dialectical vegan

Dualisms, the Logic of Domination, and Dehumanization

2009-10-28T23:33:00.000-07:00

About a month ago one of my best friends sent me a very interesting link. It was a blog entry (posted on http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/08/26/are-animals-and-humans-the-same/#more-15612) written by a self -identified woman of color. The major thrust of the argument was that animal rights organizations like PETA are perpetuating racism and sexism because they want to elevate the moral status of animals to that of humans. Allow me to go on a quick digression before I analyze the heart of the matter. Firstly, I will not argue with her that PETA perpetuates sexism. Quite openly they objectify women to, as they claim, raise awareness about ‘animal exploitation’. I even find it arguable that they raise awareness about animal exploitation. In practice they seem to raise more awareness about themselves then animals. But this is all beside the point. I would like to address the bloggers assertion that elevating the moral status of animals is racist because it justifies epithets based on biological analogy.

Her logic is that for hundreds of year’s sexists and racists have been equating women and people of color with animals. Her assertion is that this is done in an attempt to dehumanize women and people of color. Given that we live in a patriarchal and racist society this is understandable. However, I argue that this author is perpetuating the same logic of domination that is used to justify our racist, sexist, ageist, etc…society.

There have been many influential philosophical, sociological, etc. thinkers in the past that have helped shape the way we think about our relationship with nonhuman animals and nature in general. Sir Francis Bacon used female metaphors to describe nature and man’s exploitation of it. Renes Descartes believed that animals were indistinguishable from inanimate objects and lacked sentience. That is, animals lacked particular characteristics that were regarded as uniquely human. Because of this they were somehow less worthy of moral consideration. Immanuel Kant followed a similar line of logic. Nonhuman animals are different, and below, human animals because they lacked the ability to be rational. This last point, especially, should sound very familiar because it was the popular view that women were not rational beings either (starting to see the connections)?

There is a consistent theme of creating dualisms in the examples that I mentioned prior. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with creating dualisms. It helps us understand the world. However, it becomes problematic when value and domination are built in to these dualisms. In other words there is a substantive value system built into the dualisms that we use: man/woman, white/black, human/animal. In all of these dualisms the first word is often viewed as superior and the second inferior. This substantive value system is essential for a logic of domination because it creates an ethical premise that utilizes the value-hierarchical thinking that is needed to justify the privileging of one group and the subordination of the other.

The logic of domination, and I am really showing my feminist standpoint here, has a very distinct logical form. For this example I will use the Kantian dualism between humans and animals as a clarifying example:

1.) Humans are, and animals are not, rational beings who are also self-aware.

2.) Whatever has the capacity for rational thought and self-awareness is superior to whatever does not have these capabilities.

3.) Thus, humans are superior to animals

4.) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is morally justified in subordinating Y.

5.) Thus, humans are morally justified in subordinating animals.

The logic of domination is based on two underlying assumptions in order to uphold it. These assumptions are the humans are superior (whether in a moral or any other type of sense) and that this superiority justifies subordination. Without these two assumptions there would only be difference between the two. The value-hierarchy, which has been utilized in the United States, makes dualisms like the one’s mentioned prior dangerous.

You can replace animals with women or people of color and you’ll achieve a similar conclusion; men are superior to the other and because of this superiority they are justified in subordinating the other. This logic of domination, which was used to dehumanize the blogger, is now being used by the blogger herself.

The precise reason that referring to women and people of color as animals is dehumanizing is because we have created a value-hierarchical dualism between human and nonhuman. Our attitude towards this species barrier plays an important role in the process of dehumanization. In our society our moral values towards nonhuman animals are fixed within this logic of domination, which says that animals, because they lack something that humans have, are inferior. Whatever this value may be, rationality, self-awareness, a soul (as was the case of St. Thomas Aquinas), or lack the ability to perform significant gestures and therefore they are not self-aware (George Herbert Mead), is completely arbitrary.

The reason why animal metaphors are so dehumanizing is because we view ourselves as somehow superior to them. Because women, nature, animals, etc. are placed in the subordinate role in this logical framework, issues of racism, sexism, speciesism, naturism, etc. are interrelated to one another. Raising animals to the moral status of persons is in no way problematic. In fact, it serves to challenge this logic of oppression that places value judgments on dualisms and leads to the dehumanization of women and people of color. This is true, in my opinion, on both a conceptual and experiential level.

World Wide Views of Global Warming

2009-09-27T14:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I took part in a moderated discussion about global warming. There were about 40 people from Colorado (mostly the Denver metropolitan area) who were invited to come talk about global warming and eventually come up with a recommendation for the the representatives who will be meeting in Copenhagen in the near future. I was very excited to be a part of this because it was an opportunity for many people's voices to be heard. In fact, this was supposedly one part of a number of discussions happening simultaneously around the world. 39 countries were involve in the discussion and there were 5 locations in the united states that were asked to participate. While this fact isn't the main point of this blog I think it's important to point out the over-representation of the U.S. in this discussion. Additionally, the countries that were not a part of this dialog are equally as important to point out. None of Eastern Europe or Mexico was a part of the discussion. Neither were many countries in South America and Africa. To think of it in a different way...both Western Europe and the United States were well represented. How do we expect a change when some of the minority voices are not included in discussions leading up to the Copenhagen summit.

Ok, with that little rant out of the way I'd like to actually talk about some positives. I'd like to point out that I am very critical about a lot of things and people construe that as me being pessimistic. This really couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm very optimistic about the future (I think you have to be if you believe in social and ecological justice).

On the whole this was an extremely positive experience and an enlightening engagement in consensus based decision making. The people involved in this forum were broken down in to groups of groups of 8 and one additional moderator. Throughout the day we were asked to discuss issues of global warming as it relates to the COP15 (the forum in Copenhagen). In my particular group you could not ask for a more random and diverse collection of people. One person denied the existence of human generated global warming; another was an ex-member of the marines; we had a substitute teacher with a master's degree in ancient greek and hebrew who knew very little about global warming; additionally there was a woman recovering from the corporate world (her sentiment, not mine); someone who was the neighbor of the organizer for the event who also knew little about global warming; and myself, while not being an expert on global warming I would say that I am fairly well informed. The moderator was a professor of writing at Colorado State University.

To gather the amazing impact of consensus based decision making groups I will briefly go through what is like to participate in these discussions. At first we were going nowhere with our discussion. Everybody was saying their own thing without any regard towards other peoples contributions. The anti-global warming person's first contribution was to hand out a print-out of facts about how global warming was in fact bogus. He had seemingly come here with an agenda of converting us to his point of view. This quickly led to people being frustrated with this particular individual. You could see the moderator beginning to be more uncomfortable as he realized this wasn't going to be an easy day. We were going nowhere and the break in the session could not come soon enough.

After lunch we came back together to discuss other aspects of global warming. At this point we were reminded that, as a group, we had to come up with a recommendation for COP15. I would say that this was probably the third hour that we were together as a group. As if by magic it seemed that we were actually working together and listening to one another. Instead of a collection of individuals just spouting out what they thought we were listening to one another and engaging more with each others ideas. We were a group. I have to point out that this was in no small way due to the demeanor and actions of the discussion moderator. He did a fantastic job of reminding us why were here and the goal of consensus based decision making. The people in the group were transformed. I could feel something positive come over me. We were there for each other. Of course we still disagreed with one another but we were more interested in mutual cooperation as opposed to individual competition.

Despite our differences we were able to come to a consensus that in dealing with global warming the representatives at COP15 need to focus on social justice (particularly poverty) and a new definition of development that took ecological and social wealth into consideration. This was in opposition to the common understanding of development as economic growth. It was beautiful to see us all working together. I felt connected to each person in the discussion despite the fact that we were strangers to one another. This process of consensus based decision making was truly transformational and I think essential in our struggle for social and ecological justice.

However, at the end of the day we all left and will most likely never see each other again. It was very clear that we were there to just discuss the one issue. The consensus based decision making was merely a means to an end. A tool to achieve some goal. As I sit here writing today I feel somewhat divorced from the feeling that overcame me yesterday. It was fun working with them but our services are no longer required. I find myself craving more consensus based decision making. Maybe because I felt a sense of control. Maybe because I truly felt part of a group. Maybe because we were transformed from a group of individuals to a larger whole. I felt more human because I felt more connected to the others. But now I am beginning to realize that we were assembled just for that one day to achieve that one thing.

This got me thinking about something which I consider fairly often. What if we had a society where all political decisions were based on the consensus of groups? What if, instead of consensus being a means to an end consensus were an end in itself? The action of egalitarian consensus based decision making is our philosophy. How amazing would our world be if everybody could feel what I felt yesterday between the hours of 9 and 5? It's not just that our decision making apparatus would change so would our notion of humanity and how we relate to each other. What a beautiful world.

