When I was four years old,
I made a decision or made a choice
that would define a series of my choices in the future,
or maybe even define who I am or who I’ve become.
I was able to perceive
that what I was feeding on was an animal.
In a very simple way, right, with my child’s head,
I understood that what was being offered to me there in that dish
was the same animal that, in cartoons,
or that in the tours, visits to sites,
told me that I had to love or, at least, respect.
And there, very stubbornly,
I decided that I did not want to eat it anymore;
until then, only the flesh.
I spent all my childhood and adolescence
without understanding why I was a vegetarian …
or proto-vegetarian, in this case.
It was just something that made sense to me.
Closer to the time of choosing a college,
I started to get more interested in my food.
and decided to do college of nutrition because I did not find much information,
especially in Portuguese, professionals or even written information,
about vegetarianism,
this in a pre-internet era yet, right?
Then today, in addition to serving vegetarian and vegan patients –
I dedicate myself to this audience –
I have also been an animal rights NGO for 11 years, which is VEDDAS,
which is currently the most active animal defense NGO in the country.
But this episode, at the age of four,
is not something really so special or surprising, right?
I see today, in contact with vegetarians …
and the internet for anyone who wants to see is full of videos of children
that, precisely in this age group of four to five years,
have chosen, or at least demonstrate, that refusal:
“I’m not going to eat an animal.”
This is because we, human animals, and also many nonhuman animals,
we are beings endowed with the capacity for empathy.
We can relate to or identify the suffering of the other
and desire and, if possible, act so that it is not happening.
Not only the human animal,
but nonhuman animals are also capable of expressing this empathy.
What happens is that, because of our civilizing process,
we were also becoming apathetic beings,
distancing us from this nature.
Whether by the prevalence of patriarchy,
either by this search and attachment to property,
for, as a civilization, we are always trying to conquer
and at the same time take care not to be conquered,
we have been transforming ourselves into a society more apathetic.
But even so we are not empathic, right?
The same atrocities caused by human hands can be observed
and find empathy for most other humans.
We do not have to be a victim to recognize suffering.
and wanting to act, wanting to do something against it.
So we are, within this duality, …
or even, let’s say, it’s a schizophrenia, right?
where we can be both.
But when it comes to our relationship with other animals,
and not with human beings?
“Relationship” may not be the best word, right,
because when it comes to our interaction with non-human animals,
with 99% or more of the animals with which we interact,
this relationship is exploitation.
Yes, it is the same relation that an “owner” would have with a slave
or what a producer has with his product, right?
So we are empathic, but at the same time,
we have a whole economy, a habit of life based on something
which does not express much empathy.
If I ask, do a search here …
ask individually for each one of you
who here cares about animals,
who is moved here when he sees an animal suffering
or even do something to alleviate this suffering,
I’m sure the vast majority, if not all of you,
they would say yes, they care.
But at the same time, if we bring another look,
we will see that most of you and our society
participates in a system of exploitation,
participates in a direct or indirect way, but, nevertheless, not so far,
of a system of exploitation that victimizes those animals.
So, how is this duality possible, right, or this schizophrenia?
The explanation for this is speciesism.
Speciation is discrimination
based simply on fact
of that individual or group of individuals belong to another species.
Less rights or less value are assigned to a group
simply because they are not of the species Homo sapiens.
And for this,
the human species develops, justification
and criteria,
but those who define these justifications and criteria are human beings themselves.
It is not an impartial entity that defines.
In fact, the human being is a star, right?
in bringing justifications that define the exploration,
even of beings of their own kind.
Here, two examples only, right: human slavery, the Holocaust …
This photo below is a girl who, not less than a century ago,
was exposed – brought from Congo – exhibited in Belgium at a zoo.
We’re talking about 60 years ago, 70 at the most.
We were able to bring justification at the time to justify the Holocaust,
justify human slavery,
justifications based on fact
of that group of individuals belong to another religious belief, another ethnicity,
or even based on your skin color.
And I’m bringing this here, in this talk about speciesism,
because what I want to score is that all of them are based on …
have had, and many still have, right?
People are still discriminated against today.
because of their sexual orientation or gender.
Fortunately, this has been changing, but we still have a lot to conquer
discrimination in several areas.
So what I want to bring is that these atrocities
have some form of discrimination as a common ground.
And it is also important to note that, at the time, this was accepted by the existing morality.
By the time slavery was happening,
the people, by means of justifications, or simply by the normality,
they accepted that it was moral.
And we’ve walked a lot, we still have a lot to walk,
but when it comes to discrimination,
and to avoid such errors in the future,
It’s interesting that we look back
and constantly question ourselves in the present:
“Is this what I look at today …
which is odd, I did not want the animals to be treated like that,
but, um, everybody does it like this,
it seems to me that I am strange because I think it is wrong … “
Is it not precisely these things which at present trouble us,
but are still normal,
it is not these things that, in the future,
as we move forward in our ethical perception,
or empower ourselves more,
Are we going to be condemning this kind of practice?
So, speciesism, right?
Most of us humans do not even notice
that this form of discrimination exists.
