ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

I've read through the threads about single-issue campaigns, welfare, new welfare, etc. So I apologize in that much of this post will at least overlap with those. But I'm hoping to get some input from the people here.

Have you ever heard a few words that gave you some clarity? I was listening to an interview with Gary Francione where, with respect to the established welfare organizations, he essentially said "let them do what the hell they do" and we need a new movement to fight for animal rights. Well, this is the movement I want to be a part of.

I was fully prepared to debate the benefits of having groups focus on welfare while I fight for liberation. But some critical analysis leads me to believe that maybe the achievements I consider baby steps are nothing more than impediments; illusions that perhaps make me feel like something is changing when, in fact, only the terms of confinement and slavery have evolved. I am in no way referring to anything like CAK, the alleged humanity of which eludes me. I'm thinking more about Prop 2.

I have friends on the west coast who spent countless hours leafleting and campaigning for Prop 2. I admire Wayne Pacelle for at least getting the issue of some of these atrocities in the public consciousness. And, I firmly believe that confinement in bigger cages five years down the road is better than confinement in tiny cages five years down the road. But, all the publicity of Prop 2 debates did nothing to address a non-human individual's inherent right to exist free from confinement in the first place. So, I'm having some confusion on this issue. Yes, it's better for the slaves. No, it does nothing to eliminate slavery. What's the net effect? My own assessment is that those necrovores who use "humane meat" to justify their dinner have no real inclination to change. So that point is moot for me. The real issue is whether anything more substantial could have been accomplished had all of that time and energy been focused into vegan outreach.

I feel like I've stumbled on something in the last 24 hours or so that has been absent in my own struggle to create change. There is so much I want to learn about and discuss.

VeganVision,

One of the reasons Gary said "let them do what the hell they do" is that welfarism isn't going away any sooner than animal product consumption itself is going away. Until there are enough vegans as a percentage of society to pass laws abolishing the property status of animals, and therefore abolishing legalized exploitation, there will be welfarism and big efforts at welfarism.

If the efforts to pass Prop 2 were instead focused on vegan education, then all of the people making those efforts would be vegans themselves (by far, most of them were non-vegans). As a factual matter, vegans (unfortunately) often help welfare reform efforts, but non-vegans almost never (absolutely never?) help vegan education. Why should non-vegans advocate something they themselves don’t do?

The question to ask is, if vegans spent all the effort they’ve spent on welfare reform on vegan education instead, would we be further along the trail of abolition? The answer is yes. And not only that, but there would likely be more non-vegans pushing for welfare reform. This is because efforts at vegan education help move some non-vegans to become concerned about animal treatment, but efforts at welfare reform do NOTHING to help move non-vegans to becoming vegan. In fact, these welfarist efforts are usually detrimental to vegan education because they imply that exploiting and killing animals is fine, as long as we regulate it. Only vegan education can possibly get anyone to go vegan.

Another way of putting it is: vegan education assists welfare reform, but welfare reform does not assist vegan education. We sink two billiard balls with one shot in vegan education (i.e. help both increase the number of vegans AND increase awareness which leads non-vegans to get involved in welfare reform); but with welfare reform, we only sink one shot, and it's a shot that is basically neutral or negative: welfare reform (neutral or negative because whatever is gained in animal comfort is more than offset in public perception that the animals are 'happy' and regulation is the answer).

mountainvegan wrote:... we only sink one shot, and it's a shot that is basically neutral or negative: welfare reform (neutral or negative because whatever is gained in animal comfort is more than offset in public perception that the animals are 'happy' and regulation is the answer).

Yes. This is where I was experiencing some confusion. Thank you for your thoughts. And, the insignificant gains for the imprisoned individual today virtually ensures captivity in the future. Where's the impetus to abolish if we can reform?

Non-vegan activists will never promote veganism. I understand the "moral schizophrenia" that runs through society. But it's astounding when it comes from advocates committed to certain animals while they mindlessly wear and consume others. I volunteer with a few rescues and I know of no other vegans, not even vegetarians, within these circles. So, when I care for a rescued non-human person, there is normally an educate-the-human-person component.

VeganVision wrote:I have friends on the west coast who spent countless hours leafleting and campaigning for Prop 2. I admire Wayne Pacelle for at least getting the issue of some of these atrocities in the public consciousness. And, I firmly believe that confinement in bigger cages five years down the road is better than confinement in tiny cages five years down the road.

Are those friends vegan? Just wondering. As for Wayne Pacelle's contribution, I am also glad that someone has focused public awareness on the cruelties of exploitation. However, I think it's important to note that he was doing so as an animal welfare activist, not as an animal rights activist. An animal rights activist would never request "less cruelty, please" while accepting just as much, or more, exploitation.

