The Pissed Off Vegan

Perception

2009-02-13T10:48:00.000-08:00

An animal rights ad I made with pictures I found on the web. I decided to make it because of the seal massacre that's currently going on, and in response to those who are disgusted with the killing of seals, but who have no problem consuming animal products, which involve violence towards sentient beings, just the ones who aren't commonly perceived as cute or important. I don't understand why there are those who cry for one animal, but harm another. Part of it is cultural; the majority of those who object to the seal massacre are from the U.S., where seal hunting isn't a part of our culture. Since other forms of nonhuman violence are ignored (as in the slaughtering of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish, etc. for food), which can be considered equally unnecessary as fur, the only way to describe the hypocritical anti-sealing campaigns, is a cultural attack, much in the same way people from the U.S. and Europe crusade against the eating of cats and dogs in certain parts of Asia whilst eating other animals back at home.

When it all comes down to it, farmed animals, seals, fish, dogs, cats, etc. are sentient beings with consciousness, thoughts and feelings, individuals with likes and dislikes, who desire to be free, and from harm, and who have an interest in continued existence. We do not need animal products such as meat, dairy, and eggs for our survival, any more than we need fur to survive. The only explanation for this violence is that it is done for pleasure, preservation of tradition, or convenience. And neither of those are justifications for harming sentient beings.

The only difference between a farmed animal and a seal, is perception. If you care about seals, dogs, cats, or any other nonhuman being, why not extend your compassion to farmed animals?

Earthlings

2009-01-17T21:10:00.000-08:00

Peaceable Kingdom

2009-01-14T23:03:00.000-08:00

ThanksGIVING?

2008-11-11T19:53:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is a time when most people think about gratitude and graciousness. It is also a time when millions of turkeys are slaughtered in the name of tradition for this holiday. What do they have to be thankful for?

Turkey farm where thousands live at a time

Transportation to the slaughterhouse

Terrified turkeys prior to slaughter

Slaughter

Turkeys are sentient beings who feel and have emotions. They are every bit as feeling as dogs or cats, yet people would be horrified if those animals had to go through what turkeys endure all for the sake of a few moments of pleasure and preservation of tradition, which can be the only justifications for such violence. At the farm, and at the market, turkeys may appear to just be copies of one being, or identical products dressed up in shrink-wrap. But they are not "copies" or "products." They are sentient individuals who each experience the suffering that is inherent in the business of being exploited and slaughtered for profit.

At farm sanctuaries where these sensitive beings are not treated as commodities with market value, but are respected and loved as individuals with inherent value, and are allowed to perform their natural behaviors, their true selves shine through. Visitors at these sanctuaries learn that farm animals have distinct individual personalities who have likes and dislikes, cunningness and quirks, like any other sentient animal. Some turkeys are shy and reserved, while others are friendly and outgoing, and enjoy sitting in people's laps to be stroked.

All have a story to tell, and some scars appear physically--from deformities due to selective breeding, poor living conditions, or inflicted mutilation by farmers--or the scars are emotional, evident in the behavior of some animals, who never come to trust people, often preferring to stay isolated from everyone else, lurking around shadows and barn equipment, or who continue to display incessant pecking behavior from the stress of being intensively confined.

It is easy in our society to shut your mind from the violence that brought that meat to your plate. But it does not make it go away. Ignorance is not bliss--not to those who suffer the consequences of it. Look into the eyes of the victims of the food industry--behind each pair you will see consciousness. And these beings die, one by one, by the millions every day...For a few moments of enjoyment people get from the taste of their flesh. A sentient creature ceases to experience years of life for something so frivolous, something so selfish.

This Thanksgiving, show some graciousness to turkeys and other sentient beings. Start a new tradition of compassion, while still keeping the spirit of the holiday. Celebrate with a vegan feast. The turkeys and other animals will be thankful for it.

Suggestions for an easy vegan Thanksgiving:

Many traditional Thanksgiving dishes and desserts can easily be veganized by using vegan alternatives to animal products like milk, cheese, butter, and eggs that are called for in recipes.

Below are some links to some vegan recipes:

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/thanksgiving_recipes.asp

http://www.vegweb.com/

http://www.vegan-food.net/

http://www.everydaydish.tv/

Turkeys enjoy a Thanksgiving meal at Farm Sanctuary

http://www.youtube.com/v/AaZvIddL5Pk

http://www.youtube.com/v/xM-iSqmJ9_4

Show Some Love -- Go Vegan!

2008-11-01T18:24:00.000-07:00

As it is Vegan Awareness Month, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post the top reasons to go vegan:

For the Love of Animals: End Speciesism

Nonhuman animals suffer from extreme discrimination in our society, and billions of these vulnerable sentient beings are ruthlessly exploited and slaughtered every year, worldwide, for food, clothing, entertainment, and vivisection. It is all justified by our society because the victims are "just animals." Speciesism, like all other forms of discrimination (i.e. racism, sexism, heterosexism), is a hierarchy-based belief, and speciesism maintains that certain species of animals are “better” or “superior” to other species, humans in particular reining the top of the totem pole. Most people in our society are speciesist, whether or not they admit it, and support this dominionistic view over nonhumans by eating animal products, wearing animal skins and fur, participating in animal-centered entertainment, or purchasing products that were tested on animals.