The question is, however, how do we achieve this? This is much better than the question of 'is this possible' because to believe in social justice you have to believe in the strength of humans to transform their world.

Marx's "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" and the Environment

2009-09-23T15:30:00.000-07:00

Much of the writing about Marx's ecology is taken from his book "Capital: Volume One". The following post is from an earlier essay from Marx called "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" and which, I think, lays down the ecological foundation for "Capital". Bear in mind this is a fairly choppy writing because unfortunately with all my school work I am not afforded a lot of time to do much 'pleasure' writing. As usual please keep leaving comments. They are very constructive and insightful and I really appreciate everyone taking the time to make the comments.

To me, one of the most important parts of this manuscript is Marx’s formulation of “estranged labor”. He says that society is split into two classes “the property-owners and the propertyless workers” (p. 70). As I have noted earlier this is a particular problem because the laborer is not in control of his work which becomes the property of the owner of the means of production. The worker is required to produce more and more. As this cycle continues the object that the worker creates becomes foreign to him and “exists outside him, independently…and…it becomes a power of its own confronting him” (p. 72). The next form of estrangement is between the laborer and production itself in addition to their relationship to the product.

If the product of the workers labor is alien to them than so must the process of production. In a capitalist system the laborer is producing something for someone else. It is not based on the need of the individual and does not spring from any internal act. This has the deleterious effect of removing the creativity of the production process and makes the laborer estranged from the self (p. 74-75).

The next type of estrangement is from a human and their species-being. Our productive life is what gives us what Marx calls “life-activity” (p. 76). In other words, consistent with Marx’s materalist orientation, who we are as human beings is due to our ability to objectify our products. We do not produce based on some genetic coding. Instead we choose what and how we produce and this is what separates us from other animals. While doing this we actively shape the world and in turn are shaped by the world we have helped transform. This has the impact of influencing not just our physical world but our intellectual, artistic, political, etc…world as well. However, since capitalists expropriate our products we no longer have this ability and our species being becomes merely a “means to [our] physical existence” (p. 77).

The final form of estrangement of labor is between each other or what Marx calls “estrangement of man to man” (p. 77). In order to prove this he goes through a little exercise and asks the following questions: If my activity does not belong to me, if it is an alien, a coerced activity, to whom, then, does it belong; to which he answers “To a being other than me”. The next question then is: Who is the being: which is eventually followed by “some other man than the worker” and that only “man himself can be this alien power over man” (p 77-78). This antagonism between worker and owner grows even further when the owner accumulates capital (or private property) at the workers expense. Or perhaps to put it in more dramatic terms, as the capitalist accumulates private property the worker loses their humanity.

The question of ‘how does the estrangement of labor’ relate to an ecology movement has yet to be explored. Although much of Marx’s writings, which, I believe relate to the environment, are found in his book Capital we begin to find the foundations of Marx’s ecology in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. He writes that, “the more the worker by his labour [sic] appropriates the external world…the more he deprives himself of means of life” (p. 72). From this point Marx begins to show the reader how connected we are with nature. There are two aspects to humanity’s fundamental relationship with nature. Firstly, nature provides humans with the actual “means for the physical subsistence” (p. 72). Secondly, nature also provides humans with “objects on which to operate” (p. 72).

Not only do we need nature for actual physical nourishment our unique humanity is born from our relationship with the natural world. It provides us with the objects that we, in turn, use to make products. Labor, the very activity that provides humans with a sense of species being (in other words, that which makes us uniquely human) does not exist “without nature” (p. 72). Because of this, and the dialectical nature inherent in much of Marx’s analysis, you can infer that nature is both external and also, equally as important, internal as well. We are what we are because of our relationship with nature. This is different from various other strains of environmental thought that impact the current environmental movement. For example, Deep Ecology is an environmental philosophy which believes also that man is a part of nature. However, Deep Ecology goes even further to say that there is nothing unique about humans and we are a species just like every other in the ecosystem. A Deep Ecologist would have trouble with Marx’s theory because he acknowledges that humans are unique because of their conscious species being. While Deep Ecology has altered the way many people think about our relationship with the environment it does not offer any type of satisfactory sociological analysis. By de-emphasizing humans as unique (I find it important to note that ‘unique’ in Marx’s writing does not necessarily mean better or above) Deep Ecologists fail to deal with inequalities between humans which are perpetuated by capitalism.

