Today marks my five-year anniversary as a vegan. During this time, I’d like to think that the world has become more vegan-friendly. I’ve certainly seen some improvements in choice and availability of vegan products from both vegan and non-vegan companies; I hope to see this trend continue.

Becoming vegan has enabled me to have a consistent philosophy towards all animals and the products that are unfortunately derived from them. I have also become much more aware of the hidden truths behind different types of animal use that I would have previously considered natural, perhaps even acceptable, such as animals in films.

When I was vegetarian, even though I cared about animals, I was inconsistent; I never considered, for example, that dairy products may be wrong. It can be argued that vegetarians aren’t as committed to ending animal slavery as vegans are but I think that they remain the most likely to adopt veganism. I’m not advocating that people become vegetarian instead of vegan, but that most vegetarians are at least aware to some degree of the insanity of animal use.

But animal use continues. We encounter horror stories in the press that shock people, regardless of their consumption habits, but these tragedies are yet to prompt a sufficient questioning of consciousness by enough people to change the status of animals in society. Instead, schemes are proposed to “improve” the treatment of animals, still considered commodities, but real change — the abolition of the use of animals — is seldom discussed, thanks to business interests, fear of change and propaganda.

As vegans, we must continue to peacefully and intelligently challenge these notions while showing how we can thrive without using animals.

Feel free to get in touch via email or on Twitter. The links are at the bottom of the page.

It’s tragic that a third horse had to be killed in order for the decision to be made to end the TV show Luck.

When you deal with the treatment of animals, you’re dealing with arbitrary rules and as I wrote after the first two horses died, now is the time to replace animal use in film and TV with CGI. It won’t be easy in all instances but will be worth it in the long run.

The unfortunately named show was unlucky with so many deaths but if anything, these tragedies illustrate not only the real cost of using animals in entertainment, but the dangers of horse racing as well.

I’ve wanted to write about the use of animals in entertainment for a while and this story on the BBC’s website about how two horses had to be killed, having suffered limb-breaking injuries while shooting the HBO series Luck, prompted me to do so.

I used to watch the series Frasier where Eddie, a dog character, often added to the comedy. Of course, the dogs playing Eddie, Moose and later his son Enzo, were none the wiser of the entertainment provided and most likely enjoyed good lives, but they were still being used for the entertainment of humans.

This doesn’t make the use of animals right, however cute or happy they may seem in the fictional edit of their characters’ lives that we see. There are, of course, different degrees of use for animals in entertainment, from dogs in sitcoms to horses in westerns — a genre I avoid watching for this reason — but how do we draw the line on what is acceptable use?

For American productions, the American Humane Association (AHA) have a monitoring service where they control how animals are used on sets and evaluate how they are treated. If the AHA approve of how the animals are used in a production, their seal of approval and famous disclaimer “No animals were harmed …” are added to the production’s credits.

But this approval by the AHA, this arbitrary pass/fail grade given to productions is similar to the “happy meat” fallacy. It’s nothing more than to make us human viewers of entertainment products feel better about the animal use we’ve witnessed on screen. Of course, the outcome for animals while filming isn’t usually death but when it does happen, as it did when filming Luck, the AHA simply withdraw their approval from the credits of the specific episodes or productions. Will many people notice its absence? I doubt it.

Having to discern between degrees of treatment, therefore establishing whether a particular use of an animal is arbitrarily appropriate in order to qualify for AHA approval is a problematic issue. After all, who are we to decide what constitues appropriate use or not? Is all use OK as long as the animal isn’t injured? What happens when an accident occurs? Is pain and death justifiable in the name of entertainment? Of course not.

I’m an admirer of old-school special effects, preferring their craftsmanship over computer-generated imagery (CGI) in live-action films, but would encourage productions to use CGI alternatives in place of real animals.

Last year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which I have not yet seen, used CGI to transform Andy Serkis into an ape thanks to performance capture, instead of having real apes on the set. It is evident that humans could not be used as a substitute for many animals’ performances and in those cases, traditional CGI could provide compelling digital animals, so as to avoid using real ones.

Animals should not have to be resources for our entertainment. Hopefully, the entertainment industries will realise this and choose CGI alternatives over using real animals.

Do you know how in Star Trek: The Next Generation, there is a replicator that can make objects, including all the meals onboard the Starship Enterprise? Well, that may be the future we can have: instantly created meals that look, taste and smell just like their initial ingredients, but where nobody has to be used. One day, maybe.

Is in vitro meat the beginning of our progress towards this, and supposing that omnivores approve of it as a replacement for animal meat, should vegans endorse it?

In vitro meat may, eventually, contribute to ending factory farming. The Wikipedia page states that

One animal could provide more than a billion pounds of in vitro meat to feed the world’s population for at least several hundred years.

One of the problems, from a vegan point of view, is that we’d still need animals’ cells to create this meat.

Adam Kochanowicz argues that [Warning: the page has an image of animal meat.]

