A BETTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS (2011)
by Armen Abalian

You may repost and redistribute this book freely, either in part or as a whole, as long as you cite it properly (author: A. Abalian, published by: effanow.com, year: 2011).

1: An introduction of sorts

     Several years ago, when we were just about to start EFFA, we heard a lot of opinions as to why this wasn't a good idea. One of the ones that we heard most often was that there were already many organizations out there that were very similar to EFFA which were fighting for animal rights. Our reply to this was (and is) that, first, we weren't trying to be "original" - we just wanted to let people know about our ideas and beliefs, ones that we feel reflect the truth about our relationship with the other members of the animal kingdom, and to start an organization based on these ideas - one that would promote both the better treatment of animals and vegetarianism. The initial role that we had set out for EFFA was to introduce people to our beliefs, and this is still one of the main objectives. We also didn't mind if what we were saying was something people had already heard from other sources. The way we see it, the more sources you hear the truth from, the better.
     One of our primary beliefs is the current way we interact with much of the animal world is both morally and ethically wrong. A lot of times, the root of the problem lies in the misguided belief that other animals are here to serve us, and that we have the right to do whatever we want to them because of our superior intelligence. People justify the worst types of cruelty imaginable because they believe that the creature they are mistreating either doesn't feel pain and suffering like we do, or somehow deserves to feel this because it is not human. We believe that the reason behind this way of thinking is ignorance. The roots of this ignorance lie in our receiving the wrong information both from our families growing up, and, on a larger scale, from the society in which we live.
     Another one of our primary beliefs is that animal suffering and the killing of animals creates a lot of negativity, which subsequently results in negative consequences for the world we live in. This idea is based on the concept of "what goes around comes around". Most people believe that there are consequences for certain actions, consequences based on deviating from a certain standard of morality. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is the concept of karma, which is similar to the Biblical "you will reap what you sow" concept, but applies to a wider range of actions. While most religions/belief systems will agree with us that torturing or abusing an animal is wrong, not all include the eating of animals in their "do not do" list. In fact, many of the world's main religions see absolutely nothing wrong with eating meat, or only ban certain types. This is where EFFA differs from the other belief systems. We consider meat to be the by-product of animal suffering and the needless killing of animals, and, as such, we feel it should be avoided. Apart from believing that, from an ethical point of view, it is simply wrong to take the life of another living being, we promote vegetarianism because of our belief in the above-mentioned idea of cause and effect. The suffering that an animal feels when it is confined, and the negativity created when it is killed have very negative consequences for the world we live in. Vegetarianism is a healthy and positive alternative to the death-machine. We believe that some of the negative things happening in the world today are indirectly (and sometimes directly) caused by our mass killing of animals, and by becoming vegetarian, we can, little by little, help turn the tide.
     Another one of our primary beliefs is something we call the Animal Compassion Mindframe. To put it simply, this is the state of mind that some individuals reach where they begin to feel a deep-seated compassion for the animals who are suffering around them - in other words, when they become more "in tune" with animal suffering. We believe it to be an enlightenment of sorts, an awakening to the suffering of animals around you, an awakening which often brings with it the desire to help these animals in any way you can. It is the point at which one is fully conscious of the way things are in relation to our relationship with other animals. You can say that the ACM is what guided us to start EFFA. We sometimes get asked if having the ACM and "loving animals" are the same thing. The ACM goes beyond love. It is not as sharp a feeling, but it is much deeper. It is important to remember that anyone who has fully connected to his/her ACM should be able to realize that eating animals is wrong, and will not want to do this any longer. Anyone who claims to love animals, but still eats meat, still hasn't realized the full potential of the ACM. Equally important is to do whatever one can to awaken the ACM in the people around you. Education plays an important part in this process, as well as changing laws and policies to make it easier for all of us to live more harmoniously with other members of the animal world.
     Having said all that, we would like to bring up what may be our most important belief: that every step in the right direction is a good step. Yes, we would like to see a world where everyone is a vegetarian, where animals are not mistreated, abused, abandoned or used for our amusement. While we believe that it is indeed possible to create such a world, one should realize that the process is a gradual one. Every step that we take towards a more humane, compassionate interaction with other animals should be applauded. We should encourage people who mean well, even if they haven't quite attained the all-encompassing compassion of the ACM (described above). If someone eats meat three times a week, and then, after being exposed to our ideas, begins to eat meat only once a week, we consider this progress. In situations such as this it is vital that we let people know that the step they have taken is a positive one. We should not trivialize their decision or point out its inadequacies. Of course, it's always important to let people know what the ultimate goal should be (which is why we wrote this book), but positive reinforcement is crucial in order to help someone continue growing his/her compassion.
     This chapter is only meant to be a brief introduction to some of our core beliefs. This book will acquaint you with some more of our ideas, as well as go into more detail about the points above. Hopefully you'll relate to some of these ideas and will help us build a better world in which humans and other animals coexist peacefully.

2: Breaking free from selfishness

     Life is full of hard decisions - decisions about work, about relationships, about school, etc. Most people will want to live their lives without hurting others, without making other people suffer. We at EFFA would like to remind you to include animals in that equation. Generally, in life, we are told to "think about ourselves", to "focus on ourselves", to "look out for number one". We believe that concentrating too much on ourselves goes against one of the main goals of life - to interact with other living beings in a positive way. We're here to help each other, not just ourselves. It's funny how many people waste so much time, energy, and money on trying to make themselves happy, where the secret to happiness is really not being too attached to that "self" in the first place.
     With the way much of the world is structured, it's hard to see beyond our own needs or the needs of our immediate family. Still, even with the smallest sacrifice, we can make a difference. Many people, for instance, like to go out on the weekend. There is nothing wrong with having fun and spending money on yourself. If, however, we were to sacrifice our own enjoyment for just one night, and donate the money we would normally spend on going out to an animal shelter, that money could be used to feed several homeless dogs and cats for a whole week. We're not talking about donating a huge chunk of your earnings. If more people starting sacrificing even a small percentage of their disposable income on helping those in need, the organizations which deal with helping them would be in much better shape. For this to happen, though, we have to become conscious of the importance of not only focusing on ourselves, and to become involved in improving the lives of other living beings.
     Time, like money, is something we don't like to part with. In fact, most of us are much happier wasting time and complaining about how unfair life is than actively trying to make things better. This too is a product of a selfish attitude, since we are so focused on ourselves and our own predicament, we ignore the predicament of other beings around us. "Why should I worry about others' problems when I have my own?", we think. The answer is fairly simple: Helping others means helping yourself. The sheer act of reaching out to help, of attempting to alleviate the suffering of other living beings, especially those who rely on us because they are unable to help themselves, has led many people to feel fulfilled. This type of helping has given purpose to many a life that seemed "lost" when only focusing on its own problems. Life can be very beautiful if you know that you are making a difference.
     The world is like an exercise of sorts - an exercise in teamwork. While some of us have realized how important it is to stop thinking of ourselves in a selfish manner, and to do our best to help those around us, most people still don't include our interaction with animals in this equation. We're saying that building a healthy relationship between us and other animals is as important as helping other people. Animals are innocent beings. We believe that helping innocent beings is the highest level of good that one can do. This is why we encourage everyone to do something to help animals on a daily basis. Any step you take is a good one. Whether you adopt a pet, volunteer in a no-kill animal shelter, work to change legislation to change how animals are mistreated in your area, stop eating meat or at least cut down on meat - all of these are positive steps in the right direction. When we take steps to improve the world around us, we will, slowly but surely, create a slightly better world to live in, thereby making our own lives more pleasurable.

3: How we treat animals is a test

     We believe that life is full of moral choices. Whatever your religion, you've probably been exposed to stories of people being tempted by something that, although appealing on some level, was bad for them. Most religions adhere to this type of thinking and tell you that in cases such as this, you should not be blinded by your desires, but should think a bit before you act. You should think of the consequences. This is exactly how we think about our treatment of animals and eating meat - that's it's a test of our ethics, and we should rise to the occasion and make the right choice instead of failing. This is another reason we started EFFA - to help people make these right choices.
     We believe that the nature of our interaction with the rest of the animal world partly determines how we are perceived (and subsequently rewarded) by God, karma, spirits, or just the general ethical code by which society functions. The reason we lumped all of these different entities in one sentence is that we don't think you have to believe in God to believe what we believe. You can view it as a karmic test. You can relate it to any other belief system you might have. But whatever you might believe (or, in the case of atheists, not believe), we think that it would be beneficial to incorporate this way of thinking into your life.
     Here's how the "test" is described in our Statement of Beliefs: "How we treat other animals is a test of how civilized and compassionate we can be. It is a test of our ethics. When we cause them harm, or kill them, whether it be for sport, food, or anything else, we fail the test."
     Again, this is based on the belief that we are all capable of both positive and negative actions. Sometimes it's pretty easy to do the right thing, while other times, you need someone to guide you. We at EFFA hope to guide you to the realization that respecting animals, treating them well, and not eating them is the right thing to do in life. It is the right answer on the test. Many people tend to downplay our interaction with the animal world, or mistakenly believe that animals are here to "serve" us, either in terms of providing amusement for us, or, most often, for our dietary benefit. These beliefs, although very common, are products of a less enlightened mind, which come out of an unenlightened society which instills these ideas in our heads. By accepting the above mentioned ideas as "facts", we fail the test, as these ideas inevitably lead us to use and abuse animals for our benefit, which is exactly what we should not do.
     Most of the time, we have a choice. Not every choice in life is an easy choice. Most meat eaters enjoy the taste of meat. This has been reinforced by the fact that they've eaten meat all their lives. In fact, they love the taste so much, they don't think they can live without it. Talk to smokers, junkies, and other addicts, and this is exactly what you'll hear as well - that they just can't imagine life without their addiction. This is where the test belief comes in. Not everything that is "pleasurable" for you is good for the world. Sure, the meat you eat might taste good, but what is the real ethical cost of eating it? How ethical is it to have had animals suffer and die to give us this fleeting "pleasure"? It is extremely selfish to know this, and to continue accepting it, especially now when there are more and more healthy alternatives to eating meat. This selfishness is a quick path to failing the test, and thereby paying the consequences. That's not the way we're conditioned to think, but that is the truth. That's the way it is in life - sometimes you think you're doing the right thing, but, in reality, you're causing a lot of harm to the world around you. Like we said, we don't want you to fail this test. We would love for you to be a positive force in the world, one that doesn't add to the pain and suffering that's all around us. A meat-free diet, no matter what you've been told, is a perfectly valid, perfectly healthy alternative. It is not hard to choose a compassionate life, and hopefully after reading this book you will make some life changes that will set you on your path.
     Abusing, abandoning, and neglecting animals, often as a result of the misinformed, uncompassionate "it's just an animal" way of thinking, is another quick way to fail the test. An animal should not be treated as your inferior. In the grand scheme of things, whenever you treat another animal badly, you are shooting yourself in the leg and contributing to the sad state of the world around you. As soon as you treat an animal as your inferior, you, in effect, become its inferior. We're here to remind you that you have been given the gift of compassion as a beacon in this world that's full of darkness. Use it and let it grow inside you to benefit all beings around you, both humans and other animals.