Implied in Marx’s writing is the idea that the estrangement of labor can not be separated from the estrangement of nature. All of nature is humanity’s “inorganic” body because “Man lives on nature” and both its physical and spiritual life is linked to nature” (p. 75). Of course it must be noted that as soon as humans act on nature in order to produce something they somewhat estrange themselves from it. They actively transform the earth but at the same time are transformed by it. This estrangement is not inherently destructive because every species in one-way or another acts to change nature. The difference between human and nonhuman animals is that humans produce in a way that Marx labels as “universally” and they produce things which aren’t based on “immediate physical need” (p. 76). This is just another way of showing human’s species being. This acting on nature becomes pathological when humans are estranged from their labor. Or, to put it in a different way capitalists expropriate laborers products so they can leverage it to accumulate more capital. This is exemplified by the following passage:

“In estranging from man [sic] (1) nature, and (2) himself, his own active functions, hise life-activity, estranged labour [sic] estranges the species from man. It turns for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and individual life, and secondly it makes the individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form” (p. 75)

As was shown above a capitalist system, by virtue of its means of production, estranges, or alienates, the worker from the product, the production process, their species being, and other humans. As Marx has written in this essay the natural world is linked to all that is mentioned above. Nature provides humans with the object on which we enact our labor and subsequently it is related to the production process as well as the creation of our species being. Furthermore, since what makes us uniquely human is our species being which comes from nature you can infer that man and nature are inseparable. Because of all of these logical connections it would not make sense to believe that the exploitation of the worker and their alienation from their labor is not related to the exploitation of nature. The two go hand in hand because of their relation to one another.

The fate of the natural world (which includes humans) is linked with how we treat one another. The means of production, according to Marx, is the basis of our social relations and additionally our intellectual thought. The way to make a substantial change in how we think about the environment and our physical relationship with the environment is by radically changing the means of production. This is advantageous for the environmental movement because it gives us a tangible direction to look forward to whereas other environmental movements are less difficult to conceptualize. As was noted earlier Deep Ecology calls for a rethinking of our relationship within the natural world. They view the human as not unique and just one species in the natural world. This, in my opinion does not focus enough on our material relations with one another which is of utmost importance. For the fact of the matter is, is that we have created a social world which just can not be undone by a shift in thought. It requires more material changes in the means of production to produce anything meaningful. Marx’s ecology also is an advantageous position over reform environmentalism. Reform environmentalism seeks not to change the existing means of production. Often times it actively seeks to maintain the status quo. These groups, such as Sierra Club, National Resource Defense Council, Greenpeace, often benefit from the current capitalist arrangement of society. Often times their reform efforts have only served to make capitalism more efficient. From a Marxian point of view this is not prudent because it does nothing to address the exploitation and estrangement of labor which, as I have discussed earlier, negatively impacts both humans and nature.

Without a Marxian understanding of our relationship to nature the environmental movement will continue to make little difference in the health of our world. The idealist position of the Deep Ecologists will do nothing to alter the means of production. Nor will the reformist nature of many mainstream environmental groups that serve to benefit from the status quo. A Marxian understanding of nature in addition to his powerful Communist Manifesto (which I have not discussed explicitly in this post) offers a comprehensive strategy for the liberation of the working class and the environment.

Making a case for including nonhuman animals in critical theory

2009-09-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

As I have written in the last entry critical theory engages itself with critiquing authority, exploitation, alienation, etc. Traditional critical theory has relied heavily on classical Marxism and the revolutionary force of the proletariat. From this point of view it is through the lens of class struggle that we should make these critiques. In other words, analytical primacy is given to class. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with a focus on class conflict. Many of the products that we consume are the direct result of exploitation and alienation of the working class. Increasingly the economic order (that of neoliberal capitalist imperialism) is increasing its harmful reach throughout the entire world. As 'free trade' grows our ability to follow the social aspects of production are being blurred. We do not know the factories in which commodities are being produced nor the conditions within the factories. Of course this is not to say that there haven't been victories in stopping some forms of child labor and slave labor. However, these 'victories' are temporary cures to the symptoms of a much more fundamental problem; capitalism.

