Monterey Bay Aquarium

Love Begins

⁂
tumblr dot com
ojovivo
hello vonnie
Peter Solarz
h
Today's Document
Cosmic Funnies
almost home

tannertan36

No title available
Keni
taylor price

Discoholic 🪩
NASA

No title available
dirt enthusiast
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from T1
seen from Türkiye

seen from Australia

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Africa

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Spain
@pjpblinks
Two animal rights activists, Amy and Nick (meat the victims) have been sentenced to 30 days in jail for revealing the truth of animal cruelty at a pig farm in Canada. This is part of Amy’s statement that the judge refused to let her speak in front of the jury. Please follow this link to read her full statement:
“Walking into Excelsior felt like walking into a dungeon.”
[Amy was stopped around here.]
“It was pitch black, damp and disgusting. The air was filled with visible particles that made us cough and cobwebs hung from every corner. As our eyes were adjusting to the darkness, the sounds of distressed pigs and smells of ammonia was an assault to the system. Then suddenly, we saw the countless glossy eyes of pigs, peering at us with desperation and curiosity.”
“What it’s like to be there, in-person, is not something that can be sufficiently translated through video footage or even adequately articulated.”
“As humans, we can pick up on the emotions that others are feeling. You may be sensing what I’m feeling right now. And I feel that is the same with animals–I can certainly sense when my dogs are upset. When entering Excelsior Hog Farm, the immediate feeling of desperation and pain coming from those pigs was palpable and heartbreaking.”
“As we saw in my livestream during trial, pregnant or soon-to-be pregnant female pigs at Excelsior Hog Farm are crammed inside metal crates where they can’t take more than one step forward or backwards. These pigs can’t even turn around or move. They can’t so much as turn their heads to look around, all they can do is stare at whatever happens to be in front of them—and for some, that means a cement wall.”
“I can’t possibly imagine the physical and psychological torment of living that life. It’s not a life at all, there is nothing in there that makes life worth living, but they have no choice.”
“I would like to add that we saw many pigs exhibiting severe signs of mental distress, like repeatedly bashing their heads back and forth, over and over again.”
“The offspring of these mothers are kept in crowded pens, full of thousands of adolescent pigs. We saw many who were suffering from volleyball-sized hernias, bloody lacerations, and golf-ball sized growths. Some couldn’t even walk, so they languished and slowly died. Dead pigs were found rotting in pens with other live pigs eating their dead bodies. We saw piglets convulsing on the ground, with their eyes glazed over. Other piglets, who had already died, were stacked in piles.”
“I would like to apologize to a specific female pig at Excelsior Hog Farm, who we have come to call “Her” rather than the abstract number tagged to her ear. She was found crammed in a metal cage, like the countless others next to her. But what stood out as different, was the dark blue and purple complexion of her skin. Upon closer examination, we realized she was covered in bruises, cuts and blood. In fact, she was laying in a pool of her own blood. Not a few splatters of blood, a pool.”
“She desperately and longingly made eye contact, with her bright golden-brown eyes, but she didn’t move. Something I find hauntingly compelling about pigs, are their human-like eyes and profound eye contact. Aside from the visible blood and bruises, she was clearly communicating desperation as she laid there, shivering, for hours. She needed help.”
“I wish more than anything that we could have rushed her to the vet and helped her, but we had no choice. Leaving the barn with her was simply not possible.”
“Imagine seeing a dog laying in a pool of their blood, beaten and bruised… Then imagine walking away.”
“To me, walking away is what felt criminal.”
Please read her full statement, for the animal victims and for our earth here.
Israeli researchers claim to have developed a flock of gene-edited hens that lay eggs from which only female chicks hatch.
Every time I see an article like this going around from a mainstream media source, with people saying how great that is, it just makes me think… So you guys actually do know then. You act like you don’t understand why we don’t eat things like eggs which ‘don’t kill the hen’ but far more of you know about things like this than you let on.
It also tells me that you recognise chick culling is wrong, but you don’t plan on doing anything about it. If this eventually becomes the norm (they’ve been saying it would in the EU for ten years now with little progress), before that happened you did still all eat eggs, despite the billions of chicks culled as a result. Why are you waiting for science to some day put an end to a practice you could oppose now?
Remember that for the vast majority of people this is a wholly unnecessary food item - there are some real barriers for some when it comes to eating wholly plant-based but unfertilised eggs of another species is fairly obviously not a nutritional requirement for humans. So why don’t you boycott this horrific industry now? Knowing that this happens and knowing full well that it’s wrong?
love when people assert that vegan alternatives can be worse for the environment than non-vegan products but when i look it up i keep finding, over and over again, things like, “this vegan thing is only second to animal product in terms of unsustainability”
like obviously some vegan items are worse than others but in terms of environmental impact it is the production and consumption of animal products that do the most damage
this is what i meant when i said anti-vegans are science deniers. the science is there. the studies are there. y’all refuse to listen to them.
People love to drag almond milk under this pretense so here’s a fun graph you can share with those kinds of people.
Like, does almond farming use a lot of water? Yeah, and maybe consider alternatives if you want to. Does it still use *half* of the water, land, and emissions as dairy milk? It sure does.
“Some people can’t be vegan, so I’ll use them as props to avoid criticism for eating just a shitload of chicken wings tomorrow"
Does your utopia include slaughterhouses?
Report for Law Society says framework is essential for future interactions with the environment and biotechnology
Dr Wendy Schultz, a futurist and report co-author, said: “There is a growing understanding that something very different has to be done if our children are going to have a planet to live on that is in any way pleasant, much less survivable, so this is an expanding trend. Is it happening as fast as any of us would want? Possibly not, which is why it’s important to get the word out.”
She has deep emotions, complex social needs and a large, elephant brain. Her legal personhood should be recognised too
Rivers, ships, corporations are routinely granted personhood rights. Why can’t animals? Here’s the case for recognizing the personhood of Happy, an Asian elephant who’s kept in conditions comparable to solitary confinement at the Bronx Zoo.
Whoever rebranded “no ethical consumption under capitalism” to mean “I’m gonna make absolutely no changes to my consumption habits ever” is a marketing genius honestly
The weight of sustainability shouldn’t be put on consumers. This is so funny to me, bcs honestly you are brainwashed by the real marketing geniuses who made you believe it’s you that has the responsibility of changing your habits. While in reality it isn’t realistic nor fair to expect individuals to be pressured to change the world.
Also it is very classist to expect everyone to make sustainable choices, since you pay a surplus as a costumer. It is not our responsibility, there are laws and regulations for firms which must be respected and they are growing. (High net-worth individuals are a whole other story imo)
Of course I’m not saying you should have no sense of responsibility, what I’m saying is that there are also laws for individuals (for ex. Recycling). Basically the choice shouldn’t be left to the individuals and that’s just logical thinking.
Stop for just a minute and think this through.Really ask yourself, who would this ‘marketing’ benefit, exactly? Who benefits from an ecologically aware population encouraged to make ethical, sustainable consumer choices over exploitative and destructive ones? Who benefits from collective boycott? Corporations?
Now ask yourself who benefits from a population who believe that their individual consumer decisions don’t matter, that it isn’t their responsibility to be ethical or sustainable, therefore they should just keep purchasing and living as they do now. Which of those two scenarios do you think is most likely, in terms of who is being influenced and to what end?
Tech-addled efforts to make beef and dairy more “sustainable” are full of shit.
As John Kazior points out in a bitingly funny article over at The Baffler, the business of killing cows for their flesh and fluids faces this wall of problems:
“As countless studies over the past two decades have pointed out, the beef industry is about as unsustainable as it gets. Animal agriculture is a major contributor to global deforestation and species loss. It produces nearly 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, has driven the use of pesticides to double in the last thirty years, and because the majority of all medically important antibiotics are sold for use in animals, livestock farming contributes to increasing antimicrobial resistance. Industrial livestock are also the second leading cause of zoonotic disease transmission. In fact, the full scope of the industry’s impact is likely understated—as most global beef producers don’t actually know how much GHG they are emitting—only that it is enough to be, in a word, unsustainable.”
The industry’s solution? Zelp, a cow muzzle designed to “neutralize methane.”
Let me just quote John and his sarcasm again: “An uncreative mind might look at such an animal and think that, perhaps, breeding and slaughtering it on an ever-expanding scale has the makings of catastrophe.” Jokes aside, read the article for what many of us vegans already know: the animal farming industry has to go.
The central argument of veganism may well be its simplest and most logical: that animals are not our property. That entitles them to a host of rights: https://aeon.co/essays/you-cant-claim-to-be-a-moral-person-unless-youre-vegan-too
