States to Outlaw Factory Farm Investigations? (Part 1 of 4)

An interview with HSUS's End Factory Farming campaign Senior Director, Paul Shapiro

Photo courtesy of HSUS

If you've seen disturbing videos and photos of animals being beaten, tortured and otherwise abused in factory farms, slaughterhouses and other food production facilities, chances are those horrific images were brought to you by undercover investigators working for animal protection groups. If not for these courageous muckrakers, the public would probably never know about the hidden cruelty that billions of animals are subjected to every year behind agribusiness' fortified walls of secrecy and denial. That's why politicians in some states are now trying to protect their campaign contributors in the meat, dairy and egg industries from damningly negative publicity by outlawing this powerful form of animal advocacy.

Legislators in three states—Iowa, Florida and Minnesota—have recently proposed bills that would criminalize taking videos or photos of farm animals without their so-called owners' consent, and gaining employment at agribusiness facilities with intent to document conditions there. That is, rather than address the systemic animal cruelty that undercover investigations have exposed time and time again, some lawmakers want to put those who reveal these abusive practices to the American people behind bars. The proposed penalties for these “crimes” by state are as follows:

- Iowa: A felony punishable by fines of up to $7,500 and up to five years imprisonment

- Florida*: A felony punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison

- Minnesota*: First offense would be considered a gross misdemeanor, with felony prosecutions for any subsequent offenses

The first of these bills was introduced several weeks ago, so I'm admittedly somewhat late on the draw in writing about them. Since author Mark Hawthorne already persuasively articulated the animal rights perspective on this issue in his Striking at the Roots blog last month, I decided to approach it from a different angle than I've seen taken so far. Basically, I asked official representatives from the “Big Four” animal protection groups most known for doing undercover factory farm investigations to tell their side of the story in their own words. Thus begins a four-part series of interviews with these individuals that I will post as follows:

- Today:  Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of The Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) End Factory Farming campaign

- Friday, April 22: Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing (COK)

- Monday, April 25: Nathan Runkle, founder and Executive Director of Mercy for Animals (MFA)

- Thursday, April 28 Friday, May 13: Jeff Kerr, General Counsel for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  

Photo courtesy of HSUS

My first guest is Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS' End Factory Farming campaign. Shapiro was something of an animal protection prodigy, founding the Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization Compassion Over Killing in 1995 while still in high school. He served as the group's Campaigns Director for a decade, during which time he went undercover on factory farms with camera in hand to document animal cruelty. Shapiro transitioned to a leadership role at HSUS in 2005, and has since been a major force behind the successful passage of landmark farm animal welfare legislation in states from Maine to California.

Here's what Shapiro had to say about the proposed bans on undercover factory farm investigations:

AR: Strategically speaking, why does HSUS conduct undercover factory farm investigations?

PS: Undercover investigations are an effective way to blow the whistle on agribusiness' mistreatment of farm animals, and these exposés play an important role in our society by shining a very bright light on the dark world of factory farming. They reveal not only animal welfare violations committed by individual workers and the industry as a whole, but other types of illegal activities, as well.

For example, when we investigated California's Hallmark/Westland Slaughter Plant in 2008, we uncovered criminal activity as far as animal cruelty is concerned, as well as serious food safety violations that resulted in the largest recall of meat in U.S. history—over 143 million pounds of beef. Our investigation also led to closure of the plant, which was a large supplier to the National School Lunch Program. Much of that meat would have otherwise been eaten by children, and, unfortunately, some of it was because it could not be reclaimed quickly enough. At the Bushway Slaughter Plant in Vermont in 2009, we not only uncovered criminal activity that resulted in an animal cruelty conviction for the plant's owner, but disciplinary action was also taken against the on-site U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector for not doing his job.

These examples illustrate that exposés play a vital whistle-blowing role that is very important to society as a whole. Yet they wouldn't have been possible if the draconian laws now being proposed had been in place in the states where we conducted them. The factory farming industry should be improving its animal welfare policies and food safety procedures, but instead it's trying to prevent Americans from learning about what actually happens to farm animals.

A common accusation the bills' supporters make against animal advocacy groups is that they “selectively edit” their investigative footage somehow to make it seem as though animal cruelty is taking place when it's actually not, and that undercover investigators even “stage” acts of cruelty themselves to further their animal rights agenda. How do you respond to such allegations?

First and foremost, no one has ever presented any evidence that any animal protection group has staged acts of animal cruelty at a factory farm or slaughter plant. Of course, if it had happened, the guilty parties would be charged with violating the law, because it's illegal to fabricate footage and then use it to malign the reputation of a company. That's defamation and libel, and companies would have already sued someone over this if it had been done.

The fact that the industry has never pursued such legal action speaks volumes about their claims. Anyway, these bills don't aim to crack down on people who would stage videos. Their purpose is to criminalize all undercover videos because they accurately depict the mistreatment and abuse of animals on factory farms, which is an unpleasant reality that agribusiness desperately wants to keep hidden from Americans.

Agribusiness proponents also routinely accuse animal advocacy groups, especially HSUS, of waiting several weeks before reporting animal abuse uncovered during investigations to authorities. They say that if HSUS really cared about animals, you'd report the abuse right away. 

Unfortunately, the abuse that we document often happens right out in the open where everybody at the facility already knows about it: it's just that nobody does anything to stop it. Many times the managers and owners themselves are perpetrating the abuse. In fact, both our Hallmark and Bushway investigations resulted in criminal convictions of the managers or owners of those plants for personally breaking animal welfare laws. More importantly though, the fact remains that, if we were to uncover one act of abuse during an investigation and release that information to authorities, it would probably be dismissed as merely an isolated case. To prosecute people who violate animal cruelty laws, we often need to demonstrate a clear pattern of abuse. That is exactly what we've been able to show through many of our investigations, but only by gathering evidence over a few weeks.

I also understand that a lot of the cruelty you document isn't even illegal: it's just standard operating procedure throughout the industry. In these cases, there would be no one to report the abuse to, right?

Yes, and while some exposés result in criminal convictions, we deliberately conduct other investigations to document the industry's standard operating procedures. Though these practices may be legal, most people would agree that they are still inhumane and cruel to animals. So sometimes our main goal in conducting an investigation is to expose common industry practices that are abusive rather than blow the whistle on criminal acts.

You mentioned before that HSUS has documented USDA inspectors not doing what they're paid to do. This makes me think that undercover investigations not only make agribusiness look bad, but the government as well. So, do you think that the government is actively working with the industry to pass these bills because they don't want people to know how complicit regulatory agencies are in the animal cruelty being perpetrated on factory farms?

Our investigations have often shown that government inspectors, while they are witnessing animal abuse, do nothing about it. At Hallmark, there were six USDA inspectors there, and the abuse was going on right out in the open: none of the inspectors or managers ever stopped it. At Bushway, one of the USDA inspectors told our investigator, on hidden camera, not to let him know when he found live calves in piles of dead calves because then he'd have to shut the plant down. Also on hidden camera, he told workers who were skinning a live calf, while the animal was fully conscious and kicking, that if another inspector saw them do that he could shut the plant down.

However, the government isn't a monolith: it's made up of different kinds of people with different values. Some USDA inspectors really do want to prevent egregious cruelty and try to stop it. There are people who hold positions of power in state or federal government who would like to see these types of laws passed, and there are others who wouldn't. But it wouldn't be accurate or fair to generalize about everyone who is part of the regulatory system, because some of them do want to help animals.

