On the tip of one my K2 Apache Outlaw skis is a sticker of a skull and crossbones with the shocking statement, “Go Vegan or Die.” That sentiment might seem mean-spirited unless taken as fair warning about the very real health risks associated with eating meat—such as the greatly increased risk of cancer.
Like the anti-smoking campaign slogan, “Quit Smoking or Die,” “Go Vegan or Die” is simply good advice for people seeking longevity. (Stone-age meat-eaters seldom lived past 30, after all.)
There’s also a less-charitable motive for the slogan on the sticker. Anybody who has been the victim of thoughtless mockery from a meat-eater for the selfless act of eschewing animal flesh would be tempted to use the slogan, “Go Vegan or Die,” as would anyone frustrated by the results of their futile attempts to help others see that animal slaughter is cruelty and humans can live quite happily on a plant-based diet—sans the complicity in causing animal suffering.
Indeed, “Go Vegan or Die” could be a message to Homo sapiens that if they don’t want to exceed their carrying capacity, and ultimately join the list of species headed for extinction, they must change their murderous ways.
Displayed on the left-hand column of the home page of my wildlife photography site, “Animals in the Wild,” is a kill counter that continually adds to the ever-growing list of animals slaughtered for the sake of human hedonism.
If you ever need a starkly chilling reminder of why someone might utter the shocking slogan, “Go Vegan or Die,” stop in for a visit and watch how fast the numbers fly…
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
1,516,838 marine animals
4,921 cows / calves
1,062 pigeons / other birds
51 donkeys and mules
34 camels / camelids
View in real-time here.
This article brings up a lot of great points, but I would argue that it isn’t just the vegans, it’s the animals themselves, who are the last fair game for socially-acceptable persecution…
The environment doesn’t appreciate our meat obsession.
The average meat-eater in the U.S. is responsible for almost twice as much global warming as the average vegetarian, and close to three times that of the average vegan, according to a study (pdf) published this month in the journal Climatic Change.
The study, which was carried out at Oxford University, surveyed the diets of some 60,000 individuals (more than 2,000 vegans, 15,000 vegetarians, 8,000 fish-eaters, and nearly 30,000 meat-eaters). Heavy meat-eaters were defined as those who consume more than 3.5 ounces of meat per day—making the average American meat-eater (who consumes roughly four ounces per day) a heavy meat-eater. Low meat-eaters were those who eat fewer than 1.76 ounces. And medium meat-eaters were those whose consumption fell somewhere in between.
The difference found in diet-driven carbon footprints was significant. Halve your meat intake, and you could cut your carbon footprint by more than 35 percent; stick to fish, and you could cut it by nearer to 50 percent; go vegan, and the difference could be 60%.
The variations were so drastic that the study’s authors suggested that countries should consider revising their definition of a sustainable diet. “National governments that are considering an update of dietary recommendations in order to define a ‘healthy, sustainable diet’ must incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products,” the study says.
The livestock industry is responsible for roughly 15 percent of global carbon emissions. And the resources necessary to produce even the smallest amounts of market ready meat—like, say, a quarter pound hamburger—are staggering.
The good news is that while Americans might still eat more meat than mother nature would prefer, they are scaling back, and especially so with the most environmentally unfriendly kind—per capita beef consumption has fallen by 36 percent since its peak in 1976, according to data from the USDA. The bad news is that the rest of the world appears to be headed in the opposite direction. Global demand for meat is expected to grow by more than 70 percent by 2050, largely driven by burgeoning middle classes in the developing world.
…it is always wrong and misguided and thoughtless and cruel.” – Susie Duncan
Three Stories and a Great Quote from Susie Duncan
1) Unlikely friendship of a dog and an owl … Okay! So, why can’t humans simmer down and be nice and stop eating other species? AND stop warring with one another? AND stop worrying and start being happy and looking out for each other? These photographs at the above link are exceptional – enjoy! LIFE as it was meant to be lived…by all!
Don’t eat any animals under any circumstances; it is always wrong and misguided and thoughtless and cruel.
2) Urgent: Ask Indiana Legislators to Oppose ‘Canned Hunting’ Bill! This state has gone so damned low that it is not to be believe; they may have already voted as they are running crazy, mean-spirited legislation through like crazy!
3) ODD HEADLINE? “American gored by bull in Spain out of intensive care“: not just a double preposition, but also sounds like the bull gave a bit of a gore to a rotten person just to teach a lesson in humane-ness, doing so from that spirit of concerned “intensive care” for the brat’s soul?????? Like a parental swat? Where is Jay Leno when we need him?
Why Do Right-Wing Adherents Engage in More Animal Exploitation and Meat Consumption?
