With printed books,

• You can buy one with cash, anonymously.
• Then you own it.
• You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of it.
• The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read the book.
• You can give, lend or sell the book to another.
• You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it’s sometimes lawful under copyright.
• Nobody has the power to destroy your book.

Contrast that with Amazon ebooks (fairly typical):

• Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an ebook.
• In some countries, Amazon says the user does not own the ebook.
• Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of the ebook.
• The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software can read it at all.
• An ersatz “lending” is allowed for some books, for a limited time, but only by
specifying by name another user of the same system. No giving or selling.
• To copy the ebook is impossible due to Digital Restrictions Management in the player.
and prohibited by the license, which is more restrictive than copyright law.
• Amazon can remotely delete the ebook using a back door. It used this back door in 2009
to delete thousands of copies of George Orwell’s 1984.

Even one of these infringements makes these ebooks a step backward from printed books. We
must reject ebooks that deny our freedom.

The ebook companies say denying our traditional freedoms is necessary to continue to pay
authors. The current copyright system does a lousy job of that; it is much better suited to
supporting those companies. We can support authors better in other ways that don’t require
curtailing our freedom, and even legalize sharing. Two methods I’ve suggested are:

• To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each author’s popularity.
(See http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html.)

• To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments.

Ebooks don’t have to attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg’s ebooks don’t), but they will if
companies get to decide. It’s up to us to stop them. The fight has already started.

Copyright 2011 Richard Stallman
Released under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0.

Bifo: After the Future from Preempting Dissent on Vimeo.

We are living on the eve of great events. Before the end of this century has come we shall see great revolutionary movements breaking up our social conditions in Europe and probably also in the United States of America.

Social storms cannot be forecast with the same accuracy as those which cross the Atlantic on their way to our shores. But still, there are tokens permitting us to predict the approach of those great disturbances which periodically visit mankind to redress wrongs accumulated by past centuries, to freshen the atmosphere, to blow away monopolies and prejudicies.

There is a certain periodicity in these great uprisings of the oppressed. The end of each of the last five centuries has been marked by great movements which have helped Freedom to gain ground in France, in England, in the Netherlands, in Switzerland and in Bohemia. The great Germanhistorian of our century, Gervinus, saw un this periodicity a law; while the Italian patriot and philosopher Ferrari, devoting special attention to the phenomena of evolution and revolution, tried to explain its causes. Explained, or not, it has been a fact for five centuries past.

No doubt our century will be no exception to the rule. It is sufficient to look around us, to observe. All those facts which foreshadowed the approach of revolutions in times past, cannot but strike the unprejudiced observer.

The commercial crisis grows worse and worse. Millions of workmen, driven away from the country to the ever-growing cities, are wandering about without work. We boast of our gigantic cities, and unheard-of misery grows up in those centres where all the wealth of the world is spent in an unhealthy luxury, amidst the rags and destitution of the poor.

Nowhere, in our quarter, any prospect of improvement. The crisis must grow worse. Having its cause in the circumstance that those who produce wealth cannot purchase it; that customers must be sought elsewhere than amidst the producers; that for all such customers in India, in Africa, and everywhere else there are two or three competitors – the crisis cannot be only a temporary one. Some great modification of our system of our production must be made, and it must be made at once: the sufferers will wait no longer; they cannot.

The political institutions in which so much faith was put half a century ago, have proved a failure. The huge machinery of the State satisfies nobody and faith in Parliamentary rule, in suffrage, be it limited or universal, is disappearing. Even the democratic institutions of the United States have proved a worse failure than all those of Europe.

‘A new departure must be made,’ – such is the general outcry.

Meantime a new social force has grown up in our midst – the workman, the producer of wealth. A mereincrease of wages, a mere reduction of hours, is no longer the sole demand of the workmen of Europe. The go farther. They percieve how small their share of the immense wealth they have produced of late; how unprotected they are – even the happiest of them – in the ups and downs of our industry; how dependent theyareof forces beyond their control, that is, on the needs of customers far away. Andthey want to produce for themselves the wealth they can produce with the perfected machinery of our times.

