There are so many lives that are doomed before they
are even conceived, so many babies yet to be born, so many bereft
mothers-to-be, so many anguished, helpless innocent individuals who will sob
in desperation, who will scream in agony, as the rivers of gore spurt and
flow in the slaughterhouses.
We are all they have. Be vegan.
Please note that in this essay, the words ‘farming’ and ‘farm’ refer
specifically to a practice conducted upon sentient individuals in order that
they may be used as resources and commodities for humans.
Recently I listened to a prime-time radio interview of a respected sanctuary
and campaign manager/ vegan activist on the subject of animal rights. On
several occasions, the interviewers mentioned terms that they obviously
considered significant, one of these being ‘factory farming’. The line of
questioning that ensued was a rather transparent attempt to suggest that
promoting animal rights was, by its very nature, a criticism of regulated
farming practice and a personal attack on individual farmers. This was not
the first time I have seen and heard this tactic used and if I were being
uncharitable, I might have thought it a deliberate attempt to derail the
activist, however I actually don’t believe that was the case. The
interviewers were simply demonstrating the prejudice and preconceptions that
most of us are raised to embrace as fact. Lacking even basic knowledge of
the subject they were seeking to ‘discuss’, they sought to reframe the
conversation in terms with which they were familiar, whilst trying to garner
support both from the listeners whose prejudice they assumed they were
representing, and from those whom they sought to suggest were the victims of
an insult.
So as these things do, this started me thinking. This essay is the result as
I consider the words ‘farm’ and ‘farming’ and how, like unseen potholes in
the road, these words can so easily derail vegan advocacy.
Back to basics – what and when
So to begin. A farm is where the practice of farming takes place. I
appreciate that this is stating the obvious, however please bear with me.
‘Farm’ and ‘farming’ are words that rarely stand alone; there is almost
always some qualifying descriptor either stated or assumed. For instance, in
the area of animal rights, and in the completely separate area of animal
welfare, we see reference to factory farms, organic farms, family farms,
dairy farms, free-range farms, pig farms, hobby farms, fish farms and so on.
It seems that ‘farm’ and ‘farming’ are words that, despite representing a
significant concept, have become eclipsed by the descriptor that categorises
them.
As vegans, we frequently hear assertions that things are as they have always
been and this, somehow, is used to justify the status quo and/or
intransigence so it is important to be clear on this point. Archaeological
evidence points to humans having been around in their current form for about
200,000 years, with our ancestors existing for several million years prior
to that. Wikipedia tells us that farming originated independently in
different parts of the world as hunter gatherer societies transitioned to
food production rather than food capture. Evidence points to its having
started about 12,000 years ago with the domestication of ‘livestock’ in
western Asia, soon to be followed by the cultivation of crops, so looking at
the timeframe in perspective, 12,000 years is barely significant in
evolutionary terms.
Nonvegan ‘activism’ – back to my roots
Several years ago, before I knew anything at all about veganism, in the days
when I was still kidding myself that I was a ‘conscientious consumer’, I
heard the term ‘factory farming’. Judging by the number of petitions against
it (which is how I was judging it at that time), it seemed to be a very bad
thing. Google introduced me to the term CAFO which my helpful friend Wiki
defined as an acronym of ‘Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation’, a number
of large and high profile organisations urged me to part with some cash in
return for reassurance that they were doing something to counter it, and
suddenly my directionless concern for animals had a focus.
It must be borne in mind that at this time I was still consuming animals,
still wearing animals, still taking their lactation and their eggs, still
using toiletries that had been used to burn out their eyes and abraded skin,
and in short was still creating my own significant consumer demand that
directly required the wheels of animal harm to keep on turning. Nevertheless
there I was, a fully fledged animal abuser, signing every petition that
landed in front of me, because of my outrage about … the actions of other
animal abusers. I know it sounds completely ludicrous now. But that’s the
way it was.
Encouraging the form of distraction represented by a focus on the type of
farming is a common strategy employed by and in fact encouraged by the
animal use industries. Ideologically inconsistent, it is set within
parameters that allow us to protect both our entrenched belief that we need
to use nonhuman animals and our right as ‘superior’ animals to do so, while
at the same time reinforcing the idea that this ‘use’ can be done in a
‘humane’ manner. Against this background, we are encouraged and motivated by
‘campaigns’ that suggest some spurious scale by which ‘abuse’ can be ranked,
very frequently proposing that this ‘abuse’ results from insufficient or
unenforced regulation, and often that it takes place in some ‘foreign’ land
(regardless of where ‘here’ happens to be). While simultaneously promoting
xenophobic reactions, this serves to turn our outrage outwards against
others whose abuse is not any different from our own abuse; yet we are
encouraged to think we’re ‘being active’ and ‘taking a stand’ against
‘cruelty’. And as the folk myth and legend spreads about how protests
against ‘inhumane’ practices are having an effect, consumer demand is
maintained and in some instances increased.
Obscuring the main event
The highly effective ploy of focusing on the type or descriptor of the
‘farming’ turns the users, the harmers, the killers of helpless and
vulnerable animals into ‘activists’ and champions for their ‘welfare’. The
diversion is employed widely and yet many of us are not even aware that it’s
happening. Once we realise that it is, we see it everywhere, from those who
profess to be animal lovers, from the major fundraising businesses that
claim to represent animal ‘rights’ with their career ‘advocates’ and
industry affiliations, and not unexpectedly from the most blatant marketers
of animal corpses, body parts and secretions.
The two institutions that are most frequently used for this purpose are
‘factory farms’ and ‘battery’ chicken farms. ‘These factory farms are
terrible places’, I used to say, and so many would agree with me while they
tucked into steak and cheese, eggs and bacon. Like me, they were outraged
and, oblivious to the irony of their continued complicity, they signed the
petitions. Some claim this is harmless and that a protest is valuable
regardless of the source but – and here’s the very real danger that I have
written about before – participation in ‘protest’ had made them feel much
more comfortable about their own continuing use of animals. How do I know
this? It had this effect for me and for countless others with whom I have
discussed the phenomenon.
What I and countless others did not stop to consider, is that ‘factory’
farms are a consequence of the population size, the scale of their demand
and the need of any money-making enterprise to keep costs low. This is just
plain common sense. Whilst ‘factory farms’ are demonised, they are
nevertheless the inevitable means of providing a supply to meet demand.
So what’s the industry response to public criticisms of ‘factory’ farms? A
different descriptor, with or sometimes without any significant change to
the process. ‘Family’ farm, ‘organic’ farm, ‘free range’ farm; the ‘ethical’
utopian fantasy of bucolic bliss is promoted by the well paid wordsmiths and
advert creators in the employ of the death industries. Endorsements by
‘animal organisations’ set the final seal of betrayal of those whose
‘rights’ they claim to represent. ‘XYPCA approved’, ‘Freedom Food’, ‘Happy
Cows / Sheep/ Hens’ say the labels and the TV ads.
Those whose conscience has been stirring can relax again. ‘Whew. Glad
someone has the interests of the animals at heart.’ Donation made.
Conscience salved.
Putting it into context
So what’s my problem? Well as always, let’s substitute a human circumstance
to sharpen the focus. What if someone was farming …. humans? In a CAFO? Ok
not that. How about a nice, friendly, ‘organic’, ‘family’, ‘free range’
establishment then? Instant outrage. What’s more, the outrage starts at the
word ‘farming’. No one needs to hear any more about where or how this
‘farming’ is taking place. We have absolutely NO problem at all seeing
straight through the smokescreens when we reframe the situation in a human
context. There is no more stark illustration of our deep rooted speciesism
than this. And there in a nutshell lies my problem and it does not have
anything to do with the descriptor.
The beating heart of the issue is the concept of a farm – any
farm – where sentient individuals are caused to exist by human contrivance
and intervention, where their reproductive processes are manipulated and
their existence exploited, where their bodies are ‘reared’ and fattened, or
milked or used for eggs, until such time as they are dispatched for
slaughter. That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.
