As the saying goes, when you assume, it makes an ASS out of U and Me.
Why am I vegan? Please just ask, instead of assuming you know.
I’m vegan because:
I do not think that anyone should be treated as a means to an end, no matter what their species.
I think that the interests of other animals should be given equal consideration to our own interests. Note that this is not so much about “animal rights” or “animal welfare” as an application of empathy and equity beyond the borders of homo sapiens.
Nothing more than a central nervous system is required for pain to be possible, more obviously so for mammals like us (e.g. dogs, pigs, cows, kangaroos, sheep), but also for birds and fish, even if the subjective experience of pain and suffering across species is difficult to apprehend.
I do not think that the incarceration from birth, suffering and sacrifice of billions of gentle land creatures (and many more ocean creatures) every year worldwide should be condoned, simply because we prefer not to eat plants instead.
I do not need to consume animal products. If I have to take a regular B12 supplement or consume B12 fortified plant milk or food, that doesn’t seem like much of an inconvenience. It’s not natural, you might object. People take all manner of supplements for sometimes dubious reasons. That, and humans do few things that are “natural” anyway.
Greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture are on par with the transport sector worldwide, and environmental degradation caused by intensive factory farming (including land clearing and run-off) are not really matters of dispute.
Our health is under threat from the rise of anti-microbial resistance and zoonotic diseases, not to mention the links between the food we eat and risks to our well-being, such as heart disease.
In the end though, my primary motivation for being vegan is because of what we do to animals, especially those we use for food, clothing, or entertainment.
Each of these points barely scratches the surface, and could be discussed in more detail, but it’s really not that complicated. Mathematics, physics, and engineering are complicated. Coding and mathematics are for me, a welcome distraction from our dystopian world, especially when it gets to be too much, which these days is honestly most of the time.
If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation
Killing a duck or any other animal can not be reasonably thought of as sport.
Some humans might think of it as fun, but that just amounts to overt sadism and absence of empathy.
What’s next: safaris with human targets?
Why is one OK but the other is not? Tradition? Voter demand? Culture?
Nothing justifies any of it. Simple as that.
A parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s duck hunting season is underway.
During the 2022 season, 262,567 individuals were shot out of the sky in the name of “sport” and countless more were likely wounded and left to endure slow, painful deaths.
With the 2023 hunting season due to start on 26 April, let’s try to make sure this will be the last time war is waged on our wetlands. Join us in speaking up for ducks by making a submission to the inquiry.
When you see the RSPCA Approved certification on pork you can be confident that this product has come from a farm with a focus on welfare.
But as Dr Jones says:
“When you’re buying an RSPCA-approved product, that’s really applying to the rest of the life of the pig.
The RSPCA recommends a phasing out of carbon dioxide stunning and a move towards “a more humane alternative”, but Dr Jones says even its own accredited pork products can be stunned using the method.
“It’s up to the industry, who are making money from the rearing and growing and slaughtering of pigs, to address this.”
The 7:30 Report interviewed a farmer who said that: “…the industry has a strong commitment to improving welfare standards for pigs and CO2 stunning is the most humane system available if implemented correctly”. He was not convinced that the footage was taken in Australian abattoirs in 2023 despite 7:30 verifying the location and timing.
Meanwhile, the RSPCA has…
…reiterated its long-running calls for the Australian pig industry to progress alternative methods to carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning.
The call comes after footage was aired last night on ABC 7.30 of CO2 stunning, which, along with electrical stunning, is common practice across Australian abattoirs and the way most pigs (around 85% of those farmed in Australia) are stunned before slaughter.
“The RSPCA has long advocated for CO2 to be phased out and replaced with a humane alternative,” said RSPCA Australia Chief Science Officer Suzie Fowler.
In the meantime, implementing important measures such as CCTV monitoring in abattoirs, better training in animal handling, and reducing pig stress immediately prior to stunning can help mitigate the risks.”
