After a brief introduction to the vegan piece she’s about to criticize, Beyerstein wastes no time in beginning her assault on veganism with the often asserted, misguided assumption that veganism is a disruption to life,

…a way of deliberately disrupting your own life to force yourself to constantly reflect on your values…

Thanks for reminding all of us that change is hard, so we shouldn’t do it, and that it’s a waste of time to reflect upon one’s values.  Now we can all get back to doing nothing.

After using ironic, and certainly dubious, terms such as, “ethically and sustainably raised animal products,” comes this little number,

Yes, meat production is environmentally expensive. So is iPod production, yet many vegans own iPods.

To assert that iPod production is as environmentally devastating as livestock production is, frankly, fucking stupid.  By this reasoning, all production of goods is environmentally devastating.  I suppose we’ll just all say, “fuck it,” and consume unabated, reproduce, and teach our children the same self-destructive behaviour.  After all, the planet expands as the human population increases, right?  Nothing to worry about except our own tastes and desires.

The author then assumes cows and chickens have no real concept of really living or dying, implying we can pretty much do with them what we please.  The hubris of humans when it comes to the understanding of the natural world is painfully evident throughout modern history.

If human farmers allow them to live pleasantly and die painlessly, and other animals take their place, the arrangement seems acceptable.

That’s a big, unlikely “If.”  The fact is, the vast majority of the animals being eaten did not live pleasantly or die painlessly.  The subsequent animals taking their place live and die the same, in the same destructive system.

And, for more hubris regarding science,

Of course, the animals don’t have a choice in all this. But ideals of choice and consent aren’t applicable to creatures that don’t have rational thought.

You sound like a monster.  If a creature (human or otherwise) was deemed to lack rational thought, denying choice and consent would act to protect that creature- not exploit them.  Only monsters exploit the weaknesses of others for their own advantage.

There’s seemingly no end to any of this.

There is certainly no moral advantage to swearing off honey. Bees keep vegetable farmers in business. For that matter, why shouldn’t we keep chickens for their eggs, or cows for their milk?

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the author for explaining that honey isn’t vegan.  As she correctly points out, it’s the same concept as chicken eggs and cow milk.  Now I’d like to take this same opportunity to deride the author for her naivety.  Bees do a better job for vegetable farmers when they are wild, natural bees- not weak, diseased domesticated bees.

…if animals are kept humanely, it’s a mutually advantageous relationship.

Another big, fucking “if.”  I could disagree and argue your, “mutually advantageous relationship” all day, but back to the big, fucking “if.”  If all the livestock animals were kept humanely for human consumption, they could never be produced on the massive scale they are presently.  It’s simply not feasible economically.  The number of humans on the globe desiring the taste for meat and other animal products would not allow it.  Only cheap products can meet the demands of today, and “humane” meat isn’t cheap.  Hell, without subsidies, many Americans couldn’t afford it.  People in developing countries with expanding economies are demanding more meat.  How will this demand be met- with “humanely raised, happy cows?”  Your big “if” turns meat into a luxury only the rich will be able to afford.  I’m the first to agree that the true cost of meat should be on the price tag, but I’m also one who questions the morality of such things produced solely for the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate.

When I’ve become dumbfounded beyond belief that so much… shit has been spewed, I read this,

I’m just going to come right out and say it: My delight in a pot of chicken stock, and the delight of all the people I share it with, is worth more than the life of a barely self-aware chicken.

I’m just going to come right out and say it too: First, you’re an asshole.  Chickens, like dogs, chimps, and humans are sentient beings and science has confirmed it knows little about non-human animal psychology.  Your assumption is arrogant and self righteous, to say the least.  Your delights cost more than the chicken you refer to.  Perhaps the greatest cost is to the disservice you do to human compassion and intelligence.  We all enjoy life’s pleasures, but what makes us moral, ethical beings is how we treat others- people, other animals, our natural environment- when pursuing those pleasures.  Lastly,  justifying your actions by playing the “intelligent, rational life-form with free-will” card, makes you appear, well, like an arrogant, self righteous asshole.  It’s the same line of bullshit perpetuated through the ages that has destroyed civilizations and now brings our planet to the brink of environmental collapse.

Good day, all.  I feel better now.

Charleen Angle writes for Your Daily Vegan as the Resident Vegan Contributor. An unapologetic vegan, her writing reflects her strong and passionate voice for the billions of animals that die needlessly each year.

Love. Vegan. Reggae.

Wanna know more? Charleen’s bio. Want to email her? Charleen’s email. Want to tweet her? Charleen’s twitter.

Rhesus Monkeys have a long history of involvement in Scientific Research

The recent story in the New York Times regarding monkeys used in laboratory research has got people talking- and cussing, and they’re outright disgusted.

After keeping the monkeys in cages (to severely limit their exercise) for months or years, and feeding them a high fat, high carb, high calorie diet, they’ve come to the conclusion that one can get fat, and then, in turn, develop heart disease and diabetes.  There’s another motive to this so-called research.  The animal testing was done by the Oregon National Primate Research Center, on behalf of Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, who tested an experimental diet drug on the monkeys.

Animal testing is wrong on so many levels.  This particular experiment is wrong in an additional sense of being completely redundant.  Do we all not know and understand how one becomes afflicted with fatness, heart disease, and diabetes?  Do we not know that smoking tobacco causes emphysema?  Do we not know that boozing it up in the Asshole Gran Prix on I-95, could lead to some kind of flaming car wreck?  There are some things we just know for certain.

We do not need to kill others (in the name of science) to prove something we see every single day.

In another study, a group of academic researchers is using the monkeys to compare gastric bypass surgery with weight loss from forced dieting. One goal is to try to figure out the hormonal mechanisms by which the surgery can quickly resolve diabetes, so that drugs might one day be developed to have the same effect. To that end, the study will do what cannot be done with people — kill some of the monkeys to examine their brains and pancreases.

Why can’t this be done with people?  No volunteers?  Are they implying that the monkeys volunteered?  Of course not.  They own the monkeys as property.

“The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals.”
~Mahatma Gandhi.

“Doing primate studies is about as difficult as doing human studies from an ethical standpoint,” said Dr. Lee M. Kaplan, director of the weight center at Massachusetts General Hospital, who is one of the researchers in the bariatric surgery study here.

But, not quite as difficult, since they’re actually being killed- from an ethical standpoint.

The studies also found something else that could be important for people — that eating a healthy diet during pregnancy reduced troubles in the offspring.

A study was not needed to prove something we all instinctively know.  And, on the chance some of us do not know this, some of us may want to reconsider our reproductive plans.

Dr. Kevin L. Grove [Oregon National Primate Research Center] said he understood the protesters’ [animal rights activists] view: “I applaud them for that pressure because it makes us do our job better.”

Why do you need pressured to do a better job?  And, what exactly would constitute doing a better job at slaughtering monkeys?

Humans kill animals (in heinous fashion) for nutrients they could find elsewhere.  Which sickens the animals, the planet, and ultimately themselves in the process.  Then, more animals in laboratories are killed in a futile attempt to save themselves from their own self-induced disease.  This is a cycle of a madmen, not the natural cycle of life.

As pharmaceutical companies move some research to less expensive countries, the obese monkeys are following. “This is a booming industry in China,” said Dr. Grove. “They have colonies of thousands of them.”

Learn more about the Rhesus Macaques, their habitat, and their fate in the field of science.  Then take a trip to Commercial Street’s Sundry Shop to learn more about animal testing and what you can do to affect positive change.

via nytimes.com

They deserve better.

Have you ever wondered why a vegan will become so passionate when discussing what the word vegan means?  All of us here at YDV are extremely passionate, or unapologetic, for our veganism- and fiercely proud of it.  We take a consistent stand against the use of animals- which, some will attest to, is not always popular amongst the “mainstream” loving folks.  And, before I go any further, I just have to say that I don’t care about that one bit.  While I believe in respectful discussions on veganism, I do not worry if I am going to “fit in.”

I am passionate and consistent and I have to be.  I am working to break stereotypes, myths, and….whatever this is classified as:

“Animal rights” is a phrase that has been stolen by extremists who view farmers and ranchers as terrorists and who advocate for the complete abolition of meat, dairy and egg products in the American diet, as well as the end to livestock production.

That quote is from Animal Rights: What’s Your Definition? published on the popular website, beefmagazine.com.  More interestingly, this comment:

I don’t believe animals have the same rights as people, and I also believe that people forget animals are personal property, not people.

So the next time you wonder why vegans are so passionate (or mistakenly thought of as angry), think back to that statement above.  It tells volumes about the mindset of humans.

It also tells volumes about what vegans are up against.

Meet “The End of History” beer from Brew Dog:

Yes, that IS a taxidermy squirrel- you are right.  Yes, it is indeed real.  And no, it doesn’t matter that the company claims that the “packaging” is from road kill.  From their mouths,

The impact of The End of History is a perfect conceptual marriage between art, taxidermy and craft brewing. The bottles are at once beautiful and disturbing – they disrupt conventions and break taboos, just like the beer they hold within them.

So who is it exactly that people are comparing me to when they say I’m “extreme?”  Because this shit is pretty extreme.  Just sayin’.

So Kate Gosselin has gone and got herself some chickens- because that makes perfect sense.  Let me remind you that this is the same woman who has already gotten rid of her pure bred German Shepard dogs because “it’s not fair to the dogs to not be wanted in their own home” and, of course, the infamous “I’m too busy” line of BS.

And now she’s decided to get some chickens.  Fantastic.

“I buy four, five, or more dozen eggs a week,” she said. “That’s it, we’re getting chickens.”

Right.  Let’s do the math.  We will just use five dozen eggs as our base, so let’s see…

5  x 12 = 60 eggs bought/used per week

60 x 4 = 240 eggs per month

240 x 12 = 2,880 eggs per year

2,880 x 16 = 46,080 eggs hypothetically eaten by the time the children turn 18.

As a way of celebrating their hard work and their first egg harvest, Kate decided to make a special dinner of egg salad sandwiches, deviled eggs and egg custard. The family enjoyed the dinner but it got off to a disgusting start when they went to retrieve the eggs and found a bloodied rooster.

Celebrating the loss of nearly three thousand lives.  Yes.  Lives.  And even if you don’t care about the eggs “because you don’t have to kill the chickens to get the eggs,” those chickens are not living a natural or free life.  They will be contained in a pen until Kate and the kids gets sick of them or don’t feel like taking care of them, then they will be killed for food.  Oh, right.  They won’t get eaten,

The boys, Collin, Aaden and Joel, enjoyed other things as well, like naming the chickens — Fluffy, Fuzzy, Furry — and pondering the concept of farm animals: “We’re never going to eat our pet chickens,” they decided.

And that, my fine fellows, is the whole crux of the thing, isn’t it?

Children are taught to place animals into moral categories. This animal is a pet, we don’t eat our pets.  This animal is for eating, this one is for living at a zoo, etc.  We have been desensitized to food production and it’s time we woke up.