PlutÎt réaliste que sexiste

PlutÎt réaliste que sexiste

C’est plutĂŽt rĂ©aliste que sexiste
D’admettre que les horreurs
Sont plus dues aux testoĂŻdes
Qu’à la trypsine

More Realist Than Sexist

It”s more realist than sexist
To admit that the horrors
Are due more to testoids
Than trypsin

Knargles 2015 – 2015

From the heartless streets
of Tel Aviv
you found haven
in Becky’s heart.

Bound for Toronto,
but a murmur of doubt
from your own heart,
so ravaged by its outcast past.

Now it’s cheated you
of all but the first 7 days
of your would-be
forever home.

knargles2.mov

Animal Videos

Filming instead of rescuing is despicable. How many of those hasardous moments that end well end ill (so never make it to WIMP)? — and we just keep filming, for fun, without regret, without remorse, without shame?

Images and evidence of atrocities are extremely important to sensitize people, but to film when one could intervene to help the victim is unpardonable.

De filmer au lieu de venir Ă  la rescousse est odieux: Combien de ces moments hasardeux qui terminent bien terminent mal (donc ne paraissent jamais sur WIMP, etc.)? — puis on continue Ă  filmer, Ă  s’amuser, sans soucis, sans regrets, sans remords, sans vergogne…

Les images et preuves d’atrocitĂ©s sont extrĂȘmement importantes pour sensibiliser les gens, mais de filmer quand on pourrait intervenir pour aider la victime est impardonnable.

“World’s biggest MEdia event”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgkyUBkbY

One way trip to Mars
No return
No provision for aging or medical problems
No test of sustainability (though I certainly don’t want them to try it first with animals!)
Huge cost
No point in doing it at all

And all those resources utterly wasted at a time when there are so many problems on earth that need them.

Companies making their charity contributions to create the “World’s biggest media event ever” rather than to remedy the worst humanitarian, environmental, social and geopolitical disasters ever…

It may be potentially “fun” the way joining ISIS is (and deciding to do it no doubt involves a similar depth of reflection, as the three people in the video sample with the Onuzu article illustrate):

Chibundu Onuzuis right on every point:

It’s Reality TV for the Me generation and the Lost.

It’s based on superficial, empty, pop hype stereotypes, kleped “science” or “progress.”

And for people who think they are seeking the “meaning of life”: that’s really much simpler and closer than they think, but they are actually only thinking of themselves.

(Nobel Laureate Gerard t’Hooft seems to have gone senile, venal or loco…)

Attitudes to Research on Animals

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows the following results about attitudes toward animal research:

“The general public is closely divided when it comes to the use of animals in research. Some 47% favor and a nearly equal share (50%) oppose animal research. Support for the use of animals in research is down slightly from 52% in 2009. By contrast, there is strong consensus among AAAS scientists for the use of animals in research (89% to 9%). Among the general public, men and women differ strongly in their views about animal research. Six-in-ten men favor the use of animal research. By contrast, 35% of women favor animal research while 62% oppose it. College graduates, especially those who studied science in college, tend to express more support than do those with less education for using animals in scientific research.”

Of course opinion and attitude polls are useful, but they cannot be decisive for, say, public health questions.

It’s good to hear that people’s attitudes on animal research are negative, but it would take so little to destroy completely the credibility of that opinion, by pointing out that of that 50% of people who say they oppose animal research, 99% of them do not oppose the far more widespread horrors of slaughterhouses, but rather sustain them, by eating meat.

And that they do that because they think (incorrectly) that meat is necessary for their health.

And that they think (also incorrectly) that the breeding and slaughter of animals for food is done more humanely than what is done in research laboratories.

And they haven’t even asked themselves whether, while not ready to give up meat, at no cost to their own health, to protect animals from needless hurt, have they really asked themselves whether they are ready to give up any health benefits that come from animal research?

