What strategy should we take? Should we do vegan education? Or should we work for animal welfare laws? What’s most effective for animal rights?

A recent L.O.V.E. email conversation included a discussion regarding an article called One-Track Activism by Norm Phelps, author of The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible, The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights, and The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA.

The discussion, about single-species activism like working to ban horse carriages, intrigued me. I decided to re-read Phelps’ article and respond here. Below is the article, with interjections from me, as though this were a conversation. Phelps words are indented and surrounded by quotation marks, mine are not. I’ve also added video, to break up the dense words a bit as well as to illustrate one of Phelps’ points. (I certainly hope this is “fair use,” but I’m no lawyer. If I’ve made a mistake, please let me know.)

Please continue the conversation below in the comments, if you’re so inclined.

One-Track Activism: Animals Pay the Price

By Norm Phelps

“A vocal and sometimes intimidating clique is trying to seize control of the animal rights movement. (I realize that to anyone who has not followed this controversy, that may sound over-the-top. I only wish it were, but even a cursory review of their articles and speeches reveals the air of absolute certainty and intolerance of differing views that are usually associated with some forms of religious fundamentalism.) They call themselves ‘abolitionists’ and those who differ with them ‘welfarists.’ While I don’t doubt that many of them are well-intentioned, I think it makes more sense to think of them as ‘one-track activists’ because they insist that there is only one right way to campaign for animal rights, their way, and anyone who pursues other tactics has no legitimate place in the animal rights movement. Specifically, they claim that campaigns for interim bans that reduce suffering—like an end to the use of battery cages and gestation crates—actually harm animals and should be condemned by animal rights advocates. With an unconscious tip of the hat to George Orwell, they literally argue that attempting to improve conditions for animals is something that no animal rights activist can do.”

I don’t truly identify as an abolitionist/anti-welfarist myself, but I lean towards abolitionism. Though I’m not truly anti-welfarist, the term ‘abolitionist’ does describe me. So… I take this personally. If Phelps hadn’t meant someone like me to interpret this as a personal attack, he might have done better to begin his essay differently. He might have done well by solely using his own terms rather than redefining terms already in use.

I dislike the way Phelps has chosen to characterize abolitionists as intimidating and controlling. I especially dislike the analogy to religious fundamentalism. As far as I can tell, this kind of tactic can only serve to bolster the people who already agree with Phelps. It won’t change any opinions. But, maybe that’s all Phelps wants to do. If that’s the case, he’s simply working alongside the “one-tract activists” in their supposed attempt to divide the movement.

In my opinion, Phelps has mischaracterized an abolitionist perspective. He’s not alone, though, Gary Francione has done it too. Phelps says abolitionists claim that “campaigns for interim bans that reduce suffering—like an end to the use of battery cages and gestation crates—actually harm animals and should be condemned by animal rights advocates” and I think Francione would agree with that statement. But I get the sense from many self-identified abolitionists that campaigns to reduce suffering are not inherently bad, but that they may be a waste of time if our true goal is abolition. Francione argues that welfare reforms are bad because he thinks he can predict the future. He says animal product consumption will increase after welfare reforms. Ultimately, that’s the problem with both types of activism: the mistake that we can predict the future. The animal rights movement is not a game of Risk.

“The argument of the one-track activists is twofold: First, they claim that campaigns for reforms that ease the suffering of farmed animals imply that raising and slaughtering animals for human food is acceptable so long as it is done ‘humanely.’ Thus, so this argument runs, the ‘welfare’ message undercuts the ‘abolition’ message and makes it easier for the public to eat animal products with a clear conscience. Their second argument is that campaigning for the reform of the worst abuses of factory farming actually reinforces the legal status of animals as property because it does not challenge that status directly. According to this line of reasoning, since all animal exploitation rests upon the property status of animals, any campaign that does not directly challenge that status is counterproductive.”

Phelps is correct to imply that some abolitionist’s claims are wrong. Clearly, there is more to animal rights than the legal property status of animals. Law is politics; animal rights is ethics.