When it all comes down to it, the only basis of this discrimination is that the victims are not of our species. Many people convey that it is justifiable to use nonhumans as means to an end because of their lower intelligence, lack of language, lack of morals, lack of self-awareness, or lack of culture. Yet even when such claims have been proven false in many cases, people still uphold the belief that humans are “superior” to all the rest of the animal kingdom, and deny them rights. With the falsity of much those claims aside, to set such high standards for nonhumans in the first place when certain humans--such as infants, young children, and people who are cognitively challenged--are given moral consideration for their one trait that matters--sentience, is unfair. A parrot who can speak with understanding of the context of words and who knows simple mathematics is still regarded as less of a being than a nonverbal, mathematically impaired, cognitively challenged human. Vegans are not suggesting that this hierarchy should be reversed. We are simply questioning the existence of the hierarchy--the notion that a species is somehow “better” than another for possessing traits that are suddenly unimportant when deficient in certain humans. The only thing that should matter in according equal consideration to another living being, be they human or nonhuman, is sentience--the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and thus desire to be protected from pain and inflicted death.

By going vegan, you stand up to the senseless exploitation and violence inflicted on billions of sentient beings. Nonhumans are slaughtered because people enjoy the taste of their flesh. Their skin is ripped from them for vanity and people’s love of fur/leather. They are beaten into submission every day, to perform degrading tricks that people find amusing to watch. They are tortured on a daily basis, foreign instruments and chemicals forced into their bodies in the name of scientific research.

This will only stop by people changing their views about nonhuman animals--no longer seeing them as tools for our use, as property, but as sentient beings with inherent value who deserve the basic right not to be treated as a means to an end. This means changing the food we eat, the clothes we wear, our entertainment, and buying products not tested on animals. It means going vegan. Those who truly object to exploitation and violence perpetuated against the vulnerable, who object to the unnecessary suffering of nonhumans, will do just that--go vegan.

For the Love of the Environment: Reduce Waste of Resources and Pollution

There is much talk about the environment. I'm sure you've heard from celebrities about switching to reusable grocery bags from plastic, or replacing standard light bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs, or spending thousands of dollars you don't really have on a Prius or Hybrid. Of course it's good to do those things, and to buy an eco-friendly car if you can afford it, but the biggest way you can help the environment (which can actually save you money depending on what foods you buy) is to go vegan. According to the U.N., raising animals for food is the number one contributor to climate change, and is more environmentally destructive than all utility sports cars COMBINED. A hummer-driving vegan is doing more for the environment than a non-vegan driving a Prius or Hybrid. Livestock consume an enormous amount of resources. More than half of the water consumed in the U.S. is used for raising livestock. A vegan could run a shower non-stop for an entire year, and still be using less water than a non-vegan. Most grain grown in the U.S. is not fed directly to humans, but to animals raised for food. Ninety percent of soy, ninety-five percent of oats, seventy percent of grain, and eighty percent of corn grown is fed to farm animals. With an average of seven pounds of vegetable protein needed to produce one pound of animal protein, this system requires 600 percent more food crops than plant-centered systems in which people consume vegetable protein directly. According to the Minority Staff of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, the amount of grain used to produce the beef in just one Big Mac is equivalent to the amount of wheat required to make five loaves of bread. Simply put, more food is produced per acre of crops than per acre of animal farmland.

Farm animals also greatly contribute to pollution and other environmental damage. Livestock account for eighteen percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent (higher share than transport). According to the EPA, animal feeding operations “ha[ve] contributed to negative environmental and human health impacts. Pollution associated with AFOs degrades the quality of waters, threatens drinking water sources, and may harm air quality. By definition, AFOs produce large amounts of waste in small areas. For example, a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day. Estimates equate the waste produced per day by one dairy cow to that of 20–40 humans per day. Manure, and wastewater containing manure, can severely harm river and stream ecosystems. Manure contains ammonia which is highly toxic to fish at low levels. Increased amounts of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, from AFOs can cause algal blooms which block waterways and deplete oxygen as they decompose. This can kill fish and other aquatic organisms, devastating the entire aquatic food chain.”

Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. Energy is also wasted for the processing of grains that are fed to farm animals along with the transportation of farm animals to feedlots and slaughterhouses. Expansion of livestock production is also a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring. Seventy percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feed-crops cover a large part of the remainder. This all of course, leads to the destruction of biodiversity, from the destruction of species habitat, pollution of waters, to the evisceration of natural predators by ranchers.

By consuming crops directly instead of filtering them through farm animals, less resources are used, less pollution goes into the ecosystem, and less land is required. Veganism is the most impactful way you can protect the environment.

For the Love of Your Body’s Health: Reduce Your Risk of Disease

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases...

Well-planned vegan [pure vegetarian] and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.
Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as Vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

-- American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, “Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, June 2003

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a series of papers describing the benefits of basing one’s diet on plant foods:

High fruit and vegetable consumption is associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular disease, several common cancers, and other chronic diseases (such as macular degeneration and cataracts).
Legumes (e.g., beans, peas, lentils, and peanuts) are excellent sources of protein, fiber, and a variety of micronutrients and phytochemicals that may protect against disease.
Regular consumption of nuts is linked with a lower risk for heart disease and lower mortality rates.

Whole-grain consumption is associated with a reduced risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and stomach and colon cancers.

Obviously, simply avoiding animal products will not ensure optimal health, and as with any diet, a vegan diet must be well-balanced, including important nutrients like protein, iron, vitamins B12* and D, omega-3 fats, calcium, and iodine.

*B12 is critical for a healthy nervous system and brain function. It is not created by animals or plants, but is found in bacteria. Before modern sanitation practices, B12 used to be obtained from streams and wells. People need only a relatively small amount of this vitamin (for adults, 3 micrograms), and it can be taken as a supplement, or obtained from fortified foods such as soy milk, some soy products, or many cereals.