Pragmatic Abolitionism

I’m an abolitionist, but most people are still fur-wearing meat-eaters. So the reason fur is a good one for activists to concentrate on first is that — unlike meat-eating, which many people still believe (wrongly) to be necessary for their health, and animal research, which many people believe (mostly wrongly) to be necessary to save lives — everyone knows that fur is not necessary for their health; nor does it save lives. So that’s the strongest entry point for awakening them to the horrors they are supporting and sustaining for no vital reason. Once they see that, then the next step is the evidence that meat is not necessary for their health. And after that, the evidence that much (though not all) animal research is just curiosity- or career-driven, not life-saving. There’s no way to get most people to see all of that at once.

Moral Evolution: Time for Humanity to Become Humane

Traduction Française par Th.F. au dessous du texte en anglais.


SUMMARY: With rare exceptions (involving progeny and other kin) Darwinian evolution (if it were a matter of conscious design) would have to be described as brutal and psychopathic. Our own species, however — thanks to the evolution of language and with it the invention of civilization and the adoption of moral and legal codes of conduct to protect one another from harm — has by conscious design outlawed all but one of our brutal Darwinian tendencies: It is illegal to enslave, torture, rape or kill human beings just about everywhere on the planet. Brutality has not been eradicated; not everyone obeys the laws (there are still true psychopaths, criminals and fanatics); but most people both abide by and approve of the laws protecting other human beings from harm. The one brutal tendency that has not been outlawed is the enslavement, torture and killing of nonhuman animals. The quantity and quality of agony that our species imposes on other conscious animals, needlessly, for food, fashion and entertainment is of a scale that far exceeds the residual brutality that humans still impose on one another. It is time to outlaw this last residual relic of our species’ brutal evolutionary legacy.

I am going to start by saying some very graphic words to you, although I could have shown you equally graphic images instead. The gist of my talk is that we are unconsciously supporting and sustaining something horrible, something most of us could never support if we knew the truth about it. So we need to know the truth.

Every minute, as I speak, and as you listen, living, feeling animals are being torn from their mothers, confined and caged, pumped with drugs and hormones, kept in a state of deprivation and stress and fear for the entire length of their short lives, only to meet a brutal, terrifying and agonizing end at the hands of overworked, impatient, angry and often sadistic assembly-line workers charged with slaughtering as many of them as possible, as quickly as possible, because time is money and the supermarket counters are waiting for their fresh produce.

The mother cows from which their calves are wrenched as soon as they are born, are kept standing, almost immobile, in a constant state of lactation, by hormones, under the unending stress of pregnancy, of being severed from their offspring 2 days after they are born and deprived of the natural cycle of interaction for which their genes and their brains and their hearts have been prepared by evolution, their udders grotesquely swollen and varicose and increasingly inflamed, infected and painful – that’s why they are pumped with antibiotics – they are mechanically and mercilessly sucked by machines, according to the clock, until the day – somewhere in the 4th year of the life of a creature that normally has a life span of 20 years – when their udders are utterly depleted and spent and they can no longer stand painfully on their feet and can hardly walk at all, when they are forcibly prodded and pushed to the slaughterhouse, again with the help of machines, because if they cannot be made to limp in on their own, the last piece of revenue to be sucked out of them for meat is lost to the agribusiness industry that thrives on their misery.

And it’s not just meat and fish and poultry, and dairy, and eggs: The fashionable fur trim that is making a stealthy come-back in recent years, if it does not come from coyotes and foxes and lynx that have spent agonizing days in traps that are eating through the flesh of their limbs, if they have not themselves succeeded in chewing them off in their desperate struggle to free themselves, the ones still alive when the trapper comes — are freed with the brutal blows that end their struggles so they can be parted from their flesh and fur for your collar trim.
These days many of those collars are actually from China, and from dogs, who are bred, industrial scale for this purpose, and where efficiency dictates that there is no time or need even to kill them before you skin them, so they are violently restrained and skinned alive, leaving them afterward with 10 minutes of agony with their eyes still open and staring out from what’s left of their shocked, trembling bleeding bodies, as the skinners move on to the next victim.
This brutal, heartless, industrial-scale agony that human beings are globally inflicting, daily, hourly, every second, everywhere on the planet, on countless helpless, innocent non-human victims is by far the biggest and most pressing moral problem – and shame – of our age and out species.