“Although some activists who pursue both abolition and reform accept the ‘animal welfare’ label—claiming that most Americans don’t differentiate between it and other descriptions of animal advocates—I find it offensive. To many animal rights activists, ‘animal welfare’ means the belief that animal imprisonment, enslavement, and slaughter are morally acceptable provided that the animals are spared any suffering that is not essential to the use to which they are being put. And for obvious reasons, ‘welfarist’ is a term of opprobrium in much of the animal rights movement. It was with precisely this in mind that Gary Francione coined the term ‘new welfarist’ in 1996. But to pin the ‘welfarist’ label on activists who believe that ‘animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use in entertainment,’ but who also support campaigns to ease the suffering of animals is misleading, divisive, and destructive. It is like calling progressive Democrats ‘communists’ or conservative Republicans ‘fascists’ as a way of excluding them from the political dialogue. And because it divides and weakens the movement that is the only hope animals have, it is the animals themselves who suffer the painful and lethal consequences.”

I, too, find the label “welfarist” offensive when said by someone who identifies as an abolitionist. But I can handle a slight offense if it results in something good for animals. That is, if they use that motivation to be different from “welfarists” and do “real animal rights activism,” they have my support. If they just sit around and whine about welfarists, but do no real activism, the criticism is more offensive.  The end does not justify the means, but the end excuses petty annoyances.

Moreover, calling me a “welfarist” is nearly nothing like calling me a “communist” or a “fascist,” for the simple reason that the term “welfarist” is embraced by the mainstream whereas the terms “communist” or “fascist” are not.

I’m not sure “it divides and weakens the movement.” In fact, I think it might actually strengthen it. I’d like to see real, concrete data that backs up Phelps’ claim. My intuition is that this abolitionist/welfarist divide actually encourages more moderates to participate in the movement. And so long as abolitionists are “the extremists,” welfarists can promote virtually anything that’s slightly different from what abolitionists promote.

“I’m sure that everyone taking part in this discussion can agree that the abolition of all animal exploitation is the only morally acceptable basis for our relationship to nonhuman animals and that abolition is the only legitimate, long-term goal for animal rights advocates. And I think we can also agree that vegan advocacy is the core of a strategy for achieving that goal. Personally, I have been vegan for more than twenty years. In my books I advocate clearly and straightforwardly (“stridently” according to one animal-eating reviewer) for abolition and veganism. And I encourage others to do so, as well. My disagreement is strictly with the claim that campaigns to reduce the suffering of animals are never appropriate, even when used in conjunction with abolitionist and vegan advocacy.”

Yes, Phelps is right, he and I are in agreement here.

If there’s any equivocacy, it’s on the term “exploitation.” Some people take it to mean “use,” others take it to mean “abuse.” And thus, the entire debate begins again…

“I believe that there are at least five excellent reasons for animal rights advocates to reject the arguments of the one-track activists and simultaneously pursue both abolition and reform—or at the very least, not oppose reformist efforts.”

Opening Windows on Torture Chambers

“First, campaigns to relieve the worst suffering of animals on factory farms force the public to think of animals as sentient, sensitive beings whose well-being is a matter of serious moral concern. This can only advance, not retard, liberation.”

“’Out of sight, out of mind,’ the saying goes. And reflecting this idea, Sir Paul McCartney has observed that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian. How many times have we all heard, ‘I don’t want to hear about that!’ And, ‘Don’t show me those pictures, or I won’t be able to enjoy my dinner!’ Campaigns like those against battery cages and gestation crates force people to hear the horror stories and look at the faces of suffering, whether they want to or not. They open windows in the solid walls of slaughterhouses and confinement sheds. They show the public the truth about these death camps, and even though these campaigns may not lead directly to a vegan world, they are slowly but surely changing the way the public thinks about animals and their suffering. And this sea change in public attitude is an important entryway to a vegan society.”

I think, too, that these images make activists better activists. I’ve seen the changes in myself and in others who begin at abolition. It wouldn’t matter how “humanely” an animal was killed, we’d still think it was wrong. But when we see the absolutely horrific ways in which animals are currently tortured and killed for food, we are inspired. We simply MUST act, we MUST speak up, we MUST make a change.

“The critical point here is that most people are extremely resistant to moral criticism of things that they are personally doing. They simply reject it out of hand and refuse to consider it. They have to be led up to it gradually, one step at a time. Most people come to the animals’ cause by way of something that outrages their conscience that they are not doing themselves, like fur, vivisection, or dogfighting, and then as they become more committed, they make the move to vegetarianism and veganism. PETA, for example, receives the most calls regarding: 1) companion animals; 2) circus animals, 3) vivisection, and 4) fur. Similarly, most people oppose the worst abuses of farmed animals (for which, at the beginning, they do not feel personally responsible), and once they are committed to opposing a specific form of cruelty, such as battery cages, the consistency principle can kick in (we all like to see ourselves as consistent; moral inconsistency causes intense psychological distress), making them far more receptive to becoming vegan. The reform campaign throws open the door, so to speak, and once it is open, the need for consistency drives the person to take the next step.”