If we can have closed circuit TV monitoring on free range egg farms, why not on pig farms and in abattoirs?
The federal Greens have called for state and federal governments to require the installation of CCTV cameras in abattoirs and for more effort to be put into finding more humane solutions.
“For years, industry has led consumers to believe gassing is a humane way to kill pigs and that the pigs simply drift off painlessly into a never-ending sleep,” she said.
Australian Pork Limited chief executive Margo Andrae said the practice was legal and considered best practice by Australia’s pork industry and countries such as the United States.
Does it necessarily follow from something “being legal”, that it is also ethical?
The Australian Meat Industry Council, a peak industry group said it did not comment on illegally obtained video because it was inherently biased, without context and used to push an agenda.
While not a perfect analogy, video taken by a whistleblower on a live sheep export ship shut down Australia’s summer live export trade and has contributed to the current government’s pledge to end live export, eventually, with support from the RSPCA and many in Australian society.
Surely, no matter how the footage was obtained, it exists.
Delforce commented on 7:30 that he accepted that he could be charged.
He says that “…the big supermarket chains also have an onus to ensure their supply chains are cruelty free”, since they know that animal welfare is “…increasingly important to their customers”, they “…have a responsibility to be open and honest about the … cruelty in their supply chains, so that people can make an informed choice between buying pork, ham and bacon products, knowing they’re funding such cruelty, or the great plant-based alternatives available.”
Dr Bidda Jones, now an animal welfare scientist with the Alliance for Animals, was quoted as saying:
“I’m very disappointed that [the industry’s] response is to essentially shoot the messenger,” she said.
“The problem here is not about how the footage was obtained. The problem is the lack of action to deal with the pain and suffering that pigs are subjected to through this process.”
She hopes the footage prompts change in the industry.
Does it matter how good the life of a pig on a farm is, if the moments before its death are filled with terror?
To say nothing of the stress of transport from farm to abattoir.
Here’s a response of a slightly different sort from a farmer.
Lauren Mathers is a pastured pig farmer and Chair and Director of the Murray Plains Meat Cooperative, which is nearing completion of a small-scale abattoir in Barham, NSW to service local farmers. Mathers says, ‘I personally do not believe that gassing pigs is humane… This is one of the biggest reasons why small abattoirs are crucial.’
The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.
(James A. Garfield)
The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?
(Jeremy Bentham 1789, in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)
Recently, after hearing munching noises at night and finding chewed soap bars, we realised there were probably mice in the house.
A few years ago, I would have just bought regular mouse traps, and did exactly that several years ago. I still didn’t feel great about it even the last time, having appreciated mice most of my life. At least we never used anything truly horrible, like glue traps.
We talked about it and agreed that we’d try catch-and-release traps this time.
There were a few false alarms where the door of the trap had closed. They’re on a hair trigger, so quite sensitive to vibration. A couple of traps were “licked clean” of peanut butter bait, failing to catch whatever took the bait.
After almost a week, this morning I found a mouse in a trap that was reset last night.
Given that the door was closed, I donned gloves, picked up the trap, couldn’t tell any difference in weight, but could see something other than the red bait platform through the air holes on the trap door.
Opening the door a small crack confirmed something small and brown, but not moving. I thought it may be dead.
In any case, I left the house, took a short walk down to the park above the river, and opened the trap door close to the ground next to a tree.
Almost immediately, the small beastie ran out of the trap in a bouncing sort of way, pausing briefly to look in my direction. Then it hopped away over my shoe, as if it couldn’t believe its luck. Perhaps it was a species of hopping mouse, since it really was hopping, not running.
Prior to jumping out, it was huddled at the back of the trap. After leaving, only a few faecal pellets remained as evidence that someone had been there.
Watching the mouse escape, covering ground quickly, I felt that I had at least tried to do something good.
I was about to walk away when with an odd mixture of horror and fascination, I watched a large magpie rapidly swoop down and grab the mouse in its beak.
My first thought was that I had not done the good thing I had intended to do. My second thought was: “that’s nature in action”, followed by “hoping” that the magpie suffocated the mouse or broke its neck quickly. But there’s no guarantee of that…
No matter how I look at it, I contributed to the death of that mouse, even though I did not intend to. I built up false hope, if only briefly, before the predator had its way.
I was reminded again that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A criticism that is often levelled at vegans is that even they cause the deaths of animals, such as rodents, for example during harvest. My response is usually to say that, of course that’s true (sometimes with more sarcasm than other times), but it’s different from intentionally farming animals for the sole purpose of consuming them.
So, which is better here? A quick death in a traditional mouse trap or a fighting chance to live in a catch-and-release trap?
Immediately after the event, I felt confused, but upon reflection, I would still choose the catch-and-release trap with the corresponding fighting chance to live, just with a better choice of release location. Indeed, I have opted for the catch-and-release approach, since more traps await. We will see what the next few days bring.
In the rose garden across the road from my workplace where I like to spend some lunch breaks doing recreational mathematics when the weather is nice, mice are often seen tentatively peeking from a bush or scurrying between bushes. Perhaps something like that nearby, but not too nearby, can be found for the next time a release is necessary.
Animals don’t understand our world, nor do they care about our notions of property. We may not want them in our house, but we should at least try to treat them with care if possible. After all, they’re mammals like us, and they feel, and just want to live, like us.
The “right” approach is not always clear. I’m trying to do my best, even if it isn’t always good enough.
EDIT: More than a month and various trap configurations later, another mouse entered a trap today. This time, the release location was near long, dense grass along the bank of the river a few minutes walk from our house. After placing the trap (“The Big Cheese”) on the ground and opening the door, it took awhile for the timid and probably very frightened mouse to exit. I had to tip it up and give it a gentle shake. The mouse scurried away quickly into the cover of the long grass. No matter how long it lives, at least it’s living on its own terms now.
If you actually want to create pandemics, then build factory farms.
Bird Flu: A Virus of our Own Hatching, Dr Michael Gregor (2006)
While it is true that many infectious diseases that have wreaked havoc on humans have come from animals, it is not entirely the case that ending the consumption of animals would put an end to such diseases. Limiting contact with animals, even assuming they are not being consumed by humans, would be necessary to lessen the chances that viruses and other pathogens transfer between species and infect humans.
In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
(Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot)
I find it increasingly easy to be misanthropic now.
Climate action malaise.
Zoonotic diseases (e.g. COVID-19, Japanese Encephalitis Virus).
Rampant speciesism.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and who knows what country next.
All unnecessary. All preventable.
I find myself speaking about homo sapiens in the third person more and more, despite (obviously) being a deeply flawed member of that species.
Despite a willingness to be conciliatory, to be a glass half full kind of guy, to encourage open, honest conversation, some days, I find it really really hard to have any hope that our species will mature quickly enough to significantly mitigate the coming climate catastrophe or to avoid decades more unnecessary suffering and death of the members of many species, but especially those that members of species homo sapiens use and abuse.
Every so often though, my spirits are buoyed and hope seems possible. That happened recently, when I watched this video.
Having said that, I do tire of the us and them phrasing of the title of videos like this (“meat eater” vs “vegan”). The content is positive and respectful though.
But there will need to be many more such intellectually honest, respectful conversations, before my view of the future is likely to be significantly perturbed.
Earthling Ed and Eric have the quintessential open conversation
The documentary 2040 (or visual diary as it has been referred to) does a good job of putting a positive outlook on the future by emphasising solutions, things that can be done to mitigate climate change, including but not limited to local solar electricity networks, kelp farms as a future protein source, and a move away from private car ownership toward more efficient transport systems.
I’m a father too, so I understand the film maker’s desire to put his young child (daughter in this case) at the centre of the story, imagining a better world for her early adult years and beyond.
2040 – official trailer
But, as uplifting and inspiring as 2040 is, it doesn’t go nearly far enough in my view.
What bothers me about the film is how anthropocentric it is. In what follows, I give examples of how its vision falls short. I may be accused by some of being overly critical of what is an otherwise heart-felt, genuine labour of love, but so be it.
There is a section in which a farmer is interviewed and there is talk of farming practices to improve the health of the soil, which is great. But the true costs of animal agriculture in terms of emissions (comparable to the whole transport sector) and animal welfare are not really addressed.
Near the end of the film, there is a self-congratulatory comment about how much less meat people will eat by 2040. We are already seeing a trend towards eatingless meat and towards other protein alternatives.
Primary-school aged children were interviewed throughout. Their insights sometimes bordered on the profound and were often more wise than the adult utterances. The kid who talked about planting a seed and getting meat was on the money, if the rise of the lab grown meat industry is anything to go by, as was the girl who liked bacon but wasn’t sure she should eat it because of its source. These are the sorts of comments that get an uncomfortable “isn’t that cute” laugh from the audience, the members of whom may more-or-less dismiss the seriousness of the points being made.
There is a rushed and insipid comment by the film maker about the existence of some nice meat alternatives as supplements (not potential replacements), but no meaningful concession to the need for a totally plant based diet, just that we should be heading toward eating more plants: a no brainer since that’s what the latest Australian Dietary Guidelines have been telling us for almost a decade anyway!
At one point the future daughter asks her off-screen father “what were you thinking” regarding our generation’s shipping of fish long distance, as opposed to “what were you thinking” by engaging in the act of industrial scale fishing at all, with its attendant destruction of the ocean environment, species population decimation and untold suffering.
The film ends with a jubilant young generation having a party, but it’s a little too soon for much celebration it would seem to me, when there is no sign that any serious attempt to tackle speciesism (arguably, a barometer of our maturity as a species) has been made, and we are in 2040 likely still too narcissistic to think much beyond the end of our collective noses.
In short, 2040 is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and to be fair, that’s consistent with the film maker’s focus on what we can do in future derived from what approaches exist today.
But I think we should want to do even better than what is proposed by 2040, if we are not only going to mitigate the worst of effects of climate change for Australia and the world in general, but also to be able to look our future selves in the mirror and consider homo sapiens worthy of a place as anything like competent stewards of this planet.
Wum is for Wumbus, my high spouting whale who lives high on a hill.
Everyone knows How the Grinch Stole Christmas.
But have you heard How the Woke Cancelled Wumbus?
Among other Seussisms, “A Chinaman who eats with sticks” (from And to think that I saw it on Mulberry Street), was recently declared to be offensive.
On March 2nd 2021, Dr. Seuss Enterprises issued this statement:
Today, on Dr. Seuss’s Birthday, Dr. Seuss Enterprises celebrates reading and also our mission of supporting all children and families with messages of hope, inspiration, inclusion, and friendship.
We are committed to action. To that end, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, working with a panel of experts, including educators, reviewed our catalog of titles and made the decision last year to cease publication and licensing of the following titles: And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, If I Ran the Zoo, McElligot’s Pool, On Beyond Zebra!, Scrambled Eggs Super!, and The Cat’s Quizzer. These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.
Ceasing sales of these books is only part of our commitment and our broader plan to ensure Dr. Seuss Enterprises’s catalog represents and supports all communities and families.
“These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.“
Hmm…
You have to admit though: that Wumbus high on the hill from On Beyond Zebra! looks pretty happy.
Land rights for gay whales anyone?
A Chinaman who eats with sticks… A big magician doing tricks…
No-one uses chopsticks anymore, right?
What about the “big” magician?
Should robust magicians everywhere suddenly be up in arms as they recall their traumatic childhood being force-read Dr Seuss?