Every day increases their longing for equality. The wealth they produce. the higher enjoyments of science and art which now they guarantee to a few – they wish to enjoy these for themselves. They wish no longer to send their children of fifteenor thirteen to the mines, nor see them becoming servants to machines – machines themselves.

And in proportion as the longong for Equality and Freedom grows; in proportion as the workman, becoming more closely acquianted with the rich, perceives that they are made of the same bones, muscles, nerves, and brains as himself; in proportion as the daily press makes him acquianted with the mean passions, the narrow views, and the vices of his rulers, respect for the Great Unknown – the Government – dies away; the last force which kept our decaying institutions standing, veneration, disappears. The grey wig of the lawyer becomes as little impressive asthe coronet of the peer and the speech of the Prime Minister.

The spirit of revolt spreads in the masses. The most insignificant circumstance becomes the cause of an outbreak. This has always been the case on the eve of revolutions. A childish game becomes a disturbance, leading to bloodshed; an interference of the police, an armed conflict; meetings become riots, and strikes lead to civil war.

Take all these factors together, analyse their mutual action, and if you know what nations have been on the eve of revolutions, you will doubt no longer the close approach of the Revolution of the nineteenth century.

But few years will elapse before Governments will be overthrown on the Continent. Already in 1848 the insurrection in Italy spread all over the Continent, barricades in Paris were immediately repeated in the barricades at Vienna and Berlin. Now that Europeans are so closely by steam and electricity; now that the same ideas inspire the Norwegian workman and the Italian peasant, the rapid spread of the revolution is yet more inevitable. Governments will be overthrown. Republics and Communes will be proclaimed. And upon these Republics and Communes the masses will impose the modification of the present system of production and political organisation on new principles.

Spanish and Russian, German and French, Belgian and Italian peasants will seize the soil of which they have been despoiled. Workmen in towns will seize factories and mills. Acts of expropriation will take place. New forms of life will be submitted to a trial; new departures will be made in the industrial and political life of societies.

Successful, or partially unsuccessful – all revolutions have succeeded in a measure. The Bourbons returned to France, but the feudal institutions did not return with them nor the absolute rule of the King. Partially defeated or not, the coming revolution will give, as it has always given, the watchword to the evolution of the next century.

Will England remain untouched by this movement? The middle classes of England have the reputation of being far-sighted enough to make the necessary concessions in time: will they be able to do this again?

Forty years ago they could say to the workmen in revolt: Be our political equals, and in the industrial field let us go hand in hand to the conquest of the world-market. The situation is no longer the same, nor the points at issue. The promise of continually enriching the country by manufacturing for other people than the workers themselves has not been kept. Were it again repeated, it would be out of date. So also with representative government.

The points of centest also are not the same. As long as Germany and France revolted to gain what was already realised in England, French and German revolutions could have no hold on English minds. But the German and French workmen go farther now. They ask economic equality, they ask for new forms of economic life; their insurrection will be for Socialism, not for political representation; and the ideas of the Continental workmen will find a living echo in England.

Are the English middle classes prepared to take the lead in the new movement, as they did in that for Parliamentary reform? Are their leaders aware of the new tendencies? Do they recognise their justice? No. And the waves of the European revolution will no longer break against the cliffs of England: they will sweep some of them away.

It is no use to sneer, and cry, ‘Why these revolutions?’ No use for the sailor to scorn the cycklone and cry, ‘Why should it approach my ship?’ The gale has originated in times past, in remote regions. Cold mist and hot air have been struggling long before the great rupture of equilibrium – the gale – was born.

So it is with social gales also. Centuries of injustice, ages of oppression and misery, ages of disdain of the subject and poor, have prepared the storm.