I think Phelps is right that many people (perhaps most, I’m not sure, I’d like to see the stats) are more easily convinced of moral wrongdoing when the action is not something they do themselves. But I think we ought to be a bit careful regarding the exposure of animal exploitation and abuse to people who are not themselves doing the abuse because of the potential for “collateral damage.” For example, instead of recognizing the similarities between themselves and the abusers, they recognize the differences. And in an attempt to distance themselves from that which morally outrages them, they sometimes become more overtly racist, sexist, classist, etc.

Moreover, I’m not so sure people have a “need for moral consistency.” That doesn’t seem to follow at all. I’m more likely to agree with statements like these: People seem to like being perceived as morally consistent, or, people tend to find rationales to invent moral consistency.

“This has been confirmed by the experience of the coalitions that conducted the Florida and Arizona campaigns to ban gestation crates. A good number of animal advocates who weren’t yet vegetarians became active in those campaigns and then stopped eating animals as a result. In fact, I know of at least one animal advocate who now publicly speaks out against so-called ‘welfare campaigns’ even though he became a vegan as a result of getting involved in an anti-gestation crate ballot measure.”

I’m hesitant to attribute causal links between correlations, but when it comes to human behavior I’m particularly hesitant. People generally do not go vegetarian or vegan overnight due to a single cause. Most people who go vegetarian or vegan do so gradually. In my opinion, someone’s decision to change their habits comes from a variety of multiple influences, some positive, some negative. It’s a mistake to label the final straw (that broke the camel’s back so to speak) the singular cause. More often it took many straws.

“In short, two-track activism works by first raising awareness and inspiring people to take an active stand against cruelty, so that they see themselves as people who care about the suffering of animals. This makes them much more receptive to a vegan message. In this way—while it may seem paradoxical to those who are wedded to theoretical consistency—reform campaigns have the practical effect of challenging the concept of animals as mere food-producing commodities and leading people toward a vegan lifestyle.”

In my opinion, we needed prioritize forms of activism. Each animal advocate should find his or her own niche and work in ways to foster more understanding, compassion, and respect for animals. We need only be mindful that we don’t step on each others toes. We don’t have to always work together. We don’t have to always agree. We just have to respect each other.

My niche, currently, is through blogging, vlogging, and leafletting. I consider myself a liaison between people and vegan food, between activists and activism, between people and knowledge. I attempt to make people aware of their choices and I work to inspire them to make choices that are good for animals. I cannot control the world, I cannot control other people, but I can inspire and I can react. Those things are within my power. So I try to make the most of my abilities. If others want to work on specific campaigns, by all means, they should do that. I will not interfere unless I feel that what they’re doing is making it more difficult for me to do what I do.

I get the sense that for many activists the abolition/welfare divide isn’t so much philosophical as it is just a matter of preference. What would I rather spend my time doing? Working for welfare reform or promoting veganism? For me, it’s promoting veganism.

Driving up the Cost of Doing Business

“Another effect of reform campaigns is that they typically drive up the cost of animal products, which the animal agriculture industry sees as a potentially serious threat to its viability. On its anti-animal rights website ActivistCash.Com, for example, the notorious Center for Consumer Freedom, a well-known front for the animal abuse industries, warns that ‘HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers.’ They are referring primarily to the campaigns to ban battery cages, gestation crates, and veal crates.”

If welfare reform makes animal agriculture more costly, that’s a side benefit, not a goal in and of its self. The goal is not to “economically cripple meat and dairy producers”; the goal is to improve animals’ lives.

“The Animal Agriculture Alliance, an industry trade group, makes this dire prediction about the battery cage campaign. ‘Despite the national average price for ‘cage-free’ eggs jumping 56 cents a dozen in the third quarter of 2007 and now costing 84% more than regular eggs, animal rights groups in California are pushing forward with a ballot initiative to illegalize regular production of eggs in California. The Animal Agriculture Alliance believes that the groups pushing this extreme initiative, led by the vegan-driven Humane Society of the United States will endanger animals and eliminate a cost-effective source of protein for many people.’ (Emphasis added.)”