Many will respond: How can that be? Surely the horrors that we inflict on our own species are an even greater moral abomination, and far more pressing. And it’s certainly true that there is not one horror that we inflict on non-human animals that we have not also inflicted on human beings, and still do. But the huge difference is that we have outlawed the horrors that humans do to humans, and most humans deplore and would never commit or support such horrors. Not so with the horrors that we inflict on non-human animals. We have, and follow, laws protecting against enslavement, bondage, torture, and killing – for human victims, but not for nonhuman victims.
Why? I will discuss the two paramount reasons we have these double standards – the first is the belief that eating and wearing animals is necessary for our survival and for our health and the second is the belief that we are doing this necessary thing in the most humane way possible. Both these beliefs are in fact false, profoundly, demonstrably and patently false. But the evidence that they are false is not widely known, and this is not because the evidence is not available but because people are reluctant to face it. Most of us are in a state of denial about it. We prefer to look away.

So I believe that the only hope for animals is a direct appeal to humans’ hearts. Not all humans have hearts. There are sadists, sociopaths and people with hearts that are impenetrably hardened for an entire lifetime.

I am not addressing myself to the sadists, the sociopaths and the hard-hearted. That only leads to conflict and anger. It doesn’t help the animals who are suffering every instant on the kill-counter. And time matters, not to us, but to them.

Every instant means mounting agony for helpless, innocent, feeling beings. By 2050, at the rate of growth of the human population and the industrial means of producing meat and milk to feed it, the kill-counter’s total, which is already grotesque, will be twice as high as today. In just two years, as many animals are killed by humans as the total number of humans killed by humans since the beginning of the human race. We feel the urge to throw up our hands and say it’s hopeless: we’re each just too small to do anything about it, and it – meaning the rest of carnivorous, fur-wearing, milk-drinking, puppy-milling, animal-experimenting and hunting humanity – is just too big. And that is even after we have set aside the minority sadists, sociopaths and impenetrably hard-hearted.
No, the only hope for animals is if that huge majority of humanity whose hearts are not impenetrably hardened can be reached – if those who have faced, and seen and understood the suffering can manage to win their hearts, by opening their eyes to the enormity, the monstrosity of animal agony imposed by us, and to the fact that this suffering is not necessary in any way, not for our survival, not for our health.

That’s two huge things: communicating the enormity of animal suffering and its utter needlessness, its gruitousness.

The vast majority of people who still have hearts do not know either of these things. They do not know how cruelly, and on what a scale animals are actually suffering in order to feed and clothe them. And they are completely unaware of the fact that that enormous suffering is totally unnecessary. They think we need to breed, use and kill animals for our own survival and health. They think that’s a law of nature. And they think that what we are doing to animals, because we need to do it, we are doing in the most humane way possible, in fact much more humanely than our ancestors did it in cave-man days.

And this potentially reachable majority is kept in the darkness of these two huge, false beliefs – necessity and humaneness – by a global conspiracy of interests, industrial and personal – that are profiting from keeping the majority ignorant.

I want to stress that this global conspiracy is not human; it does not have a heart. It is collective and corporate. And as that excellent Canadian film a few years ago, the Corporation, showed so graphically, corporations are not humans, and their behavior best fits the description of a psychopath.

The appeal to real humans with hearts is the only hope for animals. There is no way to change directly the industries that have evolved to exploit animals on the monstrous scale that they are doing it today unless there is first a way to reach and change the hearts of the individual human beings that constitute the majority that is sustaining these psychopathic industries. These industries can only be made unsustainable if the hearts of their consumers can be touched, so they realize that laws have to be changed, collectively, globally, so as to put an end to the needless, heartless exploitation of nonhuman animals.

We are in the Web era. PETA and others have provided us with the graphic evidence, many times over, of the horrors that the majority of people do not know about. Domestic pet breeding is also an abominable industry, but one of its immediate effects is that most people have formed bonds with nonhuman animals. I do not believe it is humanly possible to love a family animal and look at the atrocities that are being committed to other animals just like their loved ones.
People will try to look away, because it hurts to see such things, but we must be shown these things, kindly but relentlessly. The truth hurts, but it is hurting them far more then it hurts us.

