Sunday, February 26, 2006

Is animal slavery better than death?

We all love animals. Why do we call some "pets" and others "dinner?"
- k.d. lang, singer (1961- )

Lang, with one of the most charming voices in music today, is clearly an animal rights activist. And a vegetarian.

By equating "pets" with animals whose meat is consumed as food, she uses a form of propaganda whose purpose is to swing the unaware to her point of view. Not entirely bad, in principle, as that is what all advertising does.

Her argument is emotional, but not logical. She wants us to believe that "pets" equals good and "dinner" (killing animals for food) equals bad.

Her reasoning makes no room for others to point out that pets we call animals are more like prisoners or slaves than friends who are kept in their most natural state and environment.

Animals that have been bred for food have been hybridized to the point that they are little more than mannequins that manufacture food. Intelligence has been bred out of them. They could not possibly fend for themselves in the wild as their ancient forebears did.

Perhaps a more reasonable (though disconcerting) question to ask would be: Is it better to be a slave owner or a mannequin killer?

Humans are built, by nature, to have the ability to chew and digest meat, though we cannot digest most forms of plants that traditional working animals eat. Should we need animal pets for company?

Study of why city dwellers keep pets would reveal that in pets they receive what they cannot receive from their fellow humans. Mostly attention and touching.

We should be teaching each other how to satisfy our basic needs rather than debating difference between animal slavery and death.

Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to put life in perspective for those who have been blinded by social convention.
Learn more at

No comments: