A Plate of Scrambled – Roosters?

What’s behind your plate of scrambled eggs? End Animal Slaughter guest contributor SARAH OLIVER reminds us of a couple of things we may have overlooked.

 

It often crosses my mind that our ability to ignore the blindingly obvious makes us, and those we share the planet with, vulnerable.  A case in point is the short and painfully difficult lives of chickens.  We love to eat their flesh, as well as the fruits of their female reproductive system.  Tucking into our plate of scrambled eggs, chances are we don’t consider two major components that have been involved in producing our eggs.      One is the mysterious case of the disappearing males, the other is the ability of the modern layer hen to produce huge quantities of eggs.  No other bird in history has ever done this, for a good reason.

Before humans intervened, the ancestors of today’s hens produced around 15 eggs a year, in spring.   However, in order to satisfy our seemingly unquenchable desire to eat eggs, modern birds have been bred to lay on and on and on, at huge detriment to their small bodies, leading to them being ‘spent’ at only a fraction of their natural lifespan.

Hens can undergo horrific conditions as a result of this intensive laying.  Treated not as sentient beings but as food production units on factory farms, we can only imagine the toll on their frail bodies.  Alongside other conditions and infections, they suffer from osteoporosis.     So much calcium is used in the production of egg shells that the birds are left with brittle bones.  I once talked to an ex-chicken factory worker who said that when handled, their wings can just snap off because their bones are so weak.

The second component we miss when we are tucking into our scrambled eggs is that hens produce both male and female offspring, so what happens to all the males?    They cannot lay eggs so the Industry considers them a financial liability.   They therefore get rid of them as soon as possible after birth. For the baby roosters this means getting minced alive, (imagine throwing baby chicks into a blender) or gassed, within a few hours of hatching.  This is what we do to over 3 million baby birds each year in New Zealand.  In the UK it is 30 million, so we can only imagine the numbers of roosters macerated worldwide.

In 2001 I read an article about workers in New Zealand who were being re-organised into different roles in the egg industry.   Their new role in the production line was to feed otherwise healthy rooster chicks into the shredding machine. Their complaint was that they were ill-prepared to deal with the emotional difficulties of this role.   It is not hard to imagine how horrific such a job would be, spending your day picking out and throwing live healthy baby animals into a machine that grinds them up.  But this is what goes on, and this is what we ask of others when we purchase eggs. If we are horrified at the thought of mincing baby animals alive, then is it right to ask others to do it for us?

 

We live in an overpopulated world which makes our food choices more weighted than they have ever been. Bombarded with marketing and often conflicting nutritional advice on an unprecedented scale,  eating eggs and chicken meat seems to be winning on the promotional front.  We are turning away from red meat, but consuming a staggering amount of chickens and eggs worldwide.  According to one estimate, we kill more than 50 billion chickens every single year, an astronomical number that does not include the killing of male chicks, and hens who can no longer produce eggs.

Such is the prevalence of chickens, those we eat and those who lay our eggs, that there has been the suggestion that a mark of our modern world will be the chicken bone fossil record we will leave behind us.  Who would have thought that the humble chicken would be the defining characteristic of our age?

There is a huge amount of often contradictory information from the medical, food and dietary industries about the kind of food we should be eating, and we are also subjected to compelling advertising from the fast food industry. This can muddy the water when it comes to deciding what food is best for us.   I have a suggestion that may help our decision.   What if we put ethics and compassion first, then decide what goes on our plate from there?

I have a suggestion that may help our decision.   What if we put ethics and compassion first, then decide what goes on our plate from there?

There is a wealth of researched information on the benefits of eating a vegan, plant-based diet.  Fortunately,  over the last few years many plant-based alternatives to eating animals have emerged, and there is a wide variety to choose from.   Eating a plant-based diet is now easy, and like any other diet, it can be cheap or expensive, whole food or processed, depending on your preference and budget.  I think it is time that we rethink our relationship with the most prevalent, invisible, abused bird on the planet, the poor old Gallus gallus domesticus.  Just as we can only empathise, but not experience, another human’s pain, we cannot know precisely the level of suffering that goes on for a chicken. However, we can be sure that as sentient, complex, social animals, they do suffer, as they endure the cruel and unnatural life we have subjected them to.