Vegans also do not have to worry about consuming the antibiotics that are fed to farm animals. Roughly 70 percent of antibiotics in the U.S. every year, go to animals raised for food. Roxarsone, an antibiotic commonly used on factory farms, contains arsenic, which helps to kill off parasites in farm animal feed. Some of the arsenic remains in the flesh of these animals, and is consumed by people. According to a study published by the USDA, most meat contains toxic arsenic, chicken flesh containing four times more arsenic than other meats. This report found that “[e]ating 2 ounces of chicken per day—the equivalent of a third to a half of a boneless breast—exposes a consumer to 3 to 5 micrograms of inorganic arsenic, the element’s most toxic form.” The report warns that people who regularly consume chicken may ingest 10 times that amount. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health have disputed these startling findings, saying that the USDA estimates are too low and that the arsenic in chicken flesh poses a serious threat to human health. Arsenic causes a wide range of problems in humans, and daily exposure to low doses of arsenic can cause cancer in humans.

Another consequence of consuming animals dosed with powerful drugs is the creation of super-bugs that are not susceptible to human antibiotics. So when you eat drugged animals and get sick, the antibiotics prescribed for you will be unlikely to work, whether it’s because you’ve built up a tolerance for the drug by consuming it in meat, or because the bacteria has mutated and “figured out” how to beat the drug. In either circumstance, your illness could be prolonged, which could potentially be fatal if you’re very young or are a senior, or otherwise have a compromised immune system.

In conclusion, a well-planned vegan diet, along with being lower in fat and containing zero cholesterol, can help protect your body from many diseases (including food-borne illnesses).

For The Love of Fellow Human Beings: Compassion for Nonhumans = Compassion for People

Not only is the exploitation and violence perpetuated against nonhumans wrong in and of itself, and obviously harmful to nonhumans, but it also leads to the same treatment of fellow humans. Jeffrey Dahmer and the Columbine shooters enjoyed torturing and killing nonhumans for fun. Slaughterhouse workers often bring acts of violence into their homes, being physically abusive to family members. The exploitation and violence towards nonhumans also leads to exploitation and violence to humans on an industrial level. It was the confinement, exploitation, controlling, manipulation, and slaughtering of wild nonhuman animals (euphemistically called the “domestication” of nonhumans), that led to institutionalized human slavery and mass genocide. Human slave-owners and Nazis modeled the exploitation and violence of humans from the treatment of farm animals. Slave-owners chained, castrated, and branded slaves, claiming ownership of their "property." The method of mass killing of Jews in concentration camps was literally modeled off of the assembly-line methods of killing farm animals in slaughterhouses. Both human slave-owners and Nazis used animal terms to vilify their human victims--because nonhumans were also vilified by society, and it helped to justify such treatment of certain humans. Hate-charged terms like "rats," "pigs," and "geese" were used in reference to the oppressors' human victims. Slave-owners often had their slaves sleep in the barn with the livestock, and Nazis sent Jews to concentration camps on cattle cars. Nonhuman oppression served--and still serves--as a format for human oppression.

Veganism also consumes less resources, which leaves more not only for the rest of the animal kingdom, but for fellow human beings. While human starvation is complicated and also often involves corruption in government, if resources are used wisely, and crops are consumed directly instead of fed to farm animals, it provides more food for the world's human population.

Veganism isn't just about nonhumans--it solves many human issues as well.

In summary, veganism is a philosophy of respect, compassion--of love--and responsibility. It recognizes that every action has a consequence, and we must address those consequences when they prove to be damaging. If you love life, be it all sentient life (human and nonhuman), your own, or the planet as a whole, you'll go vegan. Veganism is for the better of nonhuman beings, human health, the environment, and humankind. Please--go vegan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6_hjA4cdjM

Notable links:

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/

http://www.humanemyth.org/

http://www.abolitionist-online.com/

Update on Primate #R97106: Most Likely Dead

2008-10-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

I Googled my primate's number to see if anything would show up, and I found a 5-page document from an experiment on HIV vaccinations done on primates at a Wisconsin lab, and on page 4, I saw my primate's number--#97106, apparently one of the last two macaques still alive after the experiment. This document was originally dated back in March of 2004, which confirms even more that she is no longer alive. This would mean that she died very young, at age 6. The thought of how she lived and died makes me sick to my stomach. No sentient being deserves that. At least she is finally at peace, but even that is barely a comfort. I want so much more. I wrote a letter to the director of the lab, Joseph Kemnitz:

I am writing out of concern for primate #R97106, a female rhesus macaque imprisoned and used as a laboratory tool at your facility. My first question: is she still alive? I Googled her number and found a .PDF document about HIV vaccination studies done on primates. Her number came up along with a primate identified as "AJ11". After what I have read of this document, and have taken notice of the original date (2004), I am assuming she was killed. Below is a fragment of the .PDF file:

(Source: http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/78/6/3140.pdf, page 4/5)

T-cell immune responses as described previously (11, 15–17).
The peripheral blood mononuclear cells and peptides were
coincubated for 16 to 18 h, and the spots were visualized
directly by using an AID reader system (Cell Technologies,
Inc., Columbia, Md.). Responses were considered positive
when the frequency of gamma interferon-secreting T cells exceeded
the mean spot-forming cell count of the negative controls
plus twice the standard deviation. In all of the study
animals, we detected T-cell responses across the SIVmac239
proteome from the earliest time point tested after successful
intrarectal challenge until the time of sacrifice. At more than
27 weeks postinfection, the two animals that are still alive,
AJ11 and 97106, had broad T-cell responses to 27 and 24% of
the SIVmac239 pools tested, respectively (Fig. 4). Analysis of
the average number of pools recognized by animals in the
different groups shows that, at time points before 11 weeks,
11.5 (14%), 19.5 (23%), and 46.5 (56%) SIVmac239 pools per
animal were recognized in the 3,000, 300, and 30 TCID50
groups, respectively. This would suggest that more immune
responses are recognized in the lower-dose-challenge inoculum
groups than in the 3,000-TCID50 dose of SIVmac239 early
in infection. However, given the small number of animals and
the inherent genetic variation in outbred rhesus macaques, this
trend may not be significant.