Submitted on Jan 26, 2015 (Original item from 2014)
Even though a number of studies have established a link between right-wing ideology and meat-eating, there is a dearth of literature addressing why those with right-wing beliefs are more likely to consume animals. Recognizing the gap, this study of Dutch and Belgian adults begins to address the question of why, and finds that people with right-wing beliefs tend to staunchly oppose any movement that threatens traditions, or perceived human superiority. Though it is only an initial foray into right-wing psychology and its tendency towards animal exploitation, the authors establish a strong link between the two and encourage further inquiry.
When it comes to right-wing ideology, past research has identified two “dispositional dimensions” that are the primary lenses through which adherents see the world: Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), defined by a strong belief in cultural traditions, submission to authority, and aggression towards disobedience; and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), a desire for your group to be dominant, and belief that there is a fundamental inequality among social groups. At the beginning of their paper, the authors note that “Few studies have investigated relations between social-ideological orientations and exploitative attitudes and behaviors toward animals. […] Yet existing evidence reveals positive associations between right-wing ideologies such as RWA and SDO, and attitudes toward the exploitation of animals as objects for human benefit.” Even though it is established that having a right-wing orientation means that a person is more likely to self-identify as a meat eater and consume meat in their daily life, there is little evidence as to why this is the case. In this study, researchers hypothesized that the link between meat-eating and right-wing beliefs is caused primarily by “a sense of threat from increasingly popular non-exploitive ideologies toward animals (i.e., veg(etari)anism),” as well as “human supremacy beliefs.”
Conducting two separate surveys with Dutch and Belgian adults respectively, researchers established the link, finding that “those higher (vs. lower) in RWA or SDO demonstrate greater acceptance of animal exploitation and greater animal consumption.” However, more importantly, they were able to “reveal that right-wing ideologies predict animal exploitation and consumption through two psychological processes: the perceived threat that animal-rights ideologies pose to the dominant carnist ideology, and the belief in human superiority over animals.” Even when researchers replicated their first study with a second group, sampling a greater proportion of non-meat eaters, and controlling for the possibility that meat-eaters simply like the taste of meat, researchers still found that the basis of meat-eating for right-wing respondents was ideological in nature. Again, they found that for right-wingers, meat-eating behavior was “clearly ideological in nature, referencing power, might, and greater ‘rights’ over animals, plus an active push-back against movements advocating for the under-powered (i.e., non-human animals).”
Through this study, the authors hope to inspire further inquiry and note that their work indicates that it is “increasingly clear” that right-wing thought has “much broader implications” for the propagation of meat-eating. Given the strength of ideological beliefs, it might be wise for animal advocates to undertake further research into how their messages target and impact right-wing adherents. Furthermore, if right-wing ideology is such a strong predictor of a steadfast belief in the rightness of consuming animals, it may be more effective to target meat-eaters who do not disagree with veganism/vegetarianism on such fundamental, visceral grounds.
Despite the well-documented implications of right-wing ideological dispositions for human intergroup relations, surprisingly little is understood about the implications for human–animal relations. We investigate why right-wing ideologies – social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) – positively predict attitudes toward animal exploitation and meat consumption. Two survey studies conducted in heterogeneous community samples (Study 1, N=260; Study 2, N=489) demonstrated that right-wing ideologies predict greater acceptance of animal exploitation and more meat consumption through two explaining mechanisms: (a) perceived threat from non-exploitive ideologies to the dominant carnist ideology (for both SDO and RWA) and (b) belief in human superiority over animals (for SDO). These findings hold after controlling for hedonistic pleasure from eating meat. Right- wing adherents do not simply consume more animals because they enjoy the taste of meat, but because doing so supports dominance ideologies and resistance to cultural change. Psychological parallels between human intergroup relations and human–animal relations are considered.
Pope change his mind on breeding “like rabbits”?
ROME – During his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis sought Wednesday to clarify remarks he made earlier in the week which suggested Catholics should limit the number of children they have, if they can’t afford to take care of them properly.
Aboard the papal plane from Manila to Rome on Monday, the Pope spoke of his disapproval of a woman who was expecting her eighth child.
“Does she want to leave seven orphans?” asked the pontiff, wondering aloud whether she was trying to tempt god by undergoing an eighth birth by cesarean section.
Using the colorful language that has become his hallmark, the Pope said being a good Catholic did not mean people should breed “like rabbits,” and added that there were many church-approved ways to limit births without resourcing to contraceptives, which are banned by the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, he seemed to pull back from that statement. Speaking of his recent trip to the Philippines, where he presided over the largest mass in history, he said “it gives consolation and hope to see so many numerous families who receive children as a real gift of God. They know that every child is a benediction.”
He called “simplistic” the belief that large families were the cause of poverty, blaming it instead on an unjust economic system. “We can all say that the principal cause of poverty is an economic system that has removed the person from the center, and put the god of money there instead.”
