|
GUEST COLUMN: I remember sitting on the West Mall last spring, tabling for a student organization, when one student sauntered up to the table. He carried a Wendy's bag in one hand and a Frosty in the other. "Students Against Cruelty to Animals, huh? That's great you guys are out here. It's important work," he said, taking a bite out of his double cheeseburger and slurping on a milkshake. "I love animals. How do I help?" I explained to him that the best thing he could do for his health, the environment and the animals was to become vegan. "Oh," he said, suddenly standoffish. "You guys are some of those animal-rights wackos." This situation occurs at least a dozen times every semester. The root of the situation is the belief that when in conflict, the interests of humans (in this case, the taste of a cheeseburger) automatically trump the interests of animals (in this case, life). Because of this, many people in the animal protection movement adopted the term "animal rights" to clarify their stance. Animal rights doesn't mean believing that mice are the same as children. It is the recognition that non-human animals have certain rights independent of how profitable they are to humans. For example, a fox does not have the right to a driver's license. That right means nothing to a fox. However, foxes do experience physical and psychological suffering, and therefore have a right to life free from unnecessary pain (such as being anally electrocuted and made into a fur coat). Our culture has largely come to accept that rights are not based on skin color or gender. Alice Walker once wrote, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women created for men." Inevitably, human interests and animal interests collide. Over 10 billion animals are raised in U.S. factory farms and slaughtered each year for food. However, some people make a living and support their families by killing animals. If nobody ate meat, people would lose their jobs in the meat industry. Does that mean we have a moral obligation to eat hamburgers, and protect these families? By going vegetarian, does it mean you support human misfortune? Absolutely not. We have no more obligation to support environmentally destructive industries than we had to support companies that invested in apartheid. To argue that we must protect human interests regardless of the consequences is ridiculous. There exists no "right" to cause the destruction of life for the sake of human profit. Respecting animal rights means recognizing human problems, because animal oppression and human oppression are connected. Animal products cause heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis. Men who beat women and children often start by beating animals. Animal industries are the single largest polluters of our land, air and water (which disproportionately affects people of color in low-income areas). Working in a slaughterhouse is ranked the nation's most dangerous occupation. Trying to give mice human cancer, then cure that cancer, takes resources away from prevention and treatment. These are very human concerns. Social change is not painless. Respecting the rights of animals involves reevaluating our own belief systems, business practices and lifestyles. This takes humility, and sometimes sacrifice. But saying that we are against animal cruelty as long as it doesn't affect humans is like saying we are against slavery, as long as it doesn't hurt the plantation owners. Potter is a journalism senior and member of Students Against Cruelty to Animals |