We will never truly advance our ethical relationship with other animals until we stop treating them as chattels for use
Today i saw another hottake with many notes that somehow eggreplacements full of chemicals are making plantbased food meaningless and somehow grassfed beef is actually more plantbased. I just can’t …
It is always surprising how quickly leftists turn to right-wing thinking and tactics when it comes to veganism. Are these people not old enough to remember those god awful conservative ‘look many ingredients are in an apple these days’ memes? Chemicals are not bad - all food is made up of chemicals, beef included.
If people wanted ‘natural’ food they’d be eating lentils, chickpeas, fruit, fresh veg etc - not egg replacement and certainly not beef. But honestly, who cares? These people need to worry more about their own food and less about ours.
From the 70’s countercultural zine Kaliflower, a simple line: The karma of eating animals is not good. Nobody needs to eat meat.
Image source: @Incunabula on Twitter
That Scary Vegan Agenda
Animals are subjects, not objects.
Suffering should be prevented or minimised whenever possible.
If we can avoid exploiting or killing others then we should.
Sentient beings have the right to life and bodily autonomy.
We don’t have the right to anyone else’s life, body or freedom.
(Advance) Happy Halloween! 🌱💚
In fiction, animals are quick to be endowed with intent and agency when they're villains; as victims, depictions of their suffering are often considered violence of the highest order, enough motive for revenge. Reality is quite different. This piece calls for an interrogation of the way we treat and view animals, its logical inconsistencies, and how crime fiction (or fiction in general) can aid us in coming to terms with how we treat animals. The author writes:
“ [W]hat I am not conflicted about is the need to actually interrogate and face up to our choices in everyday life, to take responsibility for them with full awareness rather than trying to hide away. We turn a blind eye to the breeding and purchase of animals who can’t even breathe in the case of brachycephalic dogs such as pugs, but we will get incredibly upset at a make-believe dog being threatened with suffering? This kind of faux-sentimentality serves to defend a world where this status quo is maintained. Where it’s OK to read about an animal-as-threat – where an animal is killed because they’ve ‘done something wrong’ – because this doesn’t upset or complicate our views about everyday life. Where to read about animals-as-victims is to be overwhelming, regardless of personal and social complicity in actual real-world suffering. Crime fiction – as with all fiction – can hold a mirror up to these strange, complex, thorny problems we face in life. To ‘make aware’, even in a Brechtian sense, of what we take for granted in law and in social interaction."
Many vegans speak of the moment they knew they could no longer consume animals--a spark, perhaps, brought about by books or films or a conversation. And because I experienced the same, I have always been interested in that transitory period--from carnism to veganism. For me, it was a period of intense self-questioning and debate, of research and moral contemplation.
The author of the essay isn't vegan or vegetarian, but I could see in his words the same journey towards realizing that the present way we interact with nonhuman animals is no longer acceptable. At the very least, it deserves to be scrutinized.
Non-human animals are among the most vulnerable members of society. Even their inclusion in this term – ‘society’ – is not without controver
The eminent professor Barbara J King maps her own medical scars to write about the suffering of animals in research labs.
And to what end? Are these tests successful? From her essay:
“In a 2014 paper in the BMJ, the medical sociologist Pandora Pound and the epidemiologist Michael B Bracken conclude that ‘even the most promising findings from animal research often fail in human trials and are rarely adopted into clinical practice.’ The following year, the neurologist Aysha Akhtar pointed out that, back in 2004, some 92 per cent of drugs passing preclinical tests, including those tested on animals, failed to reach market. And the failure rate had actually increased to nearly 96 per cent by 2015. These failure rates hold back good science, science that’s urgently needed.”
The scars on my body are a constant reminder of why I’ve turned from scholarship on animals to agitating for animals
An excellent response from Kumminista on Tiktok to the ‘veganism is colonisation’ video doing the rounds at the moment. Thank you to @thatsillyfucknvegan for bringing it to my attention. You can also find my own analysis of the video below: It pains me to see Tumblr users who seem to have zero concern for indigenous issues in any other context using the work of activists like the one featured in this video, as a shield for their own personal consumption habits which have absolutely nothing to do with indigenous sovereignty. I can understand where this person’s conception of veganism is coming from, since this is how veganism is discussed pretty much constantly in public spaces. I understand why they believe vegans want indigenous people to be food dependent, or why they seem to assume that vegans are interested in entering indigenous spaces to tell them that they can’t practice their own culture anymore. I will explain why the idea that this view represents mainstream veganism is a misconception, but I also understand where that misconception comes from.