4: Freedom of choice and its limitations

     We believe that the ability to make decisions is one of the most important abilities we possess. Unlike other animals, we have the ability to analyze a situation, and to decide which of two paths to take. When a lion is hungry, he doesn't think before killing a gazelle. Most animals don't. They go on instinct. This ability to choose is what sets us apart from most other animals, and it serves a very important purpose. We use this ability to make everyday decisions, some of which are easy, while others aren't. We also use this ability to make important choices on a moral/ethical level, choosing a path that we believe to be "right" for us, while discarding certain activities that we perceive as undesirable, amoral, etc. While most of us choose a path that minimizes the harm we do to other people, we often don't really care too much about the harm that we do (or others do in our name) to the other animals around us. We at EFFA believe that we should always use our power of choice to choose a life in which we lessen the suffering and death of other living beings, whether they are humans or other animals. Ethically speaking, this is the correct path to follow, though, because of conditioning, ignorance, etc, we are often unaware of this.
     The world is full of many different opinions, different tastes, and different ways of living. We at EFFA feel that, for the most part, one can do whatever one wants in life. There are many paths and many belief systems. We do, however, feel that there should be a moral debate regarding choices that propagate the murder of other living beings, and eating meat does just that. The meat industry causes millions of living, breathing beings to suffer and die en masse daily, and we feel that it would be irresponsible of us to pretend that this is acceptable. In fact, we believe that every ethical person on the planet should always speak up against violence, murder, and cruel treatment of any living being, human or otherwise. Some would deem this approach "extreme" or "abnormal", but, in reality, it is simply higher on the evolutionary scale than what we see in the world today.
     Some people ask us why we don't just accept the fact that some people eat meat while others do not. Why not just let the meat-eaters do their thing while we do our thing? Everyone's free to choose, right? On one level, yes, it is a personal choice. However, when a personal choice involves violence against other living beings, it stop being completely "personal". Imagine that you're walking along a street in a city somewhere and you see someone standing on top of a 20 story building, holding a baby, and getting ready to jump off. What do you do? Theoretically it is the person's choice to end their life. Does this mean you just stand there and watch? Most people would not. Most people would try to stop the person from jumping off the roof - to say something, anything that would stop the person from jumping, to call for help. This is how we feel about both animal cruelty and, by extension, eating meat. We believe that many of us, morally speaking, are jumping off that roof daily. This is why it's important for us to educate people about alternative ways of living which would lead to a more harmonious coexistence with other animals.
     EFFA believes in a systematic, non-violent change, through education, and, whenever possible, through new or existing political processes. We also believe that all informed individuals should not be afraid to speak up on the rights of animals. Once you've crossed over into the realm of compassionate individuals who do not eat meat, it's important to show people that life without meat is a good life, one that they should consider living. What we recommend is that people who are vegetarians and vegans let other people know that one can live a perfectly happy, healthy life without meat. This is very important. Some vegetarians shy away from this, but we really do have to fight to do everything we can, in the most respectable way possible, to raise awareness about the benefits of a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, and to dispel people's misconceptions about this. If we don't spread the word, who will? EFFA has always been about action, about speaking and acting out in a positive, respectful way to affect change. You have to remember that people are often afraid of vegetarianism. They have been brainwashed to think they'll get sick, or that it's abnormal, or that they'll look pale, or a variety of other myths. The more people are exposed to vegetarians/vegans who lead perfectly normal, healthy lives, they less they'll believe in the above mentioned myths, and the greater their chances of crossing over into a more compassionate lifestyle.
     Another thing to remember is that many people don't like their choices questioned, and most people tend to get pretty upset when someone's in their face, telling them what to do. That's why walking the fine line between trying to affect change and being "preachy" is a tricky thing, and requires the use of common sense. You can't expect to walk into a room full of hunters and lecture them on the rights of deer. You have to know how to choose your battles carefully, in an intelligent way, so that what you're saying doesn't end up backfiring.

5. How to connect to the Animal Compassion Mindframe

     In our introduction, we outlined the basics of the Animal Compassion Mindframe, the state of mind when one begins to feel real compassion for animals. What may start off as bits and pieces of sympathy here and there can eventually lead to the deep compassion for all living creatures, and the desire to help them in any way we can. We believe that this should be everyone's goal, as it guarantees a more harmonious co-existence on this planet.
     But how does one get to the Animal Compassion Mindframe? How does one begin to feel this deep emotional attachment to the suffering of other living beings, when (as is the case with many people), one hardly feels any compassion at all? Although it's not easy to suddenly become compassionate towards creatures that you felt no compassion for before, there are a couple of things you could do in order to give yourself a chance at getting to this higher level of consciousness.
     First, think about the suffering that animals have to endure every day. Really think about it. Think about the fear, confusion, and suffering that millions of animals all around the world are subjected to daily. Sometimes it helps to visualize this suffering by exposing yourself to videos online that depict the suffering of animals. There is a lot of injustice out there - a lot of times animals are treated in ways that range from unfair to downright barbaric. If the videos that you watch make you feel sorry for the animals depicted therein, or they cause a "this is just wrong" reaction in you, you're on your way to tapping into a higher state of consciousness.
     Second, help animals any way you can. Whenever you take in a stray dog or cat, buy a bag of food for a pet rescue center, or donate your time to an animal rights/welfare-related charity, you are helping animals to survive. This is a very positive thing to do. Thinking about the good that you are doing will, in many cases, make you feel better. If you get involved directly, you will most likely feel some empathy and compassion for the poor animals that need your help. Afterwards, the fulfillment that comes with seeing how the suffering and sadness is minimized when someone cares enough to make a difference can help grow your bond with other animals as well. Think about how the things that you are doing are making the animals happy, and how even though they can't always communicate this to you, they are grateful.
     Third, become a vegetarian. Meat has a hold on many of us, pulling us into a vicious cycle which requires more and more killing of innocent beings. Breaking free from this cycle, apart from being good for your health, is extremely liberating and, most importantly, not hard to do. Many vegetarians who used to eat meat (including us) will tell you: "I couldn't imagine not eating meat before, but now I can't imagine eating it." This is true. Even if you haven't attained the Animal Compassion Mindframe, becoming a vegetarian can really help you get there. Without the meat in your system it'll be easier to empathize with animals that we consider "food".
     Having said all that, although the ACM is a beautiful thing which helps us realize certain truths, you don't have to reach this level in order to live an ethical life. In fact, you don't even have to love animals in order to help them. Believing in the concept of fairness is a good enough reason to take a stand. Even if you feel little or no love towards animals, you can still see their predicament as unfair from an ethical point of view, and subsequently take steps to create a better life for them. We don't have to love everyone that we feel the world is doing an injustice to. We don't have to love everyone we help. The act of helping is a powerful thing, one that can make our lives seem fuller, more important. It can give our lives meaning. Strive to attain the Animal Compassion Mindframe, as it is definitely worth the effort, but don't discount the value of helping for helping's sake.

6: Why eating meat should be avoided

     There are a variety of reasons that people who don't eat meat give as a reason for their lifestyle choice. Some give ethical reasons, others justify it with religion (the Seventh Day Adventists and Jainists are two examples of this), others still give ecological reasons, stating, quite correctly, that meat industries around the world create a lot of physical harm to the planet and waste resources that could be better used elsewhere; others still simply don't like the taste of meat. These are all good reasons, and we encourage anyone who is thinking about becoming vegetarian to explore these, especially the ones relating to the ecological damage caused by the meat industry.
     For the purposes of this book, we will concentrate on what we believe are the two main reasons one shouldn't eat meat. The first is our belief that all animals, whether they are humans, cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, fish, or whatever else, should be respected solely based on the fact that they are living sentient beings. We do not think that a pig is the same as a human. We realize that human beings have a much higher capacity for certain things, and that human life is very precious. However, just because we are superior in some ways to other animals, does not mean we have to kill them. Rule number one is to respect other animals. Respecting them means letting them live free, not abusing them, not killing them for whatever reason, and (carnivores take note) not agreeing to have them killed in your name. Simple enough? We believe that this realization is one of the secrets of life, along with the subsequent desire to help all animals. Most people on this planet are taught that taking another person's life is wrong. Even in very violent cultures, most people would have a hard time living with the consequences of taking another person's life, - whether these consequences be legal, moral, or internal (guilt, remorse, etc.). Still, most of the same people that agree that it would be wrong to kill a human being would not have a problem having an animal killed in their name. This is not a good attitude. One of the things we like to remind people of is that animals have a lot of things in common with us humans, not the least of which are the ability to feel pain, the ability to suffer, the desire to live. Despite our differences, we have a lot in common with other animals, so we should respect them and let them live.
     On a side note, farm animals always seem to get the bum end of the deal when it comes to the realization that all animals have the right to live free. People have been raising cows, pigs, chickens and other farm animals so long that it's hard to see any kind of other existence for these animals. Sure, someone will sympathize with the plight of a wild tiger, but a pig? (Pigs, by the way, are very smart creatures - much smarter than many other animals). Well, once again, it's important to remember two things here. One, all animals have the right to live. Two, the fact that we have been raising these types of animals for food for as long as we can remember does not mean that they are naturally meant to be eaten by us - it just means that they, and not other animals, have had the bad luck of being labeled "food" by us over the course of centuries. We have collectively constructed the idea that the mass killing of these particular animals is OK, much in the same way we later constructed slaughterhouses to kill even more of these animals even faster. In order for us to progress as human beings, both the slaughterhouses and the ideas behind them have to go. The more people start waking up to the truth, the fewer of these beautiful animals will fall victims to our collective lack of compassion.
     Second, we believe that any kind of cruelty to animals, all animals - humans included - will have its consequences. Whether someone kicks a cow, kills a cow, eats the meat of a cow, etc, - each one of these things will have negative consequences for that person, and for the world as a whole. We've already introduced this concept earlier, but it's important to reiterate it due to its importance. You can't do something bad and expect there to be no repercussions.
     EFFA members come from different religious backgrounds, and therefore have different interpretations of "negative consequences". Some believe in the concept of sin, and think that the abuse and mistreatment of animals (including eating them) is a sin. Others believe in karma, and think that negative interaction with other animals will have a negative karmic effect. Others still are atheists, and simply believe that the mistreatment of animals is wrong from an ethical point of view. Their idea of consequence is of a less metaphysical nature, but it still applies to the individual and his/her role in society. Despite the fact that we all come from different backgrounds, we all agree that, to some extent, there are negative consequences to mistreating animals, and that every compassionate person will want to take steps to do what he/she can to help animals, instead of promoting the negative treatment thereof.
     Many people view the whole concept of cause and effect as too vague, partly because it doesn't adhere to any straightforward mathematical formula. There isn't a list of actions with their exact, respective consequences. If there were, the world would be a much better place, since people would know exactly what the outcome of every action would be. Still, if you think about it, there are obvious and less-obvious reminders of cause and effect are all around us - positive actions producing positive consequences, and negative actions producing negative ones. A stranger that's walking in front of you drops his wallet. You pick up the wallet and bring it to the stranger. The stranger is happy. If you took the wallet, and didn't give it back, the stranger would be upset, worried, or just simply not happy. This is the simplest example of how a good deed would have good consequences, and how a negative action would lead to more negativity. When you have a dog and the dog is devoted to you, can you not tell that the dog is happy when you treat him well? Or that he feels fear when you yell at him? More visible proof that positive actions create positive results and that negative actions create negative results. Even when the effects of our actions are not immediately visible, they still happen. They don't have to happen right away, or they might happen in a roundabout way, but they still do happen. The mistake that most people make is that the universe is naive. It's not. It has its own subtle cause and effect system. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
     Having so many animals suffering in slaughterhouses and other such places creates a lot of negativity. Just for comparison's sake, think of how incredibly depressing and negative a group of people would be if they were confined in closed quarters, and lived a life of darkness, depression, pain, and fear. No, these are not humans, but fear, depression, and pain are felt by other animals too. Thinking that all the immense suffering that these creatures go through just disappears into thin air is as naïve as thinking that water that goes into a drain just "disappears". It is a convenient lie that helps us eat another steak at dinner without feeling guilty. In this world, very few things just disappear. Most things are cyclical, just like clouds that turn into rain, which, in turn, eventually turns into clouds again. We believe that the negative emotions that are created by the daily killing of millions of animals are also cyclical, and float around in the atmosphere, playing an important role in making the world the type of place it currently is.