These proposed bills, however, really seem to highlight the close relationship between agribusiness and some elected officials. Can you comment on that?

Agribusiness is a very influential lobby in most states, and certainly at the federal level. The response to that from the animal protection movement needs to be to become an even more influential political force than the animal agriculture industry, and the way we do that is by getting more politically involved. There are a lot more animal advocates out there than people in animal agribusiness, and we need to be as vocal as possible about animal issues in terms of talking to our legislators if we are to make real, lasting progress for animals. 

Agribusiness' response in the states trying to pass these bills is to basically shoot the messenger. But I'm sure you've read in trade journals in recent years that some industry experts are acknowledging, mainly because of the results of undercover investigations, that agribusiness' treatment of animals is out of step with current societal values. These individuals openly call on the industry to initiate farm animal welfare reforms that reflect consumers' expectations. Does HSUS ally itself with those in the industry who desire change?

Yes, absolutely. We work with anybody who wants to raise the bar on farm animal welfare. Sometimes people within the industry want to do that, whether for business reasons or ethical concerns or both, and we're always happy to join forces with them. One example among many of this type of partnership is when HSUS jointly drafted legislation with the California Cattleman's Association to ban the tail-docking of dairy cows throughout the state last year. Tail-docking without anesthesia is not only intensely painful for cows, but it leaves them more vulnerable to fly bites because they can no longer swat insects away. The cattlemen wanted to get rid of the practice, so we worked with them to draft language for a bill that the legislature passed, and then-Governor Schwarzenegger signed it into law.

If the bans were to pass, how would it affect HSUS's ability to conduct undercover investigations in those states?

It really depends on what gets enacted, if anything. These bills are still in process and have many variations, so it would depend on how they were worded as actual statutes on the books.

If undercover investigations do become illegal in some places, how will the animal protection movement let the public know what's actually happening inside factory farms in those states?

There will be a black hole: it will be very difficult for anyone to know what's really happening.

- Watch HSUS's undercover factory farm investigation videos.

- Iowa Residents: Use this convenient HSUS Action Alert to encourage your state senator to oppose S.F. 431. Also contact your state senator directly, and ask him or her to oppose this bill.

* The Florida and Minnesota bills have both been defeated since I posted this interview. However, New York legislators proposed an Ag Gag bill afterwards. 

My "Food Recalls" Article in VegNews Magazine

From beef and eggs to peanuts and greens, there's been a measurable increase in food recalls recently. Some of the biggest food recalls in U.S. history have occurred in the last several years, and more food products were recalled in 2010 than in any previous year. So, does this rise in recalls mean our food is becoming more hazardous to our health, or that the U.S.'s food safety system is getting better at identifying and neutralizing threats?

I attempt to answer this and other burning questions about food-borne diseases in my new six-page feature "Fear Factor" in the May/June issue of VegNews magazine. About 1 in 6 (or 48 million) Americans will get ill and 3,000 will die from eating tainted food this year. Don't become just another statistic — protect yourself by getting the facts about food recalls in my latest article!

The Brain From Planet Anus

A Radio Comedy Skit I Wrote in College

When I was an undergrad at the State University of New York, New Paltz, I performed with an audio theater troupe called The Magnificent Glass Pelican. We did live broadcasts just about every week from our college radio station, mainly of sketch comedy. Even now, 20 years later, the Pelican is still on the air every Wednesday night at WFNP, 88.5 FM.

While having nothing really to do with animals (aside from the "Pelican" part), I thought some readers might find this 3-minute, 27-second comedy skit I wrote for the show (circa 1993) mildly entertaining. Enjoy!

Arabian Knights

Could the Jasmine Revolution offer clues to catalyzing change for animals?

They say revolution's in the air,
I'm dancin' in my underwear
'cause I don't care.

–  The Rutles, from “Piggy in the Middle”*

By now you probably know the story of how a formerly unknown fruit and vegetable vendor's self-immolation swiftly brought down a dictator who'd been ruling Tunisia with an iron fist for 23 years, but I'll quickly recap it here for the sake of context. Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old unemployed college graduate, was just barely scraping out a living on the streets of Sidi Bouzid hawking fresh produce from a pushcart when he was harassed by a local policewoman for lacking a vendor's permit (even though he apparently wasn't required to have one). She allegedly insulted Bouazizi's dead father, slapped the young man's face, spat on him, and confiscated his cart containing the equivalent of $200 worth in goods—outraging Bouazizi so severely that he quickly sought an audience with the district's governor. After being refused a hearing, Bouazizi publicly lit himself on fire in protest, igniting a firestorm of revolt that toppled President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali's administration in a matter of mere weeks, then spread like wildfire to Egypt and Libya while inspiring major protest movements throughout the Middle East.

Not even the world's most astute political analysts had predicted that a popular insurrection would sweep through the region with such lightning-quick speed. Sure, Tunisia is a country whose population is overwhelmingly young, educated, social-media-savvy, and frustrated by high unemployment and escalating food prices, but the Old Guard had been firmly ensconced for so long that it seemed their regime would be holding the reins of power for the foreseeable future. Yet Bouazizi's bold (and ultimately suicidal**) statement turned out to be one of those historically rarified events that utterly upends and transcends conventional theories of how change actually happens in the world. 

I mean, if you think about it, could Bouazizi have even dared to dream that by setting his body alight, he would so sensationally affect the trajectory of world geopolitics? Probably not. And what about Faida Hamdi, the municipal official who so antagonistically dropped the final straw that broke Bouazizi's existential back? In the course of her workaday job, in her wildest imagination, could she ever have conceived that upsetting this young man's proverbial and actual apple cart would end up toppling the corrupt autocracy that employed her? Definitely not. (I also wonder what she could have possibly said when called before her superiors to answer for this monumental screw-up: maybe something eminently pedestrian like “Whoops, my bad!”)

In retrospect at least, Bouazizi's self-inflicted combustion appears to have been perfectly timed to dovetail with the powderkeg social conditions that happened to exist within his surroundings at that precise moment. (Of course, discontent had been festering for decades before finally reaching an exasperated crescendo.) Activists for different causes have resorted to self-immolation many times before (perhaps most famously, Zen Buddhist monks opposing the bloody Vietnam War)—but few have succeeded in changing the world to the extent that Bouazizi has in this instance. So what exactly made this single act by one solitary individual the flashpoint for such a massive and seemingly spontaneous freedom uprising?

We'll most likely never know the answer to that question, but it still seems worth asking because this mystery may well hold the key to accelerating the end of other oppressive systems—such as (for the purposes of this discussion) humanity's violent enslavement of animals. Like most animal advocates, I consider myself a pragmatist who tends to take a long view of the struggle, generally assuming (based on theory, historical precedent and personal experience) that progress takes place incrementally, one small step forward at a time. But what if radical change could be instigated in one fell swoop by engaging in just the right action at exactly the right moment? Wouldn't that serve animals and the world at large better than endlessly negotiating relatively minor concessions while billions of our fellow Terrans continue to be viciously tortured and killed?

Here's the trillion dollar question: If such an exceedingly effective action could be taken to stop the massacre of innocents, what would it look like? And how do we go about figuring out whether such a strategy is even possible?

Lest anyone reading this thinks for even a second that I'm suggesting animal activists should start setting themselves on fire, allow me to categorically state here and now that I endorse no such thing. Let's make this nice and sparkling clear: do not immolate yourself, or incite anyone else to do so in protest of society's exploitation of animals. Granted, if I truly, absolutely believed that by sacrificing my own life I could fundamentally alter the way humans treat other species for generations to come, I'd probably be in line at Walgreens buying a basket full of lighter fluid right now. I mean, at the risk of implying that I have some sort of death wish, exchanging one life to save billions seems like more than a fair trade in the universal scheme of things.

There is no real reason to suppose, however, that such an act of principled self-annihilation would significantly alter most people's attitudes towards animals (aside from perhaps reinforcing the stereotype that animal rights activists are crazy). In fact, Bouazizi's auto-destruction may well have been at least as much an act of sheer desperation as a deliberately-planned political statement, and its incredible impact a relatively random by-product. Besides, my comparison between the Arab and animal rights revolutions is admittedly tenuous, at best. Which is to say, there are major differences between human and animal liberation movements that may well render my entire hypothesis a moot fantasy.

My point, however, is that there may, perhaps, be some other equally dramatic action one could take that would achieve for exploited animals what Bouazizi's sacrifice accomplished for oppressed Arab peoples—without doing bodily harm to oneself or others. I'm just saying, it can't hurt to think outside the box by at least considering the possibility that animal advocates may be able to effect change for other species much more quickly than we had previously thought realistic. That is, if we can finely attune our minds to the zeitgeist that defines our present, thereby making the most of specific opportunities when they present themselves. In terms of our modern collective consciousness, perhaps it would help to think of such a potential occurrence as our movement's Rosa Parks moment.

I know, it seems like a really long shot, and I completely acknowledge the pressing need to patiently persist in laying the groundwork for a more compassionate paradigm brick by concrete brick. And we must continue to do this the old-fashioned way: by spreading the word (through personal interactions, public protests/demonstrations, social and traditional media, etc.), financially supporting vegan businesses, passing pro-animal legislation, and other proven methods. But still, with revolution now so thick in the Arabian air, I can't help but wonder whether there are lessons we animal advocates could learn from current events taking place on the other side of the globe.

* If you're wondering why I began with this lyric (since it seems to contradict both the tone and point of this piece), it's simply because this song always makes me laugh, and I couldn't resist referencing a classic Beatles parody group fronted by Monty Python alum Eric Idle. Then again, perhaps I'm also satirically commenting on mainstream society's apathetic attitude about creating a more enlightened civilization. Rest assured, anyone who's read far enough to reach this footnote is categorically excluded from such smug judgments on my part.

** Notably, Mohamed Bouazizi officially achieved martyrdom when he died in a hospital bed from third-degree burns over most of his body 18 days after he set himself on fire.

Parallel Vegan Universe(s)

Theoretical physics is catching up with science fiction—making the possibility of more ethically-advanced extra-dimensional worlds plausible

Have you ever wondered whether there might be another you wandering around somewhere, perhaps on a planet much like our own but subtly or even drastically different? If so, then you may have actually created such a person in another reality simply by thinking about it!

Sound farfetched? Well, Dr. Brian Greene doesn't think so. As a bestselling author and physics professor at Columbia University, he's done the math, and says it suggests that our universe may be merely one of a potentially infinite number that exists within an ever-expanding multiverse. Of course, we can't actually see or visit these alternate domains (just yet, anyway) because, according to string theory, reality vibrates on at least ten or eleven mathematically-identifiable dimensions, and we Earthlings only experience three spatial dimensions (plus one of time). Nevertheless, Professor Greene believes scientists could perhaps prove the existence of parallel universes by formulating a unifying Theory of Everything that resolves basic inconsistencies between Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics (thereby solving the great mystery of why matter behaves so differently on the macro and microcosmic levels).

If parallel universes were discovered, it would radically revolutionize how we understand the very nature of reality. Readers wanting a comprehensive but accessible explanation of these heady ideas should check out Dr. Greene's new book, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. However, what interests me most at the moment is not the nitty-gritty numbers behind string theory, but rather imagining what kinds of worlds may exist out there beyond our current ken. And, especially because Professor Greene is a vegan who stopped eating meat as a nine year old to avoid eradicating animals' existence, I'm considering a grand possibility: that somewhere, on some other plane of reality, there are worlds where people don't kill animals for food or any other unnecessary reason.

Illustration by Mark Middleton

Need context? Take an example of a parallel universe from pop culture—specifically the classic 1967 Star Trek episode “Mirror, Mirror”* in which a malfunctioning transporter beams Captain Kirk and three Federation starship officers into an alternate world (with their doubles simultaneously materializing on the Enterprise). In this strange reality, the intrepid interstellar space explorers boldly encounter their crewmates' evil counterparts—including a stylishly goateed Mr. Spock who is still eminently logical but trapped in an irrationally cruel and ruthless reality of imperial intrigue, genocide and assassinations. Like all Vulcans, Spock (the original at least) is a pointy-eared alien who espouses non-violence and practices ethical veganism. Meanwhile, in our reality, Leonard Nimoy, the actor who personifies the hyper-intelligent and super-strong Science Officer, is vegetarian—probably because he was convinced by the philosophy of the fictional character he portrayed to stop eating meat, showing how even “parallel” made-up people can have tangible effects on our world.  

If Spock's malevolent doppelganger is any indication of the potential differences between our universe and others populating the multiverse, then it is quite conceivable that perhaps, somewhere among the infinite possible realms, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk is CEO of McDonalds, for example, or there’s a world where sentient plant beings breed humans on factory farms for meat. Conversely, there may also be worlds where avid hunting enthusiast Ted Nugent runs a sanctuary for injured wildlife, carnivorous chef Anthony Bourdain copacetically hosts a popular vegan cooking show called Kitchen Compassion, or there’s a smartphone app that translates most known species’ languages into human speech and vice versa. Statistically and probabilistically speaking, the variegated details between alternate worlds are essentially limitless.

While we are all stuck living in just one reality (for the time being, anyway), in another sense animal rights advocates already live in a parallel universe ruled by a paradigm of brute force domination over other species. That is, we exist, individually and collectively, as a universe within a universe—right alongside a vast majority of people who either don't know, don't care, or deny that the meat they eat is actually the dead flesh of animals who were tortured on factory farms before being painfully slaughtered on mechanized assembly lines. We see the cruelty that others remain blind to, the horror hidden in plain sight, and feel empathy for the conscious creatures who so clearly share our inherent will to live and love. And as we strive to create a kinder, gentler world, one in which innocent animals aren't victimized for pleasure and profit, perchance our thoughts and actions in this reality are not only making a difference for animals here on our planet, but also creating divergent worlds throughout the multiverse where animal exploitation is universally condemned or utterly unthinkable.

* Watch the full Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror" online for free at fancast.com.

Water Usage & Privatization

Animal agriculture's abuse of our most precious natural resource

As the basis for life on Earth, water is truly "the elixir of life"—and agriculture uses far more freshwater worldwide (approximately 60 percent of the global total) than any other human activity. Much of this water goes to crop irrigation, but a significant proportion (about 8 percent of the total) is used to raise animals for meat, dairy and eggs. Meanwhile, with the human population projected to hit nine billion by 2050—and animal product consumption expected to double in that time—political analysts speculate that the wars of the future will be fought over dwindling water resources.

