Feb 18, 2008 15 comments

Activists lack self-esteem

Guest Bloggers

Animal activists pose a clear danger to agriculture. Through terrorists acts, blackmail and propaganda they try to mislead the man in the street. Their needs are apparently different to mainstream consumers. Reasoning is almost impossible with these fundamentalists. There is something wrong with their self-esteem.

Bob Stallman, President of American Farm Bureau Federation, indicated that animal welfare extremists pose a clear and present threat to American agriculture, according to a story in Brownfield Ag News. Stallman referred to the Humane Society of the US (HSUS), an anti-livestock group that intends "to prohibit the use of animals for food or for work," he warned. Not only in the US, also in Europe and other developed countries these action groups gain ground. It is interesting to philosophize about the reason why activists almost put animal rights above human rights.

The first thought that comes to mind is related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This is a theory Abraham Maslow published in 1954 and is symbolised in a pyramid consisting of five levels: the four lower levels are grouped together as being associated with physiological needs (D- or deficit needs), while the top level is termed growth needs associated with psychological needs (B- or being needs).

Deficiency needs must be met first. Once these are met, a person is seeking to satisfy personal growth needs. This fifth level is harder to attain and longing for self-actualisation is seen as being addictive, once experienced it is something that people tend to want more and more of.

Negative effects
Maslow believed that humans have the need to increase their intelligence and thereby chase knowledge. Cognitive needs is the expression of the natural human need to learn, explore, discover and create, to get a better understanding of the world around them. Animal activists are misusing this need. They see that their acts (arson, freeing animals) are widely covered in the press and that they can easily get away with it because it has low priority with the police. Misinformation or manipulated information further helps to spread their truth.

The negative effects of their activities never reach the popular press. For example an undeniable tsunami of horse abuse cases has swept across the USA since a ban on horse processing - pushed by vegan driven animal rights groups - went into effect in early 2007.

Blackmail
Blackmail, not democracy is another method enacted by activists to reach what they want. Large retail companies are visited and forced to sell or use cage-free eggs. If the retailers hesitate, their image will be badly damaged through media-campaigns. Even peaceful living monks don't get a pass. After months of protests by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the monks at Mepkin Abbey, a Trappist monastery in South Carolina, had to give up the egg production business that had sustained them for nearly 50 years, because their chicken were kept in cages.

Self-esteem
These fundamental animal right activists lack self-esteem. All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect, and to respect others. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem, inferiority complexes. People with low self-esteem need respect

Author: Dick Ziggers

15 comments

Mike

18 Feb 2008 15:15

Says something about the Dutch when they have a political party of these people with one actually sitting in their parliament.
Francisco

18 Feb 2008 17:18

This is a confirmation that money does not give wisdom. It does not matter that the societies in developed countries have reached a higher level of economical wealth, they are still ignorant, and these activists take advantage of this fact.
Alan

18 Feb 2008 18:57

I'm an animal activist who would never resort to arson or other destruction of property to get a point across. Wanting better conditions for animals and informing the public about the effects of animal agriculture has nothing to do with my self-esteem. Just as I wouldn't say all livestock farmers are heartless and cruel, you shouldn't generalize.
Dr David Mitchell

18 Feb 2008 20:16

What nonsense. As humanity is just one of the many
animal species, why then
should all the other species
be ill-treated?
Animal farmers should be
ashamed of themselves.
MaryF

18 Feb 2008 20:28

Spare us the amateur psychology, Dick. It's not a matter of "almost putting animal rights above human rights." It's a matter of opposing cruelty and the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals. There is nothing wrong with that. Rather, it is a most admirable endeavor. The people with a problem are those who are oblivious to such suffering or who think it is justifiable if the almight buck can be made from it.
michael alvarez-toye

