Throughout twenty years of fighting the one thing that seems ever-refusing to die, hunting animals as foor or trophy, as well as a more recent endeavor, ending the use of animals slaughtered for food, used for entertainment, or used for fur, milk, or any other reasons, i have arrived at an ever-increasing problem--apologists.
Any person fighting for animal rights has probably heard the terms 'ethical farming' or 'certified-humane, raised and handled' before, as they are futile (i hope, at least) attempts of the meat/dairy industry for legitimizing animal production and animal agriculture on the grounds of welfare or treatment alone. as many humans are pretty aware of animal slaughter via videos shared by activists and vegans all over the globe, many have started to question the use of animals for food or oppose it entirely (i.e., by going vegan) because they cannot stand the idea of eating someone who has been treated horribly due to industrialized agriculture. animals are often unable to ever see the light of day during their short lifespans, many cruelly beaten on their way to be slaughtered, transported long distances in sub-optimal conditions without even food or water, and some brutally done in in the final moments of death. beaten as they bleed out all over the floor. for this and many other reasons people choose to abstain from animal flesh or animal products (milk, leather, fur, etc) by going vegan.
BUT, and this is a large but, animal rights is being co-opted by animal industry. the vegans who went vegan because they were made aware of their treatment but still maintained views of humans being a natural meat eater (which meant they probably take supplements assuming veganism is a choice against nature) and therefore are likely to be lulled into the promotion of 'happy' animal use. aka, utilitarianism. animal industry has lost enough customers due to animal rights advocates taking the risk just to upload images and videos of animals in slaughterhouses or industrialized 'factory' farms, and many have gone vegan as a result. unfortunately, the industry is also aware, and working together with bigger high-dollar animal organizations such as PETA, HSUS, and FARM, have convinced those fully aware of the brutality behind animal agriculture (and these vegans who went vegan from seeing their horrid treatment) that they have changed, and that recreating old Macdonald's farm, the image of idyllic pastures of daisies and grass, the image often used in kids books regarding farming, and milking even, is the answer, and the best way to work towards the goal. unfortunately it's the biggest gimmick to get people to look at animals as things all over again. many see animals in factory farms and say 'no!' but when they see animals given names, lots of room, and lots of love from the farmer, they usually have nothing against consuming meat from such a place. the vegan who went vegan due to shocking videos of animal slaughter sees these new models out there, and the quick, often painless death as a reason to get right back on meat again, and usually foregoes veganism entirely. then, as a result, these 'ethical omnivores' as they often seem fond of calling themselves promote the new 'humane certified' as a way to love animals, and have your steak, too. even some lingering vegans are falsely lulled into being proponents of such tripe, usually saying something along the lines of this:
"Animals are being treated horribly, and meat ain't going away overnight. it seems logical to at least reduce their harm in the here and now by promoting humane ways of slaughtering them and consider this as a baby step towards the goal of abolition"
this is known as being an 'apologist'. someone who speaks the same language as the industry they claim to fight, while ignoring the facts of how much meat consumption has skyrocketed since establishing these 'family' farms, and the focus on ending 'factory' farms seems to imply that the new 'family' farm is not committing any act of cruelty. many people out there hate any form of animal abuse, and fully support animal welfare. hardly anyone wants to support brutality as seen in videos such as Earthlings, which focuses on the factory farm model as evidence to go vegan. these people sadly will have very little to convince them that eating from a 'ethical' farm is wrong. after all, they still believe they need meat and milk, and if all they see is cows living peacefully on a large pasture, and even the occasional lick on the cheek if they pass such a farm by on a walk to their church for example, how are they going to see this and assume it's the same cruelty as seen in Earthlings?
even worse, there is the promotion of hunting animals for food as 'more ethical, fair, sustainable, and drug-free way to get meat'. many cite flawed data of humans being hunter gatherers and that hunting is 'our natural way to get meat for the table'. along with this, the 'animals are never caged or bred solely for human consumption and it's more fair to the animal because we are doing the same thing natural predators do, and a deer won't see a human hunter any differently than he already sees a cougar'
the problem is that again, some 'vegans' are lulled to promoting this as a 'baby step' towards abolition, and see it as the end of animal agriculture entirely, even going so far as to claim 'i'm not against people who hunt for the meat/for survival, only those who hunt exclusively for the trophy'
these are also apologists. and hardly the image of veganism which Donald Watson intended when creating the term. veganism was never meant to be used to promote any form of animal use over another. and treating animals better or hunting them 'like lions' isn't going to make their killing ok. here's an example of the flawed logic. take this sentence, one often used by those who claim deer hunting is fair and ethical and if done for food is justifiable, and fill the blanks with 'dog,' 'cat,' or even 'human' and recite it again:
"I am not against hunting of [ ] for food, as it is more fair, ethical, and natural than factory farming. i'm only against it if done for the trophy"
"hunting [ ] prevents overpopulation of [ ] and their starving to death"
i suppose no one would use such logic to promote killing humans for meat, or killing humans for population control, would they? so why would any self-respecting vegan, who fights for an end to animal agriculture and use at all, defend any form of hunting 'for the meat' as if it were any different than for the trophy? is the murder of humans legitimized by using their flesh? if so i guess Jeffrey Dahlmer should have been released from prison as he 'only hunted his human victims for their meat' instead of 'for the hell of it' then? no....
hunting is responsible for mass extinction of the last living examples of natural life upon the Earth. it goes against survival of the fittest as many hunters cull the fit, vs the weak as a natural predator would. by no means can any vegan promote the killing of ANY animal as 'humane' or 'fair'. not without being able to include their own species or pets into the same equation. being perfectly ok with someone who hunts deer only for food or survival should have no problem with anyone doing the same when killing humans or pets. judging another being's life based on their species, or being ok with killing of certain species for food and not recreation, while being against such use of their own kind founders to speciesism, racism and discrimination based on another's species.
---Star Trek: The Next Generation 'Evolution'