Read all about this pressing issue in my new article entitled “Water Usage & Privatization” for the Food Empowerment Project.

Environmentalists, Fashion Designers Re-brand Fur as “Guilt-Free”

The hypocrisy of protecting wetlands by promoting clothes made from invasive “swamp-rats”

In the late 1800s, some Louisiana fur farmers started bringing cat-sized brown rodents called nutria over from Argentina to be bred, killed and skinned for posh women’s clothing. Of course, some eventually escaped their cages and found freedom in the wild, where they exponentially procreated and devoured the roots of plants that keep coastal marshes from disintegrating into open water. Now, decades later, there are about 20 million of these semi-aquatic, web-footed, rat-tailed, buck-toothed, beaveresque mammals inhabiting the state shredding thousands of acres of wetlands.*

But who ultimately gets blamed for this unnatural disaster? Certainly not the fur industry, which actually caused it by recklessly importing exotic animals for economic exploitation. No, of course not…because it’s obviously all the nutria’s fault for daring to evade their tormentors! Well, according to environmentalists, that is, who have teamed up with the unrepentant fur industry on a campaign to convince people that buying nutria-fur clothes is “green” and “eco-friendly.” It is literally and seriously being marketed as “guilt-free fur”—despite the fact that Louisiana uses federal tax dollars to pay hunters and trappers $5 a tail for killing nutria dead in typically violent and painful fashion.

The “guilt-free” justification, best expressed by the founder of fashion design collective Righteous Fur, Cree McCree, is “If (animals are) being killed anyway, then why not make something beautiful out of them?” True, Louisiana does already exterminate more than 450,000 nutria annually, and nearly 90% of the carcasses are simply left to rot in the bayou. But nutria fur is still made from murdered animals and presumably processed using the same carcinogenic chemicals as other animal furs—none of which seems particularly “green” or “guilt-free” to me.

Some animal advocates apparently disagree, as a few vegan/vegetarian fashion designers have reportedly jumped on the bandwagon** (perhaps rationalizing that at least these animals don’t spend their whole lives locked in tiny cages, like captive-bred fur-bearers do, freezing in winter and boiling in summer, mutilating themselves and cannibalizing their companions in response to intense stress). In November 2010, some of these veg fashion designers allegedly participated in a fashion show called (wait for it) Nutria-Palooza at New York City’s House of Yes sponsored by Righteous Fur***. This exclusive event featured models sashaying down the runway donning nutria-fur coats, gloves, hats, leg warmers, and even g-strings created by more than 20 professional designers.

You may be thinking at this point, “Well, Mr. AnimalRighter, at least they’ve proposed a solution to this sticky situation—what’s your suggestion? You want the nutria should just be left to wreck the ecosystem, driving your supposed friend the native muskrat into extinction while they’re at it?” And I reply, Uh, no. Granted, I’m not an expert on the environment or invasive species, and I don’t have some magically humane answer that will neatly solve this zoological dilemma…but I do want to make a few observations:

1) It was the fur industry’s commodification of a non-native species that started this whole mess in the first place: if they hadn’t brought nutria over here to be commercially exploited, these feral rodents wouldn’t be destroying coastal wetlands today.

2) Ironically, the fur industry’s solution to this problem that they created is to pursue the very same objective they originally brought nutria over here for—that is, to make killing these creatures profitable.****

3) Yet, instead of holding the fur industry accountable for destroying wetlands, environmentalists are financially and philosophically rewarding it by giving fur’s ethical image makeover a sheen of scientific legitimacy.

4) The next time alien animals endanger a native habitat as a consequence of corporate negligence and exploitation, environmentalists will yet again enthusiastically endorse the species’ merciless obliteration for expediency’s sake while conveniently ignoring the human culprits’ culpability. 

5) And finally, to reiterate, there is no such thing as “guilt-free fur”—unless it’s worn by the animal to who it rightfully belongs!

* Of southern Louisiana’s 4.2 million acres of wetlands, nutria presently impact approximately 8,475—or about 0.002% of the total (according to the state’s official Coastwide Nutria Control Program). For perspective, this represents just a minute fraction of the damage done to Gulf Coast wetlands by, say, the BP oil spill and other anthropocentric pollutants. 
 
** According to Huffington Post (although the blogger neglected to identify any veg fashion designers affiliated with Righteous Fur, and I was unable to find examples via a google search). Otherwise, trendy brands like Oscar de la Renta, Marc Jacobs and (the mostly pro-vegan) Etsy use nutria fur in their designs.

*** Righteous Fur was founded with a grant from the nonprofit Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program (BTENP); Righteous Fur, in turn, gives BTENP an unspecified portion of its proceeds. So basically, purchasing nutria fur financially supports scientists’ efforts to eradicate nutria from Louisiana.

**** Nutria fur was quite popular in the first half of the 20th century, when Hollywood starlets posed for publicity photos with stoles made from this exotic species draped around their shoulders. It fell out of fashion sometime in the late 1980s after intrepid animal activists caused a fur market crash by splattering blood-red paint on fur-wearing humans.

I Ate My Father-Pig! Where Are My Calming Meat Goggles?!

Topical TV shows coax humor out of horror

Just wanted to clue you into a couple of random animal-related comedy snippets from this week’s television programming. First, check out this bizarre and disturbing 30 Rock clip:


I found this scene both funny and devastatingly poignant at the same time. Poor Kenneth—and poor Harold! Here this paternalistic pig essentially raises a fatherless boy, but the Parcell family betrays his loyalty and love by selling him for slaughter. And then, Kenneth himself backstabs his porcine pop by eating Harold’s cooked corpse for prize money, including his face (i.e., his identity). Truly, this is a killing joke, which is why it is so painfully amusing.

Sadly, the way Kenneth feels about his “Father-Pig” is how I feel, deep-down, about every animal killed for food. That’s because each one was someone, the subject of a life, and our evolutionary kin—and eating them is a form of incestuous cannibalism. I think the main reason that people are able to continue consuming meat is that they either don’t accept or can’t admit that animals actually experience emotions, including heartache and loss.

Perhaps only those of us who’ve had the privilege of knowing animals personally can fully appreciate the multifaceted pathos of Kenneth’s trauma. I assume that most readers of this blog already know that pigs are at least as sensitive and responsive as the dogs, cats and other companion animals with who we commonly share our homes and lives. It is this connective understanding that makes the eating of pigs or any other animals unthinkable to us. Of course, acclaimed actor Alec Baldwin (aka Jack Donaghy) already understands this, because he narrated PETA's Meet Your Meet video.

And now, this crazy clip from The Colbert Report:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Cheating Death - Calming Meat Goggles & the iThrone<a>
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election March to Keep Fear Alive

One of the things I love about watching TCR is that I can laugh while learning about science, politics and other current events. This red meat study, for example, is absolutely factual, with the results being completely contrary to the researchers’ expectations. That is, they hypothesized that test subjects would become more aggressive after looking at pictures of meat, but the exact opposite occurred. They subsequently theorized that the reason for this is that, just like our primitive ancestors, we associate food with the pleasurable security of eating with our accepted social group.

Speaking as a vegan, however, the sight of meat doesn’t calm me—actually, it makes me extremely anxious. That’s because, as a vegan, I see meat clearly for what it is: the putrefying flesh of animals who were tortured and murdered. When I see meat, I automatically visualize animals being executed en masse, and empathize with the lifelong suffering they endured on factory farms and the abject terror they felt as they were herded to slaughter. In fact, it’s such a reflexive response that I have to consciously switch it off just to function in “normal” society.

Seeing meat also raises my anxiety alarm because I identify so personally with animals. I figure, if humans are willing to kill tens of billions of sentient beings a year just to please their palates, what’s the life of a measly little person like me worth? Not much, apparently, in a world where most everyone’s wearing Calming Meat Goggles.

Exporting Factory Farms

The global expansion of industrialized "meat" production

More than 50 billion land animals are killed for food worldwide every year—and that number is expected to double by 2050 as consumers in rapidly-developing societies strive to emulate Western-style eating habits. Blatantly disregarding ethics, environmentalism and farming communities, agribusiness has already hatched a plan to profit from this rising demand for more animal products. That is, multinational corporations like Tyson and Smithfield Foods are actively establishing large-scale factory farm operations in India, China, South America, and other economically-emerging countries.

You can read more about this issue in a website article I recently wrote for the Food Empowerment Project, a non-profit organization that "seeks to create a more just and sustainable world by recognizing the power of one's food choices (and) encourag(ing) healthy food choices that reflect a more compassionate society by spotlighting the abuse of animals on farms, the depletion of natural resources, unfair working conditions for produce workers, and the unavailability of healthy foods in low-income areas."

READ THE ARTICLE

Meat-Free Politicians

Vote Veg! That's the message of "Meat-Free Politicians," my new article which VegNews magazine published on their website today. The piece includes short profiles of five vegetarian leaders at the national, state and local levels:

- US Congressman Dennis Kucinich

- US Congresswoman Betty Sutton

- Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin

- California Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr.
- San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

 

My aim was to highlight the work that each of these elected officials has done to help move the veg cause forward.

 

READ THE ARTICLE

Muslim Veg Americans

Islam's animal rights ambassadors

In the stark shadow of 9/11, many otherwise patriotic Americans seem to have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution unequivocally guarantees our right and freedom to practice whatever religion we desire. From the high-profile protests against the “Ground Zero Mosque”* to the knifing of a Muslim cabbie in New York City and the Florida pastor who coordinated (and then cancelled) a Koran bonfire at his church, it's become all too painfully clear that America is afflicted with an advanced case of Islamophobia. Obviously, some of our fellow citizens are mistakenly equating the vast majority of peaceful mainstream Muslims with the comparatively small number of enraged jihadists who indiscriminately kill in Allah's name—turning all Muslims into potential targets of hate crime.

Islam and animal rights share at least one unfortunate commonality: the more extreme elements in both camps top the FBI's list of the most dangerous domestic terrorism threats facing our nation. Of course, the feds specifically bestow this dubious distinction on those who use violent and/or destructive means to achieve their ends, but in some people's minds, anyone who follows the philosophy of either Islam or animal rights is guilty by association of conspiring with the enemy—even if we would (literally) never hurt a fly. In that way, veg Muslims may be doubly suspect in a society that's still reeling from the traumatic impact of a shocking mass-murder nine years after the fact.

As an American and a human being, it sickens me to see anyone persecuted for their spiritual beliefs—as much as seeing animals tortured in factory farms and other industrialized death camps. I therefore feel compelled to stand up for peaceful Muslims, but as a secular agnostic, I would not presume to speak for them. It is in this spirit of solidarity that I present my exclusive interview with blogger, financial analyst and vegetarian American Muslim Fareeda Ahmed.

AR: Where are you from, and where did you grow up?

FA: I'm from New York. I was born in Manhattan and raised mostly in Westchester County, but I also lived in New York City for a number of years because I got my undergraduate degree at Columbia, and then worked at Morgan Stanley. My parents, on the other hand, were both born and raised in Pakistan, and came to the U.S. and got married after my father did his medical residency here. A lot of our family still lives in Pakistan, so I usually make a trip there every year. And I just moved to California last month to get my MBA at Stanford.

9/11 was obviously a pivotal point in American history and our relations with Muslims. Were you by any chance in New York City on September 11th, 2001?

No, at that time I was just 16—going on 17, as the song** goes—and a high school senior in Tarrytown, which is on the Hudson River about a half hour's train ride from the city. The entire school of about 400 students just so happened to be at an assembly that morning, and about 45 minutes into it, the headmaster interrupted to announce that two planes had been deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers. Our proximity to the World Trade Center meant that many of my classmates' parents and family members worked in or around there—my own cousin worked at the time for Morgan Stanley, sometimes in their WTC office—so the shock of that day was particularly personal for us.

How did you feel when you learned that the hijackers were Muslim?

I felt a strong dual connection to America and New York—my country and my home state. I was struck hard by the reality that they had both just been attacked so violently and viciously, while also realizing that this tragedy was going to dramatically change things for Muslims here in America and around the world. For me, and for many others I think, it marked the end of childhood. Speaking as a Muslim, it was the start of being defensive, because I've always been sort of an unwitting diplomat for Pakistan, which I consider a kind of second home. There, I don't have to explain myself for being Muslim, but here, I am constantly reminded that I follow a different religious faith from most Americans. And to complicate matters, Pakistan has a reputation as a hiding place for some of Al Qaeda's most wanted. Even though it's one of America's strongest allies in the War on Terror, and Pakistani soldiers and civilians die every day in the fight against Al Qaeda, the associations Americans have with Pakistan are often negative, unfortunately.

It seems like many Americans these days believe that Muslims, even those born and raised here, are somehow sympathetic to or supportive of the terrorists—like they're secretly celebrating when Americans are killed. Do you ever experience divided loyalties between your country and religion?

Not only do I not sympathize with people who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam, but it affects me directly because I lived in Manhattan, and worked in places like Times Square and the New York Stock Exchange that are among the top terrorist targets in the U.S. I worked at Morgan Stanley for four years, which had more office space in the WTC on 9/11 than any other company, and a lot of my co-workers had horrifying stories about surviving the attack. This past May, I took my father to see a play on the same day that a car bomb almost went off in Times Square. The theatre was only one block from where the bomb would have exploded, and the show ended just an hour before it was set to detonate, meaning my father and I could have been killed if the attack had been successfully carried out. So when I hear, for example, that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, I don't sympathize with the Iranian government. Instead, as an American and a person who could potentially be on the receiving end of those missiles, I feel the same fear that anyone else would. But being Muslim in America, there's the added dimension of not being allowed to feel that way because we're so misunderstood.

Do you feel life has gotten more difficult for Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11?

Faisal Shahzad, the would-be “Times Square Bomber,” really ruined the accepted profile of Muslim terrorists as being from some foreign country. He was an American citizen with a wife and kids and a good job, so now people think that any Muslim—even their friendly mild-mannered neighbors—could be part of a covert sleeper cell. Otherwise, there were ups and downs over the years since 2001, but overall, things appeared to be improving for us. Then last month everything suddenly came to a head. Right after 9/11, people seemed curious about and only slightly distrustful of Muslims, but now many people just seem to jump to conclusions without even trying to get the facts. If there is a silver lining here, though, it's that today's rage provides an opportunity for reconciliation, and I know that Americans are basically caring and open-hearted people, so they'll eventually summon their better angels. Inclusiveness and tolerance are core American and Islamic values, and Muslims come from the same religious lineage as Christians and Jews. Realizing our commonalities is ultimately what will unite us in the fight against global terrorism.

