part of an amusement park. I wonder, is participation in the killing one of the options for "extreme fun" and a free stay?
Creepy.
In more compassionate news, it's World Farm Animals Day (and Gandhi's birthday). So give veganism a test drive this weekend, won't you? There are countless recipes out there calling your name, including the ones rounded up weekly here.
Wolves Are Not the Dangerous Predators; Humans Are
Published September 22, 2009 @ 06:39AM PT
If you want an example of essentially all that's wrong with the way humans think of, talk about, and interact with their fellow animals, do I ever have an editorial for you. The publisher, editorial board, or some unnamed journalist from an Oregon newspaper (the byline is vague) yesterday published this doozy: "Give Ranchers Right to Kill Problem Wolves."
Early on in the editorial, the authors set up wolves as the indisputable bad guys. First we learn that wolves in one general area killed twenty-something sheep total in April and August incidents, and thus those wolves were deemed "rogue" and were tracked and killed by the trusty U.S. Wildlife Services. This, it is argued, was justifiable because the wolves clearly intended to cause the ranchers trouble: "Since the wolves were bent on mayhem, and since efforts to relocate them did not work, it’s right that they were killed."
Bent on mayhem? Seriously? I mean, seriously? It gets better:
Animals, Nonviolence, and the International Day of Peace
Published September 21, 2009 @ 02:40PM PT
Today is the International Day of Peace, calling for nonviolence and ceasefire, as I learned last night from Kelly of easyVegan.info. And although my plans to post on a related topic this afternoon have been derailed along with the rest of my day, I'm lucky that Kelly (also a periodic contributor to this blog) wrote her thoughtful post on the topic last night, including this:
The day’s “ceasefire” most certainly does not include the millions of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, horses, dogs, rats, seals, foxes and other domestic and wild-living nonhuman animals who will be slaughtered for food, clothing, vivisection, entertainment and the like. Quite the contrary: humans’ exploitation of nonhumans will continue, unabated, throughout the day and across the globe.