We, a handful of men who see the gale coming, and warn the careless, and are pelted with stones for that warning, – we are as unable to prevent the storm as to accelerate its arrival. Its first coming will depend on causes greater than those we take hold of. But we may, and must, show its real causes. We must endeavor to discover and to enunciate in plain words the hopes, the faint, indistinct ideal which sets the masses in motion. The better understood, the more warmly taken to heart, the better will be the results achieved, and the less numerous the useless victims.

These hopes are hopes of getting rid of capitalist oppression, of abolishing the rule of man by man, of Equality, of Freedom, of Anarchy. And those who fight for these tendencies – deeply rooted in, and cherished by, Humanity – will win in the struggle! Without these principles no society is possible.

Act for Yourselves, articles from Freedom 1886-1907, 1988

1. A publication that’s been around for 14 years builds a huge readership of people who would not be reached otherwise. This paper makes its way to barbershops and bookstores, cafes and health centers all over town — and it’s not easy for a mainly anarchist paper to develop those relationships. Hundreds of prisoners rely on it, and some write for it. If someone starts a new paper tomorrow, many of those old loyal readers will not get the new paper and will probably move gradually to the right as they turn to the corporate media, which leaves out the stories and perspectives that matter.

2. There is a resurgence of libertarianism in the US now, and anti-authoritarians who are not exposed to anarchism are often drawn to it. The myth that Jews run the world through the federal reserve, or that it’s your own fault if you’re poor, are starting to swim dangerously close to our end of the political pool. The defenestrator helps keep that kind of crap at bay and offers a vision of interdependent humanity.

3. The defenestrator is one of the longstanding institutions in Philly that keeps our anarchist movement strong and smart. Many other cities leave young people to re-invent the wheel without support from longtime anarchists. Valuable skills and insight get lost, and groups or spaces last only a short time.

4. It’s not just an anarchist paper — it reflects a wider range of radical and revolutionary tendencies. This works against sectarianism (hostility toward other types of radicals) and closed-minded thinking. It trusts people to think for themselves without a label.

Here are five ways you can support the defenestrator:

1. Write an article! I will forward the info about their next deadline after this message.

2. Ask friends to write, suggest story ideas to them, and follow up with them! Many great activists, new and experienced, need some encouragement and positive feedback in order to write something. But the time spent reflecting on their organizing work can only benefit that work.

3. Join members of the defcollective on Thursday, September 29 @ 7pm at Wooden Shoe Books and Records, 704 South St, for a discussion/workshop on
getting involved with the paper. Bring your ideas, energy, and support!

4. Attend collective meetings on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month. 7pm at LAVA, 4134 Lancaster Ave. All types of skills are welcome – artists, computer geeks, writers, editors, designers/layout people, photographers, supporters, fundraisers. (Because of other changes, etc. – meeting times
are not as set in stone as they once were – check in wt rosa@defenestrator.org and on the defenestrator website for updates)

5. Donate money at http://www.defenestrator.org/ or in person, or send a check to defenestrator, PO Box 30922, Phila PA 19104.

In solidarity,
Suzy Subways

Saturday August 27th, noon-4:30pm
LAVA
4134 Lancaster Ave.

http://www.lavazone.org/about

The Really Really Free Market is a political action centered around building community and recognizing that we posses an abundance of resources that we can all share.

Bring your unwanted clothing, household items, food, books, movies, tools, etc to share with neighbors in the community, and take the things you need!

No money, no barter, no trade.. Everything is free!

The Philly RRFM Collective is always looking for people to share skills, play music, volunteer, and donate!

Email us at rrfmphilly@gmail.com

**The September RRFM will mark one year for us! We are looking to put on something big, so get in touch with your ideas!

These days, few commentaries cause vegans more despair than those proclaiming the virtues of eating “humane” meat, those promoting the ethics of eating “sustainable” meat, or those insisting on the nutritional necessity of eating any meat. Exasperated vegans wonder why, despite years of seemingly successful campaigning to raise awareness about the impact of animal agriculture on animals, the environment, and human health, these same concerns would actually be used to defend meat eating.

