Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

trust your instincts

< £ Salon Bloggers & >

	April 15, 2003

WHY HAS THE ANTI-SMOKING MOVEMENT SUCCEEDED WHILE THE ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT HAS FAILED? There's an excellent article by Michael Specter in this week's New Yorker on the animal rights movement. It focuses on the sensationalistic, successful (750,000 members) and much-reviled organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its founder and leader Ingrid Newkirk. I'm a strong supporter of animal rights, but the tactics of PETA have always troubled me, so I read the article with trepidation. As usual, however, the New Yorker provided an informative and balanced report. Since the article is not available online, here are a few key excerpts: PETA describes itself as an "abolitionist organization" and its mission statement is: Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment. PETA believes that [all] animals are on Earth to occupy themselves and for no other reason. That humans take advantage of other animals in any way, simply because we are stronger or smarter, PETA sees as the abiding moral outrage of our time. The organization has offended so many people in the two decades since it was founded that just to hear the word PETA is enough to make many people shudder -- from fear, disgust, or simply weariness. There is a quotation from da Vinci chiselled above the PETA reception area: "The day will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals the way they now look upon the murder of men." It has been argued many times that in any social movement there has to be somebody radical enough to alienate the mainstream -- and to permit more moderate influences to prevail. For every Malcolm X there is a Martin Luther King Jr., and for every Andrea Dworkin there is a Gloria Steinem. Newkirk and PETA provide a similar dynamic for [moderate] groups like the Humane Society of the U.S., the biggest animal welfare organization in the country. Americans kill nine billion animals each year, mostly for food. We routinely starve, force-feed and mutiliate animals in order to enjoy a more pleasant, affordable or exotic meal. Experiments are performed on animals manufactured by the million and sold like commodities, at nearly every major university and scientific institution. And largely for fun, millions of Americans train weapons on tens of millions of birds and mammals each year, [and line up to watch often-abused animals perform in circuses]. After looking at the lives of farm animals [almost all of them now kept in horrendously small, dark, stench-filled enclosed indoor spaces all of their lives in factory farms -- description in the article, enough to make the bravest reader ill, depressed and disgusted, removed] and watching PETA work for a while, it seemed to me the animal rights movement was going nowhere. Ingrid Newkirk says "Temple Grandin [designer of the now widely-used slaughterhouse layout that mimimizes cruelty and trauma to animals awaiting slaughter] has done more to reduce suffering in the world than any other person who has ever lived." The organization is completely unrepentent for their outrageous tactics including inflammatory ad campaigns and destructive acts like throwing paint on women wearing furs. They are believers that any publicity of the situation summarized in the fourth excerpt above is better than permitting people to remain oblivious to these well-concealed 'atrocities'. They are believers that the ends justify the means, and while they avoid the violence of other radical groups, they don't condemn other animal rights groups that do use such tactics. All of this leaves me ambivalent. I'm a radical environmentalist, by which I mean I think drastic action is needed to reduce human impact on our planet and to reduce the cruelty and suffering we cause to the rest of our planet's creatures. But I'm also a strong believer in building consensus for change rather than imposing it, and that if something is instinctively improper or morally repugnant, simply telling people the facts should suffice to bring about a 'popular' change, as occurred when we ended slavery, gave women the vote, and ended the war in Vietnam. Newkirk would undoubtedly call me naive, and she may be right. How do we explain the fact that the non-smokers' rights movement, which didn't exist twenty years ago, has been so successful at bringing about a massive change in popular sentiment, and commensurate legal changes, to achieve their goals? Animal rights movements have been around for well over a century, yet the situation for animals is virtually unchanged. In fact, thanks to the profitability of factory farms, it has arguably worsened. I don't believe the striking contrast in the success of these two movements has to do with the reaction against extremist groups like PETA. I also don't believe it's an issue of visibility: second-hand smoke is even harder to make visceral than the plight of the billions of animals imprisoned behind factory farm walls. It isn't an issue of technology, either. Substitutes for animal food and clothing products are readily available, inexpensive, and comparable in every quality to those made from animals. It isn't an issue of power: As consumers, we have made smoking unpopular and unprofitable in the face of fierce lobbying from the tobacco industry, and have forced improvements in auto safety and many other products simply by flexing our buying muscle. If we all started eating vegan tomorrow, the food industry is ready to respond, and in fact have already responded by significantly increasing the production and shelf space of organic and vegetarian products. Many of them are produced by the same companies that manufacture animal products. So what is it? Can we, the same people who dote on and spend billions on our animal companions, really be so indifferent to the suffering and slaughter of nine billion living creatures every year in America alone, that we're unwilling to shift our buying from Big Macs and KFC to equivalent, readily available alternatives to stop it? I don't get it. Can somebody tell me what I'm missing, please? 9:50:37 AM  trackback []  comment []

BIZARRE QUEBEC ELECTION ENDS WITH FEDERALIST WIN In a stunning last-week turnaround of fortunes following a televised debate of party leaders, Jean Charest's Quebec Liberal party won 76 of 125 seats in today's provincial election, winning over 50% of the popular vote, up over 10% from polls taken just a week ago. The result represents the end of uncertainty about Quebec separation from Canada, at least until the next election. Charest is a staunch federalist. 2:59:18 AM  trackback []  comment []

© Copyright 2004 Dave Pollard. Last update: 19/02/2004; 2:42:54 PM.