Surely no plate of scrambled eggs is worth all that suffering.    Vegan scrambled eggs, on the other hand, are just as tasty, and cruelty-free.

 

 

Q&A: Casper Hilt, Full-time Animal Activist

Jobless and without a home, 36-year-old Danish activist CASPER HILT works 60 hours a week to change the reality for sentient beings.   

 

Was there anything in your background that set you on your path to animal activism?  

Personally, I have experienced a lot of injustice, suffering and illness in my life and I believe it shaped me into choosing, not just a compassionate way of life, but an active compassionate way of life. I truly want to help the helpless, those who suffer the most and those that are oppressed, and I can’t find anything in life that’s more important than that. I believe that if you have experienced suffering yourself, your empathy towards others’ sufferings grows, it’s like you lose the privilege of ignorance. Their pain becomes your pain, becomes our pain.

How long have you been vegan? 

6 years and 6 years as an AR activist. I was vegetarian before that for many, many years. I thought I was doing all I could do and I believe I lived a very ethical life, but I was lied to. When I finally discovered the truth about the wool, dairy and egg industries I got very upset.  Then I saw Gary Yourovsky’s ‘best speech you will ever hear’ on YouTube, and this was the turning point for me. I knew for the first time in my life, from the bottom of my heart, that I would never support any form of animal exploitation ever again. A fire was lit.

You gave up your job as a psychiatric nurse to work 60 hours a week on Animal Rights activism; street outreach, bearing witness at slaughterhouses, factory farms rescues, writing, editing videos and movies, administering your website and so on.   Activism is therefore your full-time job.  How do you manage to pay the bills?

First of all, to make this possible, I lowered my expenses to an absolute minimum. I don’t have a home; I have no mortgage or rent or any other large expenses, so I really don’t have any bills to pay. Secondly, I never use any money on myself. I never go out, never buy new clothes, never go on vacation etc., so I don’t need money for that either. I only use money for travelling to where I do activism, for staying there and to put  food in my mouth. Mostly it can be done quite cheaply.  I wish I had funds to buy better equipment though, I would love to be able to upscale  the quality of material I get with different types of cameras and lenses, lights, microphones etc. Hopefully I will be able to afford that in the near future.

What is the hardest part of your work emotionally? 

Not being able to stop this,  or save everyone I meet!   But also to become aware of the massive scale of the abuse, something I didn’t know before I witnessed it myself.    On another note, It is  truly draining and emotionally hard to witness and experience how the vegan and AR community has so much infighting, drama, cliques, backstabbing and so on,  and that is mostly why I choose to work alone. I am not here for saving a community, I am actually not even a very social person,  I am only here for helping the animals and inspire other people to do the same.

What is the most dangerous part?

The most dangerous part is the emotional stress. If you break (and you will break from time to time), you change, you will never be the same again. That doesn’t necessarily have to be bad, it can ‘just’ lead you in to a different path, because you now have new experiences and newly-gained wisdom. But we all need some kind of balance to not break completely. We need to be able to do this for as long as possible, as this massive abuse won’t end tomorrow or the day after.

What is the most rewarding part? 

To see that you make a difference.   If you just continue and do this long enough, you will see the differences you have made, the people you have changed, and the animals you have saved. And you will see that the stone you threw in the water actually created ripples that will work for you on and on and continue to make an impact.  The work you do has an impact, maybe not instantly, but it has an impact. Sometimes it has a huge impact.

What skills do you need to make you a successful activist?

Any skill! I always tell people to find out what they are passionate about and good at and then do way more of that!  Become even better and grow, become even more skilled at your skills!   And be open to that fact that whatever your passion is, it might change after a while and that is alright.   Sometimes a path leads to another path and that is completely fine, you are growing and you are being a stronger advocate for the animals. But the best skills are, if you ask me, integrity and decency.   Do what you do and let others do what they do. Let your inner fire guide you and let what other people think of your work, be their business. Treat others with decency, loyalty, respect and kindness, and ignore those who might not treat you with the same decency.

The film making, video editing and so on that you do.  Do you have any formal training in this or do you learn as you go along? 

I am self-taught and I was terrible at it to begin with, but I am so glad I continued and therefore got better. Hopefully, in a couple of years, I will think that some of the work I do now is ‘terrible’, because I will have become even better at it at that time!

Do you believe that animal exploitation is coming to an end? 

Yes, I do believe that and I do believe it will happen faster than we expect.
On the other hand, to be more specific, I do not believe we will end animal exploitation totally, we will end 99 percent of it. There will always be criminals and sociopaths who will exploit those who are the easiest to exploit, but we will change the cultural and legal paradigm into not accepting exploitation of vulnerable innocent beings, and we will succeed in shifting all animal exploitation industries in to cruelty-free and plant-based industries instead, using modern knowledge and modern technology instead of slaves.   Everyone will agree that it is the best solution for all of us, both humans and non-humans, as well as our planet earth.   It will not be easy to get there, it will be with great cost and great loss for many of us, that’s why we have to be united.

How can our readers follow you, and support the valuable work you are doing?

I’m working on a website as we speak, but it continues to be delayed because of other more important projects. But people can always find me and follow my work, contact me and support me on ‘Casper Hilt – Animal Rights Activist’ on both Facebook, Instagram and Youtube.  On www.Patreon.com/casperhilt you can directly support my work for our beloved animal friends.

 

Thankyou for your time Casper.

The conflict between instinct and intellect in exploiting animals

End Animal Slaughter contributor PAUL STEVENSON writes that we will never self-actualise so long as we cause other animals to suffer.

 

Man is a social, innately moral, animal. When we treat others with kindness and respect we feel good about ourselves, but being cruel destroys us.

Human beings have needs of different kinds, ranging in priority from basic survival needs to ultimate self-fulfilment. Like the foundations of a building, basic needs must be met before we can begin to achieve higher ones. The psychologist Abraham Maslow termed these our “Hierarchy of Needs”

Abraham Maslow (1908 – 1970) was a famous American clinical psychologist. He was particularly specialized in the area of humanistic psychology and became famous with his ground-breaking theory on the Hierarchy of Needs. This model is known as Maslow’s pyramid.

 

All humans have similar survival needs – food, clothing, shelter – and all share similar needs for esteem and a feeling of belonging. However, although our highest needs are more personal in nature, morality and integrity are absolute essentials. The house of our being requires a sound foundation and the mortar of integrity to bind all the bricks.

The brain is central to this issue. The human brain is comprised of parts of varying ages dating back millions of years to our earliest reptilian ancestors. In general, older parts perform automatic, unconscious maintenance activities and control unthinking responses. Only the cerebral cortex, the most recently evolved part, permits rational thought. Although we can think rationally, we are not fully rational animals as much of our behaviour is controlled by the ancient, unconscious parts of the brain.

Internal conflicts can arise when we get different messages from both older and newer parts of our brain. Man has an instinctive preference for animal foods as they contain complete protein and are rich in energy and vitamins. People consume them eagerly whenever they get the chance. We also crave foods high in fat, sugar and salt as these are of high survival value and scarce in nature. Although instinct tells us that such foods are highly desirable, our cerebral cortex – our “advanced” brain – allows us to consider them rationally.

 

We are thus confronted with the following problems regarding the consumption of animal products:-

1. We know we can nourish ourselves perfectly adequately on plant foods alone, without having to consume animal foods.

2. We know that the consumption of animal foods causes unspeakable suffering to the animals concerned because we can empathise with them as we too are animals.

3. We know that the production of animal foods causes immense environmental destruction both on land and at sea. It also creates hunger and poverty as it is grossly wasteful of energy and requires vastly more land than is available.

4. We know that eating animal foods causes many “lifestyle diseases” that lead to debilitating illness and premature death.

Thus we face a dilemma over the consumption of animal foods. We appear to be driven by ancient, unthinking instinct, but our rational mind tells us that eating animal products is indefensible. Because we are moral beings we must deceive ourselves to justify it. When we deceive ourselves we generate self-contempt and damage our self-respect. However, self-respect, or self-esteem, is a primary psychological human need as Maslow shows. We must approve of ourselves in order to function fully as human beings.

