[written to my friend, Y., who is a radical animal rights activist.]
i got into a discussion with a recruiter for greenpeace this week and was saddened and appalled at the way he viewed animal rights activism. some of his perspective i understood the reasoning behind - taking the "middle path, "as it were, in their tactics for activism, so as to better include the masses, who tend to be freaked out with anything that identifies animals too closely with humans (for some bizarre reason).
but he so unquestioningly castigated anything that was done solely for the sake of the animals in their own right - even calling PETA violent, which, to my knowledge, they are not. he said "they give real animal rights activists who act sensibly a bad name." he said a "middle-path" reaches more people and you get more people behind it. whereas, taking an extremist path, you lose people. i said it depended on what your goals are. i told him all approaches are necessary and all have a role to play in aiding animal rights. he supported hunting and farming, claiming it can be sustainable if done responsibly.
ok. so here's my take on that. i, myself personally, am against hunting and farming, even if it is sustainable, because of how much i identify with animal consciousness. however, i do recognize that part of the gross abuse of various animal species in the world come from allowing human beings to hunt and farm in such a greedy, unscrupulous way that's nothing short of genocide. and it occurs every single day. their lives are not just ended but their time spent living is torturous. i do understand that it is likely human beings en mass will be more inclined to work to make sure farm and game animals are treated and killed humanely and are given a better quality of life BEFORE human beings in large, large numbers are likely to abolish eating and killing animals altogether.
that being said, however, doesn't mean i feel we should all just sit and accept the farming and killing of animals. in my view, while the "middle-path" will likely be achieved first for the bulk of humanity (meaning, animal consumption via types of farming/hunting where the manner and method of their lives and deaths occuring are humane, the numbers not so grossly out of proportion with the ecosystem of this planet) still doesn't mean that i won't work to see if i can change people's minds ENTIRELY about ANY sort of animal consumption and exploitation. it doesn't mean i am content or desire the "middle-path" as an end goal in and of itself. and finally, i DEFINITELY feel that without the "radical" element there, pulling people forward, we do not get nearly the same amount of change accomplished overall. it's like the old adage, "shoot for an A, and maybe you'll at least get a B."
in other words, knowing that the masses will more likely respond to a "middle path" re animal exploitation doesn't mean that i just give up on trying to raise awareness about animal consciousness at its highest potential; about the fact that this is a thinking, feeling, sentient being who would LOVE to simply live their life fully without being used or consumed at all.
another metaphor would be - just because i know that hybrid vehicles are financially viable "baby steps" for the auto industry before going fully electric/or other sustainable fuel, doesn't mean i'm content to let that industry rest on it's laurels until we're finally where we should be for an earth-friendly transportation system.
i understand that hybrids are the spoonful of sugar to giving a complete overhaul to an industry which is the bread and butter to some. hybrids have been a way to adhere to the demands of the public while circumventing auto industry full-scale PANIC for having to throw everything out (reads source of obscene wealth) - of course, they're panicking now for other reasons, ha! ha! these hybrids spoons of high fructose corn syrup allow that industry to merge slowly into other more sustainable fuel sources in a way that still gives 'em enough time to figure out how to corner THAT new market. understanding this reality doesn't mean i like it. i'm not going to stop pushing for the auto industry to go fully electric/or other. and btw, this isn't to say i support *any* industry monopolizing any market, esp something so disgusting as petrol. i do not at all. i just ruefully know that it's one of the things they were waiting for. i mean, ultimately, they'd rather not lift a finger, of course, but when they do, they want to make sure it's for something that'll allow them to turn just as much profit as they ever did. many yrs ago, my cynicism lead me to predict the auto-industry, being the greedy bastard that it is, would likely try to pacify us with some sort of hybrid car so that they could satisfy public demand while enabling themselves to buy time until they could figure out how they could monopolize the new "it" resource - whatever it ends up being. but doesn't mean i'm happy about it.
© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez
i got into a discussion with a recruiter for greenpeace this week and was saddened and appalled at the way he viewed animal rights activism. some of his perspective i understood the reasoning behind - taking the "middle path, "as it were, in their tactics for activism, so as to better include the masses, who tend to be freaked out with anything that identifies animals too closely with humans (for some bizarre reason).
but he so unquestioningly castigated anything that was done solely for the sake of the animals in their own right - even calling PETA violent, which, to my knowledge, they are not. he said "they give real animal rights activists who act sensibly a bad name." he said a "middle-path" reaches more people and you get more people behind it. whereas, taking an extremist path, you lose people. i said it depended on what your goals are. i told him all approaches are necessary and all have a role to play in aiding animal rights. he supported hunting and farming, claiming it can be sustainable if done responsibly.
ok. so here's my take on that. i, myself personally, am against hunting and farming, even if it is sustainable, because of how much i identify with animal consciousness. however, i do recognize that part of the gross abuse of various animal species in the world come from allowing human beings to hunt and farm in such a greedy, unscrupulous way that's nothing short of genocide. and it occurs every single day. their lives are not just ended but their time spent living is torturous. i do understand that it is likely human beings en mass will be more inclined to work to make sure farm and game animals are treated and killed humanely and are given a better quality of life BEFORE human beings in large, large numbers are likely to abolish eating and killing animals altogether.
that being said, however, doesn't mean i feel we should all just sit and accept the farming and killing of animals. in my view, while the "middle-path" will likely be achieved first for the bulk of humanity (meaning, animal consumption via types of farming/hunting where the manner and method of their lives and deaths occuring are humane, the numbers not so grossly out of proportion with the ecosystem of this planet) still doesn't mean that i won't work to see if i can change people's minds ENTIRELY about ANY sort of animal consumption and exploitation. it doesn't mean i am content or desire the "middle-path" as an end goal in and of itself. and finally, i DEFINITELY feel that without the "radical" element there, pulling people forward, we do not get nearly the same amount of change accomplished overall. it's like the old adage, "shoot for an A, and maybe you'll at least get a B."
in other words, knowing that the masses will more likely respond to a "middle path" re animal exploitation doesn't mean that i just give up on trying to raise awareness about animal consciousness at its highest potential; about the fact that this is a thinking, feeling, sentient being who would LOVE to simply live their life fully without being used or consumed at all.
another metaphor would be - just because i know that hybrid vehicles are financially viable "baby steps" for the auto industry before going fully electric/or other sustainable fuel, doesn't mean i'm content to let that industry rest on it's laurels until we're finally where we should be for an earth-friendly transportation system.
i understand that hybrids are the spoonful of sugar to giving a complete overhaul to an industry which is the bread and butter to some. hybrids have been a way to adhere to the demands of the public while circumventing auto industry full-scale PANIC for having to throw everything out (reads source of obscene wealth) - of course, they're panicking now for other reasons, ha! ha! these hybrids spoons of high fructose corn syrup allow that industry to merge slowly into other more sustainable fuel sources in a way that still gives 'em enough time to figure out how to corner THAT new market. understanding this reality doesn't mean i like it. i'm not going to stop pushing for the auto industry to go fully electric/or other. and btw, this isn't to say i support *any* industry monopolizing any market, esp something so disgusting as petrol. i do not at all. i just ruefully know that it's one of the things they were waiting for. i mean, ultimately, they'd rather not lift a finger, of course, but when they do, they want to make sure it's for something that'll allow them to turn just as much profit as they ever did. many yrs ago, my cynicism lead me to predict the auto-industry, being the greedy bastard that it is, would likely try to pacify us with some sort of hybrid car so that they could satisfy public demand while enabling themselves to buy time until they could figure out how they could monopolize the new "it" resource - whatever it ends up being. but doesn't mean i'm happy about it.
© 2009 Copyright by Paola Lopez
No comments:
Post a Comment