Yet it is not despite vegan advocacy, but largely because of it that such defensiveness has made its way into public discourse. The new wave of pro-meat arguments is in part an attempt to defend the weakened meat-eating establishment against the very real threat posed by an increasingly powerful vegan movement. “Happy meat,” locavorism, and “paleo dieting” are signs of society’s willingness to examine the ethics of eating meat, eggs, and dairy, and they reflect people’s genuine concern for animals (and the environment and health). But they also reflect the resistance of the dominant, meat-eating culture to truly embracing a vegan ethic. The new pro-meat arguments are part of a carnistic backlash against the growing popularity of veganism, and vegans and non-vegans alike must understand and appreciate them in order to move toward a more humane and just society.

Carnistic Backlash

A backlash is a defensive, often unconscious response by dominant interests to threats against their power. The carnistic backlash is the reaction of producers and consumers of meat, eggs, and dairy to the destabilization of carnism.

In other writing, I have described carnism as the invisible belief system or ideology that conditions us to eat certain animals. When eating animals is not a necessity for survival, it is a choice, and choices always stem from beliefs. Therefore, it is not only vegans and vegetarians who bring their beliefs to the dinner table. And because ideologies such as carnism are organized around violence and their tenets run counter to core human values, they must use a set of social and psychological defenses mechanisms to ensure the participation of people who would likely otherwise not support them. Most people care about animals and don’t want to cause them harm, and yet it is impossible to eat animals without harming them. So carnism essentially teaches people how not to feel.

The primary defense of carnism is denial; if we deny there is a problem in the first place then we don’t have to do anything about it. Denial is expressed through invisibility; the victims of the system are kept out of sight and therefore conveniently out of public consciousness. And the victims of carnism include not only the animals and the environment, but also human meat consumers whose physical and psychological wellbeing may be compromised by enabling the gratuitous violence that marks carnism.

Thanks to the advent of the Internet and the success of vegan advocates, carnistic invisibility has been sufficiently weakened. Therefore, the system has begun to rely more heavily on its secondary defense: justification. There are many carnistic justifications but they all fall under the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary. Part of the carnistic backlash, then, can be understood as the system shifting the burden of defending itself from denial to justification. Most people can no longer deny the truth about animal agriculture, so the meat, egg, and dairy industries now must provide consumers with reasons to continue eating animals despite such a truth.

Neocarnism

Though various carnistic justifications continue to thrive, three currently dominate public discourse and reflect broader social agendas and consumer trends. These dominant justifications have morphed into new ideologies which, not coincidentally, are organized around each of the Three Ns. The new ideologies are what I call neocarnism, and their main purpose is to provide rational arguments (carnistic justifications) to invalidate veganism—primarily by invalidating the three pillars of the vegan argument: animal welfare/rights, the environment, and human health.

Like traditional carnism, the neocarnisms derive much of their power from appearing as though their tenets are objective truths rather than ideologically constructed opinions. But unlike traditional carnism, in which the ethics and practices of animal agriculture remain largely unexamined, the neocarnisms incorporate an examination of eating animals into their very analysis. It is as if they say, yes, we have reflected on the ethical implications of eating animals, and we have come to the (rational) conclusion that the solution is not to stop eating animals, but to change the way we eat them. The neocarnisms seek to invalidate each of the vegan pillars by arguing that eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary—and they appeal in particular to conscientious consumers who have begun to truly question the validity of eating animals.

Compassionate Carnism: Eating Animals is Normal

Compassionate carnism addresses animal welfare concerns. It holds that, while animal welfare is a concern, veganism is extreme and therefore impractical, and thus it’s more practical to eat “humane” (“happy”) meat than to eat no meat. So the solution to the moral dilemma of caring about animals and also eating them is moderation—not straying too far outside the carnistic norm—and eating meat, eggs, and dairy from animals who have supposedly been treated well.