Since my blog is about animal issues, let's switch gears and address some. I understand that Islam includes a strong tradition of concern for animal welfare. Can you please speak to that?

Well, there are very specific instructions in the Koran about how Muslims are to treat animals used as resources, whether they are beasts of burden or slaughtered for food. Generally speaking, Muslims must take care to minimize the suffering of other species. An example would be Halal meat standards, which require that butchers follow sacred practices to ensure animals slaughtered for food don't suffer unnecessarily. Integral to Halal methods is that Islam expressly forbids the caging, beating, branding, and mutilation of animals***. Quotes from the Koran about animals leave very little gray area about how Muslims must universally respect other species as fellow sentient beings, and it was partly my interpretation of Islam that led me to become a vegetarian. I mean, when I really started to think about it, eating meat just seemed to conflict with my Muslim sensibilities, which include compassion for all forms of life and ecological stewardship.

Every vegetarian has a personal transformation story about why they chose not to eat animals, so what's yours?

I decided to go vegetarian about two and a half years ago after becoming aware of certain factory farming practices, and then reading up on vegetarianism in the context of Islam at a PETA website which I later wrote a blog post about. I was also informed and influenced by books such as Skinny Bitch and documentaries like Food, Inc. Meanwhile, as I learned more about factory farming, I realized how totally contrary this system is to the spirit of Islam. Bear in mind, Islam doesn't dictate that we Muslims can't eat meat—that's why Halal was invented—so I could have easily purchased Halal meat in the city. Yet I felt, as a Muslim and a human being, that vegetarianism was a more compassionate choice, and that my faith was telling me not to eat animals. There's a passage in the Koran that basically says “Whoever has done an atom's worth of good will see it, and whoever has done an atom's worth of evil will see it,” which means we are all accountable for our individual choices, including how we treat animals. And health-wise, within about three months of phasing meat out of my diet, I looked and felt noticeably better, and had lost a few pounds, so it definitely felt right physically, as well.

Since vegetarianism has had such a positive impact on your life, have you considered taking it to the next level by going vegan? I ask this question as someone who was vegetarian for six years before going vegan, and experienced exponential benefits after abstaining from all animal products.

Veganism makes complete sense to me in theory, and it's certainly the ideal I want to move towards in the future. But at the same time, I've found it so much harder to stop eating dairy than meat. I know that's not a very compelling argument for eating these foods, and that dairy cows and egg-laying chickens still suffer, even if they're not raised on factory farms. I look at both my own life and the history of Islam on a trajectory, with progress building on the foundations laid by previous actions. Consider where Islam came out of, for example. Pre-Islamic Mecca, now Saudi Arabia, during the 6th to 7th centuries was a barbaric place where baby girls were summarily killed at birth. Islam helped create a more civilized society that outlawed some of the harshest practices of that era, including unrestrained cruelty to animals. One of Islam's key philosophical tenets, in my understanding, is that we must work towards a better world step-by-step. It's a question of evolution, and vegetarianism is a more evolved diet than meat-eating. And as you follow that trajectory to its logical conclusion, for me personally, it ultimately leads towards veganism.

Do you have Muslim friends who are also veg?

A few, but not many. It's not like I've sought out other vegetarian Muslims by, say, looking for them on Facebook, though. The ones I do know don't cite Islam as their primary reason for not eating meat: they express the same concerns about ethics, environmentalism and health that other vegetarians do. Also, I have many South Asian vegetarian friends, but they're not necessarily Muslim: they're Hindu, Jain or Buddhist.

Regarding vegetarian advocacy, do you find that meat-eating Muslims are more receptive to the vegetarian message when it comes from a member of their own faith?

Yes, because when I tell them about how the vast difference between industrialized agriculture and Halal standards effectively makes factory farming a sacrilege in Islam, I'm speaking from personal experience. So, out of respect for our traditions, Muslims may be more open than other meat eaters to changing their dietary habits—at least in terms of rejecting factory farm cruelty, if not giving meat up altogether. But many people don't know that at least 98% of the meat produced in the U.S. comes from factory farms, so even when they learn that Islam strictly prohibits the consumption of flesh from tortured animals, they may continue turning a blind eye to avoid being inconvenienced.

What are some of the most popular vegan foods in Muslim culture?

There are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and they're spread across the globe, so food traditions vary quite widely. But vegans can enjoy foods from many different Islamic countries. For example, my family comes from the Punjab region of Pakistan near the Indian border, which specializes in dishes made from rice, vegetables and rich curry sauces. Vegans can also find many delicious options from the Middle East, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Morocco. Personally, my favorite food is probably chhole, which is an Indian/Pakistani dish made with spiced chick peas served warm. As a vegetarian, I can confidently say that I'm definitely not missing meat at all—not even my mom's famous chicken!

* In explanation of my consciously-included quotation marks, fans of The Daily Show may recall a recent episode in which Emmy award-wining host Jon Stewart humorously observed that the “Ground Zero Mosque” would be neither a mosque (but rather a community center) nor located at Ground Zero (but rather two blocks away in a former Burlington Coat Factory outlet).

** From The Sound of Music soundtrack. Here's a YouTube video clip from the movie for those whose memories need jogging.

*** See The Animal Ethics Reader, p. 237.

Californians: Urge Gov. Schwarzenegger to Sign Fur Labeling Bill Into Law

And everyone, please ask your U.S. Senators to support the federal bill that would enact a similar law nationally

The California State Assembly earned major kudos yesterday for passing AB1656, a bill that would close a longstanding loophole allowing retailers to sell fur clothing worth $150 or less without labeling these items as animal pelts. However, before this bill can become law, Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger has to sign it*. Information about how you can encourage the Governor to put his name on the dotted line—and urge federal lawmakers to pass a pending national fur labeling law—can be found at the end of this post: but first, here's some background explaining why it's important that they do so.

Congress ratified the original Fur Products Labeling Act nearly 60 years ago, but under industry pressure conceded that stores could still sell fur products worth $150 or less without labels. This was long before the technological advent of synthetic fur production, the popularity of fur trim and dyed fur in fashion design, and the development of society's widespread ethical awareness about animals exploited for clothes (which was raised almost exclusively by animal advocates' ongoing outreach efforts). I guess that's why it's only now, in the 21st century, that lawmakers are gradually getting around to fixing their predecessors' oversight.

In this day and age, when at least as many animals are killed for fur-trimmed garments as body-length coats, and few people can tell the difference between real and faux fur, many thousands of consumers unknowingly buy fur clothing and accessories because they assume that if it isn't labeled as such, it must be fake. Yet the reality today is that one in eight genuine animal fur garments are legally unlabeled, and while most of these are made from racoon dogs, some are actually the skin and fur of dogs and cats slaughtered in China. It's illegal to sell canine and feline fur in the U.S., but the outdated Fur Products Labeling Act makes effective enforcement challenging, to say the least.

With federal law lacking the teeth to keep people informed about the suffering behind their purchases, some state governments have taken forceful action to close the information gap. While California often leads the nation in passing progressive legislation, they will actually in this case only be the sixth state to enact a comprehensive fur labeling law (if Governor Schwarzenegger signs the bill). Better late then never though, so rather than dwelling on the past, let's now just get the Governator on board!

