I'm in a pretty vegan-friendly country with a long tradition of plant-based eating. Most people eat meat, but they are basically sympathetic to every meat-free argument: ethical, environmental, health. They sometimes do an awkward little shuffle & apologise for eating meat in front of me or say they're part-time vegetarians and so on. I think this is all quite nice.
What bothers me is when these same people talk about their pets. Eating meat, especially in contemporary urban settings where the origin is factory farms, indisputably objectively does more harm than keeping a pet, but people basically acknowledge meat-eating is a matter of habit/skill/knowledge. Whomst among us lives totally plastic-free, fuel-free, in the woods, etc? But people fucking rhasphodise about their pets. People will buy an animal from a breeder and keep it locked in the house or a cage completely bereft of any stimulation, they'll make it do stupid tricks to earn its food, they'll hound it or punis it for behaviours the owner finds inconvenient, use it for emotional comfort while having no real curiousity about the non-human animal's internal life or perception or needs beyond food and water and maybe some exercise, and then they'll talk about how it's their best friend. Guess what--I wouldn't "own" my friends! At least eating meat, in principle (though obviously not in practice in the modern world) is part of the natural circle of life and can be part of a respectful predator-prey relationship & sustainable ecology. At least people don't generally defend their meat-eating. But suddenly they're saints and best friends in their own eyes for taking a captive. To me, even though the objective harm is lesser, this is actually much more sadistic on an individual level.
Obviously there's a spectrum, bla bla. Dogs are an especially complicated case as a primeval co-domestication relationship with humans. One can absolutely make the case that because of the danger of our anthropocentric/anthropogenic built environments, it's the humane thing to do to keep a cat in the house instead of destroying wildlife or geting run over by a car or drinking antifreeze somewhere. The attuned, curious, considerate shelter-adopter is not the same as the owner who gives her dogs narcotics so they stop whining and disturbing the neighbours while she's gone 8 hours a day. But while interspecies companionship is not wrong, ownership imo aways is. I think people should at least be very self-critical and ambivalent about it. On the contrary, most people see it as unproblematic and a hobby.
To me, destroying non-human habitats and taking them into our own homes and completely flattening their internal lives & turning them into "good boys" and restricting their freedom (while calling them "friends"--friendship is a fucking voluntary dyadic association with no collars involved!) is a much blunter manifestation & affirmation of speciesist ideology imo. Every time I encounter it I find it very hard to deal with. I just stayed with someone who kept dogs leashed up 24/7 except for two daily walks who talked about how much he loved them and how ethical he was with them (there is no animal protection agency here, all of that is legal). A friend of mine just whined to me about how sad he is that he can't stroke his rodent because it died because another rodent pet of his bit it--well, don't fucking keep animals captive together in unnatural circumstances where they can hardly avoid conflict that was absolutely forseeably fatal?
Again, to me, it is just sadism. This is such a deeply-held position for me and it's so unpopular and impossible to talk about. I can't actually connect with anyone who is a proud or uncritical pet owner. I just smile and nod and think about how much muchness is in every consciousness and how close we are to most animals we keep captive evolutionarily and how much suffering that is both extremely easy to imagine and sympathise with if you bothered to consider it (no mammal or bird likes to be caged up/understimulated/told what to do/eating ultra processed garbage, fucking duh, Vox has a pretty good article critiquing pet ownership that lays it out convincingly & plainly) & difficult to understand bc every being has its own unique perceptions & desires & needs & skills many of which are opaque to humans...is created by pet ownership! And it makes me very very sad. I've distanced myself from relationships bc of it. Death to speciesism, death to anthropocentrism, death to the myth of human superiority.
This is the true animal rights mindset. Reject petism / mascotism. Animals are not living toys or playthings, they are individuals. They are ends in and of themselves and not merely means to our ends. The pet industry is horrific along with pet ownership itself and all the rights violations, sufferings and deprivations it causes, many of which are overlooked or dismissed by "pet owners" or petists.
Have you listened to or read anything by Eisel Mazard by any chance? His newest livestream touched on the topic (don't be thrown off by the title, he does talk about petism) https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM .
Lucie Munson also has a good podcast on "pet ownership" and veganism. https://youtu.be/GD-6XJfkF2I
One thing I would say though, I think animals should be referred to as "they" or he/she, rather than "it". This helps to individualise them and see them as someones and not somethings, individuals vs objects. "The dog was restrained and we chained them/he/her (rather than it)." I believe language can have a powerful effect in how we view other animals leading to how they're treated societally. For the same reason I reject the use of animals as insults, such as calling a human a pig derogatorily.
Thanks for sharing all of this. I agree with you. TBD whether returning to social media will be a net good or a net evil in my life, but it's such a relief to be able to see people agree for once with what is such an obvious, high-stakes moral position.
Edit: although I'm 100% on board with the book quotations I actually am not inclined to agree with a lot of the stuff in the first video. For one, I think sterilising human beings really is more of a practical than a moral limitation and I think he doesn't give enough space to the instances of where it actually happened. And for another--I started to type about how I disagree with him on civilisation being necessarily a positive unambigous transcendence or whatever, and then about how calling bacteria & sharks mindless is arrogant, but then he goes full anthropocentric in the end and says that humans in civilisation are the only ones who can live meaningful lives and all animals following their instincts (& people living outside of civilisation today & the vast majority of human history apparently) are just perpetuating meaningless suffering? This is an extremely narrow-minded, arrogant, parochial, self-aggrandising perspective. I'm surprised he advocates for wild living for animals when he has no curiousity at all about how the world actually works outside of the human city and countryside. Really reaffirms my dislike of talking heads, especially those with the comments turned off lol.
Lol, yeah Eisel is a bit of a mixed bag. Quite a controversial figure in the vegan community who many disagree with on a lot of things. But I think the actions he advocates for are probably positive for the most part (not destroying nature, not exploiting animals etc, even extending that further than a lot of vegans will by saying we shouldn't own pets etc), even if his views, ideas and expressions can be problematic. I agree that part especially at the end about saying non-human animals are "mindless" didn't sit well with me, and the implication that their lives aren't very meaningful. It also continually surprises me that he actually cares about not harming/using animals given how lowly he sometimes speaks of them in comparison to humans and how focused he is on the supposed greatness/potential of humanity and civilisation. For him, veganism/animal rights is a "civilising mission" for humanity to stop doing barbaric things for the good of our own evolution, as much as or perhaps even more than it is for the good of the animals themselves. I think you're right that it's a more than slightly egoistic and anthropocentric perspective for sure. But again, at least he seems to place some value on non-human animals sufficiently to the degree that he maintains it's not acceptable to abuse them, and holds fairly high standards for that comparably to his standards for human rights. I primarily mention him in the topic of this post as one of the only people I'm aware of actively speaking out about the concept of petism / pet ownership and why vegans/animal liberationists shouldn't support it, rather than for his other musings. He rarely focuses on one point at a time and usually drags in multiple other topics into the discussion, lol, so it's hard to find him talking exclusively on that issue for reference. Like you said his book quotes are pretty eloquent.