7: The major religions on our interaction with the animal world

     Every religion, whether it's Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Confucianism, etc., tries to help us understand our nature, and our place in this world. Despite their good intentions, and despite the fact that they provide very good information on other aspects of our existence, the major religions don't always get the whole picture when it comes to our interaction with the animal world. With a few exceptions, they either ignore the topic, justify it, or only prohibit/discourage the eating of certain types of meat, or only during certain times of the year. To be fair, many religions were started many centuries, or even millennia ago, during times when the mass killing of animals in slaughterhouses did not exist. One would hope that if the founders of the major religions witnessed the negative way we treat other animals, they would have included more specific guidelines to encourage people to treat animals better.
     Instead of using religion as a beacon to stop violence against animals, some people actually use religion to justify the cruel treatment of animals. Even in some of the world's major religions, there are rituals that involve the cruel killing of animals on religious grounds. Apart from this, some lesser known tribal religions and some voodoo traditions involve the ritualistic sacrifice of animals. We believe that no animals should ever be killed or made to suffer on these grounds. There are many religions with many good ideas out there, but it's important to remember that any religion that justifies the pain and suffering of other living beings does not fully understand the meaning of life. Any religion that does not care about the welfare of all the beings in the world (not just humans), is missing an essential piece of the puzzle. EFFA provides that missing piece of the puzzle: a healthy co-existence between all living beings on earth. It's not impossible. In fact, for many of us, it's within reach this very day. You don't have to train for it, pray for it, hope for it, wait for it, work for it. All you have to do is do it. A noble path that includes helping animals, treating them well, and not eating them, is achieved by simply making the choice to be more compassionate.

8: Vegetarianism as progress

     One of the basic arguments against vegetarianism is that it "goes against our nature". Many people believe that our basic instinct is to be carnivorous, and that not eating meat constitutes something unnatural. Quite often, the same people use examples from the world of wild animals as proof of this, stating that other animals eat meat, that other animals hunt, kill, and eat their prey. "Aren't we animals too?", they ask.
     The major flaw in this way of thinking is that it ignores the fact that we have the ability to make decisions. What makes being a human being very special, and what we consider to be one of the best things about being human, is that we have the ability to choose a path based on empathy and compassion, one that minimizes the suffering of other living beings. Other animals don't have this ability. They go on instinct. We, however, not only can, but should think before we act. If we were not meant to think about which actions are positive and which actions are negative, we would not have been given the ability to choose between the two. In our opinion, making choices based on respect for other living beings constitutes progress. Every time a human being is faced with a decision and chooses the noble, compassionate option, the world becomes a slightly better place. The more people make the same decision, the better the world becomes. Every time you choose to not add more suffering to the current sad state of the world, you make the right choice. It's that simple. This applies to many life decisions, not only whether or not to eat meat. The "natural instinct" people would have you believe that we are no different from lions, wolves, or snakes. Although we should love or at least respect all animals, it is absolutely preposterous to negate our ability to choose, and to relegate us to the realm of other animals that don't have this ability. This is regression, not progress.
     The whole concept of instinct is a complicated one. Let's examine our "instincts" with a couple of examples. Let's look, for example, at the love and compassion that most people in North America, Europe, and other parts of the world have for cats, dogs, or other animals we consider "pets". Now let's compare that to other societies where these same animals are bred for food, and compassion for them is fairly low to say the least. Does this mean that Europeans' "natural instinct" is to be compassionate to these animals, and other peoples' instincts isn't? It would be ridiculous to think that. "Yes," critics would say "but that's just learned behavior." What is? The empathy for certain animals or the lack thereof? Both could be learned as far as we're concerned. Besides, it's not really all that clear whether or not our desire to eat (or for that matter to not eat) meat is part of our DNA. We were both brought up eating meat, and both of us used to eat quite a bit of it. These days neither of us has any desire to eat it. Sure we can say we "learned" to not eat meat, but if our desire to eat meat were THAT instinctual, wouldn't it still be a part of us? Look at very young kids, and how much they love animals, and how, very often, they are completely terrified and saddened by the news that the same animals that they love end up as food on their plate. Did they learn to love these animals, or did they learn that eating them is OK? Children who are raised in a vegetarian/vegan household have no craving for meat because they are not exposed to it growing up. In fact, many kids who grow up in these households are later terrified to find out what "meat" really is - the flesh of dead animals. What can we say about their instincts?
     Even if we, for argument's sake, assume that there is some truth in that "the instinct to eat meat is a natural one", let's remember that not all natural instincts are good, and some are downright terrible. Many of the bad ones date back to when we were much less advanced, and we have since realized that they no longer work in the modern world. For example, we recently saw a documentary on bride kidnapping in Chechnya. The documentary showed how it was common for a man there to kidnap any woman he found attractive and basically force her to marry him. Men all around the world walk around thinking that women are attractive all the time, but most people would not act on these instincts because in most societies, it is not OK to do this type of thing. In this case, the social norms are positive, and constitute progress - as forcing people to be with you whether they want to or not is pretty much a negative, aggressive act. Many people in the past considered violence to be instinctual. Now, when your neighbor does something to really upset you, you don't go over and beat him up or kill him. Most people would consider that barbaric. So, as you can see, even IF the desire to eat meat had a place somewhere in our nature (and we say "even if" because we don't think that it does), it would be best to not act on it, just like we don't act on other negative habits/tendencies.
     What we are proposing is nothing new. Throughout history, we humans have discarded certain ways of thinking, and stopped doing things that once seemed completely "natural" to us, after having realized that, in fact, they were detrimental and/or unfair. An example of this is how child labor was a norm in many societies until someone said - "Hey, this is not right." When enough people said "Hey, this is not right", their collective voice became stronger, and eventually affected a positive change. This is progress - realizing that a way of doing things is wrong, and either discarding it or finding an alternative. How long were women not allowed to vote in many countries? In the United States, women only received this right in 1913. Again, this was something that was wrong, there was an unfair situation, and because more and more people protested against it and took concrete steps to change it, it changed for the better. The playing field was evened. Most people in the Spanish state of Catalonia used to love bullfighting. With time, much like every such process, they realized that this type of needless torture disguised as "sport" is not alright. Again, this is an example of a society redefining what it does and doesn't accept and embracing a change that creates a better reality.
     We too have to realize that it is time to embrace change when it comes to our diet. Our meat consumption is a result of a well-grounded societal norm. A societal norm does make something seem "normal", but it doesn't necessarily make it right, or make it into a permanent reality. Most norms, including this one, are learned behavior, passed on from generation to generation. Even if it were instinctual for us to eat meat, this type of behavior should be avoided, like many other instincts we chose to temper for the benefit of a better interaction with the world around us.

9: Vegetarianism is healthy

     Our belief system aside, we have always stated that when it comes to healthy eating, it doesn't matter if you eat meat or not. Of course, it is much easier to avoid certain diseases, such as heart disease and other diseases linked to high cholesterol levels, if you're a vegetarian, and even easier if you're a vegan. Still, we think that by minimizing certain types of meat and cutting down on fat, you can live a relatively healthy life (physically speaking) without being a vegetarian.
     Unfortunately, many meat-eaters, and many doctors who are meat-eaters, have been conditioned to think that the reverse is not true. Instead, they prefer to scare people into thinking that vegetarianism and veganism can be unhealthy. They often raise the issue of certain important nutritional elements such as protein, certain vitamins like B12, etc. that are missing from a vegetarian/vegan diet. There are a lot of people out there who still believe that by being a vegetarian or a vegan you put yourself at risk of developing some kind of nutritional deficiency.
     This, like many other popular ideas about vegetarianism, is a myth. It doesn't matter if this myth is propagated by a friend, a website, a family member or a doctor. Their medical training aside, doctors are just people who have been taught the same lie that most people have been taught, - that it's necessary to eat meat. The only difference is they were taught this in medical school, so many people take their word as gospel. The thing to remember is that any doctor that tells you that it's impossible to live a healthy life being a vegetarian or a vegan is either furthering his/her own belief system, or is misinformed, no matter how much training he/she has. A balanced vegetarian or vegan diet will provide you with pretty much the same nutrients as a balanced meat-based diet would, without many of the negative effects on your health that meat consumption has been linked to. The key word here is "balanced". Whatever you eat, you have to make sure you're getting the right nutrients. Whether you're a vegetarian or a carnivore, you should make sure you're getting all your vitamins. Sure, some vegetarians have certain vitamin or mineral deficiencies, but most don't. Besides, it would be ridiculous to believe that meat eaters never have nutritional deficiencies. Of course they do. In fact, we know a couple of meat eaters who got rid of theirs after switching to a vegan lifestyle. Some vegetarians and vegans take supplements. When we ate meat there were times when we took supplements as well.
     We believe that whenever you change your diet, you should do research to make sure you know what to eat; Not because of the "inherent dangers" of the new diet, but because it's something new, something you haven't tried before, so you have to make sure that you understand which foods will provide you with which nutritional elements. This is just common sense. You can't be a "meat and potatoes" guy, and then, after becoming a vegetarian, just eat the potatoes. If you do this, you will develop some kind of nutritional deficiency. Provided that you take a little time to check out one of the many web sites that provide nutritional information for vegetarians and vegans, you will be able to provide your body with all the nutritional goodness it needs.

10: The smoke and mirrors act of the meat industry

     The meat industry in developed countries is one huge smoke-and-mirrors act. The whole industry is built around making you forget about where your meat comes from. Most people feel uncomfortable thinking that the steak on their plate came from a living, breathing cow. Whether the cow was treated well (as in free-range farms) or badly (like most commercial stockyards/slaughterhouses), it was still butchered to put this steak on your table, and no one wants to have visualize the blood, the cow's lifeless body, it being cut up into pieces, etc. These are not very appetizing images at dinner time. Most people would prefer to not think about it and to just declare it "natural" and leave it at that. The meat industry knows that most people don't want to think about this, so they do their best to ensure that you don't. Everything about their packaging, public relations, advertising, etc. instills you with an idea of "wholesome" farms, happy animals, "tradition", etc. With time, parts of the animal which were a little too reminiscent of where the food actually came from have fallen out of fashion. There are many parts of the world where people no longer eat a lot of cow's tongue, tripe, cow's eyeballs, etc. So strong is the whole smoke-and-mirrors act in developing countries, that when a person from Canada, the United States, Germany, etc. goes to some third world country, they often can't handle the way animals are treated, or what parts of an animal people eat. They find the former cruel and the latter disgusting.
     We're not going to adopt a cynical attitude towards this phenomenon. We believe that the above-mentioned reaction to the unmasked real-life sights and sounds of a society where everything is "out in the open", might indeed be, as some would say, a product of a sheltered, wealthy culture. This, however, does not make it a wrong reaction. It would be overly simplistic to state that "they should just accept it", since, in the long run, "just accepting it" would do nothing to change the world for the better. We think that it's good that there are people have this type of reaction to the in-your-face cruelty of poorer parts of the world. It is important, however, for the shocked individual to keep things in perspective. It would be wrong for the person to think that everything at home is OK. Everything at home is not OK - thousands, if not millions, of animals die "at home" every day, albeit in (possibly) more sterile conditions, which doesn't discount the fact that they are killed. Traveling in areas where there is less compassion towards animals should remind us to be more compassionate towards all animals. This type of in-your-face neglect and/or cruelty should be seen as a reminder of animal suffering in general, the same kind that exists in the meat industry back home -, a reminder that despite the smoke-and-mirrors act, animals do suffer and are killed every day. It should also encourage us to reevaluate some of our ideals and hopefully break free from the meat-machine.

11. A society addicted to the taste and smell of meat

     People often confuse their addiction to the way a steak smells and tastes, with the fact that it is alright to eat it. No matter how great your steak tastes, it's important to remember that it came from a cow, a once living, breathing, feeling animal that was killed, separated into parts, and shipped off to supermarkets around the city. That fact alone is enough for us to say no to meat. It doesn't matter how nice it smells, how great it tastes, how delicate its structure. The act of eating it is has negative consequences both because it fuels your addiction to meat, thereby increasing the demand for it, meaning more and more cows will be killed in your name, and because the sheer act of eating the flesh of another living being is simply not ethical.
     People find a myriad of ways to justify their misinformed belief that some animals were just meant to be slaughtered. Well, they say, if God (or whatever else they believe in) didn't want us to eat these animals, why did He make them so tasty? There are several easy retorts to this type of statement - If God DID want us to eat these animals, why then did He give them the ability to feel pain, fear, and other "human" emotions? Why didn't He just make them lifeless "things" and instead, gave them enough recognizable physical and mental traits that - provided we're not blinded by our conditioning and addictions - remind us of our own? Have you ever wondered why that is? The whole "meat tastes great so it's ok to eat it" argument can also be dispelled in terms of our above-mentioned belief that whether or not we eat animals is a test. Instead of a question, the test presents a situation - a living animal, which has eyes and a mouth and a face like you do, and even displays a lot of the same emotions that you display - one that feels pain and feels depression when confined, much like you would feel. Having said all that, it also tastes pretty good. So which of the two factors wins out? Would you eat it? Presently, most people would say "yes", while our answer would be: "Of course not!"
     One of the goals of this book is to remind you that sometimes the easy way out is not the best way out. Let's look at some other things that give you pleasure, but are ultimately bad for you. Let's take cigarettes. Any smoker will tell you that smoking is a very pleasurable experience… "Why would God make tobacco if He didn't want us to smoke?" With all the medical knowledge about the effects of tobacco smoke, this question would seem pretty ridiculous. Still, we can draw other parallels: Cocaine and other drugs are very pleasurable. They must be OK to do. All we are saying is that just because something tastes good, or smells good, or both, does not mean that it should be consumed. It's that simple. We urge you to see beyond the taste of the meat that you're eating, and to think about all the cruelty involved in bringing that meat to your plate. Even more importantly, we urge you to consider the fact that it is not worth taking another creature's life for us to keep on surviving on this planet. There are plenty of people who survive great without meat, and the more of us there are, the easier it will be for us.
     Our friends sometimes ask us whether or not we miss the taste of meat or if we still get the urge to eat it once in a while. We don't, but we know of some vegetarians who do. Initially, one's addiction to meat can be pretty hard to break. In the initial phases, you might have to remind yourself why you're stopping. Reading or re-reading this book is a good reminder. In the initial phase of our vegetarianism, we did have a desire to eat meat once in a while when we'd smell it, but this type of reaction passed after several months, and now, our philosophy and beliefs aside, we have no physical need to consume meat when we smell it. In fact, at this point, we don't find the smell appealing at all - It smells of needless death, and we want no part of that.

12: Attempts to discredit vegetarians and vegetarianism

     Many carnivores take issue with the fact that someone chooses to break free from the meat machine, and some feel themselves to be in possession of fool-proof "trump cards" which, in their opinion, prove that vegetarianism is, at best, not completely "on the level" and, at worse, just plain wrong. One of these arguments is the age-old "plants have feelings too" argument. This one is often used as a joke, but let's talk about when it isn't. The people who use this argument do not, for the most part, care about plants, but rather bring this issue up in an attempt to "expose" vegetarianism, to try to prove that it is "not as moral as it seems". How can a philosophy that's supposed to be moral support the suffering of plants? It is a comic attempt to strip vegetarianism of its moral high-ground. It uses a false premise (plants = animals) to try to show how "contradictory" vegetarianism is. In reality, the primary purpose of this argument is for people who are confronted with vegetarianism to justify their bad habits and feel better about themselves. It becomes acceptable for them to eat meat, since we kill "innocent plants".
     This argument, like most anti-vegetarian arguments, is easy to dispel. Plants are alive, but, unlike animals, they are not "sentient beings". Saying that eating a plant is the same as eating an animal is just plain wrong. Plants do not have brains. Plants do not have nervous systems so they cannot feel pain. Animals, whether they be humans, pigs, cows, cats, fish, or chickens, do have brains and nervous systems. They have feelings, and they do feel pain. The nature of plants is diametrically different from the nature of the millions of animals killed every day for food. Yes, some plants do physically react to certain stimuli, but this in an automated reaction, which is all it can be seeing how, as we have stated above, plants do not possess brains or central nervous systems. The "plants have feeling too" argument is actually a dangerous one in that it trivializes the real suffering experienced by animals.
     There are several other well-known ways that detractors seek to expose vegetarians as "hypocrites". One of the most common ways that carnivores do this is by pointing out the flaws in the morality of vegetarians who wear leather, mistakenly believing that the fact that a vegetarian wears leather somehow invalidates the rest of that person's beliefs.
     The mistake in this line of thinking is that it assumes that vegetarianism has to be an "all or nothing" phenomenon, when, in fact it doesn't have to be. Vegetarians and vegans do not pretend to be saints. They are simply individuals who, to varying degrees, minimize the negative impact they have on other living beings. Just because someone hasn't gone all the way in one's commitment to animal rights doesn't make them a hypocrite. The realization of the suffering of animals is a step-by-step process for many people out there. We must remember that every step we take in the right direction is a good step, a positive step. Every step in the right direction should be applauded. We should all strive to minimize the harm we do to other animals. One has to keep things in perspective. Although not ideal, it's better to be a vegetarian who wears leather than a carnivore who wears leather.
     We don't subscribe to the "all or nothing" way of thinking. When someone tells us that they've cut down on their meat consumption by 50% because of EFFA, we think it's great! Although we realize that the ideal thing would be to stop eating meat completely, we'll gladly accept a 50% reduction in meat intake. Vegans don't wear leather, and many vegetarians don't either. There are more and more options out there for people who don't want to wear leather. However, we don't think that just because someone hasn't stopped wearing leather, the rest of what they stand for has lost its validity. Every vegetarian has made a very important commitment, taken a very important step in the right direction, a step that most people out there have not taken. This is definitely something to remember before passing judgment.
     Much of the same can be said in regards to vegetarians who kill mosquitoes. Yes, it is better to avoid killing mosquitoes and other insects. Still, let's take someone who follows a vegan diet, doesn't wear leather, but kills a mosquito once in a while. This person is making a relatively small negative impact on the world. The negative act (killing mosquitoes) might be present, but so is the overwhelming positivity of the other two decisions. It would be foolish to discount this positivity or to believe that its importance is minimized by killing a few mosquitoes. Again, we at EFFA don't believe in the "all or nothing" mentality. We think that a person who is in tune with their Animal Compassion Mindframe will eventually start making more and more right choices, both in their diet, and in doing more to help other animals. It's not about being a "saint" or a "sinner" - it's about being on the right path or the wrong path. As long as you continue taking steps to improve how you interact with animals, you're on the right path.

13: Levels of realization

     From the very beginning, we at EFFA have always stressed a step by step approach to awakening one's consciousness and compassion towards animals. We believe that at the highest level of consciousness, the level we all should strive for, it becomes absolutely clear that animals should neither be mistreated or eaten. However, we realize that very few people come to this realization right away. Most people's journey is a gradual one, and, even more importantly, not a complete one. Regarding this second part, we do not judge people that that do not go "all the way" in their belief system. Instead, we value every step that someone takes towards a reality that promotes less suffering and death of animals. As a slight disclaimer: When we write about the stages of realization, you should keep in mind that there are no "clear-cut" separations between them. This is just a rough assessment of the paths that people take to get to a positive relationship with the rest of the animal world.
     Let's start with the initial stage of waking up to the ACM (Animal Compassion Mindframe). This is the stage where a person normally starts to feel compassion and empathy for animals, and begins to realize that there are many animals around him/her that actually suffer because of the unfair ways we treat them. This is the stage where someone starts to see animals as beings to be respected, instead of simple objects. This is the stage where people start to become aware of the problem of stray animals around them, and would like to do something about this. This is the stage where, although someone might still eat meat (or eggs, dairy, etc), he/she will at least try to ensure that the conditions in slaughterhouses, dairy farms, etc. are humane. The main thing to remember about the initial stages of the ACM, is that it does not radically change one's perception. It is a spark, maybe even a small fire, and the compassion that we experience in this stage should be used to try to attain higher states of consciousness - to attempt to interact even better with the rest of the animal world. Even if most people these days do not go beyond this first step, it is an extremely important one. Apart from the positive changes it promotes, it can be a gateway to higher levels of compassion. People who are in these initial phases of compassion for other animals should be commended for taking the first step (remember: positive reinforcement is very important), and should also be made to understand, without being preached to, the importance of growing their compassion. This is a very precocious phase, one that needs nurturing and positive feedback. If you take someone in the initial phases of the ACM, and bombard them with either "you're not doing enough" remarks, or make them feel like they're being hypocritical with their actions, you risk losing any progress that these people have made.
     The second stage of realization is where an individual will get involved even more in helping animals, and start to feel even more compassion and empathy towards animals that are suffering. This is the time when someone might cut down on their meat intake, or not eat certain types of meat. A person in this stage might be even more saddened by what goes on in slaughterhouses and dairy farms. He/she might help out more at shelters, or might even get involved in organizations that fight for the rights of wild animals, stray animals, etc. Generally speaking, it's like the initial phase multiplied by two or three. Once again, although this is not a complete realization of the truth of our relationship with the rest of the animal world, the person is making some positive decisions, ones which will do even more to diminish the suffering of other animals, and this should be commended. The people who are in the second stage of the ACM are more likely to cross over into the highest stage of the ACM - the one that really minimizes the suffering of animals, and, also importantly, disconnects an individual from the meat-machine, thereby completely preventing the consequences of the deaths of innocent animals from affecting them.
     The highest level of realization of how we should interact with the animals around us involves a very deep-seated understanding of what we should and shouldn't do in terms of how we treat animals. It is the realization that ALL animals should be respected. It is the realization that NO animals should be eaten. It is the realization that ALL animals should be helped. This is the highest realization that one can attain in terms of how one perceives the rest of the animal world - and the realization that truly minimizes the harm that humans have been inflicting on other animals for centuries. This is the ACM in its truest, purest form. This is the stage in which someone realizes that, when speaking about "animal rights", the most important right that an animal has is the right to live. Concepts like "free range chicken", or "this cow was treated well", while still important, are no longer the ultimate goal. On this ultimate level of realization, one realizes that although it's important to treat animals well while they are alive, the fact that the animal was ultimately killed is still important and unacceptable.
     These divisions between stages of realization seem nice and organized, but, like we pointed out above, there are many different situations where the levels get all mixed up. For instance, someone can attain something very similar to the true ACM for a certain type of animal, but not for others. There are countless people out there that would give their life to save a dog, or a cat, but don't really care all that much for other animals. This is not bad, per se, since one experiences the same sort of strong compassion, albeit for one or two types of animals, but it is somewhat too focused. Although you can't force yourself to feel the same sort of empathy for other animals as you do for your cat/dog/chinchilla, etc., it is important to realize that most other animals, even farm animals, have a lot more in common with your pet than you might think, and for this reason alone, they deserve some of your compassion as well.
     Another fairly common phenomenon is when a person loves animals, but still eats them. In our opinion, this is a somewhat misguided love, but the fact that someone does feel some kind of love towards animals is a good start. Sometimes these people continue to eat meat because they believe, for some reason or other, that they have to eat it. These people should read up on vegetarianism, and realize that it is, in fact, a very healthy alternative to their current lifestyle, one in which they might feel more honest in their love of animals, and, possibly, have that love grow even more. Another type of animal lover realizes that he/she doesn't have to eat meat, but still does. This usually happens because of a big disconnect between their realization and their commitment, whether it be through laziness, a lack of resolve, or simply not realizing that the commitment has to be made. Unfortunately, knowing what has to be done but still not doing it is a fairly common problem. At some point, it is important to take that first step, to commit to what one feels to be true. Follow-through is very important. A realization is a powerful thing, but acting upon a realization is even more powerful.

14. Loving both humans and other animals

     We sometimes get asked why, with all the human suffering in the world, we focus so much on animals? Why don't we help humans? Like many people who are compassionate about animal rights, our allegiances are scrutinized and often (mis)judged as inappropriate.
     There are several reasons why we choose to help animals. First, we believe that, for the most part, the way humans treat other animals is unfair. We believe that animals, much like small children, are innocent beings. Most of the suffering that they face, and they face quite a lot, comes as a result of us imposing our will on them. We believe that the fate of many of the world's animals is the result of our thinking that we have some kind of right to abuse them, use them for our experiments, kill them for food, etc. This supposed "right" comes from the fact that we feel superior to other animals because of our advanced intellect. Since animals cannot speak up for themselves and plead their case, we think it's OK to assume that they're here to serve us. We disagree with this line of thinking and propose that we all use this advanced intellect of ours to break free from the current harmful patterns instead of indulging in more harmful behavior.
     Second, we believe that there are more problems in our interaction with the rest of the animal world than with our interaction with each other. In the past several hundred years, there have been many advances in most societies regarding how we human beings treat each other. There have been laws set up to make sure that humans treat other humans in a civilized way, and although there will always be exceptions, we all generally know that it is not OK to kill each other, to cause each other harm, etc. There is still a long way to go, especially in some parts of the world, to improve how people treat each other. Still, the problems that exist between humans pale in comparison with how people treat other animals. Even if we set aside the example of the millions of animals that are killed for food every day, the societal norms in many parts of the world regarding how other animals are perceived and treated are inadequate at best, and brutally cruel at worst. The suffering of animals such as stray dogs or cats, circus animals, as well as many other types of animals, is seen as "par for the course". There just isn't the same level of outrage at seeing these creatures' rights denied. Yes, children are abandoned by some amoral parents. This is a terrible truth, but, at this point, most people have thankfully realized that doing so is wrong and completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, with animal rights, very few things have been realized by "most people". Thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals are abandoned in the world daily with very minimal worry on the part of those doing the abandoning. The awareness of the suffering of animals around the world is simply not there and there is a lot to be done to provide equal footing for animals, which is, after all, what EFFA stands for.
     Some animal right activists come across as "loving animals more than humans". We do not promote this type of thinking, but we must try to understand that the disappointment and resentment behind this opinion does not come about on its own, but is fostered by many cases of neglect, abuse, and mistreatment of animals by humans. Many people are disillusioned with the current way humans treat animals. How can a compassionate person not be? When someone attains a deep level of empathy for other animals, as many animal rights activists do, the animals' suffering is magnified even more, so the neglect and mistreatment that we see on a daily basis becomes even more painful to witness. Human beings, who, unlike animals, are not bound by our instincts, and should be using this advantage to make compassionate choices, are constantly making choices that either maintain the current level of suffering in the world or create more suffering. Instead of creating a better world for all living beings, we distance ourselves from the compassionate path that does not inflict suffering on our fellow beings, choosing to consciously kill animals, to mistreat them, to ignore their suffering. This creates a strong resentment and bitterness in many people, feelings that, although understandable, are ultimately an impediment to progress.
     Yes, EFFA's main goal is to create a better relationship between humans and other animals, one in which other animals are on more or less equal footing with us, respect-wise. That said, the reason we disagree with the accusation that we don't care about humans, or care less about humans, is that, according to our beliefs, humans would benefit as much as animals from such a healthy relationship. One of the reasons EFFA came into being was to elevate humans out of the spiral of denial that causes many of the problems in the world today. Once someone attains the "Animal Compassion Mindframe", one becomes a better person, and this benefits everyone (people and animals!) We do care about humans, and we think that by breaking free of the meat-industry death machine, by being kind and responsible to pets, by helping animals as much as one can, you can have a better spiritual life. You can have the satisfaction that you've broken free and are making a difference, that you're no longer part of the problem, only the solution. This is a powerful, liberating realization. The fact that we want all people to come to this realization proves that humans are a vital part of the equation. By helping animals in the ways described above, you are, in a very real way, helping yourself and the people around you as well.
     All this ties in to one of our core beliefs that helping is the secret of life. Instead of complaining about how things are, we should help those around us, whether they're humans or other animals, in order to improve the state of the world in which we live, step by positive step. One of the main things we can accomplish in our life is to help as many other beings as we can to suffer less. Life is very hard, - children die of starvation, animals are hoarded in slaughterhouses waiting to die by the millions. We can go on forever about what's wrong with the world. This is why it's so important to do whatever we can to turn the tide, instead of focusing only on ourselves and not caring about the true suffering of others. Both human rights and animal rights are noble causes. It doesn't matter if someone focuses on one or the other or both. When all's said and done, everyone helps whom they see fit. Bickering with others over whom they choose to help serves no purpose. Instead of bickering, be positive and take concrete steps to help whomever you choose, and let others do the same.