Though it’s certainly true that fewer people will consume animal products if/when they become expensive (but only if alternatives are cheaper). And it’s certainly true that people seem to be more receptive to an animal rights based discussion of veganism if they’re already not consuming (m)any animal products for another reason, such as health, the environment, or cost.

“In the October 2007 issue of Egg Industry magazine, Gene Gregory, president of United Egg Producers of Atlanta, expresses the same concern. The article, which includes the banner headline ‘If All Eggs Were Cage Free, Demand Would Fall,’ says that Gregory believes that, ‘if all egg production were to become cage free egg production, demand for eggs would be reduced because some consumers can’t afford to pay two or three times more for their eggs. ‘People tend to have a reference point for egg prices. If prices get too far out of line, they cut back.” If the animal abuse industries recognize reform campaigns as a legitimate threat to their profitability, why can some animal activists not see it?”

We should view statements like these from animal agriculture as evidence of their lack of morals, their greed, and their blood lust, not as evidence of our victory. They are in it for money, we are in it to change the world. We want a a more peaceful, more compassionate, more respectful society. They want money, money, money.

Suffering Matters

“Factory farms constitute the most intense cruelty that the human race is capable of. They are, in fact, concentration camps in which sentient, sensitive beings live out their all-too-brief lives deprived of fresh air, sunlight, space in which to move about and stretch their legs or wings, and the ability to live in social communities suited to their natures. Their suffering is so intense and unrelieved from birth to death that insanity is a regular consequence of life in an animal factory. The helpless animals’ minds are simply crushed by pain and deprivation.”

Agreed. 100% Agreed.

“The horror of life in a confinement shed or battery cage beggars description. It is literally unspeakable. You and I cannot fathom what it means to spend your entire life unable to move or do anything that would give your life meaning, and I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that it is acceptable to leave billions of helpless animals in this kind of hell for the sake of a utopia that neither these animals nor their children nor their grandchildren nor their descendents for many generations will live to see.”

Yes, we must do something.

Abolitionists and welfarists don’t debate that. We are all moved to action. We all feel the urgency to act. Where some disagree is regarding the best strategy. We all basically want the same thing, but how to get there? That’s where we debate.

“Since HSUS launched its battery cage campaign in 2005, not quite three years ago, the percentage of laying hens confined in battery cages has declined from more than 98% to approximately 95%, a significant and measurable decrease in suffering for millions of animals every year. By 2012, veal crates will largely be a thing of the past. (America’s largest veal producer, Strauss Veal, will phase them out by 2010.) And it seems likely that gestation crates will be gone within the next decade. At the beginning of this decade, that kind of progress was inconceivable. Today, thanks to so-called ‘welfarist’ campaigns, it is rapidly becoming a reality. And these changes advance the wellbeing of the animals and bring us closer to a compassionate society in which animals’ basic interests are genuinely respected (obviously, this means that no one is eating, wearing, experimenting on, or otherwise using animals for human ends).”

This is great. But it’s inches when we’ve got miles to go. Inches.

During my lifetime, veganism has gotten so much easier. But also during my lifetime the average American’s meat consumption has risen dramatically. We have a long, long road ahead.

“Condemning those who also work to ease suffering in the here and now as if they were the enemy represents the triumph of ideology over compassion and common sense. If we cannot end suffering within the lifetimes of those who suffer, we have a moral obligation to ease it as much as we are able.”

Rather, I believe our moral obligation is to not stand in the way of anyone trying to ease suffering. And vice versa, welfare reform ought to be mindful of the ultimate goal of abolition and ought not to include obstacles to that goal.

“A friend of mine who is working on the campaign to place a voter initiative on the California ballot in 2008 to ban veal crates, battery cages, and gestation crates tells me that a small number of California activists are refusing to support the initiative or collect signatures because it is a ‘welfarist’ measure. If millions of animals on California’s factory farms are left to suffer in tiny cages because animal rights activists refuse to help them, that would be a tragedy of mind-boggling proportions.”

Proposition 2 passed. The “small number of California activists” who refused support were indeed a small number. Welfarists, almost by definition, have the support of mainstream. We need not worry that they will succeed eventually. We need only worry that we’ll get in each others’ way.

