Is it a losing battle?

Ann Chovie

Ploughing my own furrow
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Reaction score
417
Roland VincentAnimal Rights Zone

"Most animal activists are not vegan. Most aren't even vegetarian. Vegans are a tiny fraction of the population. We have almost no political or social impact. The only reason for being vegan is to pacify our own consciences, and to save the amount of one person's consumption of dead animals.

We do not make much of a ripple in the floodtide of demand for animal corpses.

If I could choose for animal activists to be revolutionaries or to be vegan, I would infinitely prefer them to be revolutionaries. Vegans are not going to change things, revolutionaries just might.

The reason vegans are not going to change the world is simply because the world population is growing faster than the vegan population. Our recruitment and education efforts are falling short. If we continue doing what we are doing, the Animal Holocaust will not only continue, it will increase in size and scope.

The uncomfortable truth is that we are losing. The animals are losing. Only by radically different action and approaches do we have a chance to turn the tide.

A tiny percentage of revolutionaries can bring down governments, change public opinion, impact policy, form governments, control society. And government control of society is what is required to stop people abusing and exploiting animals.

And that will only happen with revolution.

Perhaps decades or a century from now, but it is the only hope for animals.

If every vegan were a revolutionary, we could topple the world's governments overnight."

Just read this online . Is he right? Are we all just fighting a losing battle unless we are actually FIGHTING for the cause as revolutionaries?

Does education and discussion have little or no impact at all? And if not should we stop any attempt to lead by example and be content in the knowledge they the only minds we can change are our own. That people will only stop eating animals if it is against the law to do so????
Is he right?
 
For any revolution to succeed then at some point the oppressed must take up the fight for themselves.

If that is true then that means that for an animal rights revolution to succeed then, at some point, animals would have to take up the fight for themselves.

That's not going to happen, because it can't happen, and that's why anyone who thinks an animal rights revolution could succeed should apply for a brain transplant.

A revolution of vegans to free vegans from the oppression of meat eaters cannot succeed either. That one's just a matter of math.

The only revolution that could possibly succeed would be a revolution of oppressed meat eaters.

For that to come about meat eaters would have to have their eyes opened to the fact that by eating meat they are oppressing themselves.

Problem there is this; When you turn someones world view upside down, show one who thinks he/she is predator that he/she has been duped, is actualy prey, then he/she will be most mightily ******.

Basicaly the only revolution that could ever succeed is one to which vegans who are are afraid to **** people most mightily off are of very little help.
 
I think the problem of this approach is how laws normally get made.

A law gets passed if a majority of the population think it is a good idea and the right thing to do.
So unless a majority of the voting public thinks that eating animal products is wrong, I do not consider it very likely that laws to the effect will be passed.
 
For any revolution to succeed then at some point the oppressed must take up the fight for themselves.

If that is true then that means that for an animal rights revolution to succeed then, at some point, animals would have to take up the fight for themselves.

That's not going to happen, because it can't happen, and that's why anyone who thinks an animal rights revolution could succeed should apply for a brain transplant.

I do not agree with that analysis.

If I look at the abolition of slavery, I would suggest that it did not take place because the oppressed "took up the fight", although they might have been able to do so.
 
Rarely do me and thee disagree, Mr T?

If you disagree with the condition of "at some point" then, on this one, we definitely do though.

Now admittedly "at some point" is vague. My point, though, is if at this point you asked people of a darker skin tone to get back in them thar cotton fields, sit at the back of the bus, call all white folks "missy" or "master", there might be a bit of a problem.

Point being that, in the cases of animals, plants and household appliances, that point will NEVER be arrived at.
 
The vegan lifestyle has to become the practical and preferred alternative (availability, price, health benefits, taste) for the majority of the population.

As people have less and less direct contact with animal farming and slaughter, the idea of eating dead animals and their secretions is becoming increasingly disgusting. The animal food industry therefore increasingly has to "camouflage" chicken as nuggets, fish as fish fingers etc. At the same time, fake meats are being developed that emulate the texture, appearance and sometimes taste of real meat. At some point, these fake meats will become the preferred choice of the majority of the population. There is a similar story with cheese, milk, yogurt, ice cream, and egg products.

A few decades ago, veganism was a social stigma and a sign of way-out-there eccentricity. This has very slowly started become a less unusual and more acceptable lifestyle / life philosophy, at least in civilized parts of the world. By example, we have to show that veganism is a perfectly healthy choice, both physically and mentally.

Another area that needs effort is legislation to protect animals. Some ground has been gained already.

It is a worry that the percentage of the population who are vegan has not really increased, but hopefully this will soon change as decent vegan food options become increasingly more available.

We are slowly winning, as far as I'm concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
It will not be compassion for animals that will move a large majority of the population to eventually change. The change will come about as a result of several factors; knowledge of factory-farm practices, availability and ease of obtaining meat/dairy-free options, environmental unstability, price, risks for widespread disease, etc. In short - when eating meat becomes something that interferes with the lives of x number of individuals, because they are incovenienced in some way - only then will you see a mass shift. When animal flesh is not the first, automatic, easy (IE: thoughtless) choice for any number of these reasons, or a combination of them - that is when we will see a gradual change towards a meat- free society. Businesses will already be on-board to a small degree and when incentives for plant-based options drive costs down and profits up - that will be the axis upon which change will come. Because as we've seen throughout our sordid existence, money is more important than animals or people. Once meat-free products have inserted themselves into the psyche of the business side of the food industry as a critical investment, then and only then will we move towards a larger population of vegans.

Sadly - I fear we will find other ways to enslave and exploit animals. Or we'll disregard them all together if they are not serving a purpose/use. Humans excel at cruelty. And only a handful of us have compassion towards all living things.

Edit: So NO, it is not a losing battle. We have to educate as much as we can. We have to set the example. And never, ever surrender.
 
Last edited:
Even if the percentage of vegans never were to rise above a certain percentage of the population, for the animals whose lives are spared as a result, it makes all the difference in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Seperate but related thought ...

The only appeal that an animal can make to a human is an appeal to compassion?

Gary Francione argues (and I tend to agree with his arguments) that it is not so much compassion as justice that the appeal should be made to.

After all, people do not argue that nobody should be raped, tortured or killed out of compassion (although that would certainly apply), but rather that this is not acceptable from a standpoint of justice.
 
But isn't compassion a prerequisite for a sense of justice? Doesn't one have to recognize the ability of others to suffer before one even thinks about extending them rights/justice? After all, even we aren't considering extending justice to rocks.

ETA: With respect to the original question, I agree with GingerFoxx.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann Chovie
Gary Francione argues (and I tend to agree with his arguments) that it is not so much compassion as justice that the appeal should be made to.

After all, people do not argue that nobody should be raped, tortured or killed out of compassion (although that would certainly apply), but rather that this is not acceptable from a standpoint of justice.
One communication problem with that angle is that humans have been exploiting other animals, out of necessity, since the earliest days of our species. We have probably always made an ethical distinction between killing humans and other animals. So was it acceptable to kill animals for all sorts of purposes before? If so, then why is it no longer acceptable now? Or are we saying that everyone who lived before us were ruthless killers? Or are we saying there are conditions under which killing other creatures (including humans) is acceptable? If so, what are those conditions exactly, and how do we avoid making virtually everyone in existence out to be ruthless killer-monsters? If we can't avoid that, then we are certainly going to trigger the defensiveness mechanism which is not going to help the conversion rate to veganism.
 
But isn't compassion a prerequisite for a sense of justice? Doesn't one have to recognize the ability of others to suffer before one even thinks about extending them rights/justice? After all, even we aren't considering extending justice to rocks.

ETA: With respect to the original question, I agree with GingerFoxx.

I think what he means (Gary, that is) is whether it is there or not - compassion by itself does little or nothing - wheras justice brings law into play and thus real concrete change for animals. Compassion is a buzzword for Welfarists. Abolitionsists like Gary do not agree with the Welfarist position.
 
Just yesterday, the Swiss press spoke about a new organisation in Switzerland who wish to campaign for sentient beings at the political level. The website (also in English) is here : Sentience Politics

They want to promote a plant based diet in the political arena. Interesting when I think that about 10 years ago, us vegans were deemed as "extreme fantatics" and a bunch of crazies and the press would only interview dieticians who would warn about the dangers of veganism for one's health. I find this changed view on veganism very interesting and very encouraging. (Not revolutionary but encouraging all the same.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poppy
One communication problem with that angle is that humans have been exploiting other animals, out of necessity, since the earliest days of our species. We have probably always made an ethical distinction between killing humans and other animals. So was it acceptable to kill animals for all sorts of purposes before? If so, then why is it no longer acceptable now? Or are we saying that everyone who lived before us were ruthless killers?

We need to remember that slavery also used to be perfectly legal and socially accepted for a very long duration of the human history.
As was leading wars against other countries and subjugating the loser of the war to murder, rape, pillaging and so on.

Society and laws have evolved, we no longer run around with swords on our belts to defend ourselves against others who might want to hurt us.

"It was always like this" is - in that respect - not a really valid argument.
 
... compassion by itself does little or nothing - wheras justice brings law into play and thus real concrete change for animals. ...

When I imposed the total injustice of a vegan household on my children there were a fookin' bloodbath.

Thing there being that m'kids are from birth vegetarians and self-committed to staying for life vegetarians.

Even as vegetarians they fought, tooth and claw, for the 'right' to deny rights to others and the 'freedom' to deny others their freedom.
 
Going off at a little bit of a tangent ..

In Gandhi's auto-bio (he wrote it himself, apparently) he recounts the time when the Brits decided it would be a good idea to remove all weapons from the Char-Wallahs as the Char-Wallahs were threatening to get a bit uppity, both with the Brits and with each other.

A little bit surprisingly Gandhi wasn't happy about the char-wallahs being less well equipped to do violence to each other.

His reasoning was along the lines that quelling violence with violence (law enforcement being dependent on the use of violence) was only a victory for, and thus a perpetuation, of violence.

That violence only dies when it dies in peoples hearts. When, in their hearts, people would rather suffer violence against themselves than perpetuate violence against others.

If veganism is ever to win I think the win will only ever come about in that manner.