How some animal metaphors perpetuate negative stereotypes and trivialize animal life

As most politically correct individuals will tell you, language can play a pretty important part in shaping and maintaining our opinions. While I am closer to Lenny Bruce than I am to hardcore purveyors of political correctness, I do believe that we have to be mindful of using language that perpetuates negative stereotypes, and especially violence. Most people will have no problem identifying and avoiding language that marginalizes, insults, and derides other human beings, yet there is very little that is said about language that perpetuates our view of animals as lesser (read: less significant) beings.

English, like other languages, has many phrases, idiomatic and otherwise, that refer to animals. Some are neutral, or even positive (eg: "pretty as a peacock"), others, less so. For example, although pigs are intelligent creatures, people often use the word "pig" to refer to someone who is greedy, dirty, or unpleasant. This usage of "pig" creates and/or reinforces the idea that these animals exhibit these negative qualities, which is not true. In fact, this particular phrase is a classic example of misattribution of human qualities (in this case defects) to animals. There are quite a few things we got wrong about pigs in our pig-related phrases.This article about pigs dispels this and other myths, and lets you know why other pig related phrases, such as "to pig out", are also inaccurate. Similarly, when we refer to someone as a "rat", we are saying that person is disloyal, deceitful, and/or just plain horrible. Why use "rat", an animal that has nothing disloyal/deceitful about it, when you can easily use, say, "politician"?

A dog is one of the most noble, faithful animals there is, and yet when we call someone a "dog", we're not referring to that person's nobility and/or faithfulness, but to his wickedness, often of a sexual variety. To "beat someone like a dog" is still often used to refer to giving someone a nasty beating. Do we really need to verbally associate (and thereby reinforce) "beating" with a dog, a mule, or any other animal, when violence towards animals is still a big problem in our society? While thankfully not used as much these days, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" used to be a pretty common phrase referring to there being more than one way to do something. This begs the question: Why would anyone use such a violent image, when so many other less disturbing ones could be used in its place? The answer is quite simple. Back when the phrase was first coined (mid 19th century), the sentience of animals such as cats was not something most people knew or cared about, so making light of such an animal's professedly insignificant life was completely acceptable. We, however, are living in 2015, and in our modern world, violent phrases that make light of animal suffering should not be used. "Shooting fish in a barrel", which refers to obtaining something without any effort, is another such phrase. Although seen as humorous by many, it is pretty unambiguous in its acceptance of violence. The underlying idea here is that it's OK to kill fish, it's just the method that matters. Fish and other marine animals continue to have a hard time getting an empathetic nod from people, so we don't really need to use phrases that reference violence towards them.

Birds too, are not immune to negative metaphors. "Bird-brain" is still used to refer to someone we think is stupid. This ignores the fact that crows, for example, are extremely smart animals. We are learning more and more about the intelligence of birds, and using phrases such as "bird-brain", and the horrible phrase "to kill two birds with one stone", either downplays these animals' intelligence, or reflects an unacceptable matter-of-factness about killing them.

These are only some examples of the way we use language to either misattribute human qualities to animals or to trivialize animal life. Many of these phrases came to be because of the "it's just an animal" approach to other sentient beings. These days, we should know better. We should respect sentient life, and not using words and phrases in ways that perpetuate archaic and erroneous ideas about these animals is a good step along that path.

Guadalajara, panorama

Panorama de Guadalajara (Mexico) que hice hace unas semanas del techo de un amigo. Panorama of Guadalajara (Mexico) taken for a friend's rooftop a couple of weeks ago.

Refuting the food-chain argument against vegetarianism

While visiting my home town of Los Angeles, I passed a fairly well-known burger joint and noticed a sign/ad that was hanging in their window. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it was something like “man did not claw his way to the top of the food chain to eat soy”. This is actually a fairly common argument against vegetarianism, though, as with pretty much every other argument that I’ve heard, one that's not difficult to refute.