18 Feb 2008 20:50

what a convoluted way of thinking, presupposing first, that the human animal is already atop some animal hierarchy and thus need not consider the right to exist of all other species.
i can assure 'dick' that i do not suffer from any self-esteem issues, and suggest on the contrary that those who create this hierarchy, that gives anthropocentric precedence to the intricacies of this complex web of life, are the ones who have such issues.
why else would the human animal skew all qualifiers that promote the concept of superiority among animal species in such a fashion so as to propel the human animal to the top of some mythical 'foodchain'?
an opposable thumb does not make the human superior, just different, much like the plumage on birds would make them different, or the clawed flippers of seals, etc.
where there may be argument, is in the fact that 'we' seem to be the one species that seems incapable of grasping and thus submitting to the laws of nature as it were, choosing to put our species-individual by individual-at risk by refusing to consume that which we are physiologically designed for, or by acting out in ways that are destryoing ourselves along with the rest of the planet we live on-in particular with full knowledge of the repercussions.
i do not think it is the animal advocate that has issues of self-esteem, but rather those of our species that feel some perverse need to sit ourselves up above all other life forms, through the creation of some belief systems, arrogance and yes, ignorance.
Cate

19 Feb 2008 09:57

Since free range eggs almost fly off the shelves where I shop I guess buyers must be afraid there are animal rights activists lurking in the aisles. What else but fear would make a customer spend this much on eggs.
jean robertson

19 Feb 2008 17:46

I am not against people eating meat. However, I believe our meat animals deserve to be treated with respect and compassion. The dairy cows filmed in California are a prime exmple of what goes on everyday in every slaughter house undetected. The inspectors are always either absent or looking the other way. If slaughter houses had glass walls no one would eat meat.
Holly Williams

19 Feb 2008 18:36

What a biased article! I am an "activist" who still eats meat - talk about a wild one! I am actively concerned about where and how my food got from living animal to my plate. I take pride in understanding all sides and supporting industries who favor animal welfare. I choose free-range, locally farmed meat and dairy. I drive by the cattle in the pastures that are the very ones I eat. I buy my eggs and poultry from local farmers who utilize humane methods of animal husbandary (and slaughter).

I am also a standing member of HSUS and PETA.

The world will not change overnight; nor is anyone expected to. I do not endorse "arson" and "malice" endeavours of those wishing to spread vengance on agricultural producers. I believe education is the key to improving the lives of billions of animals who live and die in factory farms.

Next time you write an article and begin to disclaim about a group of people - "Acivists" - why don't you interview one.

You'll have some credibility.
Joyce

19 Feb 2008 19:31

Mr. Zigger has chosen an obscure psychological theory to explain the motivations of animal activists. I will use two that is more well-recognized; first, that of Sigmund Freud. Those of us who are concerned with the welfare of animals, both the two and four-legged varieties, have a developed superego (read conscience) while those who are not able to care about animals are driven by motives rooted in the ego with major influences by the id. Or possibly those who are so concerned with blocking attempts to regulate the treatment of animals are responding as per Pavlov--a conditioned response created as a result of the repeated stimulus "You will be deprived of your right to eat meat if these people have their way." I would submit that those with no respect for the "lower animals" are the real victims of low self-esteem and must attempt to reinforce their superiority by treating the "lesser" animals as not deserving of the right to be treated humanely. It is the arrogance of humans and their self-styled superior status in Creation that has resulted in the need for us "animal activists". Someone has to put a check on unbridled misuse and abuse for all of God's creatures.
And for your information, Mr. Zigger, horse slaughter did not end in early 2007. The last domestic slaughterhouse was closed in September of 2007; horses can still be slaughtered in Mexico and Canada. The only thing that has changed is the length of the trip the horses must endure. The auctions are still active, the kill buyers still troll there and owners continue to dump their horses rather than take responsibility for their fate. So equating increased abuse, neglect and abandonment with the unavailability of slaughter is fallacious in two respects: abuse, et al have not increased and slaughter has not gone away. You should have researched this topic as well as you researched Maslow's Theory of Self-Actualization.
Eric

