Yeah, but what do you believe?
I believe if we arrive at a position with so much conviction, we may mistakenly believe we also understand this position well. For many animal advocates, this is an unfortunate outcome of going vegan after watching horrific videos of the animal industry.
For instance, after I watched Earthlings for the first time, my course of thinking went something like this:
“I see animals suffering. I do not like that they suffer. I am against animal suffering.”
“Against suffering” defines the main vein of the position of many animal people. But if you think about it, the position utterly lacks descriptive power. I mean who isn’t against “animal suffering”? If you asked a hunter, who is likely to answer with sincerity, if (s)he is against animal suffering, what would (s)he say?
The position sounds harmless at first. Really, any position that is “against suffering” is as benevolent as saying you want “no bad!” So why would I criticize? ”Against suffering” is a sort of inside-out statement which actually serves as an allowance for exploitation to occur.
Advertisers take advantage of this sort of inside-outedness whenever they advertise a product as “95% fat free.” We’re apt to feel good about that as consumers because, hey, 95% is like a solid A.
But that’s not really what’s going on here. The product at hand is one that is 5% fat. Now what’s so great about that? Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact your product is only partially rather than completely composed of fat? I mean, I wouldn’t expect a bagel to be 100, 50, or even 20% fat. So what’s so special about a bagel that is 95% fat free?
Returning to the animal example, so what if an animal-using company is “against cruelty?” We aren’t really falling for this, are we? If you are a businessperson who sells a product, am I supposed to nominate you for a peace prize because you minimize damage caused to your inventory?
The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of animal people go to great lengths to herald and thereby ameliorate their repertoire before those concerned about animals. The invisible mantra of this movement of giving awards to slaughterhouses is “gradual steps in the right direction.”
No one has been able to explain to me how the hell helping people feel better about exploiting animals is a gradual step in the right direction.
Here’s another immediate kind of thought:
“I see that these people make the animals suffer. I am against these people.”
It took me a long time to realize what was so wrong with this. I mean, if you hurt or kill an animal, that’s bad. You’re bad. So there are groups worldwide which promote violence (they don’t like to call it that) against individuals directly involved in the animal industry.
If you understand economics, you’ll understand why this kind of tactic is bizarre. There is a reason why there are slaughterhouses and feedlots and it’s not because there are a bunch of people who like waking up to the smell. There is a market for animal exploitation. No matter what you think about the individuals working directly in the animal industry, the market exists not because they’re running it, but because we’re paying them.
As Prof. Gary Francione argues in Introduction to Animal Rights and several of his other works, the problem is not supply, it’s demand. An activist can fight for animals not by burning down slaughterhouses but advocating for veganism. Go after demand. The more people eating vegan, the more producers will move to grow vegan food. Get it?
