Misdirected animal rights activism

A response to PETA's call to abolish the wool industry. When is enough enough and when is it too much? But please don't get me wrong, Peta is a needed to prod to the social conscience and like all ideologies it sometimes strays beyond its mandate. For sure we need to treat animals ethically and with respect so they can live pleasant pain free lives even if they are to be killed and eaten some day.

The word ethics has little meaning because different cultures see things differently. Activities like cockfighting, dogfighting, bullfighting are clearly unethical to some mindsets but are clearly acceptable and therefore ethical to those who practice and profit.

Within Hinduism and Buddhism there is a the concept of causing no harm, this may be described as peacefulness which creates an underlying ethic to guide life. Behind this is the idea of karma, the law of cause and effect. Karma tells us that causing suffering will return suffering to the person or persons who cause suffering and those who profit from suffering yet even these people who cause such suffering are bound by their own karma.

In other words, communities and countries are bound by the karma of ignorance and in many cases poverty. Poverty is not necessarily just physical it is also intellectual due to the failure of modern educational systems. Therefore I am arguing that while organisations like the SPCA and PETA are important, the way we conduct ourselves as individuals and a civilisation are failing in many respects.

Thanks in part to better communications and social media, the bad attitudes toward life that result in animal suffering are becoming more apparent in the public mind. Those few farmers that mistreat their livestock, those pet owners that mistreat their animals are creating their own negative karma and it is as much for their own sake as well as the suffering they cause, they need to be stopped and held to account.

Over the years we have seen campaigns to save various species that are being driven towards extinction and campaigns to stop needless slaughter and suffering of different species. These are very worthwhile and noble activities helping to steer us toward a more peaceful civilisation. Would like to see the eventual outcome is the whole world vegetarian and yet animals are part of our lives.

We have a symbiotic relationship with many animals and even plants. If it weren't for liking of wheat or rice, these plants would scarcely feature on the planet. Similarly our relationship with cats, dogs, other pets and the animals that many people consume as food proliferate around the world and the majority enjoy a good quality of life and a relatively humane death.

In a perfect world perhaps we could all be vegetarians, but this would not end the symbiotic relationships we have with animals. Some would remain as pets but others would remain as vital elements required for the functioning of civilisation. Across Asia, the farmers would still be there buffaloes or oxen to plough the fields, people still need horses to ride so even in the vegetarian world our need for animals would change but not end.

The ways in which we keep and treat animals should be done with respect for their welfare so that they are content without suffering. However organisations like petter occasionally get a little overreactive as is the case with sheep in New Zealand and Australia. In September 2017 the PETA organisation made news headlines by declaring that we should stop shearing sheep and using their wool because some shearers have been witnessed abusing the sheep they are shearing.

On one hand, if sheep are being mistreated one could react by banishing the act of sharing, however if we think about the biology of sheep, they have been bred over thousands of years to produce wool. If there was suddenly no sheep shearing the sheep in existence would lead miserable lives being weighed down by their heavy coats. Of course if shearing was banished, hundreds of millions of sheep would have to be destroyed and as long as people keep eating sheep as food, short wall breeds would have to be favoured by farmers.

Of course without as many sheep and the trade of shearing, a great many farmers and shearers would suffer a huge loss of income. But the most ridiculous point of this debate is that someone from PETA actually advocated that the public should abandon wool as a clothing fibre in favour of synthetics.

That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. Wool is a natural fibre and when turned into garments, it has a longer life and serves its purpose far better than any synthetic product. It's also fully biodegradable and where the sheep are well treated, a natural and ethical product.

In contrast turning to synthetic fibres plus the clothing industry back into the hands of the oil industry because the majority of synthetic fibres are all produced from oil taken out of the ground. This would really be a step backwards in our evolution and reinforce the oil industries power and economic reach. This would result in a huge increase in pollution which would have a negative impact on all life on the planet.

Synthetic fibres are not biodegradable and every time synthetic fibres are laundered, there is some structural breakdown of those fibres which are then carried into the ocean to be consumed by oceanic creatures. These particles pass through the food chain to be consumed by people. These particles are essentially plastics which contain highlytoxic act like hormones in the human body causing infertility and cancer.

The fact that animal cruelty exists as a modern tragedy and that tragedy will not end by banishing the wool industry, it would only create a new set of problems. The real problem with cruelty toward animals is that the individuals who are being cruel are ignorant and stupid. They lack a basic education and a basic intelligence, the solution is a proper education.

Therefore I suggest that organisations like PETA need to be as much involved in community education as they are and identifying problems in society. For those people who practice cruelty, they are doing so because they are suffering and have an internal rage that makes them lash out at those less able to defend themselves. We must remember to that PETA is not the squeaky-clean organisation it makes out to be. There have been many reports that PETA like the RSPCA collect's stray and unwanted pets then destroys them enmass.


5 comments to PetaPhobia

  • Gerald

    Hey, people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals – indeed their “ethical treatment.” Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA’s front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority – 96 percent in 2011 – exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains. Between these visits, the bodies are stored in the giant walk-in freezer PETA installed for this very purpose. It is a freezer that cost $9,370 and, like the company which incinerates the bodies of PETA’s victims, was paid for with the donations of animal lovers who could never have imagined that the money they donated to help animals would be used to end their lives instead. In fact, in the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 dogs, cats, rabbits, and other domestic animals.”

  • Terence Honnen

    Hey uhh… I am all for animal welfare. Working with ethical taxidermy and zoological specimens, Animals are perhaps the most important thing to me.

    But some things I’ve heard from pata and in the animal welfare/vegan/animal rights communities that are concerning.

    I’m talking things like

    “fur farm animals are skinned alive”
    “Race horses have their vocal cords cut so they don’t scream out in pain”
    “Pigs are killed by being electrocuted through the anus” “slaughter house workers work there because they love killing and feeling blood on their hands”

    And umm…. WHAT. I

    I understand that things like bull fights and dirty mass slaughter houses are bad and need a serious change. But spreading strange and dramatic lies like that don’t help make your cause any more trustworthy.

    There is no need to add extra shock factor. Especially to already shocking things. Please… this is coming from someone who is a huge advocate of animal welfare.

  • lillian

    As most of you know, PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) produces lots of sexist, racist, fatphobic, and even ableist ads. Their ideologies match, unfortunately. They are incredibly unreasonable, too, and they effectively want to remove companion animals from human contact entirely.

    Members of PETA have done the following to me.

    Attempted to take my service dog’s leash
    Threatened to take him away
    Sent me death threats
    Threatened to euthanize him out of “mercy”
    Claimed that I am a “slavedriver” and “active participant in the speciesist h*l*caust” (Ah yes, please tell the romani-german-native girl that she’s basically a Nazi. Good idea.)
    Left threatening voicemails on my phone.
    Scared me so badly that I had to move house at one point
    Grabbed my service dog
    Tried to pry my hand off of my service dog’s harness
    Threw paint on a faux fur-lined coat I was wearing (the paint got matted in my hair to the point where I had to shave my head)
    Speaks openly on their hatred for service dog handlers.

  • bell

    Like many organisations they start our with noble intent but get carried away by emotions

  • PETA has killed more than 36,000 animals since 1998. Want proof? Read

Leave a Reply