Since September 11th, the words “peace” and “nonviolence” have become staples of Wesleyan dialogue. Many members of our community have spoken out against the U.S. government’s militaristic rhetoric and actions on the basis that further violence will only kill more innocent people without solving any of the problems that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am strongly opposed to both the attacks that occurred on September 11th and the military campaign that the U.S. is carrying out now, but I feel that the anti-war movement defines violence far too narrowly. If we are serious about eradicating violence from our society, we must expand our concept of violence to consider the plight of the billions of innocent creatures who are violently and unnecessarily killed in the United States every year.

Numerous studies (for example, “Animal Abuse and Youth Violence” by Frank R. Ascione; Juvenile Justice Bulletin; Washington, DC; 2001) have conclusively confirmed that people who demonstrate violent behavior towards other humans are more likely than the general population to have also demonstrated violent behavior towards nonhuman animals. The correlation between animal abuse and anti-social violence is so well-established that even our own government acknowledges it, and it forms the basis for many laws which criminalize violent behavior towards nonhuman animals. However, our society supports a system of violence against nonhuman animals far more pervasive and widespread than narrowly defined “animal abuse.”

The scope of the violence perpetrated against nonhuman animals destined for meat consumption is staggering. In 2000, according to Joel Bartlett’s September 25th Wespeak, over 45 billion animals were slaughtered worldwide, including over 9.7 billion in the U.S. alone, simply to feed humans. The efficiency needed for mass slaughter on these scales has led to the employment of some of the most inhumane practices imaginable. Factory farm animals typically live their lives standing in their own feces trapped in cages so small that they cannot even turn around, and often remain alive many minutes into the slaughtering process. More detailed descriptions of inhumane practices related to factory farming can be found in the book Slaughterhouse (Eisnetz, Gail. Prometheus Books, New York, 1997) and the pamphlet “Why Vegan?” released by the organization Vegan Outreach (www.veganoutreach. org, or contact me at gpopkin@ wesleyan.edu for a copy). However, none of the violence that goes into meat production is apparent by the time the meat hits the grocery store shelf. The process of meat production is so completely removed from the consumer that he or she is perfectly free to ignore the violence that went into the product he or she is purchasing.

The anti-war movement is based on the view that it is not enough to simply avoid taking active part in the U.S. government’s military campaign, but that as U.S. residents it is our responsibility to actively voice our opinions about our government’s actions. Likewise, it is not enough to simply avoid taking active part in the ruthless slaughter of farm animals, but we as consumers must take responsibility for all the consequences of our actions. To the argument that it is “natural” for humans because other animals eat meat, I respond that factory farming is a purely human construction, and that the meat produced by our agricultural system is a far cry from anything that humans supposedly eat “naturally.” Furthermore, humans, unlike some other animals, can survive healthily without eating meat.

By attempting to eradicate violence from our society, we are already placing ourselves on a higher moral plane than those animals we cite as examples of “natural” meat-eaters, who in general cannot make ethical decisions about their violent behavior. Vegetarianism is a logical and necessary extension of the ethics embraced by the peace movement. We cannot claim that we want a nonviolent society and at the same time support a system that perpetrates horrendous violence against billions of innocent beings every year – we must address the common psychological and philosophical roots of all violence, as opposed to merely attacking isolated examples. Progress does not result from fancy rhetoric, but rather from individual people becoming aware of the world around them, and consciously making decisions to shape this world. Each meal at which you don’t eat meat is a meal that didn’t contribute to an animal’s tortured life and violent death. If you want a nonviolent society, you must be willing to be a nonviolent member of this society, and if you eat meat, that means quitting now.



Popkin is a member of the class of 2003.