Assuming she is dead, I will be speaking of her in past-tense. Was she caged alone? Primates are very social beings (like we are), and become very depressed when isolated. Did she have anything to play with for mental stimulation? Primates are very intelligent and get bored easily if given nothing to do. Confining primates (or any other being, for all that matter) in small cages alone, and with nothing to do, makes them become erratic. Primates will self-inflict harm by biting themselves or pulling out their hair, will continuously smack themselves against the side of their cage, will display repetitive movement, and may even refuse to eat. How many lab workers did it take to remove her from her cage and hold her down while foreign instruments and toxins were forced into her body? Did she scream? How much did she weigh, and how many scars were on her little emaciated body at the time of her death (if she is indeed dead)?

I also must ask how much like us does the rest of the animal kingdom have to be in order to be given equal consideration as far as not being treated as a means to an end? Sentience is all that should matter, and is all that matters when concerning humans -- including infants and the severely mentally disabled. The difference between the rest of the sentient world and us is quantitative, not qualitative. Yet if there is something that makes humans superior, such as morality (not that it would be relevant, because not everyone in the human community is expected to be “moral” in order to be given the basic right not to be treated as a thing), then I must ask why rhesus macaques are considered inferior, when they (and also rats in the same experiment) surpassed humans in a moral psychology test?

In Milgram’s experiment, 65% of participants were willing to deliver the final 450-volt shock to their neighboring participant when they answered a problem incorrectly. A similar experiment was done on unconsenting rhesus macaques (and who were actually shocked), who were confined in a laboratory where they were trained to receive food by pulling on one of two chains, right or left, depending on the color of a flashing light. After they had properly learned the sequence, another monkey was introduced, visible through a one-way mirror and held in restraints. By pulling the chains in the correct fashion, the first monkey could still get his snack, but one of the chains now delivered a powerful electric shock to the other animal whose agony was in plain view. In effect, animals who refused to deliver the shock were cut to starvation rations.

Trapped in this situation, it was discovered that most of the monkeys would not cooperate. In one experiment, 87% chose to go hungry instead of shocking their neighbor. One of the animals refused to pull either of the chains and went without food for twelve days rather than hurt his/her companion. The experimenters, who were interested in learning whether kinship plays a role in altruistic behavior, found that unrelated macaques were just as likely to be spared as those who were genetically similar. Only one variable really seemed to predict how the animal would respond to the dilemma. Monkeys who had been shocked in previous experiments themselves were even less willing to pull the chain and subject others to such torment.

Again, what does it take for nonhuman animals to be given equal consideration? Does it just all come down to physical appearance? DNA? Convenience? The law? Social acceptability? What was so inadequate about #R97106 that she deserved to be torn away from her mother, caged and subjected to torturous, invasive experiments her entire life, and then die young at age 6, alone on a cold, steel table?

I am asking, because I want to know how many more animals must die in your labs, how many more primate identification tags I--and other people--must hear clanging around our necks, before you realize that these beings are not disposable laboratory tools or mere statistics or numbers in scientific documents, but individual lives who are being destroyed by human apathy.

I will be waiting for your response.

Feel free to contact Joseph Kemnitz regarding #R97106 and his use of animals in experiments, at:

Joseph Kemnitz, Director
Wisconsin National Primate Research Center
1220 Capitol Court
Madison, WI 53715

His E-mail: KEMNITZ@PRIMATE.WISC.EDU

*NOTE: I am not encouraging threatening or otherwise hostile behavior towards Joseph Kemnitz, nor shall I be held responsible if anyone resorts to such behavior.

Innocent Prisoners

2008-10-20T18:45:00.000-07:00

Today, my Primate Freedom Tag came in the mail. For those who do not know what Primate Freedom Tags are, they are aluminum tags (commonly known as "dog tags") with the information of an imprisoned primate used for research in a laboratory. The purpose is to wear it, and educate those who notice it about the horrors of vivisection, and to contact the laboratory and ask them questions about the primate and experiments done to him/her, reminding the vivisectionists that there are people who care, and who stand up against vivisection. My primate's "name" is #R97106, and she is a female rhesus macaque born November 13, 1997. She is imprisoned at the University of Wisconsin, and I don't yet know what is being done to her, or if she is even still alive.

Vivisection—the practice of performing surgeries or experiments on live animals in the name of scientific research—is very cruel. One need only hear about some of the sadistic procedures done to these defenseless sentient beings, to know how sick animal experimentation is. Live animals are burned, dissected while conscious, have their eyelids sewn shut, are torn away from their mothers (often being part of an experiment itself), have chemicals poured into tubes shoved into their throats and stomachs, are drowned, have electrodes implanted in their brains, head trauma is intentionally induced—the horrifying list goes on. Just about any nonhuman species is used, including primates, rats and mice, sheep, cows, dogs, pigs, chickens, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs. These animals don't willingly volunteer, and are often dragged screaming from their cages. Primates desperately cling to the bars of their cages, or to their babies being taken away from them for use in experiments, and it usually takes more than one lab worker to remove the terrified animals. Rabbits break their backs in trying to escape holding devices restraining them so they cannot escape from having chemicals applied to their eyes. Dogs yipe in pain as tubes are crammed down into their throats so toxic substances can be fed to them. No sentient being wants to suffer, and no sentient being wants to die.