Integrity and morality are essential components of self-esteem. A false image of integrity may fool others but never oneself. When we deceive ourselves we cannot be comfortable within ourselves and cannot have peace in our heart.

The ultimate irony therefore is that when we steal from others we end up stealing that which is most precious of all from ourselves: our self-esteem and integrity. The harm we so callously inflict on others returns to destroy us along with our dreams.

If we wish life to be good we must practise it. Intellect must rule instinct. Good lives are moral lives. Moral lives consist of showing respect, not just to other humans, but especially to those poor innocent creatures whose lives we so abominably abuse by our execrable behaviour. Only when we do that can we achieve our full human potential, ultimate “Self-actualisation”.

From Dingley Dell to Hell: The Ethical Pork Myth

There is no ethical way to kill an animal who doesn’t want to die, writes End Animal Slaughter contributor LYNLEY TULLOCH

 

The slaughterhouse is something many of us would like to pretend doesn’t exist. It sits, ghastly and imposing, behind high walls. It represents the interface between life and death; a breathless and relentless killing machine.

Restaurant entrepreneur and chef Allegra McEvedy expressed this discomfort in an article she wrote for The Guardian in 2014. McEvedy wrote, “I’m fine with dead animals, but the point at which animals cross from living to lunch is one that makes me wobble a bit”.  McEvedy set up a ‘pork-focused’ or ‘pig based’ restaurant in 2013 which aimed to source pig meat sustainably, and “venerate the pig in all its manifold glory”. The restaurant closed in 2016, but not before many pigs lost their lives in a bizarre act of supposed veneration.

Veneration is a strong word. It means to worship and respect. I am not sure how McEvedy can claim that using a pig’s very flesh for food, and to profit from that, is synonymous with veneration.

We see this kind of hypocritical attitude regularly. It fits squarely in the welfarist camp where the animal unknowingly trades their life (by way of humane slaughter – an oxymoron) for being bred into existence and cared for. The animal has a good (albeit short) life while the person gets their pound of flesh.

The human gets to have the animal’s body and eat it too. It’s just – well, they would rather not see the life being taken. No one wants to do that, not really. Some people try to transcend this discomfort by deciding that if they can take an animal’s life or witness the slaughter of said animal then it justifies the act. We’ve all heard it being said before – “I won’t eat it if I cannot kill it myself.”

To return to McEvedy, she visited the pig farms where the pigs for her restaurant were sourced from. She cuddled day old piglets at Dingley Dell (I kid you not) specialized outdoor farm. She thought about her values of high animal welfare and integrity. And then she decided to tour the slaughterhouse where the pigs were to be killed. As she said, this was her first visit to a slaughterhouse despite being in the food business for 20 years.

The slaughterhouse was called Burrow’s Abattoir, a mid-sized independent outfit.  It’s the place that Dingley Dell sends pigs to be killed. It kind of sounds like a children’s book, a Disneyland version of happily ever after.

The slaughterhouse was called Burrow’s Abattoir, a mid-sized independent outfit.  It’s the place that Dingley Dell sends pigs to be killed. It kind of sounds like a children’s book, a Disneyland version of happily ever after.

Except it wasn’t. McEvedy describes how the slaughterhouse killed 4,000 – 4,500 pigs a day. They kill them by putting them in gas chambers after being ‘trotted along in single file up a ramp’. McEvedy says she can hear squeals, but she also concedes that pigs are notoriously chatty and she doesn’t really think they are distressed. The pigs enter a chamber of highly concentrated CO2 and after 90 seconds are dead.

The 90 minutes is debatable. There is evidence that pigs may suffer for several minutes in agonizing pain.

That’s it. McEvedy is now happy to move along the chute to the blood-letting area satisfied that she is still in Disneyland. The pigs however, are being hooked up, bled out and split in two and their innards (grey with a hint of mauve according to McEvedy) are released.

And of all this, McEvedy says she feels more a sense of awe than of disgust. She writes, “I can feel my eyes widening and over the next hour I am aware they’ve taken on a look somewhere between intently engaged and slightly demonic”.

Her words, not mine.

And of all this, McEvedy says she feels more a sense of awe than of disgust. She writes, “I can feel my eyes widening and over the next hour I am aware they’ve taken on a look somewhere between intently engaged and slightly demonic”.

Her words, not mine.

There is something disquieting about the sense of awe and enjoyment some people get from watching animals being killed. Not everyone cares that animals suffer, or that their lives mean nothing more than a bacon sandwich. The human mind is capable of twisting reality into shadows that obscure the truth.

Before you buy into the line of ethically sourced, sustainable meat it is important to disperse the shadows. What McEvedy did not say in her article is that pigs suffer horribly in gas chambers. There is a myth that gas chambers are humane. The pigs struggle for air and convulse before death. Undercover footage reveals the harrowing reality. When the pigs inhale their lungs, eyes and mouth become acidic and they burn from the inside out. Their squeals are harrowing, and not the kind of ‘chatter’ one would associate with pigs socializing.

Carbon dioxide gas chambers are not a happy way to end a pig’s life.

Instead of a Disneyland fairytale of happy ever after, these pigs go from Dingley Dell to Hell.

Shortly after she wrote this article the author, currently in Fiji, heard the bloodcurdling screams of a pig being slaughtered in a back yard.   It left her shaking, and unable to forget what she had heard.  (Internet photo).

 

 

Voices for Animals Across the Years: Richard Ryder

Richard Ryder has a special place in the history of the Animal Rights movement.  His influence was seminal in the early development of the notion of rights for animals,  and he is also the inventor of the term ‘Speciesism’, a central idea in the movement.

Richard Ryder was born Richard Hood Jack Dudley Ryder in Dorset, England in 1940.  After studying psychology and working in animal research laboratories, he began to speak out about animal experimentation, organising protests against animal experiments and also blood sports.  In the late 1960s when he was working as a clinical psychologist, he joined a group of young philosophers and writers loosely centered around Oxford University called the ‘Oxford Vegetarians’ or the ‘Oxford Group’.  In 1971 a book of selected essays emerged from the group, called ‘Animals, Men and Morals’  which argued clearly in favour of animal liberation/animal rights, rather than simply for compassion in the way animals are used.  The editors wrote in the introduction: “Once the full force of moral assessment has been made explicit there can be no rational excuse left for killing animals, be they killed for food, science, or sheer personal indulgence.”  These were truly groundbreaking ideas at the time.

In 1970 Ryder had a Eureka moment when he thought of the word ‘Speciesism’ to describe the assumption of superiority that humans have over non-human animals.  This prevalent notion has led to the widespread cruelty and abuses of countless billions of sentient beings, as well as the endangerment and extinction of many species, and environmental damage.  Shortly after this a young moral philosopher who had been influenced by the Oxford Vegetarians approached Ryder about a book he was planning, and asked him to co-author it with him.   The young man was Peter Singer, and the book the seminal Animal Liberation, published in 1975.  Ryder turned down the offer, but his influence was demonstrated in Singer popularizing the term ‘speciesism’ in the book.

Ryder’s accomplishments in the field of animal rights are extensive.   In 1972 he joined the Council of the RSPCA, becoming its chairman in 1977, during which time he tried to get rid of reactionary and pro-hunting elements within the organisation.  Also in 1977 he helped to organize the first academic animal rights conference, which was held at Trinity College, Cambridge.    The conference produced a “Declaration against Speciesism”, signed by 150 people.  In the 1980s he toured Europe, America and Australia, appearing on television and lending his assistance to campaigns to protect whales, seals, elephants and farm animals.     In 2004 he became Director of the Political Animal Lobby and later became Mellon Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Tulane University, New Orleans.

In the early 2000s, after a long and hard campaign, Ryder established the Eurogroup for animals – the major coordinating and lobbying organisation in the European community,  who “speak for animals and for the millions of European citizens who are concerned about the way animals are treated”  The group was instrumental in animals now being recognised in EU law as sentient beings.

Ryder has written ten non-fiction books on animal rights, psychology and moral philosophy, including Animal Revolution (2000), Painism (2003), and also a novel, The Black Pimpernel.   Now approaching eighty years of age, Ryder is still active writing and giving interviews, continuing his life-long work on behalf of the other animals that mankind has so unjustly exploited and caused to suffer.

