Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Why Progressives Should Care About Animal Rights

By Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich, Lantern Books. Posted June 23, 2009.


We seek to challenge the very structures of oppression against animals and to work to dismantle the system that says animals are commodities.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is an excerpt from The Animal Activist's Handbook by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich, published by Lantern Books.

How Will We Focus Our Energy?

If we agree that the meaning of life is to make the world a better place by exposing and eliminating as much suffering as possible, then the most critical question of our lives is this: How do we do the most possible good in a world where suffering is so widespread?

Again, a basic understanding of human nature can show us potential prejudices and blind spots that might impede us from being optimally effective. Each of us has a bias of concern toward self-interest, the known and the immediate. This applies to activists just as much as to the general population.

Most people working for a better world concentrate on others who are most like them or who are closest to them, geographically and/or biologically. It's almost too obvious to warrant mention, but most people working on gay rights issues are gay, on women's rights issues are women, on civil rights are African American, on anti-Semitism are Jewish, etc.

These causes are important, but they're also issues of self-interest for many. Even with causes such as child abuse, cancer, domestic violence, and so on, leaders are often individuals with personal experience (e.g., when celebrities experience a disease, either personally or through a loved one, they often become spokespeople). Charities working within the U.S. get much more funding than those that do work overseas. Work on behalf of exploited or suffering human beings receives exponentially more funding and attention than work on behalf of nonhuman animals, and demonstrations for human rights attract more people and more moral outrage than demonstrations on behalf of animals.

Some people point to dogs and cats as an exception. In 2007, when investigators pulled 60 abused animals, dozens of animals' corpses and truckloads of dog-fighting paraphernalia from Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick's property, there were loud and vigorous demonstrations denouncing his cruelty to animals.

At the same time, though, there were demonstrations supporting Vick, both on the football field and in the community. Many commentators argued that the issue was not worthy of the concern and attention it was getting; others argued he shouldn't be suspended from playing football.

Obviously, no one would have been pro-Vick if dead and battered human beings had been found on his property, or if the rape racks had been for humans, rather than dogs.

Of course, the numbers protesting his actions were still a tiny fraction of the numbers that turn out for an anti-abortion or anti-war rally. Some have expressed surprise or even envy at PETA's multimillion-dollar annual budget. This, too, shows the degree of our species bias -- if we're surprised an animal-protection organization could take in such a "lofty" sum.

Think about it: The largest animal-rights organization in the world has a budget of some tens of millions of dollars per year to work against all of the combined injustices against the more than 10 billion land animals that are killed annually in the United States. Planned Parenthood took in 30 times more for work on women's health; Catholic Charities took well over 100 times more to work on poverty issues. One human disease – cancer -- gets thousands and thousands of times more money devoted to it than is contributed to every single issue related to animal rights. (For a ranking from 2001, see csmonitor.com/2001/1126/csmimg/charitychart.pdf; see GuideStar.org for current budgets of other non-profit organizations.) Indeed, our entire government is focused on human needs, and spends billions each year subsidizing animal agriculture (see ucsusa.org/news/press_release/cafo-costs-report-0113.html).

Guiding Principles

 

An understanding of human nature, along with the recognition of the primacy of suffering, leads to two guiding principles that we've found useful in freeing our advocacy from prejudice:


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: animal rights

Matt Ball, along with Jack Norris, co-founded Vegan Outreach in 1993. Before working full time as the executive director of Vegan Outreach, he was a Department of Energy Global Change fellow, and earned degrees in the Department of Forest Ecology at the University of Illinois, and the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Talk is cheap and actions speak a thousand words
Posted by: AdamG on Jun 23, 2009 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using the authors same arguments, their time would have been better spent actually doing something rather then just telling others what they should do.

I don't agree with the westernized definition of suffering. They are mistaking misery and pain for suffering. The Buddhist concept of suffering is the human condition of abstraction. In having self-interest, we hinder our capacity of compassion, of fostering loving kindness for others. Suffering is the attachment to what we call life. The falling into archetypal roles of us and them, victim and victimizer, of human and animal. They are seeing the trees and not the forest.

As a disclaimer, I ranch. Yup. I raise grass eating animals for food and fiber. Just today I was hiking a dry, sticker infested hill side setting up electric fence to move the sheep and cows to a new area to graze. Our lives together is a mutually interdependent process. While some may die, it's for the good of the whole. Someday, I myself will die and I will be grateful for the experiences we had together.

Is it better to have existed, and experienced that "one bad day", or to not have lived at all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jan Fredericks
Posted by: Godscre@msn on Jun 24, 2009 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
God's first commission to Adam before sin entered the world was to be good stewards over God's animals. They were created to be our companions, but as sin and evil continued to grow (with our allowance), animals have been accepted as part of the industrial agri-business. Churches should be speaking out actively against supporting these hell holes where billions of animals are suffering every moment of the day for our greedy appetites. Remember what happened to the Israelites in Numbers 11 because they wanted meat? Someday we will be judged concerning our treatment of animals (who are part of creation), as Hebrews 4:13 says. At the very least, we should not be supporting animal sufferage/abuse with God's money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Book Web site: www.AnimalAdvocacyBook.com
Posted by: brucegfriedrich on Jun 24, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For book blurbs and reviews, click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AETA
Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale on Jun 24, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good for the authors. This has to be stopped at the root. It is inexcusable. I recall reading 10 years ago how software/AI engineers in India had developed programs that could mimic human reaction to synthetics and thus eliminate the need for animal testing.

Yet this country continues to slide backwards morally with the passage of the abhorrent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The AETA makes it a federal crime to hand out leaflets and make chalkings on private property.

(Sure it's trespass and vandalism and they should be civilly liable for damages, but that often happens in activism and instances of civil disobedience - principles this country expounds upon when pointing to reactions to dissent in other nations)

Four People Face Federal Prison

I saw documentaries on PBS in the 1970's depicting abhorrent conditions in slaughterhouses. Yet the industry continues to get away with it, and refuses to allow media or the public access to their facilities. This secrecy, coupled with an ignorant public, encourages the kind of evil referred to by Elie Wiesel at the end of the article. Because of our silence, the government has now passed this terrible law which hopefully when challenged by the Center for Constitutional Rights will be struck down as the violation of the First Amendment it so clearly is.

Note that in the meantime, antichoice activists are allowed to keep hit lists of intended targets on the Internet with no consequences whatsoever and no fear of being labeled "terrorists".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement