Theoria

(Fendrich’s post can be found here.)

It is hardly a surprise given the subject matter, but you are grossly misinformed, but to act on this information in a public forum – one hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education – is tantamount to an official admission of ignorance.

Yes, PETA emerged out of activism, but not the sort you describe. The first major action on the part of PETA was the Silver Spring monkey case, which was, in essence, an undercover mission to acquire data – especially photographic and video – of the conditions of monkeys being used as subjects in “deafferentiation” research (basic idea: sensory connections between brain and limbs are severed, the animal is then put into situations where it has no option – i.e., inflicted with pain – but to use those limbs it cannot consciously control in order to alleviate the pain). Unfortunately, clandestine evidence gathering by third parties is necessary in almost all cases of significant animal cruelty because local and federal authorities alike tend to not take an interest in animal cruelty investigations – even when they are legally charged to do so. (The recent HBO documentary, “Death on a Factory Farm,” is interesting in its discussion of how difficult it is to get an interest from authorities, in getting authorities to act on warrants, to getting prosecution rolling.) Ultimately, this led to six successful prosecutions (out of 119 charges) of animal cruelty – the first ever against a research scientist – which were unfortunately overturned on appeal. The appeal turned on the question of the applicable law: the federal Animal Welfare Act or the state animal cruelty legislation. (Short AWA: if it is done as research, it cannot by definition be cruel; it is done in agriculture, it cannot by definition be cruel – put another way, it is illegal for you to blowtorch your dog, but it is legal for a scientist to blowtorch a research subject that just happens to be a dog.)

Where you might have a point – unintentionally, of course – is that PETA has provided funds to pay legal expenses of ALF members. ALF has been accused of releasing animals being researched on. But this isn’t what you meant.

It is commendable that you do not condone the use of fur (how about leather? the softest, most luxurious leathers from aborted cattle, but most leather is the byproduct of slaughter for food). It is likewise commendable that you are “practically a vegetarian.” However, I am not sure what you mean. Does this mean you eat fish? poultry? Consume dairy or eggs? It would likely surprise you to know that fish and poultry suffer as much as cattle and swine going to slaughter. It would likely surprise you even more to know that beef cattle have it good in comparison with dairy cattle. If suffering could be quantified, you’d be able to see that there is more suffering per glass of milk than there is in a steak. If you don’t eat steak, why do you consume dairy?

But, ultimately, it seems that you are comfortable with “killing all sorts of things, rather mercilessly, all the time.” Should you come to the rational conclusion – that is, the human exploitation of animals is not justifiable on any possible grounds – I encourage you to adopt a vegan lifestyle. It is the easiest way to show your commitment, not only to animals, but also the environment. Living in a major urban centre like New York, you are surrounded by all sorts of animal and environment friendly resources that do not exist in most of the world (I live in a small town of a couple thousand in rural Ontario and I live a completely vegan life) – there is no excuse, practical or moral, to prevent you from doing the right thing.