The problem, however, is that although in some cases compassionate carnism is a step toward veganism, often the opposite is the case: eating “happy meat” assuages one’s conscience such that veganism is no longer considered a meaningful alternative. Moreover, compassionate carnism exists largely in philosophy; given that over 99 percent of the meat consumed in the U.S. comes from CAFOs, it is likely more difficult (and thus more “extreme”) for most people to avoid “unhappy meat” with any real consistency than it is to simply stop eating meat. Compassionate carnism essentially suggests that a willingness to eat “humane meat” when readily available condones the consumption of “inhumane meat” in all other situations.

Ecocarnism: Eating Animals is Natural

Ecocarnism is organized around environmental concerns. Ecocarnism holds that the problem is not animal agriculture, but industrial agriculture. The ecocarnism solution, then, is not to stop eating animals, but to eat animals who have been raised and killed “sustainably.” This means patronizing small-scale, local farms and—when one can sufficiently desensitize oneself—killing the animals her- or himself. Ecocarnism seeks to invalidate veganism in several ways. First, it portrays veganism as unnatural and unsustainable. It focuses on vegans who consume (unnatural) processed specialty foods that depend on ecologically irresponsible (unsustainable) production methods. Moreover, ecocarnism argues that people’s aversion to killing animals is a modern aberration; veganism is seen as a contemporary movement of upper-middleclass urbanites and suburbanites who have become “soft” and disconnected from nature. The solution is to get back to our roots and closer to the source of our food.

Ecocarnism has some fundamental inconsistencies in its arguments which raise critical questions. First, many vegans do support a whole foods, sustainable diet. And why, one might wonder, are alternatives to killing not genuinely considered? Why is the goal of ecocarnism not sustainability, period? More importantly, why not view human sensitivity to killing as a sign of moral evolution and integrity rather than weakness? Given that those of us in the industrialized world no longer need to kill other humans or nonhumans to survive, killing has taken on an ethical dimension. It is likely that our increasing sensitivity to harming others is not because we are disconnected, but because we are more connected—with our ethics and with others. In the ecocarnism frame, empathy and compassion—which numerous psychological and spiritual traditions teach are fundamental to healthy mental and moral development—are viewed as qualities to be transcended rather than cultivated. Such derision of empathy is reminiscent of the military’s attitude toward veterans of war before post-traumatic stress disorder was recognized; soldiers distressed by killing were viewed as having weak moral character, and the psychiatric protocol was to “toughen them up” so they could return to the killing fields and do their jobs.

Biocarnism: Eating Animals is Necessary

Biocarnism, the ideology in which eating animals is considered necessary, overlaps with ecocarnism except that biocarnism focuses on human rather than environmental survival. The proponents of biocarnism are often former vegans or vegetarians, who have switched back to eating animals after developing health problems. The message of biocarnism is that there’s no point reflecting on the ethics of veganism since eating animals is a necessity, and as such is exempt from ethical consideration; veganism as a widespread philosophy and practice is simply impossible. The popularity of books such as The Vegetarian Myth is an ironic example of the backlash against veganism and vegetarianism, the very movements that have challenged the myths of meat.

Biocarnism relies on medical claims to validate it by demonstrating that veganism is unhealthy. (It is not uncommon to pathologize those who challenge the status quo; for instance, women who challenged male dominance were once diagnosed with “hysteria.”) The case against veganism is based on the argument that “man the omnivorous hunter” is the prototype of human consumption patterns. Yet biocarnism looks not to human history, but to carnistic history, for evidence of human physiology. Why not use as reference our fruitarian ancestors rather than their hunting descendants? Moreover, biocarnism disregards the official statement of the American Dietetic Association, which holds that vegetarian diets are nutritionally complete and may be even more healthful than animal-based diets—and that the USDA, recognizing the validity of a vegan diet, has replaced the term “meat” with “protein” in the latest version of the food guide pyramid.