If you support In Vitro meat, you are supporting the use of animals in research, the continued (reduced or not) exploitation of animals, and are ignoring the use of animals for other purposes.

He also states that in vitro meat requires animals to still be bred and used as

There’s a bogus belief among animal advocates that In Vitro meat could sustainably be perpetuated from a single, “eve” satellite animal cell–used once to create a culture and never again while the tissue is regenerated and used indefinitely for all future In Vitro meat production. Such a belief would give a geneticist a headache.

This stance is in contrast to the one promoted by the people behind Why Cultured Meat, a group of abolitionists in favour of cultured meat. [Warning: some pages on their website have explicit animal abuse images.]
Their FAQ is an interesting read:

[...] the activist should choose (if looking at it from a wider perspective) between:

a. Being a passive observer to the everlasting holocaust of nonhumans.
b. Helping to promote a product which currently is not being conducted in accordance with our moral principles but has the potential to be such one, and at the same time, has the potential to reduce the exploitation of nonhumans by an astronomical degree.

[Both instances of emphasis exist in the original text.]

The two stances have merit, but if the meat came from animal cells, even extracted from an individual who had been dead for decades, would this be considered vegan? It seems that animals don’t have to be killed to extract the cells but surely the use of the animal contradicts veganism. Additionally, if animals are continuously required for cells, an end to animals being bred and owned for human purposes seems impossible.

But am I being too idealistic? Maybe I should consider such a future to be significantly better than what we have now, which brings a Star Trek quote to mind, this time from Mr. Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Should we sacrifice very few animals to avoid billions of others being born into slavery?

It’s a difficult question to answer and reminds me of the welfare versus abolition debate, where welfarists argue that abolitionists don’t promote debatably better conditions for the existing animals, preferring an ideal situation where all future beings would be free.

However, the goal of abolitionist veganism is to end all animal use, and however tempting this hypothetical idea of in vitro meat would be, if it ever became a viable product within society and if that would lead to the ending of the current animal agricultural system — two very big “ifs” — it would still mean that some animals were being used for food production.

While I don’t like the idea of promoting meat of any kind, as it implies that meat is necessary for optimal human nutrition, I understand the arguments put forward by abolitionist vegans promoting in vitro meat. I think that if it were possible to grow meat without using animals, I could see its uses for reducing food shortages for an ever-growing human population, omnivores reluctant to consider veganism and even companion animals such as cats.

Essentially, I think that at present, while the concept of in vitro meat is interesting, due to the necessary use of animals for its creation and the fact that it’s not yet a commercially successful product, abolitionism and vegan education are better solutions to promote.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has purchased shares in a group that owns two fast food chains.

By doing so, the HSUS hopes to

encourage CKE Restaurants, operator of the Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. restaurant chains, to improve the treatment of animals in its supply chain

This seems to be an interesting tactic, but one that will do nothing to end animal slavery. If we suppose that the HSUS succeeds in “improving” the treatment of animals in the supply chain and then promotes this “achievement” — and we all know that “humane” animal use is a myth — people who still consume animal products but are uneasy about doing so may feel more comfortable about eating at either of these chains, allowing themselves to be deluded that the chains’ animals — thanks to the HSUS — are now treated and murdered humanely.

Is such an action by the HSUS stopping people from becoming vegan? No. However, the HSUS, by associating itself with the animal abuse industry, is allowing the public to continue believing that animal consumption is acceptable, and this is a great disservice to those it should be protecting.

Instead of promoting a vegan diet or even vegan businesses, the HSUS is giving money to the animal industry, will likely promote the chains’ new “humane” credentials when they happen, will potentially profit from shares, all while making consumers feel better about the consumption of animals. Bravo.

HSUS: If you truly care about ending animal slavery, adopt and promote veganism.

We know what we’re trying to achieve: the end of animal use. How to get there though is a debated issue. I tend to agree that welfarism doesn’t work, that it’s sending out the wrong message, which is why I favour abolitionism and helping people realise how veganism benefits all, including themselves. This being said, I had an interesting conversation a few days ago with a family member, an omnivore, to whom I was attempting to explain the difference between abolitionism and welfarism. As an example, I used animals in circuses and argued that abolitionists want to no longer see animals used, and not accept — as welfarists do — measures that “improve” the lives of those animals, which only really make humans feel better about the slavery of animals for entertainment purposes in circuses. His argument was that in all honesty, the vast majority of people didn’t really care, that they want to go to circuses to see the animals and that the “best” we — those concerned about animals — could do was to make their conditions better.

His remark that people didn’t really care, as long as they got what they wanted — in this case, to see circus animals — concerned me as did his following argument that as someone who views animals as sentient beings with their own rights, I was denying them a chance for a marginally better life, because my own ideals were unachievable. After all, I later thought, I am in a tiny minority with regard to my views on animals and if humans have been arbitrarily killing each other for centuries, how could I ever hope that “lesser beings” would stop being exploited, especially with their current status as economic commodities? (Come to think of it, would there ever be a time when humans treat all other humans equally?)