I've written before in this blog about Governor Schwarzenegger's somewhat chequered animal protection record. He has yet to weigh in either way on AB1656, but because this bill passed both chambers with overwhelming majorities, there's a good chance he'll do the right thing. Still, we need to ensure that he does—which is why we California voters need to make our voices heard now.

- Call Governor Schwarzenegger at 916-445-2841 and politely ask him to sign AB1656 into law, then follow up by sending a personal email to his office. A short, direct message is best in this case when time is of the essence, so all you need to say/write is something like "Governor Schwarzenegger, as a voter and constituent I respectfully ask that you please sign AB1656. This bill will ensure accurate labeling of fur clothing sold in California, and was recently passed with overwhelming majorities by state legislators. Thank you."

- The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the Truth in Fur Labeling Act (HR2480) in July 2010, and now it's the Senate's turn to follow suit by passing S1076. Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 urging them to do so, and follow up by sending them an email using the Action Alert provided by the Humane Society of the United States (sponsor of the fur labeling bills in California and other states).

* Sadly, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB1656 on September 27, 2010.

Death by Denial

Study shows meat eaters avoid guilt by believing animals don't suffer

“Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.”
– Mark Twain

Both modern science and common sense tell us that animals bred and killed for food suffer. Factory farms subject billions of animals to torturous abuse every year, and even the numerically few animals raised on comparatively idyllic farms are fattened specifically for slaughter. As a vegan living in an age when the connection between diet and practical morality seems so painfully clear, I frequently wonder why people are not wracked with remorse every time they eat meat.

Some explanation for this perplexing puzzle may be found in a study published recently by the academic journal Appetite which concludes that many meat eaters are in abject denial about food animals' capacity for suffering. Researchers began their investigation with the assumption that subjects would resolve the “meat paradox” of desiring meat but not wanting to harm animals by either 1) becoming vegetarian, or 2) tacitly discounting that eating meat entails killing animals. But upon testing this hypothesis, they instead found participants much more commonly chose a third option—professing a belief that animals are incapable of suffering.

Furthermore, researchers discovered that the very act of eating meat “reduced the (subjects') perceived obligation to show moral concern for animals”—in effect reinforcing their belief that animals don't suffer. Extrapolating from this correlation, one could surmise that meat eaters are caught in a self-perpetuating feedback loop of delusion that feeds their habitual thought and behavior patterns. Meaning, the more meat people eat, the more often they must consciously or unconsciously condition themselves to believe that animals don't suffer, cumulatively strengthening this increasingly unquestioned conviction.

Therapeutic Implications

Like the many other defense mechanisms catalogued by pioneering psychologist Sigmund Freud in the late 19th century, denial enables people to avoid direct confrontation with frightening aspects of the human condition. His daughter Anna was the first to systematically study denial in depth, and she classified it as the reaction of an immature mind to perceived threats. Therapeutically, reliance on defense mechanisms is considered maladaptive because they stunt our ability to cope with reality and preclude psychological progress.

Denying animals' capacity for feeling seems to fit right into this diagnostic model, so what does it mean that the majority of people still eat meat? Is society itself suffering from a mass cultural neurosis that has been overlooked by virtually every practicing clinician? Most psychotherapists eat meat, so the very same denial that keeps people believing that animals don't suffer would also blind psychologists to their own self-deceptions.

With my measly psych BA and only one long-ago year of grad school in counseling under my belt, I am clearly unqualified to say whether denial of animals' suffering should be officially added to the D.S.M. 5, but from my layman's perspective, it appears to meet the key criteria. The fact that the majority of people are in denial about something so important doesn't make this denial any less real—actually, its statistical prevalence and relative invisibility make it even more troubling than mental distortions held only by a minority of outliers. That is, such widespread and socially-sanctioned denial not only alienates individuals from essential parts of their own psyches, but also perpetuates the ongoing victimization of billions of animals the world over every year.

Activist Applications

While it's highly doubtful that institutional psychology will acknowledge denial of animals' suffering as a serious subject of clinical concern anytime soon, activists can still use insights from the psychological literature to raise people's moral awareness of other species. By understanding people's defenses against acknowledging animals' suffering, we can form effective strategic approaches that target the problem's root cause—the mind's reflexive cognitive processes. This particular study is a good place to start, so here are some suggestions for how animal activism can pragmatically apply its findings.

- Since we cannot assume that most meat eaters grasp and accept the basic fact that animals suffer, we must emphasize evidence from ethological, neurological and physiological research showing that they do. We can also point out that farmed animals like cows, chickens and pigs are just as smart and sensitive as our canine and feline friends.

- Having already overcome our own denial about animals' suffering, we activists can use our experience with this paradigm shift to determine whether defense mechanisms impact other areas of our lives, thereby gaining a deeper appreciation for how these conceptual traps insidiously influence people's thoughts, emotions and actions.

- Scientifically speaking, eating meat bolsters the denial that keeps people from realizing that animals do indeed suffer. So, conversely, persuading them to choose vegetarian and vegan meals at least periodically provides personal opportunities to critically examine their beliefs about animals. Encouraging meat eaters to try flexitarian meal plans like Meatless Mondays, Vegan Before 6, or Weekday Vegetarianism allows them to explore compassionate dietary changes without having to face the paralyzing fear of never again being able to taste their favorite foods.

The Singularity: Building the Perfect Beast?

Near-future visions of high-tech human and animal lifeforms

“You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”
– The Borg, from Star Trek: The Next Generation

Some scientists believe that, within the next three decades, humanity will reach an evolutionary turning point called the Singularity when we mind-meld with machines to create a living, conscious intelligence that is superior to our own. Such a history-shattering event would essentially usher a new and unprecedented species into existence—a race of TransHumans who would be ultra-intelligent, virtually immortal and perhaps physically unrecognizable.

Though it’s still much more science fiction than actual fact, some researchers (and billionaire investors) believe the Singularity is not only possible but inevitable. Technocrats speculate that the convergence of exponential aggregate advances in genetics, artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, cybernetics, cloning, and other inconceivably-complex disciplines will someday allow people to synthetically enhance their minds, bodies and lifespans beyond the narrow limits that nature has otherwise imposed upon us mere mortals. Among the more mundane proposals: surgically implanting fully-integrated microprocessors in humans’ brains, growing vital organs in test tubes, designing smart swarms of nanobot doctors that can routinely cure life-threatening diseases, and downloading people’s memories and personalities onto hard drives so they can “live” forever on the digital plane.

While it seems that Singularity scientists’ supreme goal is to turn humans into real-life superheroes (or perhaps demigods), they certainly don’t confine their theoretical “improvements” to us Homo sapiens. They claim that tomorrow’s pets, for instance, will also be custom-made in the lab—from parts of different animals, that is, and perhaps spliced with human DNA. The hybrid chimeras of mythology (from mermaids to unicorns) could then be made flesh-and-blood, along with freaky Frankenpets like furry fish, flying cats and talking dogs.

And then there are the cyborg species: animals with bionic bodies and computerized brains designed for military security and surveillance detail. The Army has already fitted insects with electrodes connected to tiny circuit boards and radio receivers that allow human operators to remote-control their flight patterns. As for the Singularity’s impact on farm animals, factory farms are already overpopulated with mutants who’ve been genetically selected for commercially exploitable characteristics like rapid growth and oversized body parts. However, the Singularity could enable bioengineers to manufacture livestock that are even more “adapted” to the artificial assembly line environment, like hydraulic hens, pigs with toes for standing on concrete floors, and cows with stretchy silicone udders.

On the plus side perhaps, Singularity technology may also be the key to mass-producing meat in vitro and with food replicators, which could conceivably end factory farming (and the suffering it causes). Yet, for all their forward-thinking, Singularity scientists appear to have no more ethical concern for animals than their more traditional colleagues—even though the realization of their ideas could visit new and even greater forms of pain on other species by changing their very nature. Indeed, they could construct self-aware creatures who, lacking legal rights, are just as exploited as today’s animals.

On that dire note, here’s hoping humanity’s techno-transcendence is accompanied by an ethical Singularity of planetary mass consciousness-awakening. Because ultimately, without greater understanding of and respect for life itself, our evolutionary leap forward will merely lead us from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.

Related AnimalRightings:

- My 8-page illustrated VegNews article about the future of vegetarianism

- My 10-page VegNews article about lab-grown meat

Hub SoMa Launch Party – Thurs. May 27

New downtown SF coworking space a major activist resource

Would you like to be part of an exciting community that is committed to social change? Are you seeking support and resources for a project you're involved in, or an organization you'd like to form? Are you an activist looking to connect with entrepreneurs, artists, fundraisers, community leaders, and other professionals working on different progressive issues in a friendly office environment? 

If you answered “yes” to any or all of these questions, then the Hub is just what you need.

The Hub is a creative coworking space with 25 branches on five continents where
thousands of members connect and collaborate around the work they are doing in various
“change sectors,” from environmental sustainability and community development to

human rights and international investment. It is a place where people from diverse backgrounds meet to help each other reach their world-changing goals, whether it's starting a socially-conscious business or optimizing their non-profit's vast potential. As an actual workspace, the Hub offers all the amenities of an office—from “hot desks” and conference rooms to Wi-Fi and printers—as well as support services provided by mentors and consultants.

While a Berkeley Hub has been operating out of the David Brower Center for some time, a new 8,600-square-foot San Francisco location recently opened in the SF Chronicle Building at Mission and 5th Streets (one block from the Powell BART station) that's three times larger than the Berkeley Hub. They are holding their Launch Party on Thursday, May 27 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and tickets are $10 each. This grand opening event gives animal activists a great opportunity to learn about the Hub, meet some of their members, and start taking advantage of this unique resource.

How can the Hub help animal activists? I recently spoke with Berkeley Hub “Host” and longtime vegan Meredith Walters to find out.

AR: What is your job as a Hub “Host”?

MW: Basically, getting to know members personally and understanding what they're working on so I can connect them with people who can help. This includes everything from making individual introductions to encouraging people to attend our group events.

What are some of the Hub's specific support resources, and how can they benefit animal activists in particular?

We offer a range of programs that enable people from different social change sectors to share their skills, ideas and resources. For example, in the evenings and on weekends, we have panel discussions and speaker presentations on topics like branding, marketing, fundraising, and social networking, as well as other events such as reading groups and film screenings. All of these activities offer people opportunities to learn from and network with one another. I would encourage animal activists who become members to both attend events and organize their own, as well.

Our Peer-to-Peer mentoring groups are a great way for people who are starting projects to bounce ideas off each other, share resources and hold one other accountable to their own goals. We currently have groups in food justice, environmental sustainability and international development—all of which are directly related to animal issues. A lot of innovation happens when activists dialogue with people who have different perspectives, so working within a group allows animal advocates to both learn from and influence non-vegetarians, as well as test their messaging out on them to see whether it resonates.  

Hub members also have access to some very practical resources, like legal and marketing consults for social enterprise development, which is useful to anyone starting or managing a vegan business or animal protection non-profit. They can also use our private conference rooms for meetings, and rent our event space for larger groups.

But the most important resource the Hub offers its members is a shared workspace where they can meet and collaborate with each other. It's the hot-desking aspect that really gets people to connect with others, and where the most profound changes take place. Everyone at the Hub is doing something to find solutions to the world's problems, and that is at its core inspiring. Working for social change is challenging, so we are here to help people stay strong and avoid burnout by transforming their deepest values into action.

How many Hub members are vegans, vegetarians, or animal activists?

Right now, there are numerous vegan and vegetarian members who care about animal issues, but we don't have a large animal rights contingent, so I would love to see more animal activists get involved. In my experience, Hub members are more respectful toward vegans than most people, partly because they're generally open-minded, but also because they're already somewhat aware of the reasons people are vegan. And while not everyone is going to be vegan, Hub members all have their own passions and thrive on hearing about other people's passions, so there are many opportunities for mutual education.

It seems like many Hub Events involve eating. Are vegan options offered?

Food is a central gathering point at the Hub, and when we have potlucks, Brown Bag lunch discussions, Sexy Salad (every Wednesday, when everyone brings in a salad ingredient), and other shared meals, a lot of it is vegan. When I bring food, I always label it as vegan with a “help yourself” sign next to it. As a result, my diet comes up often in conversation, giving me the chance to tell people about the reasons I don't eat animals. And a few people have told me they're going vegan because of conversations we've had: they get excited about it and want to connect with a vegan who can guide them through the transition.

To learn more about the SoMa Hub:

- Attend the Launch Celebration on Thursday, May 27 from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

- Come to an open house between 9:00 and 11:00 a.m., Monday through Friday

- Arrange a tour during business hours (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) by emailing tim.nichols@the-hub.net or calling 415-624-5881

- Check out the Bay Area Hub events calendar 

- Join the Hub (membership starts at just $25 a month)

TV’s “Dog Whisperer” Probes Puppy Mills

Watch the episode online and send it to dog-loving family & friends

An estimated 11 million Americans tune in to watch The Dog Whisperer on the National Geographic Channel every week—making host Cesar Millan arguably the world’s most famous canine behaviorist. And this week, he teamed up with undercover investigators from Last Chance for Animals (LCA) to give viewers a hidden-camera glimpse inside the dark and disturbing world of puppy mills:



Of course, Millan is certainly not without his critics, who variously charge that his training methods are overly-simplistic, unscientific, inhumane, domineering, and basically better for his ratings than for damaged dogs. As an animal rights advocate, I’ll admit to being rankled that he kept referring in the episode to individual dogs as “it” (instead of “he” or “she”)—which suggests that he thinks of them (on some level at least) as impersonal objects rather than autonomous subjects. And ultimately, with all that’s edited out of each episode, for all we know The Dog Whisperer could be about as “real” as, say, Survivor, The Bachelorette, or any other so-called reality show on television.

Despite whatever controversy Millan unleashes, I do think that he genuinely cares about dogs, and I’m glad that he used his show to educate people about puppy mills. I’d love to see him do similar exposé episodes about dog fighting rings*, the dog meat trade, and other issues affecting canines.   

Write a quick email to Cesar Millan and one to NatGeo thanking each of them for helping expose puppy mills on The Dog Whisperer.  


* Millan did guest star in an episode of the hit Fox Network drama Bones in which he helped real-life vegan actress Emily Deschanel shut down a dog fighting ring. Also, another NatGeo reality show, DogTown, produced a two-hour season premiere episode entitled “Saving the Michael Vick Dogs” that explored the violence behind dog fighting. However, as far as I can tell, The Dog Whisperer has not yet substantially addressed the dog fighting issue.