As I watch the news coverage of the Michael Vick story I am continuously horrified by the ever-increasing level of cruelty. With each new development we learn how primitive and unaffected by suffering humans can be. The debate over Vick's and his accomplices' actions is understandably one-sided with only the dumbest professional athletes willing to provide a defense that is quickly recanted after an agent or publicist advises otherwise. But, for all the highlighting of cruelty to animals there is much missing from the discussion.
After fifteen years of being a vegetarian I've learned to keep my mouth shut. I will usually try to quietly order the non-meat option at a restaurant or find the vegetable dishes at a pot-luck. But, inevitably someone notices what I've chosen and figures out I'm a vegetarian and then the task of keeping my mouth shut becomes even harder because the usual questions follow.
At first it's, "Why are you a vegetarian?" What seems like a polite curiosity is anything but. People usually have no interest in knowing why I am a vegetarian. They only want to allow me five words so they can immediately launch into a treatise on why they are not a vegetarian. This is when keeping one's mouth shut becomes even more difficult. People say the most inane things.
I often hear that someone is not a vegetarian because they don't see anything wrong with an animal being killed and eaten. (They assume, incorrectly, that I have some intrinsic moral quandary with this.) They also usually say something about meeting a cow or pig once on a farm and how happy the thing seemed and that somehow justifies - to them - the burger they are eating.
I once had a good friend tell me that since he grew up with cows grazing on farms and pigs rolling around in the mud he could never be a vegetarian because it just didn't bother him. I resisted the temptation to tell them that if that were the typical conditions of cows and pigs I would have no need to be a vegetarian either. Fortunately for anyone willing to do even the most superficial research there is well documented information about how the usual cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys really live. And sadder still, how they die.
Additionally there is plenty of information out there about the business end of the food chain. Industrial farming is one of the most environmentally unfriendly businesses out there rivaling more notorious eco-villains like the oil and timber industries. The treatment of land is destructive often beyond recovery and the amount of waste and chemical additive pollution is overwhelming. Beyond that, it's exploitative of workers. There are few, if any, union protections for some of the most grueling work conditions imaginable. There are several sources that document the plight of the low-level employee in the meat industry including Fast Food Nation which, for those uninterested in books, was recently made into an enthralling movie. Most people, if they bothered to investigate, might be troubled to know we haven't come that far since the horrors of another book; Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.
My poor friend who is not troubled by the thought of eating meat because he witnessed cows and pigs dancing on a farm is sadly unaware or in denial about the real conditions of the typical barnyard animal. The barnyard is a myth. And for all the nightmare inducing tales of what Michael Vick and associates did to dogs, their actions pale in comparison to the treatment of livestock. This, too, is well documented and available for anyone. I, as a very young man, gradually became a vegetarian as a consequence of walks to my local library. Rather than recount animal slaughtering practices I will simply point out the legal paradox. Had Vick and company committed the same acts against cows and pigs there would be no legal ramifications.
This is a paradox because dogs and cows possess some salient similarities. They demonstrate the same ability to learn simple commands. They have the same willingness to bond with a human and each other, the same emotional range, the same desire to live in the future, and the same pain response and survival instincts. Yet, under current law a person can subject a cow to endless torture but a dog is protected from inhumane treatment. This is because cows are "needed" to support the diets of millions of Americans whereas dogs are seen mostly as best friends. And, the meat industry could not function at current levels without the cruel efficiency of factory farms.
I happen to be a vegetarian because I don't want to be part of the meat industry. I don't have some deep moral conviction about the soul of an animal or its right to life. Rather, I consider the environmental impact, the health impact, the treatment or workers, and, yes, the level of cruelty that's "necessary" to churn out the meat that keeps the coolers stocked in grocery stores and I say, "no thanks." I have no problem with people choosing to be meat eaters. But, I respect those that eat meat after being fully informed a lot more than those that say something silly about protein or how god gave them sharp teeth and therefore intended them to eat meat.