“Suffering matters, and I cannot turn my back on it. I hope you can’t either.”

Of course not.

Animals Need All the Help They Can Get

“In developing a strategy for the animal rights movement, we have to take into account some very sobering history. As all social justice movements must, veganism began with a small core of dedicated idealists and has been expanding steadily ever since. Serious vegan advocacy in the United States began in 1960 when H. Jay Dinshah founded the American Vegan Society. It received a boost in the 1970s when Rev. Andrew Linzey published Christianity and the Rights of Animals and Peter Singer published Animal Liberation (which does not develop a strictly vegan argument, but nonetheless had the effect of promoting veganism on a larger scale than had hitherto been seen) and again when the International Vegetarian Union held its biennial convention in Orono Maine, which galvanized the American vegan/vegetarian movement into an energetic outreach program. In the 1980s, PETA began reaching unprecedented segments of the public with a vegan/vegetarian message, Tom Regan published The Case for Animal Rights (which does develop a vegan argument), and Victoria Moran published the groundbreaking and influential Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism. In the 1990s, PETA’s vegan/vegetarian campaigns expanded exponentially, Alex Hershaft’s FARM began focusing exclusively on vegan/vegetarian campaigns, and Vegan Outreach took, well, vegan outreach, to a new level.”

“Dedicated idealists” have and will probably continue to be the motivation for change within any movement. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has,” goes the quote from Margaret Mead.

“With every year that goes by, vegan/vegetarian advocacy is growing in scope and sophistication, and it is succeeding admirably in the essential work of planting the vegan ideal in the public mind, especially among young people, and demonstrating that a vegan lifestyle is easy, convenient, and does not require personal sacrifice. As I said above, I believe that these efforts are and ought to be the core of the animal rights movement. But we cannot dismiss the fact that forty-seven years after the beginning of the vegan movement and twenty-two years after the birth of the modern animal rights movement, the number of animals slaughtered for food in the United States is continuing to rise.”

Yes. The blood is on the hands of animal agriculture, not on the hands of abolitionists, not on the hands of welfarists. We should all remember who the enemy really is: the animal exploiters.

“On October 15, 2007, USA Today reported that a Harris poll put the number of vegetarians at three-percent of the American population. Other polls in recent decades have put it at between two- and four-percent. While it is impossible to get a clear picture—in part because the polling questions are not always consistently worded, and in part because people often describe themselves as ‘vegetarian’ when they eat fish, or when they eat meat ‘occasionally,’—it seems likely that the number of vegetarians and vegans is increasing slowly, especially among people of college age and younger. This growing awareness among the young is an encouraging development. Vegan advocacy is clearly gaining traction; but just as clearly, it is not going to empty the confinement sheds and shut down the slaughterhouses in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the campaign to move retailers away from battery eggs—which was inaugurated in 2005—has already improved the lives of millions of laying hens by freeing them from battery cages. These animals will still suffer and be killed, but at least they will be able to walk, spread their wings, and lay their eggs in nests, all important behaviors that are permanently denied to battery hens.”

Like dogs, people are trainable: it’s easy to encourage them to pick up a new habit, but it’s much more difficult to get them to cease an old habit. Like dogs, the training/teaching strategies differ for the individual. Like dogs, positive methods are preferable to negative methods.

Vegan education works. It very clearly works. The more we talk about veganism, the more we leaflet, the more we blog, the more we have potlucks, the more we publish cookbooks… the more vegans.

Is it enough? No, we have to get to the source of the problem, too. For example, it’s much easier to keep a dog from getting into the trashcan if you keep the can in a cupboard and shut the door than if you keep the trashcan out in the open. Indeed, the more we drive animal exploiters out of business, the better for animals. There’s no question that’s effective.

“In these circumstances, there is a desperate need to pursue a variety of nonviolent tactics that offer promise of contributing to both the wellbeing and the liberation of animals. By attacking those who want to expand our approaches to animal advocacy as they try to hit upon the combination of tactics that will work best, one-track activists have abandoned reason and wedded themselves to blind faith. Their approach to activism reverses the logical order of things. Instead of saying, ‘This strategy works; therefore, it is right,’ they say ‘This strategy is ideologically pure; therefore, if we just stick with it, it will have to work eventually.’”