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”
Craig, W. J., & Mangels, A. R. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1266-1282.


L’échelle industrielle et planĂ©taire de la souffrance infligĂ©e aux animaux par les humains est le plus grave problĂšme moral et la plus grande honte de notre Ă©poque. Un compteur des victimes en ligne indique les chiffres monstrueux et en constante Ă©volution des animaux qui sont cruellement tuĂ©s Ă  chaque seconde qui passe. La plupart d’entre vous ĂȘtes dĂ©jĂ  conscients du problĂšme et de ces chiffres monstrueux qui Ă©voluent Ă  chaque instant. La plupart d’entre vous ĂȘtes dĂ©jĂ  vĂ©ganes, activistes et essayez de rĂ©soudre le problĂšme. EspĂ©rons que cette confĂ©rence vous aidera Ă  structurer vos idĂ©es pour travailler ensemble et rĂ©ussir Ă  ouvrir les yeux et le cƓur du reste du monde. Parce qu’ultimement, le seul espoir pour les animaux est de toucher le cƓur des humains.

Les ĂȘtres humains n’ont pas tous un cƓur
 Il y a des sadiques, des sociopathes et des gens dont le cƓur est dur comme la pierre et restera impĂ©nĂ©trable tout au long de leur vie. Nous ne nous adressons pas aux sadiques et aux sociopathes ou Ă  ceux qui ont un cƓur de pierre; nous les garderons pour plus tard. Tenter de s’adresser Ă  ces gens mĂšne immanquablement Ă  des conflits et cela n’aide pas les animaux. Le temps est comptĂ©; pas pour nous, mais pour eux. Je vous demande de toujours vous souvenir que le temps compte. Chaque instant que nous Ă©chouons (et nous Ă©chouons toujours), provoque des millions d’agonies pour ces animaux, innocents et impuissants.

Ceux qui ont un cƓur faible voudront baisser les bras et dire que c’est sans espoir
 Ils penseront que nous sommes trop peu nombreux et que le reste des carnivores, porteurs de fourrure, buveurs de lait, exploiteurs de chiots, responsables de l’expĂ©rimentation animale et les chasseurs sont beaucoup plus nombreux et ce, mĂȘme en excluant les sadiques, sociopathes et les cƓurs de pierre. À ceux qui pensent que la majoritĂ© des carnivores est trop grande, dĂ©trompez-vous. Le seul espoir pour les animaux est la majoritĂ© de l’humanitĂ© qui possĂšde un cƓur qui n’est pas dur comme la pierre ou impĂ©nĂ©trable et qui peut encore ĂȘtre touchĂ©. Nous devons rĂ©ussir Ă  gagner leur cƓur, en ouvrant leur cƓur devant la rĂ©alitĂ© et la monstrueuse situation des animaux qui souffrent Ă  cause des humains. Il faut leur montrer que cette souffrance est aucunement nĂ©cessaire, ni pour notre survie, ni pour notre santĂ©.