People justify animal experimentation by claiming that it is necessary for saving human lives. For one thing, this is not true, at least most of the time. Many experiments on animals are not even conducted for medical purposes, but for common household products such as sugar. In 2000, a series of reports were published by Permagon press detailing how thousands of animals had been experimented on at Huntingdon Life Sciences to test an artificial sweetener, sucralose. These were particularly nasty experiments carried out on dogs, monkeys, rabbits, rats and mice. 12,800 animals died at HLS during this study. Even animal experiments intended to find cures or treatments for human diseases, more often than not lead to faulty results. Penicillin was originally experimented on bacteria-infected rabbits, which did not work (because rabbits rapidly excrete penicillin in their urine, the drug is not able to work prior to being eliminated), and the drug was deemed useless for a decade. It wasn't until penicillin was administered to a patient near death, that it was proven effective. Had this not happened, and penicillin was initially experimented on guinea pigs and hamsters, its discoverer, Alexander Fleming, might have disposed the drug, since penicillin kills those species. If you still think animal experimentation saves human lives, consider the following facts:

• Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in (nonhuman) animals. Over 98% never are.

• At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.

• When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between (nonhuman) animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.

• Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.

• According to animal tests, lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.

• 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.

• Over 200,000 medicines have been released most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organization, 240 medicines are ‘essential’.

• Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.

• Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.

• When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.

• At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.

• Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.

• 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.

• One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.

• Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.

• The contraceptive pill causes blood clots in humans but it had the opposite effect in dogs.

• We use aspirin for aches and pains. It causes birth defects mice, rabbits and rats.

• Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.

• Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.

• Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.

• If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.

• It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.

• Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.

• As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

With the issue of the ineffectiveness of animal experimentation aside, regardless if it was helpful in finding cures for humans, it would still be immoral. Experimenting on humans brings about the most accurate results, yet it would be wrong force a human against their will to be experimented on, even if more human lives would be saved in the long run. That is utilitarianism, and violates an individual’s right to not be used as a means to an end because “the greater good” would consequentially benefit.

For the speciesists who are prejudiced against nonhumans and say that harming them for our benefit can be justified because they do not share equal intelligence with the human species, or because they are not productive in our society, by that logic, it would be morally justified to cage and conduct invasive experiments on people who fail standardized (and often biased) tests, or infants. Which it wouldn’t, because sentience is all that should matter when determining whether or not a being deserves to be treated as a means to an end. Nonhumans used in vivisection, whether primate, dog, or rat, are sentient beings. They are conscious of themselves and of the world around them, can feel pain and pleasure, and desire continued existence.

People like to pretend that if nonhumans feel at all, they only experience pain, which is false. While they do not desire to be in pain, they share many of the emotions humans do, such as fear, jealousy, altruism, embarrassment, love, sadness, anger, and joy. The difference between them and us is quantitative, not qualitative. Many nonhumans will inflict pain on themselves in order to escape death, such is the case with animals caught in steel leg-hold traps, who often chew off limbs in order to get free.

If animal experimentation has taught the human species anything, it’s that nonhumans are sentient beings with various emotions. I described earlier, how many laboratory animals fight their torturers before and during experiments. The experiments themselves have revealed many emotive traits of nonhuman animals that humans share. A series of experiments done to rats and rhesus monkeys revealed that they possess altruism. An electric shock would be administered to a neighboring animal whenever a lever was pushed that would dispense food. The rats and monkeys soon caught on what would happen whenever they pushed the lever, and preferred to go hungry rather than harm their captive neighbor. Mother/infant deprivation studies have proven that nonhuman animals love their offspring, and that the love and nurturing from mothers is crucial in the psychological development of nonhuman infants.

Many of the results from these experiments are published in science magazines, but for what reason? Clearly, they haven’t changed people’s minds about nonhuman animals. Every time we claim that there is some “unique” trait in humans that justifies our exploitation and killing of nonhuman beings, that very “unique” trait is found in another species. Yet, when people read or hear about these findings, they shrug it off, and then say that there’s something else humans possess that the rest of the animal kingdom lack. The sad thing, is that many of those people have a cat or dog at home, and recognize that they are not things, but individuals with feelings who don’t deserve to be harmed.

If we could just open our eyes, and step aside from the status-quo for a minute, perhaps we could then open our hearts to all sentient beings, shattering the species barrier that has caused so much unnecessary suffering and so many unjustified deaths to nonhuman beings. Humans can do many wonderful things. Yet we can also do so many horrible things, to each other and to the rest of the sentient world. It’s up to us to stop it. We must decide whether we are a species of compassion, or a species of apathy. We have the power to make the world better or worse. Each of our actions has a consequence. When we purchase animal products, we aren’t just going to enjoy a nice meal—it’s at the expense of other living beings who did not deserve to be exploited or slaughtered. When we purchase cheap animal-tested household cleaners and hygiene products, we aren’t just saving money to clean our house and have good hygiene—it’s at the expense of other living beings who do not deserve to be caged and used as disposable laboratory tools. We all (or at least most of us) have that voice in our head that tells us when what we are doing is wrong, even if we try to ignore it. In our society, that voice—our consciences—have been suppressed and locked away. We must liberate our consciences so we can liberate the animals.

For #R97106, and the countless other nonhuman beings senselessly exploited and killed in the name of the human species, I’m so sorry, and I think about you every day. I, and the other animal rights activists out there will never stop fighting for your freedom.

For more information on vivisection, its ineffectiveness and cruelty, and alternatives, please visit:

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

http://www.shac.net/science/facts.html

http://www.shac.net/science/faq.html#3r

http://pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html

A video I made on vivisection, the song performed by Goldfinger:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy8Fjs43sns

If you are interested in purchasing a Primate Freedom Tag, go to primatefreedom.com. They cost $10, and link you to an imprisoned primate so you can become their voice.

Dog Meat and Humanely Harvested Human Organs

2008-10-14T20:09:00.000-07:00

As you probably already know, Oprah revealed what goes on behind the closed doors of the dog breeding industry on her show a while back, with undercover footage taken of puppy mills. She also had a follow-up episode, and apparently her previous show had done a lot of good, and there was a high adoption rate in shelters shortly after. In that same follow-up show, she read a letter that was sent to her, asking why she doesn’t show the horrible treatment of farm animals, which is also an important issue.

So today, she aired a show about farm animals. It was pretty much as I expected it to be; it was filled to the brim with welfarist ideology, rather than the obvious, and only true solution, which is abolition (veganism). She showed the more harsh farms, commonly known as “factory farms,” and in contrast, showed the organic, “humane” farms, where the animals are still being used as commodities, are still going to have a premature death—be slaughtered—but they get some more space in which to move around.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole notion that there is such a thing as “humane” exploitation and violence. Especially when Oprah, like millions of other viewers, was so devastated about the dead dogs in the puppy mills, yet convinces herself that other animals—who are just as sentient and rightful to life as dogs—don’t deserve to be protected from exploitation and harm. I’m not saying that these “free range” farms aren’t “better” than factory farms. Many are. But, the point isn’t whether we should beat a child 5 times instead of 8—it’s that we shouldn’t be doing it AT ALL.

Dogs have been with humans for thousands of years. Humankind has a special bond with these creatures. Yet, anyone who has ever been to a farm sanctuary knows that farm animals are every bit as feeling as dogs. Take a visit, and you’ll find that when you pet a pig, he or she will roll over for a belly rub, or a chicken will come over to sit in your lap. All sentient beings enjoy the sunshine and the gentle breeze, feeling the earth beneath their feet, and want to be loved. They also want to continue living. So why are we so callous and indifferent to farm animals? A lot of it has to do with our culture. Many Americans are appalled when they learn that in parts of Asia, dogs and cats are on the menu. Yet the difference is only cultural, not moral.

Many people exclaim how “dumb” farm animals are, as if that’s somehow a justification for eating them. However, it has been proven that in at least some ways, cows and chickens are as intelligent as dogs, and pigs have been known to be more intelligent than man’s best friend. But, let us not stray from the point, which is that nonhuman animals are sentient. Intelligence does not make a difference when you burn yourself on a hot stove—it’s going to hurt. It does not make a difference when you go to the beach and enjoy sticking your toes in the sand, feeling the sensation of the ocean’s tide sweeping up around your ankles—it’s enjoyable. Intelligence does not matter when you die—you cease to experience life. To have sentience is to possess consciousness and feeling. A fish is a sentient being. A child is a sentient being. A dandelion or potato is not sentient. Intellectual ability has nothing to do with whether or not a sentient being should be used as a means to an end. The only thing that matters as far as moral consideration goes, is sentience.

It also doesn't matter how "compassionate" the method of murder was. A life was taken. The only thing that should matter in determining whether any living being—be they human or nonhuman—has moral standing and equal consideration within our community, is sentience.

Please, go vegan for all sentient beings.

"There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."
- Isaac Bashevis Singer

Sarah Palin: "Pro-Life"?

2008-10-09T16:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QceTLujhIOU

A video I made about Sarah Palin. She is NOT "pro-life," and anything suggesting she is, is an outright lie. She is a disgusting, repulsive human being, and we want to clean up Washington—not filth it up with passionately violent scum.

NO to Prop 2

2008-10-07T22:25:00.000-07:00

You’ve probably heard about it by now—the campaign to say “yes” on Prop 2. Prop 2 (which won’t even come into act until 2015 if accepted) is a proposition to make living conditions for farm animals slightly better for them before they are killed for gluttony. The campaign’s website claims that voting for Prop 2:

Prevents cruelty to animals.
It’s simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies. Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to endure such misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.
Improves our health and food safety.
We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows exposed by a Southern California slaughter plant investigation this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farms put our health at risk—cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages, fostering the spread of diseases that may affect people. YES! on Prop 2 is better for animals—and for us.
Supports family farmers.
California family farmers support YES! on Prop 2 because they know that better farming practices enhance food quality and safety. Increasingly, they’re supplying major retailers like Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.
Protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities, spreading untreated waste on the ground and contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. Prop 2 helps stop some of the worst abuses and protects our precious natural resources. That’s why California Clean Water Action and Sierra Club-California support YES! on Prop 2.
Is a reasonable and common-sense reform.
Prop 2 provides ample time—until 2015—for factory farms using these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed similar laws. The Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, hundreds of California veterinarians, including the California Veterinary Medical Association; California family farmers; the Center for Food Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the United Farm Workers, and the Cesar Chavez Foundation; Republican and Democratic elected officials; California religious leaders; and many others.

I’m going to challenge Prop 2 by addressing each claim.

Prevents cruelty to animals.

First we must understand that farm animals, like any nonhuman animal, are property. The very fact that they stand as property in the law, and are thus allowed to be used as commodities, will always interfere with them having any significant moral standing in our society. That Prop 2 has to even be enacted when there already is the Animal Welfare Act and Humane Slaughter Act, further proves that animal welfare is failing, and it is set up to fail because of the property status of nonhuman animals. There is a conflict of interest, because on one hand, people—at least the majority (even though they contradict themselves by eating animal products), understand that nonhuman animals are not the same as a lamp or CD player, and they believe that nonhumans should therefore be treated morally different than ordinary, inanimate objects. On the other hand, nonhuman animals in our society are still property by law, so their interests will always be disregarded in favor of the property owner, who will always have more rights and a say in how they can use their living property.

By oppressing any living being, you are already taking away the most basic, yet significant right they have, which is to not be treated as a means to an ends—not to be treated as a thing. The oppressor, then, has more rights than their victim. They get to decide exactly how many “rights” their victim has, depending on how they intend to use their living property, and their most basic, keystone right has already been withdrawn from the beginning. During slavery times in the U.S., there were those who were opposed to the blatant mistreatment (ignoring the fact that enslaving a living being is in itself mistreatment) of slaves, and supported welfare laws that were intended to ensure the welfare of slaves. However, there was the same problem we have now with nonhuman slavery—human slaves were regarded as property. Virtually any manner in which they were treated was deemed acceptable, and rarely would their owners be penalized in court, because they were property owners merely exercising their property rights, and the welfare of the slaves—who had no rights in the most accurate sense of the word—would therefore, always be compromised. It took abolition in order for the well-being of slaves to be truly protected, and that meant no human slavery in the first place.

Improves our health and food safety.

The true beneficiaries of this proposition come into the picture: humans, the right-holders. Another factor about welfare laws is that they improve the quality of—or the efficiency of using—animal property for the benefit of the property owners, or the consumers. The Humane Slaughter Act (which is corrupt, anyway) was created for the safety of slaughterhouse workers, and the efficiency of the slaughtering process which can run more smoothly if animals are stunned, and aren’t thrashing and kicking around as they bleed out. Animal property is only given the amount of “protection” needed to make them more economically valuable, and the process of using them more efficient. For example, if experiments on laboratory dogs are performed better and data from them more valuable if they go on 20 minute walks every day, then that would be the furthest extent of “welfare” that would be given to the dogs. If the dogs were much happier with hour-long walks (the suffering they experience living in isolated cages before the experimentation, and suffering endured during the experimentation pushed aside), and a towel and toy in their cages, it would not be required, since the minimum amount of “welfare”—the 20 minute walks—is sufficient enough to make their exploitation more efficient and data from their exploitation more valuable. This goes to show that in order for animal welfare to be even taken into consideration, it must prove to benefit humans, the right-holders, whose interests will always be prioritized over the interests of the property, in this case, nonhuman animals.

Supports family farmers.

Once again, humans benefit. Family farmers will be supported by Prop 2, so the exploiters win again. “Family farms” are farms that typically run on a smaller scale than factory farms, and usually have been passed down from generation to generation, and supposedly are kinder to animals than intensive methods of farming, which may be the case. Yet, just because it’s “better,” doesn’t mean it’s morally justified. If someone who abuses children says that they’re going to continue their abuse no matter what, but may reduce the “intensity” of it by hitting them less times than more, or with their fist instead of a bat, of course it’s “better,” but that’s not really relevant to the fact that hitting or otherwise harming children AT ALL is wrong. Would that person be put in prison, or would the courts come to a compromise—that the abuser may continue harming the children, as long as it is done “humanely”? Obviously, to say that someone can be harmed "humanely" is an oxymoron, and no sensible person would suggest the abuser should merely lessen the intensity of the abuse—they’d understandably want that person to not harm the children at all, and to be put in prison!

So, the “family farm” image, while it may look benign and appealing in children’s books and in ads, isn’t significantly different from factory farming, if nonhuman animal interests are to truly be taken seriously. No living being is a thing to be used as a means to an ends. Pigs aren’t sausage machines, hens aren’t egg machines, and cows aren’t milk machines. These “happy” farm animal images are made to look as if the animals do not care that they are being used as means to our ends, that they gladly offer their flesh, eggs and milk to us, and that they are simply there—on grassy pasture, living, coexisting with their exploiters with not a care in the world. Rarely, with a few exceptions of the most extreme of the far-fetched animal ads, do they admit to there being a slaughtering process. The don’t show the terror in their eyes, their attempt to escape the slaughter line, their screaming and struggling as they are shot in the head with a captive bolt (often missing their brain, so they are still fully conscious), and are hung upside down, their throats slit, blood spilling onto the floor. No, they want consumers to be completely removed from the reality—want them to live in a Disney-esque fantasy world where the oppressed nonhuman animals and people have a mutual relationship, and that is the very reason colorful, pleasant images of farm animals are used in advertisements. Even this Prop 2 campaign is accompanied and promoted by a cutesy cartoon video of happy, singing, dancing farm animals basically assuring us that they don’t at all care that we’re exploiting—and that includes slaughtering—them, as long as we do it “nicely.”

Protects air and water and safeguards the environment.

There is little evidence to suggest that smaller-scale farming is that much, or any better for the environment than factory farming. While factory farms produce more concentrated amounts of manure that emit high amounts of CO2, animals allowed to graze on pasture still produce large quantities of manure (emitting greenhouses gases and anthropogenic ammonia emissions), still drink and eat large quantities of water and grain, and actually require much more land than animals in factory farms (who live in steel sheds), so that means higher rates of deforestation. The U.N. stated that raising animals for food (including all methods worldwide) is more environmentally destructive than all sport and utility vehicles in the world combined. It is an inefficient use of land, water, and grain. 90% soy, 70% grain, and 80% corn grown in the U.S. is fed to livestock, and more than half of U.S. water is used for animal agriculture. A Minority Staff of Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry report states the beef in just one Big Mac represents enough wheat to make five loaves of bread. A vegan who leaves the shower running non-stop for an entire year is still using less water than someone who eats animal products. For every 2.2 pounds of animal protein produced, animals consume more than thirteen pounds of plant protein from grains and forage. It takes more than 26,316 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds of beef, and 921 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds of chicken. It takes only 237 gallons of water to produce 2.2 pounds of wheat, and 132 gallons to produce 2.2 pounds of potatoes. It takes only 1/6 of an acre to supply a vegan with food for a year, and 3 ¼ acres to supply an omnivore with food—which could feed about 20 times more vegans than meat eaters.