Despite this, the word ‘farm’ lurks in the background unchallenged, almost
unnoticed, an atrocity hiding in plain sight while we focus on the
descriptors. It’s like so many of the other euphemistic words we use to
disguise our unrelenting and needless victimisation of the vulnerable; words
we use to pretend we’re being nice about it, words that go so far as to
pretend it’s even possible to be nice about it, words that massage our
desperate desire to be thought of as good people who love animals and are
‘kind’ to them.
It’s not about ‘good’ farms or ‘bad’ farms
Once again, we need to return to the fundamental truth that it is not how we
treat our victims that is the issue, the issue is that we have
victims at all when it is completely unnecessary. When we advocate on their
behalf, we need to tighten our focus on that truth and keep it that way.
I have literally lost count of the number of otherwise good posts and
articles that I have not shared because they contain some reference to
‘factory’ farming or ‘battery’ hens. Such articles imply that it is the
means of use and the type of environment in which it occurs that is
the issue, and in this way they condone and approve the underlying concept
of farms and farming. The moment we, as advocates, allow ourselves to lose
the focus of our discussion so that the descriptor is the topic, we have
failed in our attempt to represent the rights of those helpless nonhumans
who are utterly dependent on us because they have no one else.
In human terms, allowing it to be implied that the issue is about the means
of use and where it occurs, is the equivalent of arguing that innocent
humans who are wrongfully imprisoned on death row should be imprisoned in a
‘nicer’ environment, without mentioning that they should not be imprisoned
at all. Canvassing for improvements in treatment and in environment is not
going to lead to the release of those who are wrongfully incarcerated and so
it is with our use of members of other species.
I’ve seen it suggested – and even stated quite aggressively – that promoting
‘improved’ treatment will lead to the end of nonhuman use and to widespread
veganism, however this is clearly wishful thinking. The rise of veganism –
and it is on the rise – seems to be linked to an increasing awareness of the
moral injustice on which all use of other species is based. No, I haven’t
personally done a survey and no, I can’t quote statistics. There are many
moral truths that are self-evident and I can’t justify these statistically
either. Is murder wrong? Is domestic violence wrong? Is sexual predation
wrong? Few would ever ask for proof or for statistics where the victims are
human, but change the species …
Are there any who seriously consider that a multi billion dollar/pound/euro
industry will eventually tire of addressing demands to ‘improve’ treatment
for our unnecessary victims to the extent that eventually it will all just
be too much bother and they’ll stop doing it? On the contrary, any real or
imaginary ‘improvements’ are shamelessly capitalised upon to encourage
favourable public perception of those who peddle suffering and death. What
will however bring the use of members of other species to an end,
is dwindling consumer demand, and such a reduction in demand is the
inevitable consequence of veganism.
This is not the last battle
It should also be noted that once any one of the popular justifications for
animal use has begun to look shaky, many will fall back strategically to any
one of literally dozens of ‘justifications’ for the behaviour of our
species, such as how nonhumans are ‘different’, how they are ‘bred for
eating’, how we ‘need to eat animals’ and so on. When, as advocates, we
suggest that the issue relates to how and where the using takes place, it
opens up a whole spectrum of alternative avenues that nonvegans may take to
assuage consciences without ever having to address the fundamental need for
each of us to take responsibility for the consequences of our demand as
consumers and change our destructive behaviour. How do I know? I was that
nonvegan.
We cannot adopt a piecemeal approach to this battle for justice. We need to
aim straight for the heart of the issue and we need to be clear and
consistent. Some may call that ‘preachy’ but it’s a pep talk I’ve been known
to give myself from time to time. So much is depending on us and we have to
do our best to get it right. There are so many lives that are doomed before
they are even conceived, so many babies yet to be born, so many bereft
mothers-to-be, so many anguished, helpless innocent individuals who will sob
in desperation, who will scream in agony, as the rivers of gore spurt and
flow in the slaughterhouses.
We are all they have. Be vegan.
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows / calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons/other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels / camelids