ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ADDRESSING STUDENT POVERTY THROUGH VEGANISM
David Cantor Speaks to the Abolitionist-Online. By Claudette Vaughan

David Cantor is the man and energy behind the organisation, Responsible Policies for Animals (RPA). One of the goals of RPA is, in his own words, “Thousands of years of agriculture and civilization without responsible policies for animals ensure that eliminating animal exploitation and abuse requires long-term organized efforts. RPA wishes to see the U.S. lead the world in placing animal exploitation and abuse on the course of ultimate extinction.”

From their website: The term "animal rights" refers to …

… the concept of basic rights, species-appropriate secondary rights, and rights enforcement applied to all sentient beings (animals who experience their lives and can feel pain, pleasure, hunger, and more) rather than only to human beings as at present;

… political proposals demanding those rights and rights enforcement for all sentient beings;

… organized efforts to establish those rights and rights enforcement in law; and … writings and activities aimed at establishing those rights and rights enforcement in law.

They are succeeding in areas such as educating leaders and “ With no paid staff, low overhead, and frugal, non-sensational methods, RPA has made progress without making fundraising a top priority.” TheIr website can be found at: www.rpaforall.org

Abolitionist: What are some of the direct political campaigns that RPA, Inc. has been working on?

David Cantor: The main one is Responsible Policies for Animals’ 10,000 Years Is Enough campaign to end service to the flesh, milk, egg & feed-crop industries by U.S. colleges of agriculture at the land-grant universities. See www.RPAforAll.org for details.

These 106 universities, many of them very large, prestigious, and influential, not only use taxpayer, tuition, and alumni dollars to provide training and research for the flesh, milk, egg & feed-crop industries; they fail to teach with needed emphasis up-to-date knowledge of human nutrition, health, evolution, and ecology. They teach that nonhuman animals not only do not but cannot have basic rights. At the same time, they claim to teach “humane” treatment of animals – an impossibility without animal rights.

Another is the organisation’s This Land Is Their Land campaign, aimed at protecting free-living animals through land-use and property reform. Since over-farming the land to provide feed crops to the flesh, milk & egg industries is one of the worst land-use problems, this campaign intersects with 10,000 Years Is Enough.

In accordance with strategies we believe are most likely to lead to animal rights and with the organization’s tax-exempt designation, RPA does not involve itself in legislative or electoral politics. Those kinds of politics naturally only produce adjustments to the animal-welfare system since they are based on the U.S. Constitution, which neither mentions nonhuman animals’ well-being nor provides them with any basic rights that could limit human-supremacist practices. We do not exclude officials from our activities, but we educate them without promoting legislation or endorsing candidates.

Trying to get animal advocates to understand the importance of eliminating “animal science” – it is very difficult because so many good people who want animals to have rights nevertheless find true rights campaigning uninspiring because it doesn’t emphasize saving animals who are suffering today – I’ve recently published in two of the largest-circulation U.S. vegetarian publications a letter and an article calling for “political vegetarianism.” Health and ethical vegetarianism, the two categories spoken of for many years, don’t seem adequate to me for the purpose of changing institutions as necessary for animal rights. Merely eating healthful foods or foods consistent with one’s ethical principles doesn’t have much potential to change institutions fundamentally. Introduce “vegan options?” Sure. But that just reinforces popular notions that “freedom to choose” is what is important, not ethics, certainly not justice.

Abolitionist: Eggs, Dairy, Animal Flesh and Grease: Tell us why not David?

David Cantor: The fundamental ethical reason is that nonhuman animals are sentient – like human beings, they experience lives of their own with the basic array of feeling. No species evolved to be imprisoned, enslaved, exploited, and bred by another. Additional ethical reasons beyond the animals themselves include ecological and human-health factors.

Raising animals for food was never done because it was humane; it began systematically about 10,000 years ago and continued and spread because it appeared to benefit humans and humans only. The more successful it became, the more destruction it wrought for humans and the more suffering it inflicted on nonhuman animals, until today it continues because of the massive conspiracy of silence surrounding it due to the industries’ power & influence, public & official ignorance, and its resulting popularity.

Abolitionist: Veganism as abolitionist animal rights direct action: Can you talk about that please, David?