Mons. Anthony Figueiredo, a theologian and Director of the North American Pontifical College in Rome, said the two statements are not contradictory.
“When the Pope speaks on the plane, he is speaking as a pastor to ordinary people,” said Figueiredo, who is a CBS News consultant. “When he comes back, he wants to speak as Pope.”
The Monsignor said that while some Popes have put doctrine first, Francis puts the person first.
“It’s a risky business, there is no doubt about it; because when you begin with the person, everyone has their own way of hearing it.”
Putting Pope Francis squarely into any category can be difficult.
Speaking to reporters during Francis’ trip to the Philippines, Archbishop of Manila Luis Antonio Tagle said that when he’s asked whether the pope is a liberal or a conservative, he responds simply: “he is who he is.”
Will the Pope Go Vegan? | Posted January 20, 2015 | 11:35 AM
I jest not. Never having been one to adhere to any organized religion, in fact I have an utter contempt for them, I find myself nonetheless more than a little happy to hear Pope Francis has made global climate change a top concern. According to the Associated Press…
Listen up, ladies (and men who care about women’s rights, duh!), because this one’s for you:
As an animal rights activist AND a feminist, I’ve always felt that it’s important for us women and girls to recognize the connection between feminism and the treatment of cows used by the dairy industry. While this may sound like a stretch at first, here’s why:
All cows who are used for their milk are female—in case ya didn’t already know that!
Female cows don’t need to be milked. Female cows produce milk for the same reason that human women do: to feed THEIR babies. On factory farms, calves are torn away from their mothers so that the momma cow’s milk can be saved for human consumption (we’re the ONLY species that drinks another species’ milk regularly—so weird!). This is what it looks like:
Cows produce milk only after they’ve been pregnant. In order to get cows pregnant, farmers forcibly impregnate them on what the industry calls a “rape rack.” Uhhhhh … read that again. A rape rack. That’s literally what it’s called. Can you really consider yourself someone who stands up for all females if you condone farmers’ use of RAPE RACKS to impregnate cows—just so they can DRAG their babies away and repeat the whole thing again?
Female cows in the dairy industry are treated as nothing more than baby- and milk-making machines—with no regard for their emotional lives. If they were allowed to do so, mother cows would spend months with their young, teaching, nurturing, and bonding with them. On factory farms, all they can do is cry out for their babies as they’re violently dragged away. For the milk to make it to grocery-store shelves, cows are hooked up to milking machines for most of their lives. No “old MacDonald’s farm” here. When their milk production decreases and the cows are no longer profitable, they’re sent to slaughter.
If you still aren’t getting the connection, let me break it down for you: Women and girls EVERYWHERE are being used and abused. Many of us have grown up in male-dominated societies that tell us what to do with our bodies and how they should be used, and sadly, we’re often seen as nothing more than objects. Many women and girls are forced into situations where they lose control over their bodies—and far too often, other people think that they deserve this control. That’s what’s happening to cows on dairy farms every single day—all for a totally unnecessary and disgusting product.
No moms want to be hooked up to a rape rack, be forcibly impregnated, and have their baby taken away from them. It’s up to us to exercise our “girl power” (the best kind of power there is!) and say enough is enough!
You know that this is wrong, but the good news is that it’s SO easy to help. All you have to do is stick to dairy-free alternatives to milk and cheese, which is easier than ever!
Learn more about dairy products and how you can help cows:
1. Check this page out for tips on ditching dairy.
2. Get the scoop on vegan cheese here!
3. Take action here for cows used for their milk, then share this page by clicking the buttons below.
There are 59 billion animals alive at any one time, farmed for their meat. The world’s domestic cattle weigh 16 times as much as all the wild animals on the planet put together. 60% of the globe’s agricultural land is used for beef production, from growing grain to raising cows. Since the early-20th century, industrial farming and global capitalism have worked hand-in-hand to provide meat at an ever cheaper price. And our appetites, so tempted, have led us to consume more and more animals. In the US, each citizen eats on average 120kg of meat per year. And that’s not even the number one spot. Our insatiable desire for meat has defined how we use our planet. But cheap meat comes at a price. Planet Carnivore gets under the skin of the health problems that over-consumption brings; of modern farming’s destructive use of resources; and of the stretched and strained farms and abattoirs that lead to horsemeat in beef burgers and challenging moral questions about our relationship with our food. Alex Renton’s brilliantly researched, utterly compelling Guardian Short serves up the grisly stories, and also looks at how we are beginning to try and pay the cheap meat bill, from innovative twists on current techniques to cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. – See more at: http://guardianshorts.co.uk/planetcarnivore/#sthash.oURzZciG.dpuf