Have you seen this?
http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
Its beautiful, and painful at the same time....and worth the watch.
Hope this finds you well my friend.
Nikki
Is ‘humane’ killing of animals for our use OK?
Posted By Harry on July 23, 2011
Humane is a key word whenever the discussion of dietary habits comes up; we’re repeatedly told that as long as an animal is killed humanely it’s OK to eat them. Mmmm … something doesn’t seem right there. It’s OK to bring billions of birds and animals into this world for the sole sake of an unnecessary, unhealthy but socially-acceptable (enforced?) diet provided that all these individual beings are killed humanely? Is it possible to do such a thing and call it humane? Well, it seems the world is calling it such so I figured my understanding of the word must be wrong. Time to check:
humane – characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed: humane treatment of horses
(Dictionary.com)
And an example of its use from the same site: humane slaughter, it’s no better than saying “we have built a better gas chamber”
So no, it appears that the world, in particular those that profit from the slaughter of innocent beings, is somewhat twisting the use of the word humane. Using poetic licence for that most common of gains: money. And, as detailed in an article and video sent me by Creature Quotes (that inspired this post – Thank you) we are falling for it. Not we the world. We the self-appointed spokespeople for animal rights.
James LaVeck opens his piece by reminding us that ‘the question of justice, “Do we have the right to use and kill animals?”, is being methodically displaced by the question of regulation, “What is the right way for us to use and kill animals?”‘ And this displacement is increasingly due to to newly formed alliances between the animal-use industry and large, outspoken animal rights advocacy groups. Rather than enforcing an end to the animal-use industry, animal advocacy groups are unwittingly sanitising the activities that keep the profits rising and the industry afloat. And all ‘for the animals’.
It is hard not to consider the anti-slavery movement when discussing animal rights and LaVeck does just this: he reminds us that pro-slavery advocates manipulated the public in a similar manner. The public was to focus on how slaves were treated rather than the injustice of slavery itself. Unfortunately such tactics, if not countered by a steadfast justice movement, will work. We already have farmers likening the breeding of birds and animals for slaughter to running a sanctuary.(!) We have a “vegan”, John Mackey, applauded at the 2007 Taking Action for Animals Conference for the work his company is doing in bringing more ‘humane’ meat, eggs and dairy to the dinner table. But how can you be a vegan in one part of your life and not another? Surely being vegan does not mean you can kill animals for profit provided you don’t eat any of them yourself? Well, not everyone seems to agree with that. John Mackey, determined that Whole Foods has a societal halo that its competitors lack, even has a group of animal rights advocates queued up to polish it!
It’s tough never getting a win. Tough continually banging your head against a brick wall. Small wins are encouraging.
It’s hard going against the grain. Swimming uphill. Being anti-societal. Able to hang out only with other societal misfits. Be that individually or corporately.
Are these the reasons why, despite us keeping our destination firm, we sometimes veer down the wrong path?
(EDIT 24/07/11: Thanks to a tweet by Vegan Future I was led to this VF slideshow – Cage-free Eggs: Behind the Myth. Again, as with the above links, well worth following this one.)
I don’t know the reasons deviations occur, but occur they do. The use of “humane” next to “slaughter” or “kill”. is an oxymoron. Extinguishing a life without the permission of the possessor of that life cannot be done “humanely”. It is murder and the method is a matter of style or fashion and is of secondary importance to the profound act of ending someone’s life against their will. Humane murder? Silliness. Such a notion would be laughable if it didn’t reference activities so tragic and horrid.
John Mackey? Sorry, he’s a profiteer and as such his notions will invariably be stained by the ethical deficiencies associating with profit. His company facilitates the murder of living beings in order to make a profit…his behavior speaks for itself. He can call himself a vegan all he wants, but his actions contradict his words.
Using a living being is wrong, taking the life of a living being is wrong, these are great wrongs, great travesties, great injustices and spewing words, no matter the words, cannot change that.
Until every sentient being on this planet is free to live their life how they want, bounded only by the constraints all living beings are subject to, there is no victory…there may be changes…but change is not victory.
Agreed. However I think you have, while not intending to, let John Mackey off lightly: through his company he personally facilitates the murder of living beings in order to make a profit. These are his actions and he needs to have full ownership of them.
Excellent summation by veganelder and excellent tweek to improve the summation by Harry.
Mackey is no more a vegan, as its founder defined the word, than any animal wants to be slaughtered, “humanely” or otherwise.
Oops, I meant to write “tweak” above, didn’t I? Sorry, Mr. Webster!
Excellent piece by Harry and excellent replies by veganelder and CQ. I too have scoffed at those who string the two totally incompatible words “humane,” and “slaughter,” together in a sentence. It is like saying that someone is fighting a “peaceful war.” Makes no sense. The fact is that people are murdering innocent animals, period. They do this when they slaughter livestock, when they hunt, when they fish, when they cull lesser (in their eyes, not God’s) newborn individuals from the rest as they deem them inferior for breeding, resale, etc. Every time a human deliberately kills an animal, other than giving it the last act of kindness and love, it is murder, plain and simple. Everyone, including every animal that is capable, will fight for it’s life if given a chance. Humans give most animals no chance at all. You can try to pretty up the horror by using nice sounding words, but I don’t believe that fools anyone. Farmers especially know what happens to their animals when they sell them and they don’t really care. They have gotten their reward via paycheck. Now that animal rights awareness has come more to the forefront, those who make a living from slaughter have tried to put some sort of positive spin on the slaughter process. Of course, they’ve failed miserably. What they are trying to do is impossible. Slaughter is slaughter. You can’t pretty it up and you certainly can’t hide what it is. Many animal right’s groups try to help the animals and appease the livestock industry both by catering to the producers – to encourage them to appear to be more compassionate by making small concessions to their animals’ comfort. Baloney. Does anyone honestly think that a larger cage will improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of chickens who are imprisioned in misery for 100% of their short, tragic lives? Will a larger cage compensate the veal calves, torn away from their mothers shortly after birth and doomed to be someone’s dinner entre? Being slightly less cruel is still cruelty and cruelty is wrong! The whole obscene animal slaughter industry needs to be shut down and the use and abuse of any animal for any reason needs to be stopped. People like John Mackey want to have their cake and eat it too. It doesn’t work that way.
Suzanne (welcome to agp) It is as simple as you say, ‘Being slightly less cruel is still cruelty and cruelty is wrong!’ That sums up exactly what it is.
Great post Harry! And so are the comments that followed…
My take on the word “humane” is this: It means to be concerned with the alleviation of suffering. And since these beings are deliberately bred to endure incalculable suffering – And since they are delivered to the kill floor healthy and “fit for life” there is no “suffering” to end – AT ALL! Ever!
I despise the word humane for all it’s false implications! I dare anyone to say that a victim had his throat “humanely” slit. The word does not work when put into context of the actual act.
Let’s try it in reverse shall we? Can we “compassionately” slaughter? Of course not. Mackey and the whole(foods) crowd that fall for these delusions fail miserably as critical thinkers and as decent folks. To understand that the question even arises as to how to snuff a life “nicely”, ought to shake their senses into reality. But surely it doesn’t because they don’t want it to. (grrrr!)
I know I added nothing new to what LaVeck or anyone else here said… I just wanted to echo in the voices of reason – It’s a beautiful tune that sadly goes unheard by too many who possess deaf ears and shallow, closed hearts.
The dictionary confirms your understanding of the word Bea – humane is to do with the alleviation of suffering. Mass slaughter – let’s call a spade a spade here – is … well … mass slaughter.
Now that we commenters have all agreed with James, with Harry, and with one another, how can we help those who are in-the-dark on this subject to read these eloquent thoughts? There must be many caring people, including current vegans, who don’t realize they’ve been bamboozled by the “happy meat” crowd and who would welcome the chance to amend their views and stop supporting welfarism.
If any of us find opportunities to share this link on progressive websites and blogs, or, better yet, with members of HSUS and Farm Sanctuary, perhaps we could return to this site to give Harry (and one another) a heads-up.
Wonder whether the “humane” spinmeisters (Mackey, Pacelle, Baur, Salatin, et al) are tracking the journey that James’ essay is taking through cyberspace?
Well, I guess I’m the only person here that didn’t think too highly of James LaVeck’s article, and no, I don’t think I’ve been bamboozled. Explained my reaction on one of Bea’s posts, so won’t reiterate it all here. Do I feel there’s such a thing as humane slaughter? No. But I also disagree with the assertion that“Do we have the right to use and kill animals?”, is being methodically displaced by the question of regulation, “What is the right way for us to use and kill animals?” I don’t think any animal advocacy organization that I know of has done that, but the false dichotomy that we can only focus on use OR treatment espoused by by vegans like LaVeck is really annoying.
And yes, Suzanne, I DO think larger cages will improve lives somewhat. Do I want complete abolition? Of course, but I also want treatment of live suffering sentient beings to become better while we work on that. Because call me a pessimist, but with vegans only comprising 1-5% of the population at best, the kind of world James envisions is not around the corner yet. Not by a long shot.
Duly noted… I’d love to pick up on this conversation in the near future… But just for now, I would want to mention that in my view, I think LaVeck’s talk was meant to push and inspire. No, I don’t agree with everything he said – But I did get a sense of hope in the challenges that advocates face… Around the corner? Not hardly, I agree… But which bends to take in what road lead to the “right” corner – No one has that completely mapped out yet…
Finally, as I intend to elaborate… I think “reform” and “welfare” are inevitable steps along the way. But would I champion for them? Would I see “victory” in larger cages? Certainly not… As I know everyone here wouldn’t either. I think we can compromise the strategy but never let go of the principle… I don’t know any war that was ever won with one battle or one tactic – Plenty of room in the fight, for as you say Have Gone Vegan – Not by a long shot have we reached our goal.
Whatever our methods though… I think it’s important that we all stick with the good fight to empty the cages. No matter what way we see that this happens – It must.
Hi HGV, Bea and Co
Please see here for a continuation of this. My reply became a bit lengthy …
Harry
I agree with you Bea. We certainly don’t know what bends and roads will ultimately do the trick, but our goal of stopping animal use is the same. And as mentioned in a comment on your post I didn’t disagree with everything James LaVeck said, although I didn’t make that clear. Also, I see the power struggles within the vegan community of individuals and factions claiming that their vision/answer is right and that others have it wrong illustrating the difficulty we face. I mean, if we can’t even convince each other and we share the same goal, how can we convince the 95-99% of the population we’re really trying to reach who don’t share our goals at all? So in a sense I think where we stand on certain issues is almost beside the point. We really, as a collective group, have to get a better grip on how we communicate, convince and persuade. Like we don’t have enough problems, snort.
Okay, now that I’m in a calmer frame of mind, I’m gonna see what my friend Harry has to say.
Hi HGV
I believe you’ve just hit the real nail on the head. We share the same goal and should stand together. I think that is what we do most of the time but every now and again an activist’s passion boils over. That said, I did not take LaVeck’s article to be a bashing of AR groups, but rather a warning. A concern.
Here’s thanks to every vegan who speaks out, lives an example of a gentler world.
Harry