However, the problem with adopting the stance he suggested, a welfarist position, is that it presents no hope for the fate of enslaved animals as the “best” we could ever do is make cages a little bigger, and I don’t want this to be the endgame in humanity’s relationship with other sentient beings. We’re better than this.

I don’t think that people necessarily want to harm animals but as it’s so ingrained in society, it’s just the norm and deviation from the norm is scary, especially when it’s so well financed and ubiquitous.

Most people don’t really care, while some believe that animal rights are insane, others believe that welfarism is the best we can do, while another group thinks that it may help us achieve our goal. I believe that it’s our job to let people know that there is no need for compromises by discussing the abolition of animal use and promoting veganism, thus making it more popular and convenient for those who are interested in switching.

In all likelihood, none of us today will be around to see the outcome of the animal rights issue as it will probably take many decades, if not centuries, but it would be tragic to limit our goal from the start by not choosing to adopt the right endgame.

Here’s something I wrote on 30 December 2011. Happy New Year everybody.

The snow had fallen heavily through the night, slowly covering everything in sight, fulfilling its goal by joining surfaces together in a uniform white untouched blanket.
It’s so peaceful and serene that I’m always reluctant to clear it — to disturb its majesty — but this is something that must be done….
So I put on my snow trousers and coat and boots. Wrap up my scarf, pull on my bonnet and two pairs of gloves and venture outside, where the snow is still falling. There must be dozens of centimetres.
I grab my shovel and start clearing the path. Despite the work, I enjoy the fresh air and still falling snow, which is occasionally blown by the wind onto my face.
Once the path is cleared, I make my way to the bird feeders to clear them, to allow my feathered friends to get something to eat in this barren landscape. I need more seeds so return along the path I have traced to the front door, where the blue metallic bin is sheltered from the weather by the house’s roof. I remove its lid and out falls a big fly … on his or her back … still buzzing.
After my surprise to see such an insect in these conditions I try blowing on the insect’s body, hoping to flip the fly over onto his or her legs, but the insect just capitulates and falls onto his or her back once again, with legs and wings moving furiously in the air. I try and move the snow around the fly’s body but he or she falls (willingly?) into a cavity in the snow, by the blue metallic bin.
I gather some seeds and go and place them on the feeders, but the fly bothers me. I don’t want to leave the poor insect like that. He or she was clearly distressed. Maybe in pain? Suffering? I return to the blue metallic bin and search for the fly some more. I’m unsuccessful: all the black teardrop shapes I find in the snow end up being sunflower seeds that have fallen from the blue metallic bin. The fly shouldn’t be hard to find but I fail; he or she is eluding me. I reluctantly return to the front door, supposing (hoping?) that the unfortunate insect will probably die of cold soon anyway. Even if I did find the fly, what would I do? I hate these situations. I place my hand on the door handle but turn around, maybe this time I’ll be … “lucky” — and I am. I place him or her on the snow, and try blowing on the body again, but the insect still can’t fly — or even walk — away. Snow flakes are falling on the belly as I watch. I go inside this time, reluctantly, but I’m still not at peace, I can’t leave the fly like that. I go outside, pick up the shovel, and put him or her out of a presumed misery. Maybe it was the wrong decision but what could I have done?

I hope you all have had an enjoyable Christmas or holiday.
For Christmas, I received the latest instalment in “The Legend of Zelda” video game series: The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, for Nintendo Wii.
For those who are unfamiliar with the series, you play as Link, a boy or young man who travels through a fantasy world, similar to the one in “The Lord of the Rings” and must battle enemies with the goal of saving a princess, named Zelda.
Even though Link uses weapons throughout each game, such as a sword, bow or bombs, it is not what I would consider a violent game series, with no explicit blood or prolonged pain inflicted on the characters. This is reflected in the age ratings for Skyward Sword, where it is advised for twelve year olds and up in Europe and ten year olds and up in North America.

Despite this, I find myself, as a vegan, reflecting on the necessity and ethics of some of the actions required of me, as a player.

Games in “The Legend of Zelda” series, of which my favourite video game of all time is part, have included battles against birds, horse riding, fishing, visiting a farm in order to collect cows’ milk, herding cattle, catching escaped hens and so on. In Skyward Sword, which I’m currently playing, there are required actions such as collecting (killing) unprovoked insects or striking with a sword (though not killing) roaming animals that seem possessed and attack Link.

It seems that while I greatly admire the creativity of the series, its music and design, the vegan in me objects to the required harming and killing of others.
I will continue to play Skyward Sword and possibly future games in the series (however, I am a casual gamer and am losing interest in video games) and while I have no problem fighting evil embodied by truly bad guys such as Link’s final opponent, killing or harming animal-like creatures – or other humanoids – bothers me, even though they are only pixels.

I’d be very interested in hearing whether other vegans have ever experienced a similar feeling when playing a video game or opinions on participating in animal exploitation or harm in a video game setting.