There is another option: consider both the means and the ends. The end does not justify the means, but neither do the means necessitate the end. “Whatever works” is unacceptable. There are often unintended consequences, side-effects if you will, that likely result in further exploitation to other animals or people. Likewise, “purity” is unacceptable. This is the real world and we must prioritize. Some sacrifices must be made.

“In an article posted on Tribe of Heart’s website, James LaVeck and Jenny Stein label activists who favor easing the suffering of farmed animals as ‘neocarns,’ by analogy to the ‘neocons’ who have brought our country and our world to the edge of destruction. Despite this nasty-cutesy wordplay (which imitates Joan Dunayer’s ‘new speciesists,’ which, in turn, imitates Gary Francione’s ‘new welfarists’), it is one-track activists who most resemble the neo-conservatives in their approach to strategy. The neocons’ insistence that we will win in Iraq if we continue to blindly follow the same failed strategy (‘Stay the course.’) parallels the ‘abolitionists” insistence that we will create a vegan society in the foreseeable future if we just continue to restrict ourselves to the one-track activism that has thus far failed to reduce the number of animals Americans consume.”

Again, we cannot blame one another for the increase of animal consumption. We are not the animal exploiters. The blood is not on our hands. It’s not fair to label the failures of our society to treat animals with respect, compassion, or mercy on each other. We, regardless of which side of the welfarism/abolitionism debate we’re on, are NOT the enemy. The animal exploiters are the enemy.

“Rational advocacy requires that we constantly seek and evaluate feedback on how well our campaigns are working and make frequent mid-course corrections, looking for just the right mix of tactics that will lead to success. We may be ideological about the goal, but we must be pragmatic about the means. Letting our means be determined by ideological preconceptions is a formula for self-righteous failure.”

I agree with the statement, “We may be ideological about the goal, but we must be pragmatic about the means.” To me, that means we ought to learn how to market veganism better, how to sell compassion. To Phelps and some others, that means we ought to reform animal welfare laws and practices. News flash: we can work side-by-side without stepping on each other’s toes.

One-Track Activism: It Sounds Better than it is

“Mark Twain said that, ‘Richard Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.’ One-track activism sounds better than it is. It sounds simple, straightforward, and theoretically consistent. But history is littered with examples of elegant theories that failed utterly when applied to the real world. Such theories all too easily become an excuse for voicing noble platitudes while evading the difficult, frustrating, messy, nuts and bolts work of transforming our vision into progress for animals.”

“Consider, for example, Harold Brown, whose presentation at FARM’s AR2007 can be seen on YouTube [above]. In this talk, he promoted one-track activism and declared that ‘welfarist’ campaigns have no place in the animal rights movement, while twice admitting, ‘I don’t have any answers.’ And indeed, he didn’t offer a single idea for making concrete progress. The closest he came was to say, ‘I’m sure we can work out tactics and strategies to deal with the different aspects of animal exploitation.’ Devising strategies and tactics that work in the real world is the most challenging part of animal rights advocacy. To brush it aside so cavalierly is a cop out. It must be great fun to be ‘a big picture kind of guy’ (as Brown described himself not once, but twice), criticize people who are working hard in the trenches to alleviate the suffering of animals (‘little picture folks,’ perhaps, who lack the esthetically magnificent vision of the ‘big picture’ people?) and decline to take responsibility for proposing strategies and tactics. (As Brown cautioned activists, ‘We have to be careful not to get caught up in the minutiae, in the little things.’) God, as the saying goes, is in the details, in the little things, and a patronizing dismissal of the work that is needed to translate ‘the big picture’ into actual relief for suffering animals, is anything but helpful.”

I like a concrete suggestion as much as the next guy, but sometimes that’s not going to happen. That’s OK. That’s what our brains are for – thinking. We can come up with our own forms of activism, forms that fit our skills, our desires, our values, and our needs.

“Animals suffering and dying on factory farms need a strategy that will make a real difference in their lives in the shortest time possible. They need a two-pronged approach that combines vegan/abolitionist advocacy with campaigns for reform. One size doesn’t fit all, and it is this combination of tactics that holds the most promise for the most wretched of humanity’s victims, now and for future generations.”

They need something more like a 379-pronged approach. Let’s attack the problem from ALL angles. Because ultimately, this isn’t a question of one tactic or the other, the question is what are YOU going to do for animals?

Sections: Vegan Activism, Vegan Theory
Topics: abolitionism, activism, animal rights, norm phelps, Theory, veg, Vegan, welfarism