Category: compassion/non-violence

A few weeks ago, I went out to a fancy vegan dinner party, where a friend and I were seated with a group of vegans we didn’t know. At one point, the conversation turned to discussing various “pregan” items (i.e., those non-vegan items that predated one’s conversion to veganism, such as old leather dress shoes). It got me wondering about the ethics of keeping such things around. On the one hand, they were purchased before going vegan & it would be wasteful to simply throw them out. On the other hand, it’s promoting a lifestyle that you are ethically opposed to (wearing leather is in effect promoting its usage, even if you’re not actively paying for it [to directly support production]).

Perhaps an unusual aspect of my personal vegan philosophy is that in addition to boycotting non-vegan items (as in “do no harm”), I also think it’s important to spend money on vegan goods (especially vegan-marketed goods, but any cruelty-free goods will do) as together they more effectively encourage change (since companies are primarily concerned about making money & taking money away from one product and giving to a competing product that is more ethical is the best way to grab their attention).

After thinking it was a bit silly that these people would keep around old leather items, it dawned on me that I myself have one “pregan” item remaining in my closet (despite getting rid of all leather shoes within the first few years of becoming vegan) – a wool cloak. This has some sentimental value as my mom and I made it together and I spent a lot of my early college years gallivanting around in it. At some point, I’ll no doubt retire it, but for the meantime, it’s hanging around.

All in all, I think it’s pretty reasonable to make a gradual transition out of non-vegan materials, but, barring extreme sentimental value, it should be done within the first few years. The Edict according to luQueue. 😉

That immigration is an important “issue” for the 2008 elections shows how absurd the USA is. With the exception of the very few remaining American Indians, every single person in this country is an immigrant or descendant of immigrants (many of which are only 3rd or 4th generation). We’ve been getting along OK with the current immigration policy and if it needs to change at all, it’s to be less restrictive (though I understand that letting all immigrants in might be impractical at this point), but many people seem to be upset that it’s not restrictive enough. They are ignorant and fearful.

I’ve heard concerns that illegal immigrants taking away jobs from “citizens” (i.e, legal immigrants and their descendants), but if you think that, you’re not paying attention – NAFTA and CAFTA and other “free trade” (or “globalization”) agreements are taking away “our” jobs (and so is our high cost of living and wages, which are comparatively high to certain other countries). Illegal immigrants are, for the most part, taking jobs “under the table” that don’t pay well and are difficult and dirty or dangerous enough that most people don’t want to do them (i.e., picking fruit or meatpacking). If anything, the jobs problem is primarily that the illegal immigrants have few rights compared to citizens and that employers take advantage of them. Richard Linklater’s “Fast Food Nation” (movie) gives a sense of what’s really going on for the illegal immigrants.

Another concern I’ve heard is that illegal aliens are taking advantage of social services that “we” (again, legal immigrants and their descendants) are paying for. That is so unfair! (crybaby) And it isn’t even much. Let’s do some math: Continue reading “the immigration issue”

The modern tradition of bringing a cut tree into the house (which began in the 16th century) is a perversion of a much older and more benign multicultural tradition of celebrating nature (or God/gods) by decorating living trees and/or bringing pieces of greenery (small cuttings which do not harm the tree) into the house (ancient Egyptians, Romans and, most notably, Druids).

Wanton killing for vanity’s sake is abhorrent, even if it’s only a tree. I’m a vegetarian and I can understand killing animals for food, but to kill simply to possess (for antlers, christmas trees or other decorative objects) is incredibly selfish. I wish people could connect a little more to the underlying life force and then they would have a little more compassion and that would change a lot of things for the better.

Poor little misrepresented rodents! Although lemmings do tend to migrate in large groups, they do not, in fact, engage in mass suicide (the only animal to do such a foolish thing would be the human animal). The “lemmings” stereotype is a complete myth, based in a stunt by D*sney in one of their animal kingdom movies (they needed something dramatic and so forced the lemmings off a cliff – nice!).

You can easily verify this by doing a web search on “lemmings suicide,” but here are details for the skeptical and lazy: www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
[Sorry that this isn’t much of a post, but it feels like a much-needed cultural correction.]

A few weeks back, I was having a rough time. I said something overly harsh to one of my friends and later came one of those conversations full of recriminations and blame, apologies and excuses. I’m generally more of a listener than a talker (or more of a writer, ha), so it was hard for me to come out with one part of my problem. I won’t get into details here, but I’d been having some health problems, in addition to some stress overload (lack of sleep and all that fun), so I was a bit cranky. Anyways, when I started to explain about the health problems, my friend at first voiced some sympathy. And then he said something along the lines of, “I’ve never said anything before and I’ll only say this once – I know you’re committed to your morals and all, but there are a lot of really unhealthy vegetarians out there.”

I said something like, “Just like my dad,” not mad, just resigned. We let it go from the conversation and our rift was more or less repaired. I’m not really sure why he said that, whether it was some passive-aggressive retaliation for what I’d said earlier (for which I was actually apologizing) or whether he really believes it is true, but it brought back the memories.

When I first went vegetarian, my parents, especially my Dad, hated it. They didn’t really understand it and didn’t really try. When I went home for breaks (this was my first year at college), I didn’t eat a vegetarian diet, but rather an omnivore diet sans the meat (i.e., lots of bread and some side dishes). Also, the world was different at that time (1994) and there weren’t all the easy vegetarian premade foods available at mainstream grocery stores, like there are today. Anyways, we had our little fights, but life went on. Over that first year, I experimented with veganism. I even mentioned the idea to my parents, but they just laughed, unable to acknowledge its reality. Continue reading “vegetarian & left for dead”

It is often the case that relatively compassionate people, who readily admit that factory farms (which tightly confine and mutilate animals long before slaughter) are cruel and unnecessary, will, when it comes to the issue of non-human animal testing for medical research, unequivocally state that it is necessary and that they support it. I find this to be problematic because animal-based medical research is fallible, morally inconsistent and non-essential.

First, let me outline the basic argument for animal testing (comprising three parts):

A. Non-human animals are so much like humans that testing chemicals (drugs, vaccines, toxic substances, etc.) and actions (radiation, surgery, etc.) are accurately predictive of the reactions that would be experienced by humans.

B. Non-human animals are so dissimilar to humans that they are completely disposable (can be confined, poisoned, dissected, etc., without them experiencing pain or concern for their own well being in ways similar to humans).

C. Medical science requires biological study of living organisms to achieve medical advancements, without which we would suffer unduly, live shorter lives and ultimately go extinct as a species.

To summarize: Part A – it’s useful; Part B – it’s harmless; Part C – it’s necessary. Animal testing advocates will argue for all of these points, but this is a flawed argument; let me explain.

Parts A and B together in combination present a logical inconsistency. We know that the human being experiences pain and deep concern for its own well being due to biological factors (central nervous system, etc.). Therefore, if another animal species were to have a similar enough biology to experience substance sensitivity, overall health and sickness similar to the human being, then it logically follows that same animal will experience pain and concern for its own well being similar to the human being, in roughly equal measure. If A is true, then B is untrue, but if B is true, then A is untrue – the two are mutually exclusive. Continue reading “animal testing mythology”