David Cantor: Yes. I find it necessary to distinguish among those things. I see animal rights as potentially leading to abolition of animal exploitation, not abolitionism as leading to animal rights. I see vegan living among animal-rights advocates as important because it is consistent with how animal rights will eventually require all people to live; for showing how easy, enjoyable, and healthful it is to live as human beings should live; and for minimizing our impact as individual human beings on nonhuman animals, ecosystems, and the biosphere.

Veganism won’t in itself lead to animal rights, even if promoted so successfully that no human any longer consumes or uses anything from animals or uses anything tested on animals. Prohibiting human cannibalism, regulating disposal of human corpses, and punishing people for murder, assault, rape, theft, and other violence did not in itself establish basic legal rights for all human beings including equal treatment under the law.

Rights are specific legal constructs in and of themselves and must come to exist for nonhuman animals as they do for humans. A key reason rights will have to precede abolition of animal exploitation is that rights are so empowering and liberating and humans currently have legal rights to own and exploit nonhuman animals and to use other property, land, water, and air as if nonhuman animals were not worthy of consideration.

That is why putting abolition before rights has not worked: Law enforcement and courts base what they do on human supremacy and other ideas the animal-rights movement has proven wrong but to no avail because those ideas persist and perpetuate destructive practices. And backlash is strong when popular industries communicate that “fringe” groups want to limit their freedom of choice or care more about animals than about people who exploit animals for a living and would supposedly go broke if animals had rights. Promoting abolition as a means to rights – rather than as a result of rights – is like blowing out a fire while embers remain lit – the embers keep reigniting the fire.

Abolitionist: Your campaign 10,000 Years Is Enough aims to end animal agribusiness in universities. Since college years are a time of change for many students, how does one get autonomous worker-run vegan food co-ops on campus to empower new vegans?

David Cantor: I wish I had an easy, practical answer to that, because it is a wonderful idea. I don’t know, for the short term, other than to follow whatever procedures are involved in starting any activity on any campus. In the U.S., co-ops of any kind, not just food, are the rare exception. For the long term, the answer is that all food will be vegan after nonhuman animals obtain rights and their rights are enforced.

It is important to recognize, in the interim, that students, like other people in democratic republics, have the power already to eat what they wish to and not to eat what they wish not to eat. For the most part, vegan food is less costly, easier to store and prepare, and otherwise more convenient than flesh, milk & eggs, so incentives definitely exist. As with many other aspects of life, human sociability – the tendency to do as others do – perpetuates unfortunate food choices more than a lack of power over one’s own choices, I think. It takes a strong impulse or concern to “go outside of the box.”

Part of rights’ special power is to make certain practices off limits because they violate others’ boundaries. Your rights end where my nose begins. Our rights someday will end where animals’ noses, wings, tails begin. When enforced and part of the culture, rights can be even more powerful than sociability. Both justice and sociability are rooted in original human biology, I believe. When exercised in their natural balance, they provide for everyone’s well being. Out of balance, as in modern mass societies with huge public-relations machines that manufacture false notions of what “everybody” is doing, sociability is used to promote injustice for the profit of the few at the expense of the many.

Abolitionist: One-pot vegetable, rice & legume dishes seem tailor-made for students. Nutritious, inexpensive vegan food also addresses student poverty at school. Do you think support groups are a good idea on campus?

David Cantor: Yes. That powerful sociability factor that I mentioned acts as an unrecognized moral-support system for the wrong behavior with regard to nonhuman animals, constantly generating inhumane and unwise food choices. So I would think support groups that reinforce the truth about nonhuman animals and veganism could help people stand up for what is best and against false notions of what “everyone” eats.

Those one-pot vegan meals are favored by economics, as you point out, and also by much else that is known about nutrition, health, food production, ecology – and of course the need to treat nonhuman animals humanely, which is not possible as long as they are captive and enslaved. Other vegan food preparation is very simple, too, though, and I think focusing on top priorities makes it easier for more people to adopt sound habits. The more people are asked to concern themselves with less-crucial details, the more a groups can start to seem like a cult or someone’s arbitrary exercise of authority over others.

Animal rights will solve all of that, anyway, since there will no longer be flesh, milk, egg & honey options – all of the options will be among plant foods.