It is clear that the most effective way to improve the health of the environment is not eating the products of free range animals, but eating plants directly by going vegan. Going vegan not only respects the rights of farmed animals, but free-living animals in the wild.

Is a reasonable and common-sense reform.

In conclusion, Prop 2 is NOT a “reasonable common-sense form.” If anything, it will be harmful to animals and the environment. It will only reinforce the animals-as-property paradigm, and will make consumers of animal products feel more comfortable about supporting animal exploitation and slaughter. Remember that property owners will ALWAYS have more rights than their property, and this has been proven in history with human slavery. Only when nonhuman animals are accepted as being sentient beings with inherent value and are given equal consideration as members of the moral community, will their suffering—at least on an industrial level—truly end. The environment will not be significantly improved until people change their resource and energy-wasteful lifestyles and go vegan. The only ones who will actually benefit from this proposition are people, who are the real reason Prop 2 has been created. It is intended to improve food safety, secure and raise the profits of animal exploiters, and ease the consciences of consumers so that they continue to create a demand for animal products.

Cutting off the branches of a thorn bush won’t make it go away. You must cut at the roots—for until they are gone, the thorns will continue to grow. Veganism cuts at the roots of animal exploitation, suffering, and violence.

This is why I am saying NO to Prop 2.

For more information on the abolitionist approach and why welfare reforms fail animals, please visit:

www.abolitionistapproach.com

www.humanemyth.org

"Pro-life"

2008-10-07T20:06:00.000-07:00

That label has been floating around a lot lately, particularly in the media, in regards to Sarah Palin's stance on abortion.

She, like many others, is pro-embryo/fetus and defines herself as being "pro-life." Yes, "pro-life." Certainly has a warm feel to it, doesn't it? Yet, ironically enough, most people who have reverence for early-term, non-sentient fetuses, and thus call themselves "pro-life," actually have little to no respect for life, and by life, I mean sentient life. For example, Sarah Palin is pro-war, was responsible for rape victims in Wasilla, Alaska having to pay for their own rape kits (costing as much as $1,200), and she is an avid hunter.

So where does her "pro-life" stance come into context, exactly? Embryos and fetuses. Regardless of the trimester, and regardless of instances of rape or incest. That fertilized egg is what is important; forget the actual sentient woman who went through psychological trauma she'll have to remember for the rest of her life, and now she must carry the sperm of her own rapist to term, and have it develop into an actual baby, compromising her own body's health along the way. Nice.

And there are many other "pro-lifers” who share the same hypocrisy, claiming they are just that: pro-life. They eat animal products, ranging from the flesh of brutally slaughtered beings, eggs from battery hens whose male chicks were thrown into the garbage, and dairy from chained cows whose calves were taken from them immediately after birth to be made into veal. They may also wear animal skins, coming from fur-bearing animals raised in cramped cages or caught wild in leg-hold traps (often chewing off their own legs to get free), and who were killed by anal electrocution, or leather from Indian cows who had to walk many miles in the hot sun, chili pepper rubbed into their eyes, and tails pinched during their long march to their own violent deaths. Also supported among these "pro-lifers,” are cosmetics and household products that were sprayed into the eyes of restrained rabbits (who often break their backs in trying to escape), causing immense pain and blindness, or that were poured into tubes shoved down dogs' throats in laboratories. These victims are sentient beings who feel pleasure, pain, and desire - and many desperately fight - to live. And all their suffering, exploitation, and deaths are for nothing more than human pleasure.

But, who cares about those lives, lives whose numbers amount to more than 52 billion worldwide. The only "life" that matters is the cluster of human cells attached to a uterus, and that in the meantime, only has the potential to develop into a full, sentient human baby if carried for nine months. That is blatant hypocrisy, and unless these self-proclaimed "pro-lifers” are vegan, they do NOT respect life, and are NOT "pro" life. To me, "pro-life" means to respect and be nonviolent towards all sentient beings. To be sentient means to be conscious, and experience sensation or feeling. For example, a cow is sentient and a carrot - which has no brain or central nervous system - is not. A child is sentient and a head of lettuce - again, having no brain or central nervous system - is not. Both the cow and child are sentient, as both have a brain and central nervous system, so they are both conscious of themselves and their surroundings, feel pain and pleasure, and desire continued existence (whether or not they mentally, linguistically think about it).

To kill the cow or the child is a worse harm than pulling a weed from your lawn. Yet, those who both abhor exploitation and violence towards children (as they should), and the removal of a non-sentient, underdeveloped fetus from a sentient woman, support the exploitation and violence towards the cow, and other nonhumans. Why? For one, abortion is taboo in our culture, while nonhuman oppression and violence is not, and is widely acceptable. Second, people don’t want to have to change their daily habits. Meat, eggs, and dairy "taste good." Fur "looks pretty." It’s "more convenient" to buy cosmetics and household products without first checking the labels to see if they were tested on animals. Those are weak excuses for supporting such cruelty. Yet people continue to eat animal products, wear animal skins, and buy products tested on animals without batting an eye. Next time you’re out getting a burger, and you see a “pro-life” bumper sticker or billboard, think of the more than 52 billion sentient beings killed worldwide every year for frivolous human benefit, and ask yourself where you truly stand on issues regarding life.

Egg-laying hens

Dairy cows

Fox raised for fur

Draize test on rabbit