This argument falls apart on several different levels. First, it assumes that we are still cavemen. It assumes that we still walk around with spears in our hands, looking for animals to kill, less we die of hunger. We do not. We generally walk over to our local supermarket and buy meat that was killed for us. We choose to buy meat even though there are more and more tasty, healthy, ethical vegetarian and vegan choices right in front of us, often right in the same supermarket. This is a luxury cavemen didn’t have. This, my friends, is called evolution. For those of us who have accepted that it is time to evolve to a higher plane of empathy, eating meat can be clumped in with other behavior of our prehistoric ancestors that we now almost uniformly call “barbaric”. We, unlike our primitive brethren, have been given a choice – to move forward and to continue diminishing levels of violence in the world, or to continue our harmful dietary habits. I suggest we embrace the former in order to make the world a better place for both ourselves and the animals with whom we share it.

But isn’t the fact that we have eaten meat for centuries, even millennia, a sign that this is, indeed, the natural way to eat? Once again, to the limited prehistoric man (and even to some of our more recent ancestors), meat was the most readily available form of sustenance, so it, indeed, seemed both natural and necessary. (That said, let's not forget that the above statement doesn’t even apply to all societies. Much of the Indian subcontinent, for example, has a very long history of vegetarianism, and there have been pockets of empathetic groups throughout history that have said no to the consumption of animals.) As I mentioned in the first paragraph, leaving behind harmful behavior is progress. Doing so helps us to become better people, to grow as human beings, and to pass on these new, positive, life-affirming values to future generations. We have already said no to many things that once seemed “natural”: slavery, child labor, certain blood sports, torture, and many others. Many of us have added animal suffering and the killing of animals to the list of things to eradicate, and not eating meat is a great step to take toward this end.

It is important to contemplate how we are similar to other animals in order to grow our compassion and empathy. It is also important to realize how we are different, especially when it comes to our diets. Carnivorous animals do not have a choice when they (kill and) eat their food. These animals are pretty much slaves to their instincts. In the wild, they have to be part of a food chain. A lion cannot go to a supermarket and buy an ethical plant-based product, instead of killing a gazelle. We can. The fact that we have this wonderful ability to choose a less harmful path is crucial, and we should not squander it in order to feed our bad habits. There are more and more people choosing a less violent path, and hopefully this trend will continue, despite short-sighted advertising campaigns.

Can someone eat meat and still be a good person?

Some have accused me of taking too hard a line against people who still consume meat, and especially insinuating (or sometimes even outright stating) that those who eat meat are somehow inferior to those who have adopted a plant-based diet, or that just by eating meat, one automatically disqualifies oneself from the realm of "good people".

I have indeed been very critical of people, including my own friends, who continue to consume the flesh of innocent animals. I only do this, however, to counteract those vehemently opposed to cutting down on meat, those who have heard the pleas of compassion and have ignored them, focusing instead on their own needs, ones that unfortunately will continue to cause countless animals to suffer and be killed in their name. I would never be critical of anyone who realizes that how we treat other animals is wrong, and is trying, step by step, to remedy this in his/her life. I really do believe that "any step in the right direction is a good step", and try to incorporate this into my perception of the world.

But let's get back to the unrepentant carnivores. Obviously, these people are a sad lot, ignoring the very unambiguous and ubiquitous suffering endured by millions of sentient beings just because they don't want to give up their beloved steaks, fried chicken, fish fillets, etc.; These are the same people who keep eating meat because plant-based products "don't taste the same", or for a variety of other reasons that, for any truly ethical person, would take a back seat to the respect for other creatures' lives.

The unrepentant carnivore is like the unrepentant slave owner, who, instead of trying to transition to a slave-free system, goes to war in order to maintain the status quo; or like the unrepentant child molester, who, instead of going into therapy, simply finds new ways to go doing his thing undetected; or like a proponent of forced genital mutilation, who uses "local culture" to explain away inhumane atrocities. All of these people, including the carnivore, are an active part of a system that causes a lot of suffering (and in some cases death). Many of the people described above could be perceived as "good people" by some of their peers, and many of the things they do in this life could indeed be positive. Still, wouldn't they all be better people if they left the negative actions described above behind? The only reason that the majority of people don't clump the unapologetic carnivores in with these other wrongdoers, is that society has not evolved to the ethical realization that taking the lives of other animals and making them suffer is up there with the rest of these ethical no-nos.