Variations on a Theme

The danger of the neocarnisms is that they offer themselves as a solution to a problem that they cannot solve—and they therefore become attractive alternatives to those who might otherwise support veganism. The neocarnisms act as a carnistic safety net: those who seek to step outside of carnism land in another version of the system, thinking that they’ve reconciled the irreconcilable conflict between caring about and harming other beings.

But the neocarnisms are simply variations on a theme, relying on the same paradoxical mentality that enables traditional carnism. For instance, most proponents of compassionate carnism would not advocate slaughtering a perfectly healthy six-month-old golden retriever simply because her thighs taste good, just as ecocarnism proponents do not suggest consuming locally bred and slaughtered horses. And proponents of biocarnism insist not on the nutritional necessity of all meat, but only of meat procured from “edible” animals, such as pigs, chickens, cows, and fish. (Though the type of animals consumed changes from culture to culture, in meat-eating societies around the world, typically only select animals are classified as edible. The flesh of other species is experienced as taboo, disgusting, or offensive.) So while the ideologies may change, the carnistic mentality remains largely the same.

Ideas or Ideologies?

How do we know that the neocarnisms are not simply ideas about how to eat but defensive ideologies erected to maintain carnism? The answer lies in both the content—the ideas themselves—and the process—the way the ideas are related to. The content of the neocarnisms reveals an irrational argument for eating animals, and the process of the neocarnisms reveals a defensive transmission of those ideas.

The neocarnisms are justifications in the guise of rationality: they provide what appears to be a plausible reason for eating animals, rather than the actual reason for eating animals. And the actual reason is that a violent ideology informs people’s attitudes and behaviors toward the beings they learn to think of as food, so that they unknowingly make exception to what they would ordinarily consider unethical. The vast majority of people today believe that animals have interests and deserve protection from harm; given this attitude, killing animals for any reason other than bona fide self-defense is neither justifiable nor rational. (Even in the case of biocarnism there is no exploration of alternatives to killing, or at least of harm reduction.)

The process of the neocarnisms can be seen through their purpose: the purpose of each argument is not to engage with the issue of veganism but to defend against it. The arguments do not reflect openness to further exploration of the issue or a desire to seek alternatives to killing. They do not serve to invite dialogue but rather to shut down the conversation by invalidating veganism as abnormal, unnatural, and unnecessary. The process reflects a black-and-white, rigid reactiveness rather than a nuanced and flexible responsiveness—a healthy process encourages true examination of one’s own assumptions as well as witnessing and validation of different perspectives. (Ideologies whose tenets run counter to core human values depend on defensive processes to prevent their proponents from acknowledging the inconsistencies in their values and practices. Ideologies that are in alignment with core human values are not structured around a defensive process; if they are expressed defensively it is due to individual, rather than ideological, defensiveness.)

Shooting the (Vegan) Messenger and Message

Invalidating proponents of a social movement is a hallmark of a backlash: if we shoot the messenger we don’t have to take seriously the implications of her or his message. In the neocarnism backlash, vegans are held responsible for the very problems they are seeking to solve: “radical” vegans who demand an end to animal agriculture are seen as perpetuating the problem by not supporting “humane” farming methods, environmentally concerned vegans are accused of an unsustainable lifestyle, and vegans promoting health are portrayed as sickly.

And because veganism is seen as a (subjective) ideology while the neocarnisms are considered (objective) ideas, vegan arguments are discredited as biased. Vegans “propagandize,” while others “inform.” Vegans “proselytize;” others “discuss.” This unbalanced representation of veganism and pro-meat arguments robs vegans and non-vegans alike of the opportunity to have rational and productive conversations about the issue of eating animals.

Appreciating the Neocarnisms

Though the neocarnisms are defensive ideologies, each of them nevertheless presents ideas worthy of consideration: How do we attend to animal welfare issues within the massive carnistic-industrial complex, even as we fight to abolish such a complex? Are there ways vegans can eat more sustainably? What are some of the health challenges for new vegans, and how can we raise awareness of these issues so that, for instance, medical professionals are more supportive of veganism?