You may be hearing the term for the first time,
or even the concept, regardless of the term, for the first time.
So we are very far away.
to overcome this next ethical frontier of our relationship with animals.
And when we do not realize it as a society,
it is important that we seek to do this at the individual level,
individually question our relationship with animals
and, at the individual level, make a choice,
to be able to remove this veil of speciesism and look at it without normality,
looking at it is a form of discrimination,
based exclusively on the fact that he was born in another species.
No one gave us the right to exploit them.
We have theories and justifications,
but that does not mean that we were given the right.
They are justifications, only.
And it’s no simple task, right?
Specimism is rooted in our cultural festivities,
in our religious festivities,
even in the form of entertainment we choose.
It is part of our daily diet …
huh?
Our food is based, as a foundation,
animal husbandry.
It is also part of the everyday of our science the speciesism,
accept that the other animal can be subjected to a life of pain and suffering;
in science or in clothing.
And while our economy is based on this,
of our habits will be based on this, science shows the opposite way, right?
We know today … not today, a few decades ago,
and each time this becomes more forceful,
that people who do not eat animal products
live more and live better.
A vegetarian diet, 100% vegetable,
prevents chronic degenerative diseases:
diabetes, obesity, some forms of cancer,
heart disease, stroke, stroke.
It brings benefits to ourselves, even, right?
It would not be just the animal.
From the environmental point of view,
80% of deforestation in the Amazon is attributed to livestock.
Imagine 80% of what has already been deforested in the Amazon:
how many wild animals killed in the burning or felling,
loss of biodiversity;
the land conflicts that exist because of this,
which then victimizes indigenous communities.
Eighty percent of this is because of our food choice.
The UN says that livestock farming is the main factor
emissions of greenhouse gases,
more than the transport sector.
We pollute more by eating animal products
than driving our cars and trucks.
Still, we cling to speciesism.
To be able to relegate the speciesism to the most shameful pages of our history,
along with these other atrocities,
we have to start at the individual level.
And what I wanted to show when I talked about the environment and about health
it is not only because of a moral or ethical imperative.
It’s also for the sake of survival, right?
Or even
for the sake of defending our pretended intelligence,
because the human animal is the only animal that destroys its habitat
on a planetary level,
because, in the frigir of the tofu, if you allow me,
to take the egg also from this vocabulary,
we are a self-destructive species.
And, having exhausted all the arguments,
based on science and philosophy,
the arguments, the justifications, right,
what remains is an argument that is selfishly self-
which is: “I like it, it’s the taste buds.
It’s okay that it destroys the environment, which is bad for my health …
obviously the animals are not interested in slave beings …
but I like”.
Is our palate worth so much
to the point that we are irreversibly destroying the planet?
Is our palate worth so much
to the point of submitting 70 billion individuals,
per annum,
to a life of pain, suffering,
deprivation, physical and psychological torture,
to justify a few seconds of our palate?
I want to call attention to the term “70 billion ‘individuals'”
because when you speak of such a monstrous number,
it is easy to lose the [notion] that we are talking about individuals,
who are able to look us in the eyes,
who are sentient beings, capable of feeling pain, fear, cold,
for their life and for their freedom.
Seventy billion a year, just for food, only land animals.
Aquatic animals are not included in this number.
And always has
a form of some atrocity,
some rights violation, rather,
the movement for social justice comes on the stage,
because, you see, the movement for animal rights is not a culinary movement,
nor of world peace; it is a movement for social justice.
Some people participate in or contribute to this
simply ceasing to be part of the problem, become vegans,
they cease to consume meat, milk, eggs;
stop consuming products with leather,
product which have been tested on animals,
and others go beyond
and also try to take this message to other people.
I have been a vegan for 23 years; I guarantee that I am alive.
As a dietician, I have guided hundreds of patients.
For 19 years already as a nutritionist, specialty in vegetarian diet,
I have counseled hundreds of pro-vegan patients.
As an activist, I live daily with people who are not only vegan,
but devote their time and energy
to help others remove that veil that blinds us
in relation to the speciesism,
open your eyes, right, of other people.
So if there’s something that every single person in the audience today
or who is watching over the internet can do,
once you feel fair or sensible
not participate in this form of discrimination,
is to become vegan,
take out your menu today at the next meal,
meat, milk, eggs, honey,
and, over time, remove from your wardrobe, your bathroom,
products which also have animal
as the basis of its production.
I had the privilege of having had this awakening very early,
even though in an unprocessed or not so rational way,
but…
I followed what my child’s heart was talking about,
just like so many other kids have done and done.
But as an adult,
today I see this need for this transformation no longer as …
In fact, children have much easier, right,
to get rid of these bonds, right?
or to identify a form of discrimination,
or to understand what needs to be respected.
But today, as an adult, I no longer see that choice
as a matter of awakening.
I think that for adults it can also be by way of awakening,
but if there is no such awakening,
it’s more a matter of responsibility, knowing what we know today.
It is not wake up alone. It is responsibility.
And it is no longer a question of choice, but an ethical imperative.
Thanks for listening.
(Applause)
”
Be First to Comment