15: Hunting, experiments, and other (un)necessary evils

     These days, many people who hunt, or support this activity do not state that they think hunting is morally acceptable, but that it is "necessary". This would be a noble enough statement if it were true, but let's look at this issue a bit closer. The reason that legal hunting exists is because of the overpopulation of animals. This overpopulation leads to an imbalance in a certain habitat, so, according to supporters of hunting, some animals must be killed in order to restore the natural balance of things. There are several things wrong with this type of thinking. First of all, although in extremely rare cases it is alright to kill another animal, this is not one of them. No one should have the death of another living being on their conscience. Killing is one of the worst possible acts that a human being can do - whether it's killing another person, or, in this case, another animal. This realization should be the main motivator behind any type of decision, thus the obvious ethical and moral choice should be not to kill. But what about the population imbalance? It's important to remember that the imbalance exists because of what human beings have done to disrupt the natural balance of flora and fauna - by destroying the natural habitat of the animals, eliminating their natural predators, and thereby creating a situation where there is an overabundance of certain animals. Nature itself has always had an efficient way of controlling the order of species - so most issues of overpopulation are really man-made. So, to put it bluntly - we created the problem by negatively altering whole natural habitats, and now, because of this, we are doing even more harm by engaging in the immoral and unethical act of killing other animals. This is not a good solution. EFFA would like to see a general ban on the hunting of other animals. In place of this, we propose a responsible, ethical solution - the creation of nature reserves, where mother nature can regulate the population of animals naturally - if the reserve is big enough, and represents a complete ecosystem of plants and animals, there will be no issues of overpopulation. This might seem like a pipe dream to some, a ridiculous waste of money to others, but it is one of the few ethical ways to deal with the overpopulation of animals. Where would we get money for this? We all know that there is an enormous amount of waste when it comes to government spending. Compared with the amount of money that's wasted on truly trivial matters, it wouldn't take much to set up a network of reserves and help end the suffering and death of thousands of hunted animals, and the negative effects on the world that this causes.
     So as not to aggravate the problem even more, it is important to implement laws which will lead to a more harmonious future co-habitation between us and other animals - laws and regulations that will ensure that new construction will not continue destroying the natural order of things, but will attempt to integrate, in a more non-invasive way, into this natural order.
     Recently, we read about safari parks in Africa where certain animals are bred to be hunted. This inhumane phenomenon is often referred to as caged hunting. Supporters of these organizations argue that if it weren't for them, some of these animals would be wiped out by poachers. It's pretty easy to see beyond the sugar-coating of such reasoning and realize that the people who set up these fake reserves care very little or not at all about the animals the claim to be saving. The practice of caged hunting is cruel and unnecessary. All apologist rhetoric aside, it propagates the death of innocent animals. If the owners of these death-factories really cared about the animals in them, they would not breed them to be killed, but, instead, would spend their money on establishing private reserves where these animals could live freely. Many African countries do have organizations that truly care about the fate of wild animals and encourage the establishment of wildlife reserves, more patrols in problem areas, and stiffer penalties for poachers. These are the organizations that are truly fighting for the rights of African animals.
     There is a growing trend among animal abusers around the world to use the type of argument described above, that the killing of animals is somehow necessary in the grand scheme of things. It's a lot easier to sell someone the idea that "we don't want to do this, but we have to", than to tell them that you basically don't have a problem with killing animals, and maybe even enjoy doing it. Fortunately, anyone who really cares about animals will see through this bizarre reasoning. A simple guideline to follow is that, apart from cases of real hopeless physical suffering, it is almost never acceptable to kill an animal in order to help it.
     In a similar vein, people who support bullfighting often argue that without bullfighting the specific type of bull that's used in this blood sport would become extinct. There is absolutely no reason why the species should become extinct. These beautiful animals, they can be bred, albeit in smaller quantities, to just live and be marveled by us. The whole idea of an animal that is bred just to be killed is highly unethical and should be discarded, no matter how long it's been "around", or how strongly it's part of a given culture.
     Culture should never trump the rights of an animal to be treated with respect and dignity, and, more importantly, the right of an animal to live. Arguments such as "you don't understand because you're not from here" are supposed to remind you that you have no right passing judgment on anything that occurs in a certain culture because you do not belong to that culture. This is an erroneous way of looking at things, since there are things that transcend cultures, nations, and other barriers. We value and respect cultural differences that don't affect the lives of living beings. Some things, however, like human rights and animal rights, are universal, and should be treated as such, no matter how much certain individuals in a certain culture protest. We do not believe in the "things are different here" excuse. If by saying "different", you mean "much worse for animals", it is our right, as humans, to raise this issue and to try to improve the situation. It is our right to work with groups within the culture, and sometimes with groups outside of the culture, to stop the mistreatment. You should not be able to justify customs that promote the mistreatment of animals for any cultural or religious reasons, no matter how many centuries of millennia these "customs" have been around.
     Another contentious area of debate is rodent/pest extermination -eliminating insects or other types of (unwanted) animals from one's house, yard, etc. Even among people who support this type of thing, there is no clear consensus as to what types of animals should or should not be exterminated. Most people would agree that there is nothing wrong with exterminating roaches or ants, and many would agree that exterminating mice/rats would be alright too. In some parts of the world, some people will even exterminate animals such as raccoons, pigeons, squirrels, and sometimes even cats and dogs.
     First of all, none of the animals described in the last sentence should ever be exterminated. Second, generally speaking, extermination should only be used as a last resort, and not seen as the only solution to a perceived problem. With stray animals, one should work with organizations that spay/neuter them (sterilize and release type organizations) as well as with other organizations such as no-kill shelters so as to control the population problem. One should never poison stray dogs or cats. Remember, one of our main goals is to help animals, not kill them. We should try to coexist with other animals in our immediate environment to the best of our ability, realizing that they too want to live. If one feels uncomfortable with small rodents such as mice, rats, moles, etc., one should try to drive them out of one's living space, whenever possible, so they can begin to control their population naturally. There are ways to do this without killing these animals, even though the current infrastructure makes it much easier to exterminate than to think of a solution that would let the animals live. Extermination is the easy way out, but it's not the moral way out. Taking the easy way out is the cause of many of the world's current problems. Often times the reason we think we can't coexist with other animals is because we're either too lazy, unimaginative, or selfish to try. This lack of compassion and empathy results in a lot of needless death all around the world.
     We understand that it's harder to "coexist" with certain animals than with others. It's not fun to live in a roach infested house. Some infestations may pose a threat to us (rats), or to the integrity of our living space (termites). Even in situations such as these, we encourage you to look into natural pest removal methods before calling in the exterminator. In some cases, there are alternatives to extermination. Again, this might not be the easiest way to get rid of the problem, but it's the most humane way, and, as we've said before, the quick-fix isn't always the best solution for us. Once a pest problem is eliminated, we should do our best to keep our living spaces clean, since it's often through our (or someone else's) neglect of these spaces that infestations occur in the first place. Keeping a clean house is key if we want to not have to make these types of decisions in the future.
     A big topic that divides people on ethical grounds is using animals in lab experiments, especially when there is a chance for a health breakthrough. Many of us have seen the horrific images of animals used in cosmetic testing, as well as in testing for other non-medicinal products, their heads and bodies disfigured in a variety of cruel ways. Most people would agree that this is unethical and should not be done, that there's no need for it. But what about using animals to test new drugs or medical procedures? Haven't many of the breakthroughs that have made our lives longer and have cured diseases, come as a result of animal testing? Doesn't this make animal testing necessary in some cases? Our answer is a flat-out "no". First of all, our principal philosophy is to not harm or kill other animals. Testing products on animals or doing any other type of experimentation on them, for whatever reason, often hurts or harms animals, so it should not be done. That's one reason. The second reason we don't support any animal testing is that the animals are not willing participants in these experiments. No animal signed up to be tested on. They were forcefully taken from their natural environments, and put in a situation of suffering (and often death) for our benefit. This is unfair. Just because they can't speak up for themselves doesn't mean that they should be forced into this type of life. This leads to the third reason, which ties in to the second one - we don't want to advance our lives at the expense of the life of another living being. This is a very important part of the EFFA philosophy. It is a belief that is the antithesis of arrogance, the type of arrogance that says it is OK to make medical advances by killing other animals. We will gladly accept that we will live several years less on this planet, if it means that we will live knowing that no animals were harmed and killed in our name. The alternative? Testing on people. Paying people more to test on them. Finding volunteers, even for risky tests. This way, there is no violence involved, we're not playing God with the lives of animals that are weaker than us. If a certain test/experiment has to be done, and no humans can be found to be tested on, the test should simply not be done. This is, once again, a road that leads to a more harmonious relationship with the animal world, one that we should all take.

16. A tradition based on cruelty is not a tradition worth upholding

     There are many beautiful traditions in the world, and some very ugly ones. Unfortunately, many people don't want to or can't differentiate between the two, so we thought we'd help. Any tradition in which animals are made to suffer, or are killed is a tradition to be discarded. Plain and simple.
     First, let's look at the hardest tradition to break free from - food. Many people around the world are used to eating typical, "traditional" food from the region where they live. Many of these people see their national cuisine as an extension of their identity, and do not easily accept any attempt to alter this. Because most countries' national cuisine involves a lot of meat-based dishes, asking people to give up their meat is like asking them to give up part of their identity. As we have already established, eating meat is unethical, no matter how much it's part of a given culture and its cuisine. Although the rights of animals trump any tradition that takes away these rights, one does not have to completely set aside one's tradition when one becomes vegetarian. These days there are more and more meat-free versions of traditionally meat-based foods, made specifically for people that are accustomed to eating certain types of dishes. There are producers of vegetarian substitutes in many different regions that supply supermarkets and health food stores with healthy, cruelty-free versions of the foods people grew up with and love. We personally don't feel the need to be "reminded" of the taste of meat - but, since many people grew up on meat, we think it's understandable that they would like to be reminded of their favorite dishes, albeit with a vegetarian twist. We know some people who adopt a cynical attitude towards this. We've heard "See! This means that people have an instinctual need to eat meat!" Well, we've covered the concept of instincts as related to meat consumption elsewhere in the book, but we think that this is rather a case of being accustomed to certain flavors from childhood. Bad habits are hard to break, and there's nothing wrong with providing someone with a cruelty-free alternative that "smells and tastes" like the real thing.
     Carnivores sometimes argue that "meat substitutes taste nothing like the real thing", that "there's nothing like the taste of meat", and how, according to them, meat substitutes simply don't taste good. One could easily debate this point, stating how many vegetarian dishes are as tasty as their meat counterparts, if not tastier. One could also correctly point out that once someone becomes a vegetarian, his/her addiction to meat begins to fade, and the taste and smell of meat actually becomes unappealing. Ultimately, though, this isn't a taste contest. The question here is one of ethics, one of morality. It's a question of doing the right thing and not partaking in the death and suffering caused by the meat industry. When all's said and done, we will willingly accept a substitute for meat that tastes slightly worse than the "real thing" in exchange for the peace of mind that we are not promoting the suffering of animals. This is a guideline that all ethical people should follow. The reverse is something that leads to more suffering and death, and there's enough of that in the world already.
     Apart from the obvious traditions of eating meat, there are other cruel traditions in which animals are used for our entertainment. One of these is the circus. It is a very positive thing that countries such as Bolivia, Austria and (in some regions) China have recently banned the inclusion of animals in circuses. In the past couple of years, there have been several prominent news stories relating to individual cases of animal abuse in circuses. These specific cases should lead us to the general realization that the whole idea behind using animals in circuses is both unfair and unethical. The rigorous and unnecessary "training routines" are not something the poor animals signed up for - it is something they are forced to do by the people who run the circus. Animals in circuses are taken from their natural habitats and forcefully (and often painfully) "trained" to do a variety of "amazing tricks". There's nothing amazing about this - it's just plain cruel. Circuses should be by people for people. No animals should be involved at all. Amusement at the expense of another being's suffering is cruelty. Plain and simple. The same can be said for marine-based theme parks like Sea World, where marine animals are often trained to perform for our amusement. If we really want to see marine animals, we should not confine them, but rather hire a boat and try to see them in their natural habitat, as many whale-watchers do in California.
     Zoos also take animals out of their natural habitat and put them on display for our entertainment. To be fair, there are more and more zoos out there that take concrete steps to ensure that their animals are not kept in confined quarters, and construct habitats that try to make them feel like they are at home in the wild. Some zoos have even been known to save species that have been on the verge of extinction. For every "progressive" zoo, however, there are many that don't really respect animals, and keep them in terrible conditions. No animal should live their whole life in a cage, or in any other small, confined space, but this is unfortunately still the case for too many zoo animals the world over. This is why wild animal parks and nature reserves, which permit wild animals to roam around a much bigger area, are generally a more ethical solution than zoos. The only problem with this option is that governments still haven't found an effective way to eliminate poaching, which happens quite often in many such reserves around the world.
     Circuses, marine-based theme parks, and zoos aren't the only traditional form of animal-based entertainment. One of the world's cruelest "sports" is bullfighting, which still exists in most of Spain (kudos for Catalonia for banning it), as well other parts of Southern Europe, Mexico, and parts of South America. This blood sport, which many see as a "man vs. beast" type event, often ends in the slow torture and killing of the bull by the "matador" (which, in itself, means "killer" in Spanish). Proponents of the tradition see it as an art-form, oblivious to the fact that it is based on the highly unethical concept of having other living beings suffer and die for our entertainment. The realization that animals should not be made to participate in events such as bullfighting is a sign of progress, a sign that a society is moving in the right direction. The existence of events where animals are pitted against humans, or artificially pitted against each other is a product of an unenlightened society. Arrogance, as well as a stubborn denial of other living beings' suffering are what guides supporters of such events. Remember: any tradition that involves cruelty to animals should be discarded, no matter how long it has been around, or how ingrained it is in a given culture. This is why bullfighting, as well as dog-fighting, bear fighting in parts of Asia, cock-fighting, and all other blood "sports" in which animals are made to suffer and/or die should be outlawed.

17: The causes of animal mistreatment and their remedy

     Although there's a wide variety of reasons why people abuse or neglect animals, much of this abuse and neglect stems from a lack of compassion and/or respect for a certain animal. The reason this happens is that many people around the world just don't see animals as their equals. They see them as an inferior life form - an erroneous viewpoint, but one that makes it easy to abuse, mistreat, or behave in an irresponsible way towards them. Very often, especially in third-world countries, many animals are treated as either toys or mere objects. Pets are given to small children only to be abandoned several months later when they (the pets) are no longer "cute". Live baby chicks are painted a variety of colors. Cows, pigs, and other animals that are raised for food are often treated in a much more inhumane way than in "the first world" before they are slaughtered. These phenomena are the sad effects of the "just an animal" mentality, one which wrongfully establishes the animal as somehow "worse" than we are. On one level, these people understand the they're dealing with a living being, but on another level, their ignorance makes them think that the animal doesn't really feel or have emotions. This false view creates an artificial distance between us and other animals, instead of focusing on things that we have in common.
     We at EFFA think that this approach is completely wrong. You don't have to see other animals as your equals (although on many levels they are), but there should be a certain respect for life, for all life, that permeates our daily existence. It's important to remember that the same principles that apply to human interaction should apply to the interaction between humans and other animals. Although there are people in the world who do abandon their children, most people in the world who drive out to the forest to abandon their dog or cat would not do so to their child. Many of these people, however, feel at least partly justified in doing this to a creature, that although not human, is just as innocent, and relies on their goodness much in the same way that a child would. The above mentioned "just an animal" theory leads to another belief that betrays an unacceptable level of callousness - that an animal will be alright because animals can generally get by without our help. This confuses the principle of leaving animals alone in nature (which is what we should always do), and abandoning a pet in a city (or forest). Of course the dog (or cat) can often "get by" on its own, but the life of a stray dog is often filled with pain, loneliness, and misery. The fact that someone would not be conscious of this, or choose to ignore this, is the antithesis of moral progress.
     So, why do some people view animals as being mere toys, or being so inferior to humans that they can be mistreated, abandoned, etc.? Where does this erroneous belief come from? For the most part, it stems from ignorance. This misconception is the product of a lack of education about respecting all forms of life, both in the school system, and at home. It is a very simple thing to include something in a school's curriculum that teaches a child, from an early age, that it is important to treat animals with respect, that animals too have feelings and should not be treated as toys. Still, there are very few kids, especially those in the third world, that are taught this explicitly. Although compassion and empathy can't be taught, its seeds can be planted through the communication of certain values to children at an early age. Children should be encouraged to interact with other animals in a respectful way, and to be reminded time and again the importance of respecting other living beings. Since many parents themselves aren't conscious of the need to respect other animals, it is the teachers, schools, and, on a more general scale, the policy makers, that should ensure that every child is exposed to these type of positive messages throughout his/her schooling. Maybe if this type of thing happened more, there would be less instances of dogs (and many other types of animals) tied up on short leashes, of animals cramped into tiny cages, of birds put in cages where they can hardly flap their wings, of fish and lobsters kept in cramped conditions, of dogs and cats living a life of neglect on the streets of big cities. All of this suffering can be minimized with education. If someone commits an act of cruelty, people would stand up. New laws would be passed. This, however, does not just happen overnight. It has to be taught and integrated into the education and legal systems. It doesn't take much to start someone off on the right path at an early age, but one has to be active in taking that first step to making that happen.
     Apart from taking steps to improve the education system, we can promote this better interaction with the rest of the animal world ourselves, in our daily lives. As per one of our main beliefs, everyone who in conscious of animal suffering, and really wants to do something about this, should not rest on their laurels, but actively participate in the improvement of the situation.
     Along with education, there should be improvements to the legal system in terms of penalties and enforcement of penalties. Although this is important in all societies, it is especially important in societies where there are many instances of animal abuse and neglect. A strong but fair system which punishes offenders for mistreating and abusing animals will, on some level, act as a deterrent, and may very well go far in preventing some cases of abuse.
     Many people blame poverty for the way animals are treated in some of the world's poorest countries. While there is some truth that societies that are "poor" generally have higher instances of stray animals, worse conditions in slaughterhouses, etc., the root cause of the problem is not poverty, in itself, but the lack of the two things outlined above - education and an effective system of laws relating to animal abuse. Unfortunately, even though a country can become less impoverished, with many people starting to live a middle-class lifestyle, if there is no groundwork to ensure respect for other animals, attitudes towards our interaction with pets and other animals will not improve. People will not suddenly start to treat animals better just because they have more money. In many South European countries, several of which are relatively well-off, animal abandonment is still a big problem. In other countries that are booming economically, such as China, any improvement in how pets are treated has been counterbalanced with an increase in meat consumption, a sad side-effect of prosperity which has led to the deaths of millions of more animals. As you can see from these and other cases, prosperity does not necessarily mean a better existence for animals.

18. What should be done about animal abusers?

     We all have heard stories of people mistreating their dogs, engaging them in dog fights, torturing and killing animals for a few laughs, for fun. This, in our opinion is some of the most vile and amoral behavior around. Some of the cruel things people do to animals defy all logic and reason. What should we do about cases such as this? Many people suggest that animal abusers should be given a taste of their own medicine - that they themselves should be made to suffer to see what it's like. There were some cases in the news recently about individuals who had tortured and killed a dog or a cat. Some of our friends have stated that, given the chance, they wouldn't mind torturing the perpetrators themselves.
     One of our main beliefs, outlined above, is that everything that happens in the world, both positive and negative, has its consequences. We believe in cause and effect, and believe that every negative act, such as the one described above, will have its corresponding negative consequence at some point in the future. It would be highly hypocritical of us to say that we believe in the consequences of negative actions and then say it's OK to get violent with this individual. What would that accomplish? An eye for an eye type of reaction would only create more negativity and, ultimately, would fix nothing. We're just answering a brutal action with another brutal action. We're not improving the world, just feeding its cruel side. If you believe, like we do, in cause and effect, then you will understand how it is impossible for us to condone violent behavior that feeds the vicious cycle of negativity.
     This does not mean that we should just sit by and do nothing, or let fate sort it out for us. We suggest, that in these types of cases, we concentrate our efforts to do all we can to bring this person to justice. This includes a concerted effort to find the perpetrators of the crime and to do everything we can to ensure that they receive the maximum sentence available for what they have done. Some people would view this approach with cynicism, and it's true that many of the animal rights laws around the world are a joke. Even when they are enforced by the authorities (they often aren't), they let animal abusers off way too easily, often without even serving any jail time. This is why it is so important to empower ourselves, - to get involved in or start organizations, political parties, etc. that promote harsher laws for animal abusers, as well as the enforcement of current and future laws. If the current system is a joke, let's not laugh at it, or shake our heads at it, but instead try to create one that works. Don't raise your hand against the perpetrators, raise your voice and create a new reality. This would be a positive reaction. Once again, the last thing you want to do is to fight fire with fire. You'll just be engulfed in flames, and what good will that do anyone? Still feeling cynical? Remember that if every hint of progress in the past several centuries was approached with cynicism, nothing would have been accomplished, and we still would have had the same barbaric and unfriendly laws that we had in the Middle Ages. Cynicism prevents progress. The only way to ensure that we have the kind of society we want to have is through education and hard work. If you've educated yourself enough to know what has to be done, you should take steps to make it happen.
     When we talk about a non-violent approach to these types of issues, we often get asked how we view organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front, and other "radical" animal-rescue organizations that sometimes break the law in order to free animals from fur farms, experimentation labs, etc. People often ask whether or not we support them, and if so, how that ties in to our idea of "working within the system", and our belief in non-violence. We believe in working within the system, and, at the same time we recognize that the system is very unfair when it comes to the current relationship between animals and human beings. When someone who feels true compassion and/or empathy for animals sees them being tested on, experimented on, etc., it is natural for this person to want to free these animals from their current state of terrible suffering. We do not condone any type of illegal behavior, but, as long as you're not being violent, we believe that you should act according to own conscience and make decisions based upon what is important to you, and what you feel is best, in terms of helping other animals. Of course the main thing that we propose that people follow an active path of getting involved politically and attempt to change the system as a whole - to fight for real improvements to the status-quo such as a ban on animal testing and experimentation, a ban on fur-farming, a government-backed promotion of vegetarianism through a system of subsidies for meat alternatives coupled with heavier taxation of meat-industry products (and by-products), establishing alternative employment possibilities for those employed in the above-mentioned industries, and other similar reforms. This would go a long way to leveling the playing field and eliminating the need for a radical approach to making sure that animal rights are respected.

19: The importance of helping

     Help as much as you can and as often as you can. Whether you're rich or poor, vegetarian or not, do your best to help other animals. Doing something that helps a living being suffer less, to live a happier, healthier life is an awesome gift to give. Remember, - you can't force yourself to love, but you can force yourself to help. Sometimes, when you force yourself to help, the positive give-and-take may well indeed create some love in your heart.
     It is important to remember that the helping we describe here is not limited to other animals. Sure, because the aim of our philosophy is to build a better relationship between humans and other animals, this is the primary example we set forth. However, this idea comes from a more general belief that helping, in itself, is a very positive, fulfilling thing. We believe it to be the secret of life. In our opinion, helping, and especially helping beings that have no voice and cannot "help themselves", or "stand up for themselves", is what life is all about. As we have said several times before, animals are innocent beings and are often at a disadvantage when dealing with humankind's cunning negative side. For this reason alone, they require more help than many other living beings. We believe that the physical act of helping creates a very positive effect for us, and for the world around us. A positive action that will result in positive consequences. We realize that we sometimes help for "selfish" reasons, but that's ok. The reason is important, but so is the effect.
     In the past several years, we have visited several "no-kill" animal shelters in various parts of the world. Some people complain that shelters in the United States, Canada, England, etc. do not receive enough funding. Although this is absolutely true, we must remember that the state of (many) animal shelters in wealthier countries is much better compared to the state of animal shelters in other parts of the world. In many poorer countries, animal shelters hardly get ANY financial support, and are usually run by 1 or 2 private individuals, who, out of sheer love and compassion for lost and abandoned animals, sacrifice their time, individual comfort, and money, to make life for these creatures more bearable, and to try to find homes for them.
     Having met some of these people first hand, it becomes very obvious that, when it comes to animals, they have chosen to take upon themselves the "sins" of the society they live in, to try to balance out the lack of responsibility of the people around them. While the majority chooses to simply ignore the problem of stray animals, they care enough to help these animals. They end up spending all their money and time maintaining these shelters, relying on meager donations and kind-hearted volunteers. This is an enormous sacrifice. We can all help these people. Spread the word about adopting pets instead of buying them. If you know of a shelter where the person/people running it are simply overwhelmed by the amount of work, volunteer to help them. If you know for sure that the shelter is reputable and the people running it love animals (doing some research helps), donate some food, supplies, money.
     The people running small-scale animal shelters have made an incredible commitment to help animals. In most cases, it is a lifetime commitment. Let's all do something to make life a little easier for them. Let's send a message that there are other good people out there who understand the sacrifice they're making and are willing to help them in creating a better life for animals.
     Having said all that, there is another benefit to helping: To set a good example for those around you. Spread your compassion around a bit. It's easy to get angry and frustrated that others around you treat animals so badly, and subsequently develop a resentful attitude towards humans in general. Ultimately, there is very little benefit to be had from such an attitude. Instead of hating, show people around you the beauty of compassion - by helping all living beings. Remember: Someone is much more likely to embrace the beliefs we've stated in this book if they see that you exude positivity, than if you're walking around sulking all the time. The world can be a terrible place, especially for the most innocent creatures, but sulking about it and turning your heart into a temple of hatred is self-defeating. Helping in a positive way, you greatly increase the chances of changing people's minds and, subsequently, their lifestyle choices.

20. The importance of getting political

     EFFA didn't start out with a political agenda, but we believe that compassionate individuals who want to affect real change can do so by getting involved in politics, even if it means starting their own political parties. Lobbying existing parties can work, but these days so few individuals in mainstream politics are truly in tune with how we should treat other animals, that most will not adequately address these important issues. They might make some "friendly gestures", but only individuals who have a strong respect for all living beings, and especially those who have already connected to the Animal Compassion Mindframe, can be relied on to do the right thing. These types of people will do their best to ensure that the current status quo is altered in a way to improve our treatment of other animals, and, in doing so, will not be influenced by favors, bribes, etc. A political party that is primarily made up of these types of people can become a powerful entity. Furthermore, starting a political party is in line with one of our main beliefs, which is to work within the system to try to change it.
     So what are some of the things that a political party that adheres to EFFA's belief system would try to do? While the full spectrum of such items is outside the scope of this book, here are a couple of things an "EFFA party" would fight for:
     First it would try to create legislation to impose harsher penalties for animal abusers, as well as to ensure that the current laws are adhered to, and that people who mistreat and abuse other animals are held accountable for their actions. To make sure the second part of that equation happens, there has to be a better dialogue with police departments regarding animal abusers, as well as the possible establishment of an independent entity that would oversee that this (and some of the other policies outlined below) are adhered to. Next, this party would lobby to start a "respect animals" program in primary school, in which children would be exposed to animals, taught to adopt a compassionate attitude towards them and to respect them. Children must be taught that an animal is a living being, one that has to be respected, from an early age. Educating people about animal rights would be high on the agenda for any such party, and this education program would not only be limited to public schools, but would cross over into other parts of society, including public awareness campaigns in the media, etc.
     A general plan to restructure the meat-centric nature of society would be implemented. Apart from elements of the above-mentioned approaches such as education, etc, this would involve providing financial incentives for producers of meat-substitutes, farmers involved in the production of non-meat products, vegetarian and vegan restaurants, and (very generally speaking) anyone who opens a business that promotes vegetarianism and veganism. On the other hand, heavier taxes would be imposed on meat-producers. These same meat producers would be subject to stringent laws as to how the animals that they raise must be kept and treated. Due to the terrible state of how most farm animals are treated these days, this will undoubtedly raise production costs, which will, in turn, provide even more incentive for the farmers to get out of the meat business. This is very broad overview of the approach that a political party that cares about our relationship with other animals should take. The policies above all have one thing in common - to change the status quo by gradually providing more and more incentives for people to stop eating meat. The whole "meat is necessary to live" fallacy will no longer be as prominent in society as it is now when people see that they can live perfectly well without consuming the dead flesh of another animal.
     As you can see, with respect to vegetarianism/veganism, a gradual approach would be adopted. Despite the fact that we would love nothing more than to "ban meat" at once, meat consumption is too ingrained in most societies for that to happen. A gradual approach ensures a natural shift both in the type of products that are produced, as well as in the collective mentality of the people living in society. These policies would result in fewer animals suffering and being killed, which would mean less negativity in the world, which would ultimately mean a better world. That said, there are certain things that an "EFFA party" would try to ban altogether. One of these things is the inclusion of animals in entertainment/sporting events. It would push for a ban of "blood sports" such as bullfighting, cock-fighting, dog fighting, etc. It would also push for a ban on animals in circuses, horse racing, greyhound racing, and any other "sports" where animals are forced to perform against their will. If a human signs up for a blood sport, they are making a conscious decision to do so. Other animals don't sign up for these types of things, so they have no business being there just to satisfy our whim. The party would fight to ban hunting, while setting up more natural reserve areas where animals would be allowed to control their numbers naturally.
     Other policies would focus on improving the position of animals in our cities - the conversion of kill shelters into no-kill shelters (couple with investing in improving conditions for animals living in these shelters), the establishment of food banks specifically for animals, government sponsored spay and neuter programs in areas where stray animals are a problem, and stiffer penalties for those who abandon their pets.
     As you can see, there's a lot to fight for, and there are many other things that need changing that we can add to the list above. People often discount the political process, stating that "no good will ever come of it", but one has to try. The political and legal systems of a country are the channels through which laws are set up. Those who are working in the system have much more power when it comes actually affecting change than those who are outside the system. We encourage all our supporters, and everyone who truly cares about leveling the playing field for all of the Earth's inhabitants, to get involved locally, regionally, and nationally to try to affect change. Remember, if you have doubts about how effective one can be within a political system - look at all the progress that has been made in the past centuries. If everyone had adopted a "this could never work" attitude, think of how little of the same progress would have been made.
     When we talk about implementing policies that would rearrange our methods of food production in order to improve the current relationship between humans and other animals, we sometimes get accused of putting animals ahead of humans, since implementing much of these ideas would mean that most people who currently work in the meat and fishing industries, as well as others employed in related fields, would lose their jobs.
     When it comes to people who currently work in the meat industry, we believe in a gradual restructuring of the economy to shift from meat production (as is currently the case in most countries) to non-meat alternatives. We has to adapt to survive. Certain jobs that were around a hundred believe that any new infrastructure will require as much if not more people being employed, and, with programs that re-train those employed in the meat and fishing industries, we don't really see lots of people becoming unemployed. What's important to remember is that the economy is always shifting. One years ago no longer exist. Factories stand empty, often because either the methods used were inefficient, or the demand for a certain product just dissipated over time. A shift from a meat-centric society, to one that's more based on vegetarianism would be just another such shift in the economy.

21: A conclusion of sorts

     The current relationship between humans and other animals is a complicated one. Some animals are considered pets, and are loved by us. Others are considered untouchable due to religious reasons. Still others are killed en masse because of long-standing cultural norms. Any type of real progress requires saying goodbye to old ways, and embracing new, better, and in this case more positive ways of doing things. The time has come for us to say goodbye to the way we have been interacting with the animal world. The current system is broken, and the mass amount of suffering and death that it causes is unacceptable. The amount of neglect towards other animals in need is unacceptable. The low percentage of people who really go out of their way to help other animals is unacceptable. The fact that we treat other animals as our inferiors in unacceptable.
     Humans are not like other animals. Some people, when faced with phenomena such as hunting, sports that involve the suffering and killing of animals, and other types of animal abuse and mistreatment, lose faith in humanity. They begin to feel that human beings are the worst species on the planet. Though this type of disillusionment is understandable, we at EFFA feel that human beings are not inherently bad. As a species, however, we have made some very bad decisions when it comes to our interaction with other inhabitants of this planet. We have generally come to see animals as our inferiors, partly because of our superior intellect, and (sometimes) or physical strength. Even many of us who don't view animals as our inferiors, have stubbornly held on to the misconception that we have to eat them, even though there is a lot of proof to the contrary both in the form of science and nutrition, as well as in the living proof provided by millions of healthy, happy vegetarians.
     When one person's negative attitude is adopted by more and more people, bad decisions are made by more and more people, and, consequently, bad decisions are made by societies which are made up of these people. At this point, something seems acceptable because everyone is doing it. Does this mean that it is acceptable in the moral scheme of things? No, it doesn't. We don't think that we have to bring up cases in history where the majority, in hindsight, has been proven wrong. Historically speaking, holocausts, slavery, and religious intolerance-based killings en masse have all been justified by the "majority rules" argument. Conversely, when one person's positive attitude is adopted by more and more people, this can result in real positive advancements in a given society.
     Our view of society in the future is a positive one. We envisage a society where the current majority of meat eaters will gradually become a minority. We envisage a society in which there are strong laws limiting or prohibiting archaic and shameful ways we treat animals in circuses, bullfighting rings, dog fighting venues, etc. We envisage a society in which there is a presence of animal rights curriculum in schools, and kids are taught from an early age to respect animals, a society in which there are strong laws that protect animals against abusers, ones that are enforced to make sure that the abusers are held accountable for their crimes. There is nothing odd or unrealistic about this view of the future, and with the proper motivation, all of us can take concrete steps to get involved and to make it happen. Most people realize that there are certain things that set us apart from animals, and certain things that we have in common. A wise and compassionate individual will use the intellectual superiority we have over other animals for doing good instead of doing harm. Our intellectual superiority should lead us to help other animals, instead of coldly and cruelly finding new ways to mistreat or abuse them.
     We are very happy that EFFA exists, and that we are able to continue educating people about animal rights and animal welfare issues. We believe that the ideas which guide us to help other animals, the ideas we talked about in this book, are important ones. However, while understanding the ideas is important, incorporating them into your everyday life is even more so. If, after reading this book, you start to take steps to help other animals, then the book will have succeeded in its goal of making a difference. By adopting a more compassionate approach to all the animals of the world, we will eliminate many of the negative consequences of our current system. Fighting for progress, especially when it comes to fighting against the tide, is quite a challenge, but we at EFFA feel up to the challenge, because everything that we've written here, we not only believe, but we feel with every fiber of our minds and bodies. We would like nothing more than for you to use what you've read in this book to help us create a better relationship between humans and other animals.