In no way am I calling for critical theory to end the understanding of class struggle. I am going to argue that class struggle can not be the only focus of critical theory. It is ironic that contemporary critical theory is espoused with an uncritical reliance on classical Marxist concepts. Critical theorists have become vanguards and are willing to defend Marxism at the exclusion of many other forms of oppression. It is obvious, however, that oppression takes place outside of the realm of economic relations. Marxist critical theory needs to be redeveloped with an emphasis on synthesizing gender and race into the analysis. This type of critical theory is prevalent in the writings of Patricia Hill Collins, Audre Lord, Frantz Fanon, Douglas Kellner, etc. However, I believe that they are missing another important indefensible form of hierarchy; that of speciesism. Many scholars and activists are quick to say that focus on animal rights will take our attention away from more important issues such as classism, racism, (hetero)sexism, etc. This is simply not the case.

What many activists and scholars fail to see is that issues of nonhuman animal oppression and exploitation are intricately related to human oppression and exploitation. Perhaps one of the best examples of this can be found in David Nibert's "Animal Rights/Human Rights". He does an exceptional job of pointing out the intersection between nonhuman and human animal exploitation. He does this by examining exploitation from the domestication of animals all the way to modern day slaughterhouses and vivisection laboratories. Another famous example is that of Upton Sinclair’s expose of slaughterhouses in his study titled “The Jungle”. Using a qualitative methodology Sinclair began to develop the hypothesis that there was a connection between the violence perpetrated by slaughterhouse workers after work and the nature of their job. He wrote, “for men who have to crack the heads of animals all day seem to get into the habit, and to practice on their friends, and even on their families, between times”. Additionally animal exploitation can be directly related to the exploitation of women. In order to make food animals profitable the industry must feed them a diet rich in proteins and antibiotics. Many of the animals, especially cow, are fed a diet of grains. It takes approximately six pounds of plant protein to create one pound of animal protein. So, as more animal products are sold more space is needed to grow the plant proteins that feed them. This results in the unnecessary growth of monoculture cash crops that take the place of more sustainable and biodiverse agricultural techniques. Many of these farming plots are located in ‘developing’ countries in which women are the primary protectors of the seed. This feed production has created a new market in which the smaller subsistence farmers, as noted earlier typically performed by women, are being replaced by large agribusinesses. This has a disproportionate effect on women.

As has been evidenced by many studies (many more than the ones that I have listed above) there is a connection between the subjugation of human animals and non-human animals. However, many of these critiques have been based on economic impacts of exploitation. They do very little to understand the importance of experience. In other words, racism, (hetro)sexism, speciesism is not just an offshoot of class struggle. It denies people the ability comprehend their lived reality. Additionally, many of the reports of animal exploitation are based in relation to harm imposed on others (the effect of slaughterhouse workers and increases in violence, impact of animal agriculture on women in 'developing' countries, etc). Although this understanding of lived reality is not possible for nonhuman animals because we lack the ability to communicate with them. However, this should not preclude us from trying to understand how our relationship with animals is often times based on the assumption that humans are somehow superior to nonhuman animals. Animal exploitation should be approached on multiple grounds. One which shows how cases of using animals directly impacts humans and another which takes into account the interest of animals not to be used on its own. This should not be too challenging an endeavor because taking the interests of animals into account is very similar to that of nonhuman animals. A strong (and philosophically conistant) critical theory needs to turn the gaze inward and deal with these types of issues while at the same time understanding how capitalism perpetuates unnecessary hierarchies of race, class, gender, species, etc…

dialectical vegan

2009-09-12T23:23:00.000-07:00

Why a dialectical vegan? Well, this is a concept that I have considered but have never really thought about in too much depth. Perhaps I gravitate towards dialectical methods because I reject positivist reductionism in the social and “natural” sciences. Individuals do not exist, ontologically, before society. It is impossible to define who we are if it is not in relation to some larger whole. Therefore, I find it preposterous to try to understand one thing outside of the context of the whole. Maybe I lean more towards a dialectical approach because I want to know both how something works and the system in which this thing works.

How I think about phenomena is heavily influenced by critical theory. For better or worse I have a growing inclination to want to free myself from unnecessary forms of “authority, exploitation, alienation, repression” (similar to that of the Frankfurt school). I feel as if critical theory lends itself well to the methods of dialectical thought. To fully understand exploitation you must not only comprehend the act of exploitation but also what type of social/political/economic/culture/etc…system allows this to work. Hopefully in understanding this (the how something works and the system in which it works) we, human animals, can challenge and eradicate the “authority, exploitation, alienation” and “repression” that devalues the lives of the many while privileging the lives of the few.

A critical dialectical approach towards veganism is quite useful, I believe, in ending animal exploitation. To do this we must understand the property status of animals and what type of social context has created a system in which animals are viewed as property. In other words, to understand the exploitation of animals as commodities we must understand the system of commoditization. As with any liberation movement this requires an understanding of the historical development of oppression on both a micro and a macro level.