Voici deux concepts trĂšs importants: communiquer l’énormitĂ© de la souffrance animale et le fait qu’elle ne soit pas nĂ©cessaire. La vaste majoritĂ© des gens qui ont toujours un cƓur ne savent pas ces deux choses. Rappelez-vous qu’ici nous parlons et nous prĂȘchons Ă  des gens dĂ©jĂ  convaincus et sensibilisĂ©s. Nous savons tout ça et nous avons dĂ©jĂ  vu les images d’horreur de la rĂ©alitĂ©; ce n’est pas le cas de la vaste majoritĂ© des gens qui ont toujours un cƓur. Ils ne savent pas combien cruels sont les humains et Ă  qu’elle Ă©chelle les animaux sont en train de souffrir. La majoritĂ© ignore le fait que cette immense souffrance est complĂštement inutile. Ces deux concepts Ă©vidents pour nous, que nous connaissons tous, ne le sont pas pour la majoritĂ©. Ils pensent que nous avons besoin de reproduire, d’utiliser et de tuer les animaux pour notre propre survie et notre santĂ©. Ils pensent que c’est la loi de la nature. Ils pensent que ce que nous faisons aux animaux, parce que nous devons le faire, nous le faisons de la façon la plus humaine possible. En fait, encore plus humainement que nos ancĂȘtres prĂ©historiques le faisaient dans le temps des cavernes ou que les animaux font entre eux. C’est ce qu’ils pensent
 Et cette majoritĂ© susceptible de comprendre est gardĂ©e dans l’ombre en cultivant de fausses croyances: La nĂ©cessitĂ© de le faire et l’exĂ©cution la plus humaine possible. Cette conspiration d’intĂ©rĂȘts planĂ©taires, industriels et personnels, profite de la situation en gardant la vaste majoritĂ© des gens ignorants. Je veux ajouter que cette conspiration globale n’est pas humaine. Elle n’a pas de cƓur. Elle est collective et corporative. À ce sujet, un excellent film canadien prĂ©sentait, il y a quelques annĂ©es, les corporations sous forme de graphiques rĂ©vĂ©lant ces derniĂšres comme n’étant pas des ĂȘtres humains. En fait, le comportement des corporations concorde avec le comportement et la description d’un psychopathe.

Nous devons adresser notre appel aux humains qui ont un cƓur. Ils sont le seul espoir pour les animaux. Nous ne pouvons pas changer l’industrie qui exploite les animaux Ă  l’échelle planĂ©taire, sans changer le cƓur de la majoritĂ© des humains qui rendent cette industrie profitable actuellement. Nous devons mettre un terme Ă  cette industrie. Nous devons gagner le cƓur des consommateurs, afin qu’ils rĂ©alisent que les lois doivent changer collectivement et globalement. Nous devons mettre fin Ă  cette industrie inutile et Ă  l’exploitation honteuse des animaux. Nous sommes dans l’ùre d’Internet. PETA, ainsi que d’autres organismes nous ont fourni des preuves et des Ă©vidences Ă  plusieurs reprises dĂ©nonçant l’horreur que la majoritĂ© des humains ignorent encore.

La reproduction des animaux domestiques est aussi une industrie abominable, mais elle a des effets immĂ©diats sur la majoritĂ© des gens qui dĂ©veloppent des liens avec ces animaux. Je ne crois pas que c’est possible d’aimer un animal, tel un membre de la famille, et ĂȘtre capable de regarder et de tolĂ©rer l’atrocitĂ© qui est commise Ă  d’autres animaux. Les personnes qui sont vĂ©ganes sont dĂ©jĂ  convaincues que les choses doivent changer et n’ont pas besoin de voir les images d’horreur, parce qu’elles les ont dĂ©jĂ  vues et prennent dĂ©jĂ  des actions pour y faire face. Par contre, nous avons besoin de convaincre tous les autres. Rappelons qu’il n’y a pas de diffĂ©rence entre nos animaux domestiques et les crĂ©atures qui subissent l’horreur; c’est comme voir son propre chat ĂȘtre torturĂ©.

Les gens vont tenter de regarder ailleurs, parce que ça fait mal de voir les images de l’horrible rĂ©alitĂ©, mais ils doivent quand mĂȘme se faire montrer la rĂ©alitĂ©; gentiment, mais pertinemment. Par qui? Par nous. Les images de la rĂ©alitĂ© ont dĂ©jĂ  eu un impact sur nos cƓurs vĂ©ganes, alors notre mission est d’ouvrir les yeux de tous les autres sur la planĂšte.