21 Feb 2008 01:52

I can't believe I went to school to become a professional writer when all I needed to know was that I could write half-baked alarmist crap about controversial contemporary issues and end up on some industry website.
Dennis

21 Feb 2008 02:05

I think Dick and many animal farmers and researchers are well aware that there are well informed activists, who want the best for the animals. Many farmers and researchers also think of the same for animals, and are not just some righteous killers working with animals. But the rights movement does have some members, who I don't believe care about the animals as much as for their own choice of diet. These are the problems that Dick tries to draw attention to. They can still thank their stars that farmers and researchers do not react in the same way they do, otherwise, we would have anarchy in the world. They only need to be aware that many people live off farming and many people would like to eat meat/eggs and drink milk. They should not impose their dietary preferences on other people.
Beryl

21 Feb 2008 15:52

I have worked in a battery unit, a deep litter [Barn Eggs] factory, a so called Free range unit, and a Broiler factory. This was education the way I do it, like working for a butcher to learn about cuts of meat, and a fishmongers to learn how to scale, gut,and fillet fish.
These Units should never be called farms.
The job at the Battery farm started in the morning with removing cannibalised corpses. Then eggs were collected and sorted while auto cleaning took place. A quick check on the feeders and water drippers, and I was finished.
The barn egg unit was a trifle better. i.e. less bodies than the Battery unit. It still smelled disgusting, and wasn't cleaned out until the birds were removed for dog meat or culling at the end of lay.
The "Free Range" Unit was in reality a Deep Litter Barn with a small paddock at one end. They were called Free range because they had 1 pop hole access to the paddock. I never saw a single bird go outside. The dominant Bullies inside made sure of that. That was not Free Range as I know it, but it is still legal to label the eggs as free range.
The Broiler Unit was worst. We were not allowed in there without protective clothing and breathing apparatus. The smell still made me nauseous, and without the face mask and breathing apparatus my eyes watered and I wheezed a lot through the ammonia. How those poor birds survived breathing that atmosphere I'll never know. There is something wrong with these birds bred for fast growth. I have kept them free range, and they still smelt bad. I would never eat one.
I keep a few hens free range now. I breed their replacements and we eat the roosters. I have had 2 died in 3 years. They were 5 and 6 years old, and had still been laying 200+ eggs a year. A bit different to the mass of deaths at the intensive units. I have nine 3 week old chicks in the brooder, over a dozen eggs hatching today in the incubator, and 5 X 14 week old pullets out in the garden. That should be enough pullets for the next 3 years, and a few rooster dinners. I will rear on some roosters for meat, but never the intensive things. Salmon Faverolles are good meat birds and can be sexed at a few days old. I know people say they were not swayed by the films of the intensive reared birds, but I wonder if they would still be so keen to eat them if they could smell the stench of the live birds? Would they still want to eat Battery eggs if they had seen a caged hen with her eyes pecked out, or evicerated by her cage mates?
soft feathers

23 Feb 2008 04:24

I suggest you all read WORLD PEACE DIET by Dr. Will Tuttle. Maybe you would learn something about the relation between cruelty to animals and the horrendous way humans treat each other. Animal rights activists are the salt of the earth and we will change the world in time.
Amit

18 Oct 2011 09:11

The authors of this article are indulging in defamation and personal attack on animal rights activists knowing fully well that they are on a weak ground as far as logic is concerned. I am not getting into arguements of animal rights and need for animal care since the original blog does not intend to raise that debate to a respectable level.

I will just add that there is a massive machine of corporates, large farming associations and food processing industry which has its interests in killing animals and making profits out of it. They fund elections, pay lobbyists, fund dubious research, fund academic programs of their interest and do everything possible to control and expand their interests.

By comparison animal rights activists are a far poorer set of people with very little funds, infrastructure and almost no tool of mass propoganda when compared to animal killers.