VeganVision wrote:My own assessment is that those necrovores who use "humane meat" to justify their dinner have no real inclination to change. So that point is moot for me.

I'm not so sure about this. At one point in my evolution, I was interested in "humanely farmed" animal products. Then it quickly became obvious that ensuring welfare that was sufficient for my taste was not feasible. There was no way to be sure that what I consumed had not caused substantial suffering. So I stopped consuming obvious animal products.
Although, hang on a minute, maybe I'm not a very good example of what you mean? That phase didn't last very long in my case; I was just hoping for way to continue using milk. Maybe you're talking about people who use the "humane meat" excuse for a long time.

VeganVision wrote: The real issue is whether anything more substantial could have been accomplished had all of that time and energy been focused into vegan outreach.

Yep. That's about it.

I think that having "animal rights" supporting welfare reforms actually limits how far those reforms can go. We need to have a vanguard that is pushing the edge further away from exploitation. If we all get behind certain reforms b/c they seem really significant, then everyone else will say, "look, even 'animal rights' approves, so we really must be at the outer limits of great animal welfare!"

It gives industry an excuse to drag its heels even when it doesn't need to. They can say, "oh, we can't possibly go as far as 'animal rights' wants us to go, and they are asking for X reform, so obviously, X reform is too extreme for us. You can't expect us to agree with animal rights, can you??!?"

(Unfortunately, we now see Peta and KFC agreeing, and Greenpeace and Japanese whale-eaters agreeing.)

If we hold the line at abolition, then traditional animal welfare and "new welfare" will keep the welfare reforms going just fine, perhaps even faster.

panthera wrote:

VeganVision wrote:My own assessment is that those necrovores who use "humane meat" to justify their dinner have no real inclination to change. So that point is moot for me.

I'm not so sure about this. At one point in my evolution, I was interested in "humanely farmed" animal products. Then it quickly became obvious that ensuring welfare that was sufficient for my taste was not feasible. There was no way to be sure that what I consumed had not caused substantial suffering. So I stopped consuming obvious animal products.
Although, hang on a minute, maybe I'm not a very good example of what you mean? That phase didn't last very long in my case; I was just hoping for way to continue using milk. Maybe you're talking about people who use the "humane meat" excuse for a long time.

I know a guy that gave that step between cutting animal flesh and all animal products from his diet. But he himself can chip in if he feels like it *coff, coff*
But finally the problem is not on those people that get stuck on "humanely raised" (or merely give that false step), but on welfarism itself. We are giving those people the choice of not going vegan, of going "humanely tortured-enslaved-murdered". Of course the industry is wise enough to promote it, but we gotta stop promoting it ourselves. Obviously the animal exploitation industry will push for that consumer niche, but we are the ones that should be on the other side, not behind them.

You're never gonna get more asking for less.

panthera wrote:

VeganVision wrote:I have friends on the west coast who spent countless hours leafleting and campaigning for Prop 2. I admire Wayne Pacelle for at least getting the issue of some of these atrocities in the public consciousness. And, I firmly believe that confinement in bigger cages five years down the road is better than confinement in tiny cages five years down the road.

Are those friends vegan? Just wondering.

Yes. Uncompromising on veganism.

panthera wrote:

VeganVision wrote:My own assessment is that those necrovores who use "humane meat" to justify their dinner have no real inclination to change. So that point is moot for me.

I'm not so sure about this. At one point in my evolution, I was interested in "humanely farmed" animal products. Then it quickly became obvious that ensuring welfare that was sufficient for my taste was not feasible. There was no way to be sure that what I consumed had not caused substantial suffering. So I stopped consuming obvious animal products.
Although, hang on a minute, maybe I'm not a very good example of what you mean? That phase didn't last very long in my case; I was just hoping for way to continue using milk. Maybe you're talking about people who use the "humane meat" excuse for a long time.

I wasn't thinking in terms of any kind of time parameters. I've never been in a KFC and noticed people having pangs of conscience over their lunch. If you start out with zero consideration as it is, then the step toward the mythology of humanely-murdered individuals is a moral-highground/feel-better choice. In other words, it's like the crackhead who says "well at least I'm not a junkie". There is really no consideration given to the issue; only the appearance.

Like you, I bought into the cage-free lies for a very short time (weeks, I think). But my decision had less to do with the hens, and more to do with wanting to feel like I was doing something positive.

That's one of the greatest problems with this entire issue. Consumers no longer have to look at what is wrong as long as they are told they're doing something right. And people will buy into any illusion if it boosts their ego.

Veganomante wrote: but we gotta stop promoting it ourselves.

And so many animal advocates promote it better than the industry!