In our current socioeconomic system this requires a critical view at the alienating and exploitative nature of capitalism. However, an understanding of material production is not enough. Additionally, it is important to think critically about how a capitalist society uses “authority, exploitation, alienation” and “repression” to perpetuate racism, sexism, speciesism, etc. To borrow a concept from critical feminists we must understand the “interlocking matrices of oppression”. One of the most effective ways of doing this is challenging hierarchy. This fits in quite well with the critical tradition because “authority, exploitation, alienation and repression” supports hierarchy.

This blog will primarily be an avenue for me to flesh out ideas that I have throughout the year. Some entries will be about animal rights and veganism. Others will most likely be about racism, (hetero)sexism, jingoism, etc. The entries will range from sociological to philosophical; from more essay based to a more narrative style. If you do choose to read and follow this blog please leave comments because I would like this to be a conversation. Also, encourage others to check it out (why not…It’ll make me feel cool). I’ll try to update as regularly as I can. This may be challenging as I am currently overloading in grad school and beginning to develop my master’s thesis.

Not all Vegans fit in to what you think a Vegan is...

2009-05-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

" Not all vegans fit in to what you think a vegan is.

I carry and wear leather.

I'm a vegan for my own personal nutrition reasons. I really could not care about the sufferage and exploitation of animals. I've even enjoyed watching a bullfight on vacation in Spain.

I don't balk at eating meat and dairy because of the ethic pitfalls of mass production in farms, I react because that treatment leads to potentially harming my body if I ingest it.

It's all about me, actually"

I found this gem in the Dallas vegan forum on Craigslist. It was in response to the question of what vegans wear for shoes. To me, this points out one huge question I have for other vegans. Is going vegan for any other reason besides animal rights good enough? To which I would like to answer my own question...a resounding no!

In many ways this person's reply on the vegan forum is indicative of the "animal rights" movement. I put animal rights in quotes because I am referring to what many people, especially the mainstream media, portray as "animal rights" organizations. A few examples of these organizations are PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). You simply can not call these groups animal rights organizations because they focus primarily on how we should treat animals. They do not focus on the question of should we use animals (the answer again being no!). Rather, they limit their "activism" to regulating how we should use animals. It's right there in the name of PETA...they think we should treat animals ethically. For them that is the difference between electrocuting chickens and gassing them...oh, excuse me, I mean "controlled atmosphere killing" units. While PETA has claimed this as a victory it has really made killing chickens a more profitable venture for KFC. Just read what the HSUS has to say about gassing chickens:

"CAK results in cost savings and increased revenues by decreasing carcass downgrades, contamination, and refrigeration costs; increasing meat yields, quality, and shelf life; and improving worker conditions. Without live shackling and electrical stunning, CAK results in fewer broken bones and less bruising and hemorrhaging. The reduction in carcass defects increases boning yield and deboned meat quality. CAK has been shown to reduce bruising by as much as 94 percent and bone fractures by as much as 80 percent. Conservatively assuming that CAK increases yield only 1 percent, a plant processing 1 million broilers per week with an average dressed carcass weight of 4.5 pounds and wholesale price of $0.80 per pound would increase annual revenue by $1.87 million after adopting CAK." which can be found in the HSUS report "The Economics of Adopting Alternative Production Practices to Electircal Stunning Slaughter of Poultry"

PETA does not have the rights of animals in mind when it conducts its action. There is no sound ethical theory behind their "ethical treatment of animals". It is here where we can make the connection between the stances of groups of PETA and HSUS and the writings of the quoted poster above. "It's all about me, actually" fits the guiding principals of these organizations extremely well. If it were about the animals than PETA would not have pages on their website devoted to their "win" in the Canadian KFC campaign. Seriously, you should read this and take particular note about how the title is "PETA wins KFC Campaign in Canada". Where is the mention of animals? There isn't one because it is not about non-human persons..."It's all about me, actually".

Until we actually start to take the basic right of a sentient being not to be treated as a means to our ends seriously will veganism be effective. For organizations like PETA as soon as the animal is being treated "humanely" they call for a victory. And for people like the one whose post I quoted earlier as soon as eating meat is healthy enough for them they will declare their own victory and consume animal products (and byproducts) once more...so much for the animals. Only veganism backed by a sound theory of respecting an animals right to live out their lives will make a difference in this world.