The book is not only entertaining but educational, in ways that a linguist like me especially values. It gently gets across the key fact that our letters only approximately reflect the language we actually speak. Note, for example, that there is no way to indicate with an isolated letter, or even a group of letters, the sound of u in put – if you don’t see it in the word itself, no other approximation works: ough, oo, eu, eugh … see how nothing works? English has 26 letters to about 43 sounds, and Zebra introduces the idea, in its goofy way, that there could theoretically be more letters.
But now we are to see the book as some kind of controversial contraband, and why? Specifically, on one page a man of no delineated race (and thus we would declare him “white,” I assume) is riding a kind of camel and has a mustache. A building in the background seems like, if anything (which it isn’t) some kind of pagoda. The man has the billowy pantaloons we would associate with an “Arab.”
I understand, formally, the idea that this picture signals that this is a Middle Easterner. However, I cannot be honest with myself and view it as a “stereotype.” In no way does this picture ridicule the man (or the animal), and in fact, the camel is a special kind (called a Spazzim) with elaborate horns that carry assorted objects which if anything make this man a mid-twentieth century homeowner.
SPAZZ is a letter I use to spell Spazzim, a beast who belongs to the Nazzim of Bazzim. Handy for travelling. That’s why he has ‘im.
I don’t know whether Dr. Seuss Enterprises felt pressure from within or without, but the action to which it has committed itself is an example of political correctness having reached dizzying new heights lately as the word woke has become part of our language.
Wokeness speaks to a keen awareness of social and racial injustice. We hear calls to “stay angry, stay woke”. The derivation is from African vernacular meaning that someone was sleeping but now is awake (“I was sleeping but now I’m woke“).
It’s not at all impossible to relate to such an awakening…
But with wokeness has come cancel culture.
Books from Dr. Seuss, along with other classics, are being cancelled.
Now, I lean pretty far left politically and ideologically. I’m a Green voting vegan atheist. I support freedom of speech, expression, and belief.
But it is arguably precisely these things that are under threat by cancel culture!
Nevertheless, I think we have to resist a new index of forbidden books, no matter what form it takes.
Besides, if you did want to cultivate such an index, why on earth would you stop with modern classics?
Why not go after writings about (or by?) the vindictive, jealous, zealous god of the Old Testament, to name just one holy book?
Unless you think that burning witches or stoning adulterers or killing children if they’re disrespectful or slavery or drowning most of the world’s population are acceptable acts?
Or that damning people to Hell (New Testament) because they don’t utter the right magic words is okay?
No? Well, out with a bunch of books from the Bible then too!
But what counts as harm? What counts as injustice? What should be done about it?
If you look closely, you’ll notice that cancel culture is thoroughly anthropocentric.
How ordinary. How boring. How 20th century.
Not to diminish the importance of addressing the injustices still being done to people in various parts of the world, but why stop with human injustice? Why not upgrade racism to speciesism?
Floob-Boober-Bab-Boober-Bubs: they’re no good to eat, you can’t cook ’em like steaks, but they’re handy in crossing small oceans and lakes.
It’s easy to imagine a different group of outraged people applying Seuss book bans for treating other species, even if fictional or outlandish, as things to be used. And I don’t mean Thing One and Thing Two.
Those poor old mistreated Floob-Boober-Bab-Boober-Bubs. And don’t forget that the Nazzim only has the Spazzim because he’s handy for travelling. Or how about the udder (groan; dad joke) convenience of an Umbus?
UM is for Umbus, a sort of a cow with one head and one tail. But to milk this great cow you need more than one pail.
But Seussisms encourage a playfulness with language. And the corny humour never really gets old.
All Dr Seuss characters are essentially caricatures, including the chinaman with sticks, the Spazzim, and the magician.
There will always be someone to offend in this ultra-individualistic world we’ve created.
We have to stop worrying that something we write or say might be considered offensive to some group of people in the future and instead consider writings in their historical context.