Moreover, it is essential that vegans differentiate the proponents of neocarnism from the ideologies themselves. Those who support neocarnism are no doubt truly concerned with the issues the ideologies purport to address. They are human beings grappling with complicated choices in a complicated system. Vegans should commend many neocarnism proponents’ willingness to “do less harm,” as they continue to challenge such proponents to reflect more deeply on their choices.

Neocarnism and Social Progress

Social movements do not grow along a straight trajectory; social change is slow, unpredictable, and erratic. Veganism is a revolutionary movement that demands a profound shift in social consciousness and a radical transformation in the way we relate to ourselves, other beings, and the planet. This kind of change will not happen without great resistance. Such resistance will manifest in a variety of ways: increasingly repressive laws protecting animal exploiters, the intensification of carnist propaganda, and the emergence of new ideologies that claim to offer attractive solutions to unpleasant realities.

As vegans, we must recognize and illuminate the neocarnisms to create a more authentic dialogue about the issue of eating animals. Such dialogue depends in large part on those of us who are vegans to model the qualities and behaviors we are asking for—avoiding defensiveness and instead appreciating and validating the concerns of the proponents of neocarnism. Neocarnism proponents are vegans’ allies, not our enemies; they have taken a step along the carnistic continuum, and their willingness to reflect on their food choices and their desire to do less harm should be applauded. Ultimately, vegans should celebrate the neocarnisms as testament to a shift in social consciousness and as harbingers of a better world to come.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/understanding-neocarnism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nil-zacharias/like-animals-so-why-do-yo_b_911657.html

Why do people who care about the welfare of animals continue to eat them? This seemingly simple question often leads to spirited debates about morality, nutrition, sustainability, and can even upset and enrage people who have barely spent much time thinking about the issue. When most of us find out about the dark realities of industrial animal agriculture, we typically respond to such an obviously flawed industry in ways that range from deciding to buy humane/sustainable animal products to doing absolutely nothing. What’s stopping more rational and empathetic people from just opting out of the entire system that is responsible for such products as the most obvious solution? The answer may go beyond conflicting opinions we have about morality, health or environmental issues.

“We need to eat animals”

Granted, we (at least an overwhelming majority of us) love the taste of meat and by-products of animals. There’s no denying this fact and although we may arbitrarily choose to live with some animals and eat others due to traditions and social norms, our appreciation for the taste of animal-based foods in general, has not diminished over the ages. To make matters worse, we’ve been culturally conditioned to believe that there were no alternatives to eating certain animals or that the alternatives were not practical or healthy enough. Psychologist and acclaimed author, Dr. Melanie Joy calls this invisible belief system “carnism” and points out that “There is a vast mythology surrounding eating animals, but all myths fall in one way or another under the Three Ns of Justification: eating animals is normal, natural, and necessary.”

Surprisingly, even after being presented with extensive facts on the negative animal welfare, environmental and human health consequences of eating animals, a majority of us continue to cling on to this belief system by claiming that not consuming them could somehow be more harmful to our health or the environment. In a fascinating new article, Dr. Joy examines these new carnistic justifications (or “neocarnism“) that acknowledge the three pillars of the argument against eating animals (animal welfare, the environment, human health), but seek to invalidate them by presenting humane and sustainable animal products as the real solution.

The choice to not eat animals seems like such a challenging one because not only does it go against what our taste buds have grown accustomed to, but it also conflicts with our deep-rooted cultural conditioning.

“Eating meat makes life worth living”

It’s easy to dismiss anyone advocating avoiding animal products as a purveyor of a conspiratorial agenda to rid the world of happiness! This is because, over the years, animal products have become independent cultural symbols that are disassociated from the raw materials that they rely upon. For instance, ask anyone who enjoys eating hot dogs and they will tell you that they enjoy the taste, smell and look of the food and aren’t thinking of, or necessarily associating it with the animal it came from. If anything, people generally don’t want to be reminded about what went into the production of their animal-based food (especially hot dogs!) when they are consuming it. In this case, the hot dog has acquired secondary meaning in the mind of the consumer and the fact that an animal is involved is merely incidental to the idea of what they are consuming. Therefore, when someone challenges another’s choice to eat a hot dog, citing morality, health or the environment as a concern, it’s perceived as a threat to the idea of a hot dog (the cultural symbol), more than a threat to their choice to kill and eat living beings.

