Getting too bored with too many Indonesian cases (and too few high-quality opinions from the Court), I decided to browse around and somehow suddenly stumbled with this interesting random article: Mark Zuckerberg's new challenge: Eating only what he kills (and yes, we do mean literally...)
Within seconds, I can't hold my brain to relate what he thinks with my recent reading assignment from Animal Law class - four articles, on an ethical and philosophical approach of that movement, which have a really, really important significance in shaping and draw the direction of what can be done through the legal means.
My first impression of Animal Law class has not been good. In the first meeting, a girl in my class suggested veganism as the solution of animal cruelty problems in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). Put simply, CAFOs are huge, capitalistic corporation version of farms, which mainly supply daily meats for Americans. CAFOs are so well-structured, usually monopolizing all related meat business, including slaughter house and distribution - excluding smaller farms from the preference list of the meat supply chain. Driven by profit, they do whatever most efficient in producing those meats, consequently care almost nothing about how bad they treat the animals. If you type CAFO in Google, you can experience the horrible image yourself - many, way too many animals with way too little space.
To my Indonesian brain, it has nothing to do with veganism. It is a problem of big corporations being too greedy for profit, casting away small farms from the market, and using the consumer demands to legitimize their cruelty action. I had no idea how this girl conclude that telling everyone that they must be vegan because the meats they eat are produced cruelly can possibly be a practical solution - since some comments from vegan fellow just make me feeling totally antipathy to them. Majority of that class, instead of discussing how a legal solution can be achieved for CAFOs, got really distracted with sharing one another how they feel about their vegan life. Another girl even says, "I feel environmental advocates who still eats meats are no more than hypocrite"; and another one says, "While I was younger and more naïve, I feel like everyone would easily stop eating meats when they know this kind of truth, but those stupid, horrible people does not..." Honestly, I can't remember that we reached any conclusion about that.
One important lesson I learn from that discussion: If you want to advocate something and persuade people to be on your side, do not make people hate you at the first sight.
The four articles I mentioned in the beginning of this post came weeks later after that first horrible class. Those articles turns to give explanation for me to understand that veganism as a solution is not a new idea - someone named Francione had proposed it before, and thank God, the girl who mentioned veganism as CAFOs cruelty solution now amend her opinion - strongly oppose Francione's veganism proposal. But, well, I'm trying not to be biased: Francione attacked so many successful legal cases as false conception of victory. Winning legal battle in court, passing a legislation in humane treatment of animals, influencing regulations to increase their standards animal welfare - in his opinion, these were never victories, but merely compromise which draws the ultimate goal of respecting animal's intrinsic rights further. He offered a fascinating (though flawed) and revolutionary theory on how animals should be respected for their own sake - not for human's sake, and how 'unnecessary killings' (including eating their meats) must be abolished. This first approach called abolitionist. And my Professor, with most of the other famous animal organizations, stands in a different approach - a slow and compromise, but have real impact in creating tangible changes. They criticize the abolitionist approach, by using sharp words, saying that it offers no more than revolutionary idea - and while failed to realizing it, more and more animals died of cruel treatment. This approach known as welfarist. The more popular one: sure, the welfarist. And what's the abolitionist doing? Well, there are some non-violent approach which is basically telling people to go vegan; but to the extreme, there even some groups categorized as terrorists - for example, Animal Liberation Front. By the end of that class, we reach the conclusion that most people feel more comfortable in pursuing career with the welfarist school of taught.
By the way, you might be questioning "So why did you mention Zuckenberg? Where are you going?". Well, as a meat eater, it's easy for me to put myself in a position of common people who categorize animal rights / animal welfare advocates outside my normal sphere. One of my objection is that vegan advocates usually put too much objection in killings. Killing is killing and it can't be right - they say. But, hey, isn't killing supposedly be an inseparable part of our nature in survival of the fittest? The mess that we've seen today is not caused by people killing animals - it is because too many people are alienated from that killing process - yet still be able to enjoy the benefit. We put the burden to kill only to very few percentage of people who work in the slaughter houses, which unfortunately usually targeted by animal rights advocacy group, and again, victimized by their action. And it is absolutely true of what Zuckenberg says: we need to fully understand how our meals is actually at cost of other's life by confronting the horror of killing. Both approaches, abolitionist and welfarist, have failed to recognize this fact. Welfarist, demanding 'humane' treatment of slaughter, only drawing people further from the natural process of survival - and strengthen the huge corporations who already dominating the meat market. The more 'humane' treatment it demands (using anesthetic and complicated tools), the less possibility smaller farms can afford it. Abolitionist create nothing more than hatred, it is nothing more than religious extremist for me - forcing other people to belief precisely what they believe as the truth.
In the end, no ideal solution is complete if it is not seen holistically within the context of human-nature relation. The devil is in our economic system and artificial life, and the furthest we can get will always be compromise. So, eat meats! Eat happy and healthy meats.
PS. One day I'll try this Zuckenberg's goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment