Conflict Abolitionism

“I leave you in peace”. This must be one of the most undervalued statements a person can make to another. Most non-human animals are masters of this expression, but we humans are just starting to learn it properly. Well, to remember it rather, since we used to say it with conviction all the time, before someone decided that it might be a good idea to build a complete civilization out of forgetting it, sometime 10,000 years ago or so.

Since we started to expand and conquer the world, we have done anything but leave anyone else in peace. If we don’t kill them to eat them, we kill them for sport. If we don’t kill them at all, we slave them for work or pleasure. If we don’t slave them or kill them, we drive them away from their homes. If we don’t banish, slave or kill them, we destroy their resources so they cannot survive or go anywhere else. Our presence has become a constant threat to everyone else.

We even have complete “legitimate” professions for those humans who work full time in “disturbing the peace” of others: hunters, fishermen, exterminators, animal collectors, shooters, vivisectionists, animal farmers, animal fighters, trappers, pest controllers, animal dealers, bombers, loggers, fumigators, zoo curators, abattoir workers, animal traders, etc, etc.

For an abolitionist such as myself, it’s very easy to put distance from all of these people, and to campaign to abolish all these professions, but sometimes we have to face situations that are not based on such a clear-cut exploitationist scenarios, and where “conflict” seems to be more of an even keel problem. What about the Tanzanian farmer loosing his/her crops to raiding elephants? What about the Indian villager facing a hungry man-eating Bengal tiger? What about the Inuit trying to feed his family in the vegan-unfriendly Arctic?

These cases tell us that sometimes the “theory” of “leaving in peace all creatures” may not be a practical option that everyone has the luxury of being able to choose, and that the conflict of holding an abolitionist animal rights approach is not always easy to resolve in some practical circumstances. How should we then judge those under such circumstances? Are they “exempted” from the abolitionist process? Are they not part of a civilization driven by modern evolving principles?

Theoretically, the best way to judge them –if we need to– is to “empathise” with them fully, and see what we would do in the exact same circumstances. This is of course easily said that done, since we will never experience the exact same circumstances, even if we travel to where they are, try to live how they live, sleep in similar dwellings and encounter the same types of animals, since such circumstances are not only “external”, but also “internal” (our education, our experiences, our knowledge of the world, our cultural background, etc.).

In most cases we cannot change our background, although we could indeed spend sufficient time living in a completely different anthropological context, cut-off from our past, so effectively “substituting” our birth background by a fresh new one. However, we don’t really need to go to the North Pole for a few decades to “get the idea” of how the abolitionist conflicts plays out in exploitationist scenarios with a much reduced choice spectrum. This is because most of us can actually experience them right here in our homes, although we tend not to think too much about them, and let alone talk about them. There may be different types of animal “conflict” a vegan animal rights person may face living in the modern multicultural non-ethnic world of today’s civilization. For instance, we can struggle with “ideological conflicts”, “life-threatening conflicts”, “competition conflicts”, or “territorial conflicts”. Let’s go through a few examples of these I have faced myself –and I’m still facing – during my life in modern Europe.

I’m a vegan-animal rights-atheist-lefty person, and as such there is a classic ideological conflict that I have to endure –and I confess I have not managed to resolve it completely yet: “abortion”. First of all, I must say that, being a man, such conflict is bound to play very differently than if I was a woman –especially if I was pregnant. I suppose in such circumstances it may either be easier to resolve (if my own life is a stake) or in fact more difficult (maternal instincts at play), but I will never know, and I’ve never been close to any woman who intimately shared such conflict with me. Having said that, I can declare that, in this subject, I’ve always been “pro choice”. This is because of my general political affiliation to the left –which is traditionally promoter of women rights– but especially because of my detachment from any religion that would impose to me an anti-abortion doctrine. However, the vegan animal rights part of my ideological baggage has a “precautionary” element that tells me that we shouldn’t “assume” an animal is not sentient if it has a different nervous system than us, or, in terms of quantity of neurons and sensory receptors, it has a “smaller” nervous system than us. Since “sentience” is the threshold criterion for the exploitation choice (we vegans exploit non-sentient living beings: plants), and we know that as long as the creature has a nervous system there may be certain sentience we cannot ignore, as a precaution we don’t exploit any member of the Animal Kingdom, from sponges to plumbers. However, if we apply such “precautionary principle” to human embryos, shouldn’t we oppose to their killing? We could go down the route of only “accepting” abortions of embryos that haven’t developed into fetus yet, and still haven’t got any nervous system whatsoever, in addition to those abortions necessary to save the life of the mother. This is how I have traditionally resolved the conflict, and this is how I declare my “default” position about it.

However, in my mind sometimes I’m not certain about what this actually means in terms of “days of pregnancy”, and what happens in the cases where the death of the mother that wouldn’t abort is not certain, but just probable. I guess that I would have to trust Science to tell me when we can say there is already an active nervous system, and I would have to give full decision power to the mother in question who has only probabilities rather than certainties to inform her choice. This certainly still puts me in the “pro choice” box rather than in the “pro life” box (as those defending the anti-abortion option demagogically call themselves). However, Science has been notoriously slow in accepting the cognitive capabilities of many species, so how do I know that they are not underestimating the sentience of human fetuses? On the other side, being a defender of “rights” of the exploited and the oppressed, I cannot ignore the rights of women with unwanted pregnancies –from rape-like scenarios, not irresponsibility – whose lives may indeed be “ruined” by being forced to have children in environments where they are obliged to look after them without the minimum necessary resources and support –and then be hold accountable if they fail. Therefore, I’m still leaning towards the pro-choice side, but I consider the conflict “unresolved” and that I should be dealing with it on a case by case basis whilst Science continues to inform the Ethics around it. I must say that since I do have a strong allergy to religious fanatics, and these are the ones that tend to wave the anti-abortion flags –often with very ridiculous arguments– most vigorously, it has been very easily for me to take one “social” side on this issue, but I’m glad that so far I haven’t experienced a “personal” situation where I would be forced to resolve the conflict in the context of my own animal rights beliefs alone, as opposed to my anti-religious beliefs.

The abortion debate that for most of us only poses an “ideological conflict” may indeed become a “life-threatening conflict” for those women whose pregnancy poses serious health complications. Sometimes, our lives are threatened to such an extent by someone else, than a conflict becomes a matter of “life and death”. Although it can happen, it is not often a vegan animal rights person has become a possible victim of an animal predator. In cases like this, who could blame the vegans if they kill the animal to save their life? Recently there was a case on the news of a Polar bear fatal attack in Norway, and there is no reason to rule out the possibility that the expedition leader that shot the bear while it was mauling a second victim was not vegan himself. Would I have reacted differently? Probably not. However, more often than not, in the face of an animal predator of humans people tend to resort to excessively draconian and panicking measures, such as culling any animal they encounter of the same type “just in case”, or “putting down” the animal once the human cannot be saved and there is no longer immediate threat to others since it is then automatically assumed that from then on the predator is more likely to attack another human in the future, which may not necessarily be true. As an abolitionist I oppose to such measures, either when the death occurs because human fault (like the cases of human deaths in circuses or zoos) or when a wild animal wanders into a human settlement that happen to be placed in the middle of its hunting territory. The right ethical solution should be measures to prevent the animal getting close to other humans, or to reduce the vulnerability of future potential victims, not measures to “revenge” the death, or to “punish” the animal, often made to avoid the feeling of powerlessness rather than to reduce the danger. I’m of course completely opposed of putting down domestic animals such as dogs for belonging to a breed deemed to be too dangerous –i.e. American pit bull terriers– because after all such animals were “created” by humans by artificial selection often by people who were trying to enhance the aggressiveness now others blame on them. “Capital Punishment” and eugenic/cleansing “exterminations” –both exponents of the worst humanity can offer– are equally wrong for humans than for other animals, so better solutions should be found even if they end up been more complex and expensive.

I don’t know any vegan colleagues who had been attacked by a tiger, a hypo or a polar bear, but I do know many other cases of human-animal conflict that are common even in the lives of urban animal rights people, and because of that are a good way to test the robustness of their convictions and the integrity of their principles. These don’t involve dramatic encounters with huge beasts, but mundane meetings with small creatures.

There is something fundamentally healthy about maintaining a good relationship with someone less than an inch tall. It’s easy to be polite with giants, or with someone that, for all intent and purposes, is almost “you”, but our decency will be better tested when looking at the way we relate to those that are so distinctively different to us that our instincts would even doubt about whether they feel or think anything, whether they have personalities, or even whether they are alive at all. I am talking about insects and similar creepy crawlies who inhabit all the corners of our world.

Is there any vegan animal right person that has not faced a “competition conflict” with an insect (or any other invertebrate for that matter)? What do you do if a mosquito attempts to use your blood to feed its offspring in a summer evening? What do you do if that mosquito is from the malaria bearing Anopheles species, and you know about it? What do you do with slugs that are eating your dinner when is still growing in your inner-city allotment? What do you do if a wasp lands on the strawberry jam toast you are about to mouth while laying on your jacked picnic cloth in your local park in a sunny afternoon? All these creatures are entering in conflict with your because they are competing with a “food” resource you also want (your blood, your lettuce, your jam). I don’t know what do you do in these cases, but I can tell you what I normally do.

Regarding the mosquito, if I know that it cannot carry malaria I let it sting me (although I would do my best to prevent them to enter my home at night by closing all windows, since their buzzing may disturb my sleep). Yes, it’s a bit painful, but I don’t really need that drop of blood that much, so it’s only fair. However, if I was somewhere in the tropics in an Anopheles ridden country, the situation would certainly be different, although not impossible to resolve. I have indeed been in several occasions in these countries, and I found that talking the necessary precautions allowed me avoid the dilemma about what to do when having the mosquito already on my flesh ready to penetrate it. Good mosquito nets over my bed, and good insect repellent on my skin, have always done the trick for me. Conclusion: I have never killed a mosquito since I became vegan. Conflict mostly resolved – I say “mostly” because there may always be the possibility of a future encounter when I may react differently if a malarian mosquito slips through all the barriers and it’s ready to sting me.

As far as the wasps are concerned, being a great admirer of these beautiful animals, I would gladly give them my jam, and I could even made a few extra toast for them, since I know that moving slowly and avoiding any violent hand movements –unlike the typical panic reaction I normally see even from the most macho and butch looking humans – is usually sufficient to avoid getting stung (incidentally, the “extra” toasts for the wasps placed at a certain distance from my picnic food would decrease the chances that I would bite accidentally one of the wasps if I am not paying enough attention).

I don’t have an allotment –I would love to have one, though – but I can honestly say that if I had one I wouldn’t kill the slugs or snails that try to eat my produce. I would try to find obstacles to made as difficult as possible their access to my plants, and I would religiously remove them by hand to be relocated elsewhere if all vegan horticultural solutions ended up being insufficient. However, I have to say that at the movement, and for a few years now, I have been facing a very “active” conflict with a type of insect that rather than competing for my food, is actually competing for my space. This is therefore a “territorial conflict” many of you may be familiar with, and I will tell you in detail how I have been addressing it. This is the universal urban conflict between human beings and what people call common “house pests”.

I’m not talking about the cute mouse that occasionally visits my flat and, after a certain period of exploratory investigation, disappointingly leaves for better prospects elsewhere. I am talking about these universally unwelcomed human companions that can be found in most human dwelling in the world, to the horror of many. I’m talking about cockroaches. I don’t know how other vegans deal with them when they have them in their homes, but this is how I have been doing it:

In winter 2004 I moved into an old ground floor flat in the south of London. When summer arrived I noticed the appearance of a few small brown cockroaches in the kitchen (the “small” common Blatella germanica –don’t blame the Germans now, please), so I decided to monitor the situation to see if that would become a problem. They are quite small and very discrete, so they didn’t bother me that much –I’m not repelled at their sight as many people is – and they tended to appear at night only, so I didn’t think much of it. Since I also had a healthy population of house spiders I thought that perhaps they would take care of them without the need of any human interference. However, when the numbers started to grow slightly in the warmer days –not to the extreme of rendering inhospitability, though –I realised I had to do something.

Being a vegan animal rights person the option of just “exterminating” them with some poison was not in the cards. I was well aware that they didn’t mean me any harm, and as long as I kept the food out of their way and the house relatively clean the transmission of any disease would be quite unlikely. They were not competing with me for my food (if anything, they were recycling any of my discarded food), they would always try to get away from me politely (having recently evolved with unwelcoming humans, that old predator avoiding behaviour had become markedly reinforced), they wouldn’t bite me or anything like that (not that they could, with their tiny jaws), and possibly because of their dependency of water they seem confined to the kitchen alone (so, no risk of nasty surprises in the bedroom).

Therefore, we were simply talking about two species in the same space, and one of them –me– not really wanting the other there –for “comfort” reasons disguised as “sanitary”, really. In other words, a classic case of interspecific “territorial conflict”. Which had more right to be there? For me, that was a relevant question. I just arrived at my flat and they were already living in it, so from that point of view I was the intruder. But I was the one paying the rent so I believed that at some degree I was entitled to choose my flatmates. I presumed that previous tenants had tried unsuccessfully to get rid of them, so they were quite used to negotiate with humans. How far should I go in judging their entitlement? From the moment the flat was built? From the moment a human house was built in that spot? From the moment the first humans colonised the shores of the Thames? No matter how far I went, they seem to have been there first. As a taxonomical “Species” they are not autochthonous of the British Islands, not even of Europe, so perhaps that could be a good argument. They came from Africa, you see? But then again, Homo sapiens also came from Africa, so in this regard we are both immigrants, so this would not help my “claim”. On the other side, as a taxonomical “Order”, theirs (Blattodea) clearly trumps ours (Primates): they were already roaming this planet in the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs were still around and our whole Class of Mammals was represented by just a few shrew-like furries. They were most definitively here first, and I knew it.

So, I decided to sign a peace treaty with them, based on the following “rules”: 1) I would seal up all holes and cracks in the kitchen to minimise the areas they would be able to hide (and breed!), so they would have a limited space to expand. 2) I would never leave food or organic rubbish out and I would keep everything edible in the fridge or in closed containers, so if they wanted to stay they would have to contend themselves with very little to eat. 3) If I saw one during the day time, I would chase it until it would go out of sight. 4) If I saw one away from the kitchen, I would chase it until it returned to it or left the flat. 5) I would not deliberately kill them or poison them in any way. 6) If I saw them in their “reservation” (the kitchen) at the “legal” hours (between eleven PM and sunrise), I would leave them be “in peace”.

Initially, it seemed to work, and they seemed to learn quickly about my rules (obviously there was some sort of pseudo-natural selection occurring, since the ones that stuck to the rules, for being undisturbed, seemed to reproduce more successfully than those breaking them). In winter they went away (because of the cold, since I hardly ever have the heating on), but then the following summer they reappeared, and every time the population seem to grow a bit respect the previous year, until there was too much rule breaking for my likening. I tried to figure out where they exactly spend the day, since I had already blocked all the cracks and holes I could think of. I suspected that the fridge has something to do with it, so I moved it away from the wall, and there they were, in a surprisingly high enough number that made me temporarily abandon the “treaty” and enter a state of “emergency”. They obviously were roosting in the copious warm spaces inside the electrical appliances of my kitchen, which I couldn’t block. I had to find a much more radical and fast solution. I decided to Hoover the lot out.

It wasn’t my intention to kill them, I just wanted to mass-expatriate them, since the idea was to take the Hoover paper bag out immediately after the sucking, and let them crawl out in the garden. However, when I took it from the Hoover to put it into a plastic bag that I would then take downstairs to the rubbish bin (with a convenient opening so they could leave at night), I had a peek inside, and I could see that those that were still alive were very dusty and dizzy, and many others had perished during the process. I didn’t feel good about it. I felt as a genocider. That rushed “emergency” solution was obviously unsatisfactory, so I had to investigate alternative methods. I tried several electrical devises that emit high frequency sounds that are supposed to repel them; I tried scattering Bay leaves they are supposed to hate. I’m not sure if these methods had any effect, but every year there was always a moment when suddenly the population seemed to grow more, “rule breaking” seemed to spread too much, and I ended resorting to the Hoover again in a moment of weakness. I found myself involved in a practice caused by a territorial conflict that now I desperately wanted to abolish.

There had to be a better way, and if there wasn’t any already prescribed, I had to invent one myself. I was looking for a practical way to “catch” them for “repatriation” that would not involve their suffering or death, but they were way too fast for me to do it just “by hand”. First I tried the soapy water spray method. When I saw one breaking the rules, I would spray it with water that contained a bit of washing up liquid. The soap would cover some of their spiracles so they would get less oxygen in, which would slow them up enough so I could then pick them up by hand, open the window, blow the soap away from their spiracles, and let them go. However, especially with the very small ones, that didn’t seem to work (I couldn’t pick them up without hurting them), and in some cases I was too late so they died of suffocation before I had time to remove the soap, which of course made me feel very bad.

Another idea I had was relatively more successful. When I felt that the population had grown enough so there was some need for intervention, in the evenings I put cello tape in the areas where they normally go. Next morning I would find some stuck on it, and then carefully, using a toothpick, I would “un-stuck” them, put them into a bag, open the window, and let them go. However, this system wasn’t good enough, since despite the fact they never died in the process, sometimes I broke one of their legs when I tried to free them. Besides, there was the “psychological” issue of being stuck all night to the tape, which kind of tormented me.

Eventually, I found the best solution, and so far it seems that it is working quite well. I use one of those big white yoghurt plastic pots, completely clean and dry, and with all labels removed. When I notice an unwelcome increase of population, the pot catching session begins. Every time I see one at any time I endeavour to catch it with the pot for translocation –I manage most of the time, I must say. What I do is to flick it with my had very quickly (I’m getting good at it) in the direction of the pot, which makes it falls into it; then, for some mysterious reason, instead of trying to climb the sides of the pot and try to escape, they tend to run in circles at the bottom of it (quite possible caused by the translucent nature of the pot combined with the photophobic nature of their flight responses). This gives me sufficient time to go to the nearest window still holding the open pot and “free” them. If while I’m going to the window one does try to climb up the pot, a substantial tap with my finger on the top edge of the pot makes it fall again to the bottom. Somehow it works, and the whole operation takes no longer that five seconds. None of them get hurt in the process, as if I was using some sort of futuristic Insect Trek transporter that magically beam them up to the London’s streets in a jiff.