Firstly, is the opening line that veganism is a byproduct of colonisation. Now, this isn’t really explained so it’s difficult to unpack. Veganism is a product of colonisation in the sense that it largely developed in consumer socieites, yes, but so did factory farming, and so did our modern practices of buying pre-packed meat from the supermarket, so our tech dependence, so did pretty much all of our modern lifestyle practices. This is really just an acknowledgement of the roots of veganism, and I have no real issue with that. I believe that the rest of this argument is a result of a misunderstanding of what veganism as a movement is trying to achieve, or at the very least, it generalises us based on the words and actions of a vocal minority within the movement. “Veganism is the next phase of creating food dependence.” Who is pushing for that, exactly? Which vegans specifically are trying to do that? Is this supposed to be our hidden agenda or what this person considers to be the unfortunate consequence of a more vegan world? Again, this unfortunately is not explained.
The goals of veganism as an ideology are explicit, and they very definitely don’t include anything about food dependence. In fact, many organisations like Food Not Bombs and The Food Action Network, devoted to food sovereignty, actively promote veganism on the grounds that growing plants directly tends to be more accessible than relying on animal agriculture.
Part of the problem here is that indigenous food sovereigty is already disrupted. Veganism didn’t do that, colonisers and ranchers did, the same ranchers who now supply animal products on that same stolen land. The World Bank has identified animal agriculture as the key driver of deforestation in the Amazon.
We talk about how we should ‘give the land back’, but why are none of us asking who actually owns that land? Is it vegans? For a start, 91% of land deforested since 1970 had been converted to cattle ranching. It isn’t just the land at risk either, indigenous people in Brazil are literally being hunted by cattle ranchers. But vegans are the problem, because we boycott animal agriculture? We aren’t the ones seizing indenous land, but the mining industry and corporate animal agriculture interests are.
One of the most significant challenges to food sovereigty everywhere is climate change, and animal agriculture is one of the key contributors to that, too. Even the most conservative estimate from the World Resources Institute holds that animal agriculture is responsible for 14% of all human caused greenhouse emissions, with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation estimating as high at 18%.
According to even the lowest of these estimates, this means that animal agriculture accounts for more greenhouse emissions than the combined total of every car, truck, train, aeroplane and ship on the planet. We all know that climate change disproportionately impacts remote and indigenous populations, and we also know the key industries causing it. it isn’t vegans. I’d also challenge the notion that veganism is born out of disconnection to the land. Why is meat eating the only lifestyle that can be counted as connected to the land? Small-scale, eco-friendly farming, that isn’t connected to the land? Growing vegetables in your back garden is ‘disconnected’ and in some way unnatural? The Jainist monks practicing ahisma and growing their own food are disconnected? The ecolological communes subsisting on nothing but food they grow sustainably themselves, they are disconnected?
Vegans exist all over the world and come from all kinds of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, many of us value nature and some practice veganism precisely because of our reverance for the natural world and it’s inhabitants. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people reblogging this don’t eat animals in a way that even vaguely resembles a natural process, and certainly not an ecologically sustainable one.
If you’re using this video to argue in defence of your indigenous hunting practicing then that is one thing, but using it to defend buying meat produced under an industrialised system in a consumer culture? Is buying the plastic wrapped corpse of an animal you never even saw, much less killed yourself, really any more ‘connected’ than buying plants?
Of course when you search for ‘best places to be vegan’ you get a list of cities. If you search for ‘best places to buy pizza’ you’ll probably find cities - there are just wider food options in cities. I’m not quite sure what this particular section is trying to say, but if it’s that veganism is not possible if you don’t live in a city, this is demonstrably false, as proven by any one of the millions of vegans who don’t live in a city, or don’t live in a western consumer culture at all. Vegan staples are things like lentils, chickpeas, beans, nuts, fruits, vegetables, pasta, rice, these are some of the cheapest and most widely available food products. Veganism doesn’t require soy bacon or faux cheese, it just requires plant proteins, and there are plenty of those. Why should a plant-based diet create more food dependence than a meat based diet, anyway? When we’re talking about hunting for a significant portion of your caloric intake this makes sense, but for most people watching and sharing this video, the way they source food is a far-cry from ecological indigenous hunting practices. While this will not be the case for subsistence hunting communities, for most of the people reading this who don’t belong to those communities, surely growing chickpeas or lentils will be more accessible than raising cows for beef and dairy? This point is never explained.
While we’re on the topic of food dependence, why aren’t we talking about meat production? Why aren’t we talking about indigenous land being stolen to grow animal feed or to use as grazing land? Isn’t that dependence? Why aren’t we talking about the fact that 1/3 of the planet’s arable land surface is devoted to animal agriculture? Why aren’t we talkling about the fisheries emptying oceans, resulting in indigenous peoples not being able to subsist on the fish they have caught for thousands of years? Hunters paying to hunt game in indigenous lands? The ranchers brutally murdering indigenous leaders? Why do we never seem to talk about any of that? Why do vegans specifically, represent the threat to indigenous sovereignty? Of course, a plant-based diet is not accessible to all people in all spaces, and I imagine many indigenous people will fall into that category, but we must not forget that veganism is not a diet. This is the key thing that most of these critiques miss, veganism is always discussed in dietary terms. Veganism is not an issue of food morality or purity; it is a social justice issue. Vegans believe that animals deserve to have some fundamental rights, such as the right to a life free from exploitation and unnecessary killing.
This is the core of what veganism is - our diet is simply a byproduct of our opposition to the unnecessary exploitation and slaughter of sentient beings. Veganism requires us to avoid animal exploitation as far as is possible and practicable. If you exist in a space where it is not possible to eat 100% plant-based then you can still be vegan - because veganism is not just a plant-based diet, and it certainly isn’t a diet we are trying to force on indigenous people in order to create food dependence. There is also the underlying assumption behind this entire argument, which is that vegans want to force veganism on everyone, including indigenous peoples. Now, I very much understand where this comes from as an idea, and I am not criticising the person in this video for that assumption. As I said, this is how vegans are talked about pretty much constantly and our actual views are almost never aired.
However, this ideology is absolutely not part of veganism, and I am not aware of any serious vegan activist or any respected AR organisation who are arguing for forcing indigenous people to be vegan, or even any non-indigenous activist who views advocating in indigenous spaces as any kind of priority. I am sure that there are vegans who do think this, but to present this idea as ‘veganism,’ as if it is part and parcel of our ideology, is not an accurate representative of what our movement is about - not even close. A great many vegans take the same view I do, which is that indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination and is not the place of any non-indigenous vegans to try to ‘enforce’ veganism in spaces we do not belong. I object to exploiting and killing animals on the grounds that I believe animals should have fundamental rights, but I make an exception for subsistenance hunting (a mainstream vegan view) and I am not pushing that ideology on indigenous people - again I don’t know of any serious activist who is.
This idea of the vegans marching on indigenous lands to force them into being vegan is just a charicature at this point. There are bad actors in every movement, and I’ve no doubt that there are plenty of vegans who fail to apply intersectional principles in their activism. But in terms of veganism as an intersectional movement, we are not talking to indigenous communities living off the land here, we are talking to people who already subsist in industrialised food systems, and we’re asking them to make more ethical choices. That’s all.
If you’re interested in engaging with what actual vegans have to say about food sovereigty and indigenous issues, as opposed to what you’re all being told we have to say about it, I have a tag devoted to it here. I would also recommend checking out some of the work of Dr. A. Breeze Harper on intersectional veganism as a tool of decolonisation, or any of the excellent essays by Christopher Sebastian on this topic. To finish, I’d just like to offer a word to all of you reblogging that post as a means to argue that you shouldn’t go vegan, despite the fact that you absolutely do subsist entirely from an industrialised food system. This video makes a lot of really valid points, but it’s a specific issue that a specific individual from a specific community has with what they perceive veganism to be. It is not your reason to not go vegan, or to hate us, or to criticse veganism as an ideology.
You don’t eat cheeseburgers because you’re concerned about indigenous food sovereigty, so please stop using the valid concerns of indogenous people as a smokescreen for your own, entirely self-motivated choices.