It is difficult for people to be objective about behavior that they are engaged in. Getting people to reduce consumption of animal products, which is the number one way in which most people directly sentence animals to suffering and death, allows them to experiment with vegetarian foods both familiar and new to them. Finding new and good vegetarian and vegan foods to eat increases the chances of them giving up meat, milk and eggs altogether. As they are less and less "dependent" on animals for food, they would likely be more willing to look honestly at what animals go through at the hands of human society and take a stand against it.

I am not sure that our work will lead us to a dramatic sea change in our relations to animals. I think it is happening in a more subtle manner as more and more people reduce their consumption, more and more people become vegetarian, and more and more people become vegan. Being vegetarian and vegan will become more common and normal and supporting the cruel treatment of animals will simply be something that is very much frowned upon socially by the majority opinion.

Most people know that in todays world you can own an animal, so advocating for an end to their suffering does not send the novel message that we are their overlords. It makes a clear and understandable case that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, and that each of us can get on the slippery slope and reduce suffering to some degree. It also increases the likelyhood of a more honest look at the question of our status compared to animals. I do not think that such advocacy is short sighted and aimed at fleeting behavioral shifts and self-centered ploys. Vegan Outreach makes a strong point of advocating for animals on the basis of opposition to cruelty and warns of the mistakes made in advocacy in the past of using health and environmental arguments, as well as flimsy sources for information to make the case for vegetarian eating, since these feel good selfishness reinforcing arguments can backfire and cause an increase in animal suffering and death.

The greatest predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The longer we bypass good opportunities to move people away from "depending" on animals for food, the longer we delay the day of significant gains in terms of reduced animal suffering, more people willing to work wisely for animals, and the acceptance and understanding of language and concepts (interests, exploitation, liberation, etc) that sound unfamilar and radical to most people today.

"Even the more reason we should bring that language. This is the area that needs the most attention."

Why, because we want people to learn some new words? Because we want people to agree with all aspects of our thinking? 97% of people when asked already state that they are against cruelty to animals. I think the animals would be much better served by us trying to get people to see that their actions of eating animal products violate their own stated feelings about cruelty to animals. I think that is a most sensible idea, why do you think it a wild plea?

In case you were unaware, animal agriculture has become the modern monster it is because factory farming is much more efficient at producing more animal products more cheaply than the small family farming of 50 years ago. Small family farming that caused less suffering would be unable to keep up with current demands for animal products, and unable to compete with the lower cost of production of factory farmed products. I am not sure what happy meat is, perhaps you could explain it to us and tell us what animal protectionists are advocating for it.

Since 97% of adults in America still eat meat, and reducing the frequency of a behavior typically precedes ending it completely, for the next few decades the reduction in meat consumption will likely do more to spare animals who would have suffered and died than those of us who completely abstain. Since it takes 190 chickens to make the same amount of edible flesh as just 1 beef steer, asking meat eaters to cut birds from their diet will do the most to reduce suffering. Thanks for sharing your most intelligent and serious thoughts.

When I said "language" I didn't mean the actual words but the concepts communicated by those words. What words are employed is up to the activist but something common and less abstract is obviously preferred. If 97% of people are against cruelty to animals then it is time now more than ever to introduce and reinforce these concepts.

Your speculation that small farms cannot meet the demand is simply that. Activists think they're being clever by painting the issue into a corner but they underestimate the ingenuity of humans and capitalism. If there's a market there will be a supplier. With new technology and means there is the possibility of having our meat and eating it too. Happy meat would be animals who are cared for throughout their lives and managed in a way that allows them to live comfortably, happy and well. When we advocate on behalf of animal welfare we are advocating on behalf of animal welfare. Activists are advocating happy meat by default when they focus on the treatment of animals and not their oppression for their species. One treats the symptom and one treats the cause. For the next millennium fighting for the rights of animals will likely bring a much more rapid end to the anthropogenic causes of nonhuman suffering. If your goal is to "spare as many animals as much suffering as quickly as possible" I would think you would advocate for reform, welfare standards and happy meat rather than abnegation.

My goal is the recognition of nonhuman interests (which will bring about the end of nonhuman oppression). It won't be swift or sweeping but it will come and pioneers are needed to blaze the way. My argument is not to convince you of this path as it does not address your goal. We would just go round and round like the many iterations of this thread have proven. I just think that your own goal would be better served by asking for incremental changes to people's behavior rather than asking them to take a logical leap over the very issue you address: the treatment of animals.

J, what would yours be in the simplest terms?

My goal, as simply as I can put it, is to work to create a mass movement willing to sacrifice their own comforts to stand up for animal rights. But since I can never stay simply or succinct, here is more rambling as to the debate at hand.

J, I think it's helpful to find the most succint form of your goal in order to keep the eye on the prize. I'm constantly reevaluating my goal and if I didn't I'd be living in a raw food transcendental meditation commune in Sedona.
For example:
*Why is it important for you to create a mass movement? What if here was another way? Would you recognize it if it were become apparent?
*Why is it important for people to self-sacrifice their own comforts? Is it a spriritual reason, an underlying philosophy? If there was a way to acheive your goal without personal sacrifice would that not be preferred by more potential activists?
By focusing on the how (which is how most people are "vegan") you might miss opportunities to get you where you really wanna go. Perhaps you might say "animal liberation" or "animal rights" but even those words together carry so much baggage that make them virually meaningless and would need even simpler terms to describe a goal. What is an animal? What is liberation, rights? etc etc.

It's no wonder this argument can never find resolve because we don't even have the same goals. If we can recognize that perhaps we can move on and evolve our own tactics to better serve our own agenda.

Thanks for sharing.