.

Activists have been campaigning for years against the cruelty of industrialised farming and the horror of slaughterhouses,  and progress is being made.   The numbers of people beginning to wake up to the effects of animal agriculture not only on the animals but also on human health and the entire planet is growing, and meat-eating is declining in the western world.

Meat-free eating is also on the rise in Spain,  A 2017 survey found that 57% of Spaniards wanted to go meat-free due to feeling sympathy with the animals.  However, an enormous high-tech pig slaughterhouse is due to open its doors for ‘business’ in Huesca, a city in Aragon.  This slaughterhouse, which will be the biggest in Europe,  plans to employ around 1,600 people, and slaughter seven million pigs per year, 30,000 every single day.    The project is backed by the Spanish Government, and the operation is also offering vocational training certificates in ‘slaughterhouse skills’.

There is a lot of opposition to the project, and the person in charge is currently in prison in Hungary for money laundering, tax fraud and labour irregularities.    It is possible that it will not go ahead after all, and if it does it will be short-lived, as the developers are failing to read the prevailing zeitgeist.

There is no longer any place for slaughterhouses in society.  We should be tearing them down, not building more.

 

Read the article:-

‘Possibly The Greatest Crime in the History of the World’

Israeli historian and Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem YUVAL NOAH HARARI has written a number of best selling books including Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014), Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016) and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018).    

In this GUARDIAN article he claims the fate of farm animals is not an ethical side issue, but concerns the majority of Earth’s large creatures: ‘tens of billions of sentient beings, each with a complex world of sensations and emotions, but which live and die on an industrial production line’.  

Professor Harari states that since we are on the cusp of being able to reshape the future through biotechnology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, in designing this brave new world ‘we should take into account the welfare of all sentient beings, not just of Homo sapiens.’

Industrial farming, he claims, is ‘possibly the greatest crime in the history of the world.’ 

Read the Article:

‘It Just Seems Like An Obvious Moral Issue’

In her new book, ‘Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals’, Harvard professor Christine Korsgaard argues that we are not inherently more important than other animals.  Our own family is more important to us than our neighbour’s family, but that doesn’t mean that family is inherently less valuable than our own.  The same applies to other animals.

Animals value their own lives to which they have as much right as we do to ours.   They are sentient, conscious beings.  What, then, are they doing on our plates?

Read the article:

 

 

 

The Real Price of Milk

End Animal Slaughter contributor LYNLEY TULLOCH is filled with rage at the wanton slaughter of baby cows in the Dairy Industry.

 

One of the most harrowing memories I have is of watching very young calves being offloaded from trucks onto a ramp at AFFCO (a New Zealand slaughterhouse). Their tiny bodies stumbled away from large rattles being shaken by the workers. They filed to their deaths, a bunch of babies, confused, frightened, and desperate for comfort.

They got none. And they never would again. From the holding pen to the stun bolt, these babies were about to meet their deaths.

I wanted to tear down the fence with my bare hands and scream at them to stop. I could envisage it all in my head, the blood on my hands as I forced my way through the wire. The unglamorous fall to the concrete below and the subsequent manhandling by a security guard and police arrest.

Yet like a zombie I behaved myself. And like zombies the workers laughed and joked as they shooed the babies to the killing machine.

This is one of the hardest things of being an activist when you are face to face with the victims and perpetrators of violence. You can’t stop it. You want to, you need to, you rage, you tremble. Your body fills with adrenalin and there is no legitimate expression for it.

So you turn the violence inward. And you hurt.

Some people may find exception to the labelling of calves as babies. But that is what they are, no matter how we might try to distance ourselves from this fact. They are mere newborns, just 4-10 days of age.  New Zealand kills around 2 million of them every single year. The majority are male but a sizeable number are unwanted females, and they are the living waste product of the dairy industry. Not to put too fine a point on it, we can’t use them, so what do we do?  We kill them.

They get loaded onto trucks. Legally they are allowed to spend up to 12 hours on a transport truck and up to 24 hours without any food. Once at their destination (the slaughterhouse), they are killed. Little babies, some with their umbilical cords still attached.  It makes me want to curl into a tiny ball and shut out the world.

One of the hardest things for me is the indifference people show to the plight of bobby calves. If they were puppies, or kittens, everyone would be all over it. If we drank dog or cat milk and killed the puppies or kittens, all hell would break loose.   We would have a circus on our hands with people forming Facebook oppositional groups, and there would be global media attention. But not so with calves.

I go to a café and I hear the expression ‘normal milk’ as opposed to plant-based milk. I want to say: “But this is not normal. This is the milk meant for baby calves. Taking the milk Nature designed for them, and killing them is pathologically abnormal. There is nothing at all normal about this behavior. It is ‘calves’ milk’ and the babies that should be drinking it are going to die because we don’t care enough to modify our diet.”

The sight of the calves I saw that day, walking on shaky legs down the ramp to their deaths,  lives as an undying rage within me. What if I had fallen from the fence to the enclosure of the slaughterhouse, spoke my mind, raged my rage, would I have been heard?

 

I’ve been called a terrorist, an extremist, an eccentric, a militant vegan, a flake. All of these labels are wildly ridiculous. Anyone who has seen me with a rescue calf who I nurture with extreme care knows I am merely a human doing my best to stop the killing of innocents.

If nurturing a calf with extreme care makes me an extremist, then it is a label I will wear.

As I write, early-June in New Zealand, thousands of bobby calves are either being killed or beginning their journey to their deaths. They have served their human purpose in life of inducing lactation in their mother.

I can’t save them all. I never will.

My voice will rise, accompanied by others , to travel on a wind current and speak to those who are able to hear. To speak of life loved and life lost, of the monstrousness of the human condition which creates waves of death. And of my own rage.

Ask yourself: ‘How Would I Feel’?

A few years ago a student took me out to dinner to thank me for teaching her.  As we were shown to our seats in the restaurant, I noticed a tank full of live lobsters and stopped for a moment to look at them.  Suddenly a group of people together with a staff member came to the tank and began chatting and pointing.  After a few moments the staff member removed an animal, who waved his legs about and swished his tail.   The realisation slowly dawned on me that these people were going to eat the lobsters, and the animals were probably going out to the kitchen to be put alive in boiling water – or– heaven forbid – to be eaten alive at the table!   New Zealand has since passed a Law banning boiling crustaceans alive, and I very much doubt that our restaurants would serve live lobster as they do in other parts of the world.   But I shudder to imagine the poor creatures,  appendages waving frantically, dying mouthful by mouthful.

I didn’t want to embarrass my kind host but felt miserable for the rest of the evening, and couldn’t wait to leave the restaurant.   If an animal swishes its tail from side to side and waves its appendages around there must be a reason for it.   If I were to hazard a guess I would say such behaviour shows fear and/or pain, and while until recently it was thought that crustaceans were dumb and didn’t have the proper equipment to feel pain, scientists are now painting a different picture.

Firstly, a little bit about lobsters.  They have been around for 100 million years, more than 90 million years longer than homo sapiens’ earliest ancestors.   A prime example of the diverse pathways evolution has taken, lobsters have adapted to live in every part of the planet, from freezing to tropical.  In the wild, lobsters can live, according to one source, to be more than 100 years old.

Lobsters are invertebrates (animals without backbones) and more specifically arthropods, so called because they have a protective exo-skeleton, segmented body and paired jointed appendages.  Like most arthropods, they grow by passing through phases of moulting when they periodically shed the outer cuticle that restricts their growth.

Their body organisation is vastly different from our own.   The lobster brain consists of an array of nerve endings called ganglia, found within their throat, while their nervous system is located throughout their abdomen. The lobster stomach is at the back of their eyes, they sense their environment with their antennae, and they taste their meals with their legs.

Commercial lobster fishers talk about how aggressive they are, and ‘hard-wired’.  According to them, lobsters have no ‘intelligence’, and their reactions are merely an automatic response to chemical stimuli to achieve certain outcomes.  However, research is showing that they are much smarter than previously thought.

One such study was carried out University of New Hampshire researchers led by Zoology Professor Win Watson.   They lowered a standard lobster trap into Portsmouth waters and videotaped what happened.  The expectation was that, given that traps hauled to the surface usually contained only a handful of lobsters, the video would not show many lobsters approaching the trap (that contained bait).   However, the opposite was true.   The trap looked like an ‘anthill’ Professor Watson said, with lobsters scuffling all over it, and happily wandering in and out at will.   A mere six percent of the lobsters who entered were caught, largely because they had the bad luck to be inside when the trap was hauled up, and not because they were too stupid to find their way out.   Further research Watson carried out showed that lobsters have what it takes to recognize and remember left from right, and they successfully negotiated a maze he and his colleagues constructed to test them.  What’s more, lobster scientist Diane Cowan says that lobsters are ‘highly social’, and:

‘They know where their neighbors live and know what molt stage they’re in. It’s not just whether an animal has a backbone or not that makes it simple or complex.’

As usual, we have underestimated the intelligence of other species, but more important to me is whether lobsters can feel pain.

Pain is a difficult thing to test, as it cannot be measured directly or pointed at.  When carrying out studies on pain, scientists make the distinction between pain and reflex. If an animal has responded to something that we would deem painful it does not mean that that individual has actually felt the pain.

At Queens University Belfast, a study was carried out to test crustaceans’ ability to feel pain.   As part of the study they gave crabs a brief electric shock to a part of their body.  The researchers observed that the crabs would begin to rub that spot for a long period of time, with some animals picking at their wound site if the claw was removed. They would also bend their limbs into awkward positions trying to get at the affected site, which clearly bothered them.  The conclusions to the study were that crabs not only felt pain, but retained a memory of it.

Like lobsters, crabs are also sometimes placed alive in boiling water to cook.   Invertebrate zoologist Jaren G Horsley says that crustaceans may feel even more pain than we would in similar situations:-

“The lobster does not have an autonomic nervous system that puts it into a state of shock when it is harmed. It probably feels itself being cut. … I think the lobster is in a great deal of pain from being cut open … [and] feels all the pain until its nervous system is destroyed” during cooking…   The lobster has a rather sophisticated nervous system that allows it to sense actions that will cause it harm.’

This would explain the tail swishing and appendage waving I saw the lobster at the restaurant do.   My sense that the lobster was feeling fear was probably right.

Boiling crustaceans alive is just one of the egregious ways we treat other sentient beings.   Just because we are ‘at the top of the food chain’, this does not give us the right to take away the rights of others.     All lives have intrinsic value separate to any value they have to humans, and are worthy of moral consideration.  As far as trying to figure out whether certain animals feel pain and fear, then maybe we should try asking ourselves:  ‘How would I feel in that situation’?

Sandra Kyle

‘They Will Not Hurt or Destroy on the Holy Mountain’

While the vast majority of Christians have espoused a carnivorous diet, in the history of Christianity there have always been vegetarians and vegans.  Some early Christian vegetarians were Clement of Alexandria,  John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and St David.

There are a number of passages in the bible that appear to promote the superiority of a harmless vegetarian diet.   For example, Isaiah 11:6–9 reads:-

The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

The notion of humans having ‘dominion’ over the animals (Genesis 1:26–28) has been interpreted as control over our fellow creatures, and that has led to using them in the most egregious ways.  However, Genesis 1:29-30 seems to proscribe a plant-based diet:-

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

This Genesis passage also seems to suggest abstaining from meat:-

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” — Genesis 9:4

The violence in taking another being’s life for food or sacrifice is frowned upon in this passage from Isiah:-

“He that kills an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrifices a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck. Yes, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations.”

— Isiah 66:3

Our common existence with other animals is put on an equal footing in this passage:-

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”

— Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

Some quotations from early Christians:

“What is a merciful heart? It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for demons, and for all that exists. By the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful person pour forth tears in abundance. By the strong and vehement mercy that grips such a person’s heart, and by such great compassion, the heart is humbled and one cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in any in creation.” – St Isaac the Syrian

“We do not know God from His essence. We know Him rather from the grandeur of His creation and from His providential care for all creatures. For through these, as though they were mirrors, we may attain insight into His infinite goodness, wisdom and power.” – St Maximus the Confessor

“Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission: to be of service to them whenever they require it… If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”- Saint Francis of Assisi

St David, Patron Saint of Wales, was a vegan.