In addition, the consumption of animal products has been associated with religious traditions and can often be tied to gender and social identity as well. For example, meat eating is regarded as a symbol of affluence in the developing world and is generally associated with strength, virility and masculinity in western culture. Carol J. Adams, author of the groundbreaking book The Sexual Politics of Meat, recently wrote an excellent article examining how this stereotypical connection between meat eating and manliness continues to be reasserted even today by cultural arbiters ranging from magazines, fast food restaurants and cologne makers.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that most meat eaters don’t react positively when their choice to eat meat is put into question, especially because the choice is perfectly legal, socially acceptable and in many cases, tied to their own cultural identity.

“Humans have conquered the food chain”

We have indeed, but where has it gotten us? Our exploitation of land, animals and people as economic resources is part of a long-standing human culture of domination. This cultural mindset has led to the unabashed use of animals like commodities, with complete disregard to their interests, human health or the impact on the environment. Although we may all not be directly involved in such patterns of exploitation, each and every one of us (as members of human society) implicitly participate via our consumption choices.

If we (whether we consume animal products or not) are truly concerned about creating a better future for ourselves, animals or the environment, we have to begin by challenging our culture of domination and fostering genuine respect for the interdependent nature of all life on this planet. Lee Hall, author of the book “On Their Own Terms: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth” puts it eloquently: “The deepest and most comprehensive question for our social movement is why and how modern human society has developed through patterns of domination; and the greatest challenge we face is imagining humanity without the master role.” She’s right in pointing out that this is a great challenge, but if we manage to rise and meet it, we will realize that relinquishing our position of perceived superiority over the planet may in fact be more beneficial to us in the long run.

Once we as a society recognize that we ought to extend our duty of care beyond our individual selves and our communities, into the environment and every living thing, issues such as environmental consciousness, wildlife conservation, human rights, animal rights and veganism turn into more than choices, and become the logical outcome of the ecologically ethical lens through which we view the world.

“But what will I eat?”

The real question is if we genuinely care about the lives of animals, can we reconcile that notion with a choice to harm them? In a state of denial, even the most rational argument for avoiding animal products will likely seem extreme, impractical or unhealthy. However, if we accept that a better way exists, and the only thing stopping us is a cultural veil that obscures our thinking, we may be able to lift it eventually. This doesn’t mean that the cultural symbols associated with animal based foods have to die — they just have to be transformed! Animal-free alternatives are not restrictive and can taste just as good (if not better) than what we’ve grown accustomed to over the years. In fact, most people find that the experience of aligning their choices with their virtues can be truly liberating.

We may argue ’til the cows come home (no pun intended) about the moral, health and environmental reasons why we should or should not consume animals, but we can’t ignore one undeniable truth: eating animals is a choice… a choice we can learn to live without.

Follow Nil Zacharias on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zachariot

“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” ~Albert Einstein

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” ~ Albert Einstein

“There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” ~Howard Zinn

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” ~ Dwight Eisenhower

“War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals.” ~Charles Evans Hughes

“The aim of military training is not just to prepare men for battle, but to make them long for it.” ~Louis Simpson

“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.” ~Percy Bysshe Shelley

“It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passions, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace.” ~André Gide

“War is fear cloaked in courage.” ~William Westmoreland

“War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.” ~Thomas Mann

“War means blind obedience, unthinking stupidity, brutish callousness, wanton destruction, and irresponsible murder.” ~Alexander Berkman

“Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out… and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel…. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for “the universal brotherhood of man” – with his mouth.” ~Mark Twain

“It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.” ~Albert Einstein

“War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.” ~JFK