Il faut Ă©tablir un ordre dans nos prioritĂ©s et le compteur des victimes mentionnĂ© plus haut est notre prioritĂ© premiĂšre. Argumenter avec les sadiques ou les sociopathes n’aide personne. N’entrez pas en conflit avec les gens. Notre objectif n’est pas d’ endurcir le cƓur des gens, mais bien de l’adoucir. Ce n’est pas une prioritĂ© et ça n’aide pas les animaux de rendre les gens en colĂšre envers vous. Je ne sais pas combien de fois j’ai entendu un chasseur ou le propriĂ©taire d’un animal, quand il se sent confrontĂ© par une personne vĂ©gane indignĂ©e, rĂ©pondre “Je vais faire tout ce que je veux faire avec mon [!] d’animal” et ils rentrent chez eux et font mal Ă  leur animal juste par vengeance Ă  cause de la provocation. Restez loin des sadiques et des sociopathes. RĂ©servons leur cas pour plus tard, lorsque le reste de l’humanitĂ© aura dĂ©couvert son cƓur et aura rĂ©digĂ© des lois pour protĂ©ger les animaux. Alors, ce qu’ils font deviendra illĂ©gal; pour l’instant ce n’est pas illĂ©gal. S’impliquer dans de violents conflits avec eux n’aide personne. Ça peut seulement satisfaire votre conscience, mais ça n’aide pas les animaux.

J’ai participĂ© Ă  un panel de discussion sur les recherches mĂ©dicales. Évidement je suis un abolitionniste Ă  100%. Je souhaite mettre une fin Ă  tout ça, absolument tout: les manger, les revĂȘtir, les utiliser pour l’expĂ©rimentation, mais ça ne peut pas ĂȘtre fait tout en mĂȘme temps. Il faut mettre de cĂŽtĂ© les cibles pour qui les deux concepts mentionnĂ©s plus haut ne sont pas applicables: l’exploitation des animaux n’est pas humaine et est aucunement nĂ©cessaire, ni pour notre survie, ni pour notre santĂ©.

Le dossier des recherches mĂ©dicales doit ĂȘtre le dernier dossier Ă  ĂȘtre rĂ©glĂ©. Nous devons d’abord mettre fin aux dossiers qui ne sont complĂštement inutiles et tout Ă  fait inhumains. L’industrie mĂ©dicale, pour ce que ça vaut, est rĂšglementĂ©e. Elle est mal rĂšglementĂ©e, mais au moins il y a une rĂšglementation. Les rats de laboratoire sont traitĂ©s infiniment mieux que les animaux reproduits pour l’abattage, ou que les chiens encore vivants sur lesquels on dĂ©chire la peau Ă  vif. Je prĂ©sente souvent une image d’un cas rĂ©el montrant un chien chinois qui se fait dĂ©chirer la peau du corps et qui est dans un Ă©tat de souffrance et de terreur inimaginable. Ses yeux sont encore ouverts et il agonise pendant 10 minutes avant de mourir. Ce genre de chose atroce est notre prioritĂ© premiĂšre. Et ce genre de chose peut ĂȘtre dĂ©fendu avec le principe que ce n’est pas nĂ©cessaire pour notre survie ou notre santĂ©. Ce n’est pas le cas des expĂ©rimentations et recherches mĂ©dicales. Certaines recherches contribuent vraiment Ă  sauver des vies humaines. Gardons ce dossier pour plus tard. Remettons les choses en contexte.

Animal Abu Ghraib

Below is a letter to the NY Times from Judith Economos about “U.S. Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit: Animal Welfare at Risk in Experiments for Meat Industry


Sir: Where do they find enough psychopaths willing to do these things?

It is certainly not scientific. They show no understanding of either fitness by Natural Selection or the logic of gestation and the bearing of offspring. Mammals are capable — often just barely — of sustaining the number of babies which they customarily produce (after many many generations of adaptation). Unless you find a way to reduce a sheep or cow to a giant womb and its auxiliary support systems, these animals currently bear as many young in one parturition as their bodies can nourish and support. It is obvious that if you short-circuit this ancient arrangement to generate more embryos, the nourishment will necessarily be divided among them, resulting in not enough for any of them. Thus are lambs — sentient as are all animals — born starving and already dying. The mother’s resources are depleted; even the ones the she accepts are bound to be malnourished.

STOP THIS SO-CALLED RESEARCH! It is bad enough that we eat meat unkindly raised and often brutally killed. That we now support fake science to make “meat production” (we don’t want to call it animals and their babies, do we? Not that many people care) more profitable for the meat factories is insupportable.

It is horrifying.

It is psychopathic.

Judith Economos
44 Beech Hill Road
Scarsdale NY 10583
914 725 5430