One might think with my concern for animal cruelty I would be a huge fan of PETA. I'm actually quite critical of the group. PETA has done a tremendous good in exposing just how disgusting fur killings are. If you have never seen a video of an anal-electrocution PETA has some for you and if you can watch them without being sickened - seek help. It is important to note that some of the more cruel accounts coming out of the Michael Vick story tell how dogs that failed to perform well in fights were executed by being plugged into wall sockets. And yet, anal electrocution of rabbits, foxes and minks is legal. Michael Vick's actions will most likely result in jail time.
PETA has also done an excellent job of distributing accurate information about the tortuous conditions in which livestock animals grow up and the even worse ways in which they die. Chickens are shoved in cages so tight their beaks and feet become fused with the wiring. When yanked out of those cages those parts are very painfully ripped from them and left behind. Cows are left hanging from hooks still alive while they die slowly bleeding as they move on down the factory line. But, in spite of all the good information PETA has provided for those willing to hear, they undo a lot of the good they achieve by backing it all up with flawed philosophy.
My criticism of PETA is not from the viewpoint of a detached observer. I have some personal experience with the group. Their headquarters lives not far from where I went to college and as an undergraduate I interned with them briefly. I say "briefly" because in spite of my best animal rights intentions and vegetarianism I was unable to achieve the level of purity PETA requires. For one thing I wore socks that were part cotton, part wool. For another, I ate honey.
Although I couldn't complete my internship at PETA I remained friends with Bruce Friedrich, then the head of the organization. We kept in touch and I worked with the student activities office to bring him on campus for a couple talks my sophomore year. He gave me a rather enlightening book titled Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, which still lives on my bookshelves today. Reading this book and interacting with Bruce gave me the impression that PETA people don't realize Animal Farm is an allegory. They argue against speciesism; the idea that one species is of more value than another. From this they have the idea that an animal life is worth every bit as a human life and any use of an animal by a human is discriminatory and exploitative. Bees should not be "enslaved" to make honey for us. Oxen should not pull plow. Pigs should pilot aircraft. I made the last one up.
From this we get a group that undoes the good they do objecting to actual cruelty by also objecting to women wearing pearls and frequently protesting the Ronald McDonald House where families of kids with cancer stay while their children are treated. PETA's philosophy has introduced the misguided mindset that to oppose animal cruelty is to oppose animal use. This mindset makes it all the more difficult for those who only object to the former. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; if only they stopped at ethical.
I discuss PETA only because I've seen them on the news a lot this week. During most of the talk-n-shout programs on cable news channels there has been some spokesperson for PETA commenting on the Vick case. And they argue that what Vick did was cruel and wrong and disgusting - true, true, true - and then veer into equating animal lives with civilians in Iraq
What I long for is an animal group that actually argues for the ethical treatment of animals and nothing more. A honeybee doesn't have the same value as my grandmother or even a dog. Most people, if they really understood the pain and torture inflicted on the animals that become lunch would oppose such practices even if they saw nothing objectively wrong with consuming meat. Most people would object to long painful electrocution executions whether the purpose was punishment for a poor performing "athlete" or a coat.
The recent rise and popularity of organic foods - such as eggs from cage-free hens and pork from pigs that aren't fed hormones - demonstrates that raising and killing animals can be profitable without cruelty. Although the organic practices are not perfect or even well regulated for truth in labeling it's a move in the right direction. We don't have to equate humans with animals in order to treat human workers fairly and edible animals humanely. And we don't need to wag a disapproving finger at Michael Vick with one hand while we chow down on a turkey sandwich with the other.
The Michael Vick story has already turned a harsh spotlight on the brutish world of urban dog fighting. It is my hope that the light can also reveal a little cruelty toward other creatures. With the right information campaign people can begin consuming meat more responsibly the way people have backed away from SUVs in favor of more fuel efficient cars. But, the approach needs to be practical as well as ethical and pragmatic rather than philosophical. People for the Responsible Use of Animals? While PFRUA doesn't make a very good acronym, the approach could do wonders to improve the discussion.