That doesn’t mean that we should set out to hurt, to deliberately offend… Of course we shouldn’t…
And of course, we should stand against harm and injustice.
Obviously…
But what’s next: no Irish jokes? No jokes that start like: a priest, a rabbi, and a buddhist monk walk into a bar…
No question should be forbidden. No topic should be taboo.
Unless you think we’re special in some sense, except to one another, irrespective of any special capabilities we may have.
And yet…
We’re better than those others in some part of the world that is not ours. Right?
We’re smarter and superior to every other species. Right?
Wrong!
We have to reimagine ourselves as being a part of nature, the very nature that we seem so keen to distance ourselves from.
Not separate from nature. Not a special creation.
On this, especially, all holy books are misguided or misinterpreted. Usually both.
We are all biased beyond belief about one thing or another.
We are all flawed in some way.
Not one of us is perfect.
We need less judgement, misdirected anger, self-righteousness certainty, talk of those other people…
We need more understanding, thoughtful conversation, tolerance of difference, kindness, forgiveness…
All easier said than done, I know…
Then again…
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.
According to the current RSPCA frequently asked questions, there are 16 million layer hens in Australia, 9 million of which are still in battery cages.
This means that 7 million hens are not in cages, but are free range (which has a broad definition), in barns, or pastured.
The numbers may be +/- 1 million or so different, depending upon which year you look.
These days consumers have a great deal of choice when purchasing a carton of eggs.
But if there are more hens in cages in Australia than in other systems, and we are seeing a decline in caged eggs on supermarket shelves, an obvious question arises: where are all the caged eggs going?
The answer? Into processed food products (e.g. baked goods) and into the hospitality industry (cafes, restaurants). Here’s what the RSPCA had to say in 2018:
An estimated eight in 10 eggs used in food service and manufacturing are cage eggs. But this is changing with many of Australia’s biggest and best-known brands responding to the expectations of their customers by ending the use or sale of cage eggs in their businesses, in favour of cage-free.
Similar comments were made in a 2020 RSPCA podcast (see also below). So, although there is change, if you read the ingredients list on a packet and it says that it contains eggs, there’s a good chance this came from a caged hen. Likewise, if you eat out, and there is no information to the contrary, your smashed avo with egg on toast may also have come from a caged hen.
As an important aside, the RSPCA also says that in commercial systems, a hen lives for around 72 weeks before it is considered “spent” and euthanised on the farm by carbon dioxide gassing or sent to slaughter to be used for lower-quality products such as soups, stocks or pet food. Then there is the problem of male chicks that are considered a waste product to the industry and killed after hatching, since they are not of the right breed for the meat industry. Recent Australian gene technology may, if adopted by industry, be able to identify gender early, before hatching.
The ACT has already banned the caged egg system. An episode in season 2 of the RSPCA’s Humane Food podcast (the name of which is arguably a contradiction) mentioned that later this year the Australian parliament will consider a ban on caged hens. Let’s hope this comes into effect. Of course, that still leaves the rest of the industry in place, but as Christopher Hitchens might have said: it’s progress of a kind.
When I first went vegan, I was concerned that I may not be getting enough vitamin B12, the only nutrient that cannot be obtained from consuming plants. It was one of the topics I wrote about in But is it Healthy?
B12 can taken as a supplement (e.g. tablet, mouth spray) or by eating foods fortified with the vitamin, such as plant-based milks (e.g. some soy milks) or other foods (e.g. some brands of vegan meat substitutes).
I currently use B12 fortified soy milk daily as my regular source. I have recently switched to Oat Milk and none of the brands I have found are fortified with B12, therefore I am taking a daily sublingual 1000 mcg supplement.
Although only required in very small amounts, B12 deficiencies can lead to anaemia and nervous system damage.
I have annual blood tests that have shown my levels of this and other required nutrients to be well within the normal range.