So can carnivores be good people? Of course, but their goodness will be a whole lot more complete when they stop making choices that implicate them in the death and suffering of so many animals. Any move that frees you from the weight of so much suffering is a good move.

Vegan vandalism

I recently saw a photo that was circulating among some of my friends of a chicken restaurant that was vandalized with spray-painted "meat is murder" and "go vegan" messages. The Facebook page with the original photo had a bunch of comments, mostly negative, about the perpetrators of this vandalism. This made me think about my own views on this type of extreme activism.

Generally, I do not approve of this sort of thing. I find it rather counterproductive to the cause, and not effective in achieving goals that I think are important: the expansion of the average person's consciousness to include caring about animals, and the saving of animal lives. First, let me say that I do not disapprove of this type of action only because it is illegal. Animal liberation by way of breaking into labs and rescuing animals that are being experimented on is also illegal, but at least it fulfills one of the two above-mentioned goals, the saving of animal lives. I mostly have a neutral view of organizations such as the ALF, because I believe that sometimes people do feel powerless when faced with all the animal abuse going on around them, and believe that legal ways of saving these animals' lives are either non-existent or too complicated. I understand this.

However, liberating animals and spray-painting "meat is murder" on a restaurant window are two different things. The latter, although expressing a true and important sentiment, will do very little to raise awareness among the people who see it, most of whom will simply dismiss it as extremist vandalism. This, in turn, will make it harder to get these people to discuss animal suffering in the future. Thus, the effect on the opinions of customers and restaurant staff would be minimal, and the perpetrators will most likely be seen in a negative light. Apart from this, no animals will be saved by this action. All in all, it's an act born out of frustration, but there are better ways to get the point across. Instead of spray painting slogans, why not pass out pamphlets to people outside a restaurant, explaining why it's best to avoid eating meat? Why not pressure your politician to pass new laws that protect animals? Why not pressure your teacher (or your children's teacher) to set aside some time to talk to kids about animal rights and how to treat animals well? If direct liberation is your thing, why not get in touch with the Animal Liberation Front, and see how you can help them? Right there, off the top of my head, you have several things which would be much more productive than the above-mentioned vandalism.

Who's to blame for the California Water Crisis?

So, apparently my home state of California only has one year of water left, more or less.

While, in the short run, rationing and other such solutions might help a bit, it's important to be aware of the bigger picture. In this case, the bigger picture is that agriculture is responsible for most of California's water use. While exact percentages are hard to come by, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that raising animals for meat, dairy, eggs, etc. accounts for a huge chunk of this. I don't write much about the environmental impact of our addiction to meat and animal products, but the current situation in California does bring this to light quite well.

Read this: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-really-using-all-the-water/

Suffering vs. death in regards to animal welfare

A friend of mine and I recently discussed animals that are killed in various food industries, and whether or not suffering is, in fact, even worse than death for these animals. At least, my friend would say, the moment of death comes quickly, and the bigger problem, in fact, is the suffering they endure while they are still alive.

I understand his reasoning, and I only slightly disagree. On one hand, the suffering that these animals endure is immense. The reason for my disagreement is that I believe that, ultimately, killing another sentient being is still the worst thing you can do. This is why I do not support so-called, "ethical meat", where animals are supposed to have "happy lives" before they are killed; relatively happy lives, sure, though they are still murdered at the end. That said, making another innocent being suffer, as animals are made to suffer in many food industries, including the dairy industry, is almost as bad, so getting active in diminishing this particular suffering is also crucial. Thankfully, this doesn’t need to be an “either-or” decision. We can easily fight to end both.

My friend and I are basically on the same page. The only difference is that he would prefer to kill an animal than to see him/her suffer. Of course in some situations this may be necessary, though the concept becomes problematic when, for example, the animal that is killed is simply replaced by another suffering animal. This is the case with many animal shelters in the US. They use killing as a method of population control of dogs and cats, while no-kill methods can work just as well if one implements them correctly. Another good reason to respect animals’ right to live is that often awakens us to the idea that this life should be dignified and suffering-free. Many people start off with a simple “we should not kill animals”, and then move on to an even more empathetic awakening of their consciousness regarding the unfair way that we currently treat these animals. This is why many