This method, combined with the continuous generous –but not altruistic– help from the house spider crews that can reliably be found predating at the corners where the roaches like to hang out, keeps the population down, and considerably reduces “rule breaking”, since those that are genetically more predisposed to wander far from the kitchen or be awake during the day will be removed from the population quickly not contributing to their next generation gene pool.

Now, after more than 30 generations, no more significant rule breaking and population boom occur anymore. The conflict seems to have been resolved, and now in my flat humans and roaches are no longer in mortal conflict. Although there is a considerable peace-keeping work involved for my part, every time I manage to free one of them to the outside world – with no harm done and the minimum stress possible– makes me feel good about myself, brightening my day. When I see them running in the garden trying to find a new dark crevice to make some sense to this new world of endless possibilities, I bid them adieu with a “I leave you in peace” greeting; they, collectively, seem to pay me in kind. Now I am actually glad to have them as flatmates.

There is an abolitionist way to address REAL animalist conflict –as opposed to the false conflicts that exploitationists use as justification for their abuses. There is, if you will, a type of “Conflict Abolitionism”, based on recognising the conflict in the first place, careful consideration of both parties’ interests and entitlements, avoiding “human convenience” as a criterion to resolve it, playing down the role of “custom” or “tradition” in the resolution, maintaining the abolitionist principles, accepting a human price to pay to compensate for our intrusion, being transigent with the outcome of an imperfect response, and on not giving up trying to find an improved solution.

During their lives abolitionists may often face real conflicts with actual animals, and sometimes is not that easy to avoid being hypocritical because of only applying abolitionism when judging other people’s behaviour. I said in several occasions that abolitionism is a process, so all abolitionists that are involved in it are constantly “improving” the way they travel the journey, getting better at it. Not only they manage to abolish more and more types of animal abuse and getting closer to major abolitions, but they also get better at the way they relate to all the animals they encounter on the way. None of us has “arrived” at the final destination yet, so we all have lots to do in our activist work, and lots to change in our own lifestyles and behaviours. Becoming vegetarian is not enough. Becoming vegan is not enough. Boycotting circus with animals is not enough. Boycotting films with performing animals is not enough. We need to keep changing our attitudes and improving our relationships with all the animals we encounter, no matter how small or unpopular, “out there” in the wide wild world, but also in the confines of our small comfortable homes, where nobody is looking.

Recognising that we are still in the beginning of the process as much as those that just joined us in our journey will help us to be less judgmental about them and find more reasons for reconciliation than for segregation. I know that I may have been lucky since so far I didn’t have to face the most difficult conflicts others had to –some of which are still without known satisfactory solutions– but what counts is the “attitude” towards facing them, and the perseverance towards resolving them at everyone’s satisfaction.

No human living in today’s world can help sharing part of the negative impact humanity has already inflicted on other inhabitants of this planet. No person is completely harmless to those around. But we can strive to be as “friendly” as possible to everyone, and to get better at it with time and dedication.

Appreciating “peace” is well worth it.

Jaysee Costa

Abolitionist value

Life isn’t simple. Reality isn’t “black & white”. In most cases, most of the time there are more than two simple opposite options, and more often than not quantity becomes quality with just a gradual increment of degree. You can be alive or dead, but also in many stages in between (in a comma, in a cryogenic state, under a cardiac arrest, watching daytime television…). You can be an animal or a mineral… but also a vegetable…or a fungus, a bacterium, a virus… or even a prion (a simple replicating protein that can infect organisms as a virus does). It may be sunny or it may be raining…or it may be misty…or it may be smoggy.

However, reality isn’t “coloured” either. Most galaxies appear read because we see them moving away from us, but they would appear blue if looked from the other side. Some animals see colours like us, others see different colours than us, and others don’t seem to see any colour at all, and yet all have their perfectly functioning realities to interact with, based on the same Universe. Most plants are green to photosynthesise food, but then some are red or yellow and can still do it. Most animal’s blood is red because of the oxygen grabbing haemoglobin, but then in some is actually blue or green. The sky seems blue, but that’s just an illusion. The setting sun seems orange, but that’s just an impression. Some skins seem pink, but are they really? And what is the colour of a mongrel dog running very fast in a car park in a cloudy afternoon?

In fact, reality is beige. It’s black, white, grey, red, blue, green, yellow, pink…all colours fighting with each other. Yes, beige, that colour we all despite. We don’t like the fact that is so universal, so indefinable, so indescribable. We know the Universe is complex, but we like it simple, and this is why we have Science to make a manageable edited version of it. We polarise everything, because our brains are very primitive organs with a relative small computational power and if we keep the beige on all the time they may easily fry up.

Think about watching an analogue colour TV set. Using the right knob or button, if we gradually remove the colour we still can follow any reality broadcasted in it, even if there is no colour left. However, if we gradually remove any contrast (the difference between black and white) eventually such reality seems to disappear, despite the fact the same image is still received by the set. We do have brains operating in an analogue “black & white” architecture that forces us to simplify reality. This is why we prefer to see a couple as marry or divorced, a student as a pupil or a teacher, a parent as a father or a mother, or a government as fascist or communist. This is why we prefer to see an animalist campaign as abolitionist or reformist. But we know there is more than that. There are unengageable boyfriends, beneficial friends, unemployed post-graduates, legal guardians, experimental bisexuals, enemy combatants, liberal democrats, and voting teenagers. They are, too, reformist abolitionists, and I’m actually one of them.

Don’t rush to judgement now. By having declared myself a “reformist abolitionist”, don’t brand me as “new-welfarist”, or as “pseudo-abolitionist”. I am not a reformist that uses occasionally abolitionism. I am not a reformist that disguises his discourse with an abolitionist tone, or vice versa. I am an abolitionist that sometimes uses reformist tactics to achieve abolitionist goals, and I can do that thanks to what I call “abolitionist value”.

This is how this concept works. The world is beige, but our brains work better in “black & white”, so we devise clear principles or goals to use them as “flags”, so people can identify them, gather around them, and “march” in socio-political journeys being lead by them, as “standards” in ancient military campaigns. So, when facing a social struggle aimed to change the status quo, the best course of action is to choose a distinguishable enough flag, keep it high as a standard to help guide people wishing to join you in your journey, but at the same time negotiate the terrain down below while holding it. In such a beige foggy status quo, we need those flags to stand up and shine as beacons to illuminate our journey towards our destination, but we also need to pay close attention to where we put our feet to avoid tripping over and to negotiate successfully any obstacle we may encounter in our way. Constantly assessing the relative “value” of the terrain we walk on in relation to our final objective is how we pay attention to it.

For me, in animal protection the flag has to be “abolition”: stop forever the abuses and exploitation of animals. This is what lights the way in the animal protection struggle. Stopping abuse forever is not as a matter of opinion, a matter of style, or a matter of convenience, but is a matter of rights, a matter of law. We need that flag to know where we are going, to find our way when we get lost, and to “rally” our “troops” towards the right direction. But we often need to “march” on a very uneven terrain with many obstacles, and this may call for the skill and experience of seasoned activists, campaigners and lobbyists, who may need to “read” the grounds to choose the best possible routes. Sometimes we need to walk exhaustingly on uphill mountains, sometimes through painstakingly slow water-locked marshes, sometimes over dangerous quick-sandy pits, sometimes through frustrating impenetrable thickets. In doing so, we may need to stop waving the flag for a moment or two, and perhaps carry it for a while in our backpacks, if we don’t want to lose it and we want to free our hands to help us to overcome the most difficult and challenging obstacles. But we should never abandon it, we should never forget about it, because without the flag, we may become just flaky wanderers aimlessly doodling through life like a balloon that is no longer hold.

The problem is that, so rare are the flat smooth paths in our journey that we spend a lot of time crawling rather than marching, so we do often forget about the flag we needed to wave every now and then. But if we remember it all the time, if we always try to read the abolitionist value of each step we take and each crevice of the terrain we pass by, we will be able to chose the path that carries the most abolitionist value of all, and still find our way without having to wave ceremoniously the flag all the time. The method works, but the devil is in the detail.

How can we measure abolitionist value of an “action”? Well, we need to “project” into the future the long term consequences of the action we are assessing, to see if something that is “bad” (what we are trying to abolish) has then stopped forever—or it’s closer to stop forever— thanks to such action. We may need to “deconstruct” the bad thing into its components and see if the action will stop any of the important ones. We may need to analyse the genesis of the bad thing and see if the action will stop one of its main causes. We may need to identify the “actors” performing the bad thing and see if the action will make them stop doing it. And then we judge: if in all probability we believe, in accordance of what we know about the subject, that the action in question will not stop the bad thing happening, will not substantially reduce its occurrence or frequency, or if it does it only does it temporarily and in a very low degree, then such action has a very small abolitionist value. If, on the contrary, eventually the action will definitively stop the bad thing completely everywhere and forever, then it has a very high abolitionist value. However, unfortunately most actions will fall in between, so a great deal of good judging will be required.

It seems then that we need three things to make such judgement properly: good imagination to be able to project actions into the future and see their likely consequences, deep knowledge about the “bad thing” to be able to understand its causes, constituents and actors, and, most importantly, good understanding of what really means “abolishing” something. The latter seems obvious, but it’s not. Nothing that has been abolished has disappeared completely from the face of the Earth. There are residuals of slavery in the world, as there are residuals of Apartheid in South Africa, or of monarchy in republics, but as long as the activity rarely occurs, it’s rejected by the immense majority of the population for generations, and laws have been passed and enforced which drives it underground, we can say that abolition is being achieved. However, if the activity in question is made illegal but bans remain unenforced and the activity remains mainstream and acceptable by considerable sections of society, then there is much work to do.

Let’s use an example: Bad thing= slavery. Action = lobby for a ban of the trade of slaves. Is the abolitionist value of such action high? Well, let’s project it into the future. If people cannot trade slaves, will slavery end? Well, let’s see what we know about slavery. We know that there are several types of slaves, the ones taken after conquest of foreign land, the ones born from other slaves, and the ones “bought” from slave traders. If we ban the trade we stop the creation of the third group straight away. Is this significant enough? If they represent the most important groups it will be, but one would expect that “captive born” slaves would be the majority. However, if you cannot trade between slave owners, the “stock” of your own captive born slaves will weaken over time, and eventually it will be significantly depleted. Also, if you obtain “new” slaves from a conquest, you will not be able to “sell” them when you come back home, so it may turn out that they become an economic burden to you since they were very expensive to obtain, are more difficult to manage –for being born in their native land, so they are less “tamed”– and they may be less productive –still set in their “old ways”. It does seem that”trading” is the key verb to maintain slavery. Since slavery is an economic practice, “trading” seems more important to its subsistence than “owning” is, which is what defines the “theoretical” concept of slavery (see how “understanding” the “bad thing” may give you a completely different perspective of it?). Therefore, abolishing the trade of slavery will, most probably, reduce considerably the practice of slavery, if not stopping it altogether. Lobbying for a ban (a legal instrument to stop something and punish those that want to continue practicing it) of the slave trade is, then, an action with high abolitionist value.

This was an historical example. But, was it? In no moment I specified that I was talking about human salves. If I had, I could have been talking about the historical case of William Wilberforce MP’s successful campaign to ban the human slave trade in the British Empire, which did play a very significant role in the abolition of slavery –and he was someone that never lost his grip of the abolitionist flag. But I hadn’t. I was thinking in the contemporary zoo world, and the slaving of wild animals for the entertainment, conservation, educational and research industries. Would lobby for a ban of the trade of wild animals have a high abolitionist value regarding the abolition of zoos? It would. Has this ban already been in place anywhere? Not quite. We do have bans of obtaining “fresh” new slaves from the wild, but only if they belong to endangered species. However, zoos are “allowed” to capture specimens of non-endangered species in the wild, trade with them (for profit or not), and actually trade with any captive born wild animal, regardless of the species. Was the banning of the trade of wild-caught endangered species a bad thing, then? No, it wasn’t, because it does have some abolitionist value. It does reduce the frequency and occurrence of captive wild animal “exhibits”, so it does have some value. But banning the trade of any wild-caught animal would have more abolitionist value, and banning the trade of any wild animals even more. All these “actions”, then, have certain abolitionist value, and therefore they are all genuine options to choose in our abolitionist journey. But some have more abolitionist value than others, so, if we can manage –in other words, if it is “practical”, which is not the same than “convenient” – we should always chose those with the most abolitionist value possible.

“Practical”? Is this not one of those caveats that really mean “but we don’t really mean it”? No, it’s not. We should not confuse “practical” with “pragmatism”. The former is just an attribute of something that can possible happen since the logistics required for its happening are in place. The latter is a completely new “flag”. A pragmatist is someone that advocates pragmatism, not someone that is practical. Everyone that “does” things is practical, and any event already done was practical because it happened (the opposite would be theoretical or hypothetical). A pragmatist, on the other hand, is an advocate of a particular way to “resolve” conflicts. A pragmatist chooses always “the middle way” of the conflict, never one extreme. He/she “avoids” the conflict by always choosing the option that will require the minimum effort, and will satisfy most of the parties. A pragmatist is not driven by high morals or principles shining in the horizon. A pragmatist is driven by the nuances and cracks felt through the soles of his/her feet, and simply bends with the wind and roles with the punches. A pragmatist verb of choice is always “compromise”. They don’t push through. They don’t drive across. They adapt, they resign, they allow. Pragmatists don’t usually change the status quo; they normally work for it when revolution knocks.

However, when the animals’ well-being (and their lives) is at stake, there isn’t an acceptable middle way. There shouldn’t be compromise between exploitionists and abolitionists, as there shouldn’t be any between rapists and their victims, or slave owners and their slaves, because this is a situation between abusers and abusees (or their representatives), and this completely changes the paradigm of the rules of engagement in conflict resolution. There is a role for pragmatists in many areas of human enterprise, or even in human conflict when both parties are equal and no abuse takes place of one by the other, but there is no room for “pragmatists” as such in the animalist side of the animal protection debate, although there is plenty for practical and realistic animalists that chose real short term solutions rather than only endless theoretical discussions.

One can be pragmatist because of a weakness of character (or strength if you are looking it from a trader or diplomat point of view), and I suppose that can be corrected with moral guidance and perhaps a change of “profession”. But in abolitionism those that consider themselves advocates of Pragmatism they have gone too far, since they have transferred such relative principled “weakness” into a flag, which may recruit others naively enough to believe that it’s another “just cause” driven flag, as many others. It isn’t, since an advocate of Pragmatism –with capital P – cannot have a moral compass. The wind will tell him/her in which direction to go, in which direction to bend. One day may be in one direction, and the next in the opposite. An advocate of Pragmatism is, in fact, that air loosing balloon we let go –it will move in all directions and eventually will fall dead on the floor.

Some animalist abolitionists never let go of their abolitionist flag and they keep it high even in the middle of a hurricane, even if that makes them advance more slowly and trip more often. That is OK and also admirable. Other abolitionist shift continuously the position of their flag depending on the terrain and on the weather during their journey, and this also OK since they never abandon the flag and simply use the abolitionist value of the terrain to navigate towards the right direction, but it’s also intelligent since they can advance even faster in the right circumstances –if they are skilful enough. Others, however, may have decided to leave the flag behind, and take the “Pragmatism” flag instead. For me, that’s not OK.

So, yes; there are “lines” that I wouldn’t cross. I wouldn’t like to leave the readers of this blog with a parochial Kumbayahn feeling induced by my constant attempts to find reconciliation between apparent opposite animalists’ positions. I do fell that most of us are indeed going in the same journey and it doesn’t matter that much how we decide to go along with it, and how fast we intend to travel; we should tolerate this diversity, and welcome it. But for me, those that consistently go backwards despite warnings or that only go where the wind takes them —and they do that “by choice”— are abandoning the journey, and should no longer be considered part of our travelling party. They may not be fully fletched “explitiationists” yet –who deliberately chose actions with a negative abolitionist value – but they may be getting awfully close to become one of them if they are not careful, since the abolition value of their steps is most of the time close to zero.

I can put some concrete examples on the table since I feel I may have overused a little my favourite abstractions and analogies. One clear case would be an organization or group that, for convenience or to attract more members, changes from advocating veganism to advocate only vegetarianism –and then describes vegan groups as extremist. This for me would be a definitive step backwards; there is very little abolitionist value in this step. However, I wouldn’t include in this those groups that always have advocated vegetarianism, since I consider them as having started the journey a bit late, and at some point in the future they may “mature” enough so they can begin to advocate for veganism as the rest of us. I have personally boycotted the attendance of international animal protection congresses that suddenly changed their “meals policy” from vegan to “vegetarian-with-vegan-options”, while I would gladly attend a meeting of the International Vegetarian Society (not to be confused with the Vegan society) even if they served vegetarian food rather than only vegan, and more now since I was made aware recently that they acquired an all-vegan meal policy a few years back, definitively a step in the right direction.

Another example would be charities with campaigns that seem to aim to solve a particular animal issue, but in reality these are purely marketing driven campaigns aimed to get donations –or names to be added to a database used to ask for donations in the future. If the funds such actions gathered do end up contributing to some actual campaigns that have certain abolitionist value (not just regulatory reforms), that would be acceptable to me, but if they only are used to viciously pay the salaries of the same marketers of the organization in question, then the abolitionist value is close to zero. In the past I have personally resigned my employment from big animal protection organizations I have work with when I felt that the balance between marketing and campaigning had been broken in favour of the former, but I wouldn’t hesitate to work with them again if such balance would be corrected. Even when I worked for such organizations –which had always defined themselves as animal welfare organizations – I only worked on their campaigns that had the biggest abolitionist value among all those they run, and when I did I tried to use the most abolitionist tactics I could devise.

Examples of “animal” actions of negative abolitionist values could be “conservation” campaigns for the regulation of hunting or fishing made by organizations representing hunters/fishermen’s interests in “recovering” the populations of their disappearing quarry, or the culling of individuals of invading wild species to protect the autochthonous ones (the case of the hedgehogs’ cull in the Scottish Western Islands springs to mind).

I am a “reformist abolitionist” but not a “pragmatist”. This means that I never abandon my abolitionist goals, but on occasions (not very often) I use reformist tactics if they have sufficient abolitionist value and I cannot see any more “practical” alternative option (meaning “possible”, not “convenient”). I avoid participating in “reforms” that are just “regulations”. I only participate in reforms that can “change” the practice of the “bad thing” reducing its occurrence and frequency, or increasing the chances that it will be stopped altogether by reducing the number of “actors” or putting more obstacles in their way. And when I do, more than ever I wave the abolitionist flag, so nobody gets confused about my intentions. What I never do it to wave the Pragmatism flag, or hide the abolitionist flag as a pirate who disguises himself under the Navy’s colours to “sneak” in towards his booty. I am practical, but uncompromising. I am realistic, but ethical. I am tactical, but consistent. I welcome everyone that travels in the abolitionist journey no matter how slowly and how late they joined us, but I don’t join those that go consistently backwards or have deliberately abandoned the abolitionist principles when they should know better.

In this beige world, this is how I find my own abolitionist reconciliation.

Jaysee Costa

Divine Abolitionism

Some words are just powerful. Because of the way they look, the way the sound, and because of what they mean. One of them is “revolution”. The strong “r”, to round vowels, the “on” ending. Very few words signify “change of status quo” as this one, and since the status quo is basically the reality of the moment, this word really means changing the world, turn it (or “revolve” it) upside down. Another one is “stop”. Short, sharp, loud. The most imperative of all the words. It drains its power from the “action” that tries to affect. Stopping a rumour may not sound that much, but stopping a meteorite destroying Earth is another story, isn’t it? See what happens when we merge these two words together: “stopution”, “revolstop”, “restoplution” and yes, you guessed it, “abolition”. I know, it doesn’t look at all as if it comes from the merge of these two words, but it does “mean” the merge of their meanings. Stop something forever, so it is not longer part of the world. Like “stop”, it’s an “imperative” verb, although doesn’t have such an “instantaneous” effect. Like “revolution”, it has a “social” taste, the result of the will of the people. This is why I like to be an abolitionist. It makes me feel a bit like a super-hero.

Many people know me for my animal rights abolitionism. I like it. I do my best to remind everyone about it. Because it shows that I’m sensitive and I care for animals, that I have a social and political opinion about how people treat them, that I’m not content with juts complaining about it but I want the world changed, and that I belong to a cultural tradition of social heroes and ethical fighters who, perhaps because of a mix of optimistic audacity and calculating tenacity, they achieved good things which history honours. For me the term “abolitionist” has no connotations of “extremism” whatsoever. Neither has the term “animal rights”, but some people do seem to link it to a more “radical” attitude – which is quite misguided since advocating for the rights of anyone, in any context, is a very considerate and civil thing to do, which is what one would expect the “mainstream” people would like. However, it’s true that the first thing that people think about when they see the word “abolition” is not animal rights, but “slavery”.

Despite the fact the term abolition can be used in any social and political context and against any constituent of the status quo, there is no doubt that the abolition of slavery is the most notorious of all abolitions. Firstly, because it actually happened, since, comparatively speaking, slavery “as we knew it” is practically gone from the world, and definitively gone from most modern societies –although some relics from it remain and some “derivations” of the original concept still lurk in the dark alleyways of our societies. Secondly, because it did revolutionise humanity, changing the socio-economic paradigm by altering the way we relate to those humans we don’t consider “us”. Finally, because it’s one of the few international economically relevant endeavours where the “ethical” good guys prevailed over the “pragmatic” bad guys, despite what some “bitter” historians may told you.

Is really the abolition of slavery a historical “oddity” or a moral “exception”? I’m not so sure. There have been many more types of abolitions that did happen and also were very important in revolutionising the world. Perhaps they are less “talked about”, and some may be less obvious, but I feel equally agreeable with them as I do with the abolition of slavery (regardless the species the slaves belong to).

For instance, the abolition of Monarchy. Compared with the medieval status quo, we can certainly say that the modern world is one where monarchies have been practically abolished –everywhere where they used to flourish anyway. You’ll find that today there are more nations that call themselves republics that kingdoms; and, to be honest, who can argue against being more democratic, having fewer tyrannical rulers, valuing people for what they do and not for the colour of their skin or their blood, and spreading a bit more the wealth and power. That’s why I also subscribe to this type of abolitionism. However, as explained in the first article of this series, we shouldn’t forget that abolitionism is a “process”. We can still see different “degrees” of democracy, despotism, elitism, and power-sharing, definitively more than different degrees of human slavery, anyway. This abolition, as the abolition of animal exploitation, is quite far to be close to its final cross line.

However, the abolition of monarchy is further in its way out that many people may think. For instance, believe it or not, we already abolished monarchy in the United Kingdom –the most archetypical monarchic nation there is. Well, some may see it has been “reformed”, but in fact the monarchy here –because this is where I live– is, for all intent and purposes, practically gone. Sure, we let them keep their houses, their clothes, and their trumpets –it wouldn’t be civilised otherwise– but we took from them all their power. The process of monarchy abolition started with the “Magna Carta” in 1215, and since then we have been peeling away everything that makes monarchy a monarchy, leaving only the harmless bits that have some decorative and sentimental value. We have not finished yet. Not long ago we took from them one of their favourite “field sports” –you know, hunting with dogs– and we are still on the case of their other “blood sports”, and on the case of their outrageous “blood hats”. However, we are not treating them badly. We let them be, and we even put them in our stamps and notes, so they don’t feel too left out. If we approach them, we even bow to them–so not to startle them– and if we need any distraction, we let them run loose –does this ring any wedding bells? Most of the time, though, we make fun of them, or of those that take them too seriously. Yes, we abolished the monarchy here, but kept some of the aristocratic furniture, just “for fun”.

In other countries they still have it; not necessarily the ones most people have in mind. There are many “republics” that still have “uncrowned” kings and queens, and they are taken very seriously indeed. Their fortresses were demolished and their drinks were thrown to the sea, but this doesn’t mean that their power was removed. Their names and appearances changed, as did any superfluous ritual that made them look “too old fashioned”, but they kept their power, their reverence, and their control. Hereditary rules were in theory eliminated, and yet sons keep succeeding their fathers, and ordinal numbers keep being added to their dynastic names. Sceptres and orbs were thrown away, but only to be substituted by red button devices and locked leather suitcases. They no longer pompously travel with golden coaches driven by wigged footmen, but still do with shinny limos driven by sunglassed gunmen. Besides, it is in these countries where you find the most obsessive monarchists of all –as I can testimony directly since I saw them all when they came in mass to London this spring to do their “if wish I was your subject” sighs.

Well, I haven’t been entirely fair, have I? There is the so called “democracy”, the four-year terms limit, the “check and balances” thingy, liberté, égalité, fraternité, and some more important constitutional stuff that I’m sure many people would point out to me. But the analogy kept you going for a while, didn’t it? The thing is that the abolition of human autocracy, as is the abolition of divine autocracy, isn’t really a physical endeavour, but a psychological revelation. When you see that the emperor has no clothes, he’s no longer in charge of you. The abolition of “real” monarchy, real imperialism, can be lead from “within”. Like being vegan, it is something we all can do, in our everyday lives.

When I became British citizen many years ago, as a formality I had to go to Court to give an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign –since I was born overseas, and that was “the law”. However, thanks to living in a “liberated” nation, I had the choice of “Swearing to Almighty God”, or just “Asserting” –to “insignificant man”, I guess. It may surprise you that I chose the swearing. I didn’t do the “Quaker thing” (who traditionally oppose to oaths), I did the “republican atheist thing” –the good kind of republicans, that is– which means not to take it too seriously, and say whatever makes them happy. To make my home really “Home”, I satisfied the legal requirements of my up until then “hosts”, declaring to a false Queen and a false God my “allegiance”. And the good thing is that they all let me do it, and nobody ever asked me whether “I meant it”. No lighting came from the sky to pulverise me for my “irreverence”, nor anybody demanded my head to be “off” because my “sarcastic insubordination”. I gave to those words the importance they deserved, and I treated them as they are, just meaningless old fashion words which nonetheless somehow expressed my profound wish to make Britain my permanent home, and to show my acceptance of the truly liberal British values –at least as a “starting point”. In my mind, abolition had prevailed.

Let’s talk a bit more of the biggest power of all. As Cervantes made Don Quixote say, “Here is the Church we are now facing”. I don’t want to put off all the animal rights supporters that believe they themselves are supported by any deity. If that helps you to be kind to animals and makes you try to help them beyond what any of the books you worship prescribe, I will not take that away from you. But you’ll have to admit that, all things considered, if we put on an end of gigantic scales all those religious people actively involved in animal rights, and on the other all those non-religious doing the same thing, the former would be very much “up there”, with their legs hanging about. And this is not because the believers are less sympathetic to animals than the non-believers, or are happier with the current situation. It’s just because too many religions preach the “we are better than the others” mantra, the “do not eat these animals but please do eat many of those” creed, and, especially, “humans are the best!” chant.

True, some religions do preach vegetarianism, but that is not enough, is it? I remember in one occasion when, while working on an abolitionist campaign in an overseas city, I was put up by religious devotees in a temple where only vegetarian food was served. I thought that it would be very easy for me to eat vegan there, but I was mistaken. Milk and butter was added to all their food, and my request for having a vegan version of it was actually dismissed. I was their guest, and they had “their ways”; their “immutable” ways –the trademark of religious doctrine.

However, it must be said that I have met religious followers that are very active in their fight for animal rights. It seems that their faith has not interfered with their ethics, and they are as upset about the support that some religions give to animal abuse as I am. They tend to be the minority among their peers, though. Even if they can dig out from their scriptures passages that support animal protection and stewardship, more often than not their faith colleagues tend to ignore them. Don’t think that I am talking only about Christianity –with their ignored Assisi fellow – but Islam and Judaism also had their ignored animal rights defenders (have a read of the 10^th century truly animal rights book “The Animals’ Lawsuit Against Humanity”, which is “written first in Arabic by Muslims, then translated into Hebrew by a Jew at the request of a medieval Christian King, and recently translated into English and adapted by two Jews and a Christian, and illustrated by a Muslim lady from Pakistan in the employ of a Saudi princess”). What about the vegetarian Indus and their sacred cows, you may say? Well, why not vegan instead, and why only cows then. What about the Buddhist and their reincarnation, you may say? Well, claiming that if you do bad things you will be reincarnated into a “lesser” animal is not a very good argument against “speciesm”, is it? What about the Quakers and their role in the abolition of slavery, you may say? Ok, if you insist I’ll give you the Quakers, but you can’t deny they are the least religious-looking religious group there is –they even seem to accept atheists in!

I confess that when I recently saw an American animal protection campaign –or I think it was – that showed atheists offering looking after the pets of fundamentalist Christians after the “rapture” (when they are supposed to be taken from this world straight to Haven around the time of the Judgement Days, any day from now), it made me smile. However, I very much hoped for a “reply” from the Christians saying that they would take their animals with them to Haven, because they deserved it too. It never came –o at least it never reached me. So, I don’t feel that expressing unmistakably that an absolute abolition of all religions of the world would make me happy, would deprive me of the popularity and respect from the people I would like to be more popular with –the good people that wouldn’t need religion to continue doing “good”.

I am an atheist, I can’t help it. And if I could, I hope I would still remain one, since for me atheism is not the lack of a particular belief, but it’s also the desire that everyone else would also abandon their religious faith, because most of us atheists, contrary to most agnostics, do feel that the world would be a better place if common sense and logic would be taken far more seriously than common books and faith. I am an abolitionist atheist that wants to abolish animal exploitation and religious tyranny, and who is very lucky to live in a country where I’m not being persecuted because of such opinion, not even given a disproving look –and here is a toast to the multicultural secular liberal Britain.

Abolitionism is powerful, because it allows challenging the most powerful of all; the most powerful men and women, and the most powerfully gods and goddesses. An abolitionist works to un-throne those Lords and Masters that abuse others because they feel they are intrinsically superior to them. Those that feel untouchable because they belong to a class, a gender, a race, a species or to another “spiritual plain”, where there is no room for anybody else, and they can slave others as they wish. Abolitionism gives us the optimist power that can make us help the most abused and needed creatures of this world, and still feel that, even if it is going to take a very long time, even if we have to do it, reluctantly, step by step, in the end we are going to make the world much better.

Divine power must be abolished, for goodness sake.

Jaysee Costa