Abolitionist: Vegans believe in good food – whole, fresh, unprocessed. What are your views on vegan junk foods?

David Cantor: Of course, vegan and other junk foods are extremely uneconomical in terms of nutrition, so just in financial terms, they’re not wise choices. I indulge somewhat, though. I don’t see promoting animal rights as being the same as promoting myself as pure or as making only the best choices at all times.

With animal rights still on no public agenda – possibly it is somewhere, but not in the U.S., whose positions on rights are very influential (witness the outcry and revenge from its terrible lapses) – I don’t find myself emphasizing less-directly-related matters such as processed or junk foods. All things being interconnected, though, junk food is not irrelevant. But it can be hard to define. I see vegan hot dogs and burgers as junk food, but they’re hugely popular among people promoting an end to meat eating. A case can be made that animals’ flesh, milk & eggs marketed to humans is junk food – and it certainly is processed plant crops!

The fact that something treated as food can be called “junk” hints at one of the most powerful and destructive impacts on nonhuman animals: the amount of manufacturing, including harmful or frivolous products, involved in sustaining an out-of-control human population of 6.5 billion and counting. With people in most-populous China, second-most-populous India, and other formerly non-affluent countries rapidly increasing their affluence (the flow of Earth’s wealth to them), impacts from manufacturing are rapidly increasing.

None of that is to say poor people should remain poor. Just the opposite: I think one of the big benefits of animal rights will be recognition of the rights of human beings to live according to our physical needs as animals, whereas today, to the extent such rights are recognized – as in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights – they are not enforced by governments. 800 million people lack enough food, huge numbers struggle to get by on a liter or two of fresh water per day for all needs, and more.

Animal rights is very far off. I think of it as the root solution to the root problems underlying those I’ve been discussing. Refining and burning oil pollutes the animals’ ecosystems, traipsing across sea and sky in giant vessels disrupts the animals’ lives, and so on. So I think keeping our eye on the ball (to use an expression from a game whose ball is covered with part of an animal’s skin) – the ball being animal rights even more than it is veganism or abolitionism (those being intended results of animal rights, not likely means to it) – is the best way to resolve the more peripheral matters.

Abolitionist: Veganism is the most accessible option for most people regardless of allergies, religious or dietary restrictions, or ethical concerns. Many students, however, would see it as a very large step to take. What would your advice be to them, David?

David Cantor: You’re young and at your peak of physical health. Adopt a knowledge-based way of life applying polite skepticism to every widespread human practice. Avoid electronic media to avoid “sociability creep,” that subconscious feeling that you’ve got to get with a fictitious “mainstream.” Make your motto “I don’t buy anything,” giving all forms of consumption low priority in your daily thoughts. Engage reality, and pursue the truth. Enjoy periods of solitude without feeling lonely – you are your own best company more than you might think. Trust your mind, and don’t rebuke yourself when others put you down or disagree with you. Groupthink is a rotten substitute for pursuit of the truth, and most common wisdom is much more common than wise. Most is social fiction dressed up as “scientifically proven.”

From that standpoint, it is easy to see that the close scrutiny and fine distinctions the “mainstream” insists on applying to veganism was never applied to standard Western animal-exploiting diets. Those diets were not adopted based on knowledge of nutrition, let alone on humane treatment of animals or knowledge of ecology. They were not adopted when 6.5 billion humans roamed Earth looking for the next bottle to smash on concrete, the next mouthwash to spew into the rivers & oceans, or the next pesticide to dump in the soil.

So, read The China Study. Eat fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains for nearly all of your needed calories. There won’t be room for much else. Don’t worry about achieving perfect health & well-being – there’s no such thing; all living bodies are by definition on the road to death; you just want to suffer as little as possible, inflict as little suffering as possible on others, live as creative & morally rewarding a life as possible, and minimize your negative impact on others by avoiding products of animal exploitation and of ecological destruction.

Abolitionist: How does one go vegan and stay vegan?

David Cantor: Perhaps if I’d ever looked back or reconsidered after becoming vegan in 1989, I would know why difficulty might be experienced. I would say just follow the tips under #6 above, keep your sense of humor, let people’s negative reactions roll off like water, and treat others with generosity: Questioned by a skeptic or ridiculed by an ignoramus, don’t accuse or embarrass; be the friend they need and make learning the truth as easy as possible. Remember: They’re victims of wrong thoughts, groupthink, the global public-relations and industry-government-media complexes. Remember that, with universities still serving the flesh (including fish), milk, egg & feed-crop industries, powerful lessons in the wrong direction are still raining down upon the vast majority of people. At rock bottom, food choices are easy: Just put in your mouth what you want coursing through every organ, system, and cell of your body, and keep out of your mouth what you don’t want.

Abolitionist: McLibel has really changed the way thousands of people view their food. How can our movement keep that kind of momentum against multinational food companies going?

David Cantor: I think one way is to keep the focus on animal rights: When nonhuman animals have basic rights, specific secondary legal rights are built upon those, and those rights are enforced, fresh locally grown organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, and grains will be easier to obtain. People will learn more about food, nutrition, health, and ecology because countless billions of dollars will not be at stake in suppressing knowledge – flesh, milk, egg & feed-crop industries will be irrelevant because they will exist no longer (violating animal rights by definition). To the extent that multinational food companies might continue to exist, they will have to respect animal rights and thereby provide what people need rather than generate factory foods to meet artificially created demand based on misguided desires.

To the extent such companies may no longer exist, it will probably be because they failed to make these necessary adjustments. I.e., the problem is the lack of animal rights – including humans’ rights as animals – not multinational companies themselves, though those companies vested interests are incentives for those companies to operate as obstacles to animal rights.

Abolitionist: The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have had detrimental impacts on much of the world’s agriculture. Can this be incorporated into vegan education for students as well?

David Cantor: I don’t claim to be an expert in finance or on those institutions, but my understanding is that, rather than promote appropriate technologies on the scales of individual human beings and their communities, they have mostly promoted large-scale projects that benefit large investors – often to the detriment of the purported beneficiaries and their descendents. One of the most notorious examples is the Aswan Dam. But there are many.

Again, though, I think as long as the focus is on animal rights – including human beings’ rights as animals, i.e., to live according to our nature, to have access to fresh, healthful, nontoxic foods, fresh water, and some other basic needs that are less related to food – as with the international-corporation situation mentioned above, those institutions will have to fall into line. Rights are a very recent concept in human existence. Most people don’t yet understand them despite the universal need for them. Even fewer people understand animal rights than understand even the basics of human rights.

That makes it easy for certain people and institutions to deny and violate rights. And for tyrants and their sycophants to put property rights above all else and have their way regardless of the common good. Corporations, industries, and some other entities are organized and well financed; the general public is not – let alone nonhuman animals, who have no voice at all in the human arena. At this time, it remains difficult for most people to see benefit to themselves in animal rights. So it is easy to look for other objectives or targets. It is easy to look for enemies outside of ourselves to blame, because it is hard to see how we can bring about such enormous and radical change as animal rights against such odds.

I don’t see any other way, though. Until people embrace animal rights, the human plight will continue worsening along with that of nonhumans.

Abolitionist: Animal rights is a major catalyst motivating people towards vegan lifestyle changes. Isn’t this the highest calling of them all, David? Please give us, in your own words, your interpretation of the word “speciesism.”

David Cantor: It would be terribly ironic and tragic if, in the course of benefiting from vegan living on the individual personal level, we humans failed to establish rights for nonhuman animals. They can’t come from veganism alone. The flesh, milk, egg & feed-crop industries would continue to grow while veganism also did – due to continued growth of the human population.

Speciesism is unequal treatment based on species – as ageism is unequal treatment based on age, sexism based on sex, racism based on race, and so on. My being vegan doesn’t give animals any rights and doesn’t in itself mean I am not speciesist – only a few animal species are directly affected by what I do and do not eat and wear.

The flattered self, addressed millions of times by mass media and powerful people and corporations with media access, is accustomed to think everything it does is of the highest order. I really don’t know. The high-ness of a calling traditionally refers to closeness to a God imagined as being “up there” in heaven. I don’t base my work on belief in any divine or supernatural power or worship of any established religion. I believe animal rights is a moral, spiritual, and practical necessity, so I see my work as being like what we call a sanitation engineer – a refuse collector. Someone has to do it; it might as well be me.