portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

actions & protests | animal rights

World Week for the Abolition of Meat: 21-27 May 2012

The World Weeks for the Abolition of Meat (WWAMs) are intended as a means of promoting a political debate around the idea of abolishing the production and consumption of sentient beings and other animal products.


World Week for the Abolition of Meat:

21-27 May 2012

This year has seen increased participation in the January World Week for the Abolition of Meat and the demand for the abolition of meat continues to attract media interest.

Remember that 99.99% of animals exploited are exploited for meat.

http://www.meat-abolition.org/ ... SMAV%20JAN%202012%20-Animal%20Rights%20Team%20West%20Japan.jpg

The next WWAM will be held from 21 to 27 May, and we hope it will be an opportunity for a larger worldwide mobilisation.

On 2 June 2012, a large demonstration, the March for the closing down of slaughterhouses, will take place in Paris. This will be an occasion to address the public and proclaim that the production and consumption of meat (and "fish" as well as other animal products) cause immense harm to animals, are not morally defendable, and must therefore be abolished as soon as possible.

We hope that demonstrations such as these will soon be organised around the world and will foster a rapid increase in awareness: the animal question is a crucial moral and political question which must be taken into account on all levels of society.

We are delighted that monthly events for the abolition of all forms of animal exploitation -- which explicitly demand the abolition of animal farming, hunting, and fishing -- are now organised in France and Switzerland.

The Veggie Pride March that will be held in Marseille, France on 19 May 2012 will also explicitly place itself within the framework of the demand for the abolition of meat.

You can listen to interviews we have given in French and English in order to detail the reasons why we lay emphasis on this demand.


How to advance the worldwide promotion to abolish meat?

You can support meat-abolition.org which receives no government subsidies.

You can also order activist materials such as T-shirts, pins, stickers, and flyers.

And of course send us your logo and website address, join us on Facebook and remember to announce your events.

If you use some or all of this call, please cite the source.

We look forward to hearing from you!


Worldwide promotion of the demand for the abolition of the production and consumption of animal flesh;
that is to say, the prohibition of products that come from hunting, fishing and farming
because they require the exploitation, suffering and death of sentient beings.

Short introductory texts:
For a world-wide movement for the abolition of meat
Frequently Asked Questions

Detailed brochure:
"Meat Abolition"


homepage: homepage: http://www.meat-abolition.org/

What if... 12.May.2012 11:59


This isn't meant as an attack, I am interested in actual responses to these questions and not just links to webpages.

What if plants are sentient as well? They don't even address this possibility.

So how do you draw the line, the line between what is ok to kill and eat and what isn't?

Some Interesting Thoughts 12.May.2012 12:42



Some Interesting Thoughts 2 12.May.2012 13:47


Click here---  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience


evidence 12.May.2012 13:57


"What if plants are sentient as well? They don't even address this possibility."

There is no scientific evidence that plants are sentient. It's that simple.

But ... 12.May.2012 16:11

Den Mark, Vancouver WA

... what is "sentient"? I mean, i know what it is, as it is usually defined, but is that all there is to it? Science does not draw such boundaries, at least not with permanent ink.

Plants off theirselves up in Spiritual Sacrifice 13.May.2012 06:59

holy Cow

Plants want to be eaten --get over it --we have to eat something and i prefer something without a face, and a central nervous system--some folks on this thread want to beat a dead horse. I will rather make a plant scream than a cow or her baby-- i kill and eat plants -yes and i am proud of it
I am a mammal i do not eat other mammals--last biology class plants were not defined as mammals so there is a BIG difference between the two--

They offer themselves up to me in spiritual sacrifice and i hang their leaves on my wall to show my friends the joy of the hunt and kill--

Yes i rip them from the ground , cut their roots and eat their heads--yes i roll like that

Vegan 13.May.2012 10:37


And 500 years ago, science said that women had 4 less teeth than men, because no bothered to actually look. 40 years ago science didn't even consider the possibility that anything other than humans were sentient.

The argument that "just because we haven't seen it, means it doesn't exist" is pretty flimsy. I would like to see you try that argument in a court of law.

"Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences."
I have post article from scientists that show plants feel and respond to external stimuli.

Holy cow?!? 13.May.2012 10:44


what evidence do you have about this willingness for "spiritual sacrifice"?

Some plants have thorns to defend themselves, some produce toxic chemicals, some are symbiotic with ants that will defend them, just go shaking Cecropia trees or Ant gall acacias and see how willing they are to sacrifice.

Mimosias close up their leaves when threatened.

I can make the same claim that cows are making a "spiritual sacrifice", but that doesn't mean they are.

The idea of preferring something with a head and a face seems like you are saying "I prefer something I can identify with, or something like me", which seems more narcissistic or anthropomorphic than anything.

How do you know plants don't scream? Maybe you just can't understand it when they do.

Links... 13.May.2012 10:46


My first question was for answers not just links to webpages. Dueling webpages is no way to discuss a topic.

eating plants vs eating animals 13.May.2012 15:09


This issue has come up again and again in the debate over the ethics of eating animals. Of course, every life form is alive, but when you compare the life of a plant to that of an animal, the differences are so striking, there really is no comparison in terms of what one chooses to consume. Plants do not have babies or mothers who cry for them when they are taken away and slaughtered. Plants do not live in torturous conditions where they cannot even turn around in their pens or like chickens are crowded so tight in their cages they can't spread their wings, and while the air they breathe may choke the farmworkers who have to pick them, the plants are not subjected to the harsh burning ammonia that chickens breathe day in and day out until they die. Most plants get to experience sunlight, broiler chickens and egg laying hens do not. The list goes on and on. But you get the picture or if you don't, just visit a factory farm--or try to anyway; factory farms are not too open to visitors these days--but you can look online and see the many many videos taken by undercover workers; of conditions in factory farms and slaughterhouses. To me it is not an academic, philosophical or science-based question. It is simply the reality of what life is like for factory raised animals where the majority of humans get their meat and dairy. And it has no relevance to the life of plants.

there are 13.May.2012 17:13


sentient beings here.This is why the left can, and will never get anything done. Rather than address the profound issue at hand--meAt, it's effects on the environment, our health, and its harm to beings we KNOW FOR A FAcT TO BE SENTIENT--it wanders off path into the bushes, getting hopelessly lost, debating the question of whether plants can be considered sentient.

This is not the issue at hand. You have effectively killed any meaningful discussion.YOu have accomplished nothing, but to chase your tails around in a circle.

This is why I loathe the left. And why you lose, time and again, to the better organised religious right ... who do not waste an eternity debating any of their fundamental beliefs, their platforms, like, does life begin at conception or with the first breath? No debate for them whatsoever ... and legislation is enacted to limit a woman's right to choose. Do you feel me? Your position here is not valid, and indefensible. Plants sentient or not? completely and utterly irrelvant to the profound discussion at hand. G'nite kiddies.

you know 13.May.2012 18:06


You do have a point to a degree. I can't count how many times i have seen a debate on indymedia derailed because someone comes in and complains that people aren't being sensitive enough about gender or someone said something sizeist or whatever.

Anyway, to this topic -- kili, I appreciate your enthusiasm about plants being self-aware, but as it stands, none of the articles you have posted have really shown that plants have awareness, thought, or feeling. You have shown that they respond to external events, and do so in a way that is most likely a result of natural selection and in order to increase their ability to reproduce. That is very different than awareness as we conventionally use the word. None of the physical structures (Brain, nervous system,etc) that we know facilitate thought are present in plants.

If by exploitation you include killing.... 13.May.2012 20:04

a question

Then you're anti abortion, right?

"Anyway, to this topic -- kili, I appreciate your enthusiasm about plants being self-aware, but as it stands, none of the articles you have posted have really shown that plants have awareness, thought, or feeling. "

And neither does a fetus. Yet none of these anti meat people are trying to stop abortion. This is a "values" war, imposing an arbritary idea all animal consumption equals exploitation, ignoring literally thousands of years of human history showing we can use animals sustainably.

It is odd the extreme left supports the right to chose to end a pregnancy but gets up in arms over killing for food; OTOH the extreme right wants to make abortion equal to murder but has no problem sending adults to be slaughtered in pointless wars.

There is no balance. You talk about sentience..well I'd kill a fellow "sentient" human in self defense. I'll even eat em in the right circumstances. If one is using sentience as a standard, how are you planning to stop wolves and lions from killing elk and wildebeast? (All animals known for moderate intelligence and cunning) . Elephants(also highly intelligent) are plant eaters, but what about dolphins? They are meat eaters, though their prey is rarely smart so that's ok?

Once you start imposing arbitrary abstract moral standards on reality, madness ensues.

Take a step back and refocus on stopping documented animal exploitation...factory farming, etc, and forget about looking for crusades....

@ killi 13.May.2012 23:07


"And 500 years ago, science said that women had 4 less teeth than men, because no bothered to actually look. 40 years ago science didn't even consider the possibility that anything other than humans were sentient."

"I have post article from scientists that show plants feel and respond to external stimuli. "

It's pretty disingenuous of you to on one-hand bash on the scientific method (when it doesn't fall in line with your preconceived notions), and then on the other-hand attempt to use the scientific method to support your claims (when you think that it will your backup your preconceived notions). You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, and it highlights how fundamentally dishonest you are. If you actually think science is such a flawed method of understanding the natural world, then why attempt to use it to support your claims?

Your also engaging in a huge argument from ignorance. Your essentially saying that because science is flawed it's OK to assert that plants are sentient without sufficient evidence. That is not only a huge logical fallacy but is also breathtakingly stupid.

vegan 14.May.2012 03:57


I bash dogma whenever I get the chance, but you still did not address my questions.

rex 14.May.2012 04:04


Well rex how do we judge where something is aware if we dont share a means of communication? How did people start thinking dolphins were aware? What were the first clues? Did they repond to external stimuli? Did the do things to enhance their survival?

Im sure the original arguments against dolphin sentience went something like "they cant talk, they dont build anything, they arent like us!"

ok 14.May.2012 08:53


We judge by being reasonable and making reasonable deductions based on evidence. I don't feel like I should have to spell this out for you.

In the case of dolphins, we observed them over time, probably dissected them and realized they have highly complex brains similar to ours, and then observed their capacity to learn. We have also spent a lot of time with plants, observed them, and taken them apart, and no such similarity exists.

You can insert primates, dogs, or several other animals in the place of dolphins in my above example and it will play out the same. You can not say the same for plants.

You are really beating this issue to death and, again, it is obvious you are doing so out of needless complexity, rather than the fact that you really believe the point you are arguing. That is a waste of everyone's time, including yours. State the point you wish to argue, not an absurdity that you yourself don't actually believe.

You should adopt a Companion Animal "kili" and LEARN from THEM. 14.May.2012 12:58

Animals LOVE and TEACH.

This is the best advice I can give to you if you really want to *LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE*.

Much of the time Animals make the BEST TEACHERS IN LIFE.

If you do... make sure you go to one of the many Animal Rescue Shelters because there are a multitude of homeless Animals waiting for someone CARING to SAVE THEIR LIVES. There are so many homeless Animals waiting for someONE to take them home and LOVE THEM. Although, sadly— for countless numbers of them this never becomes a reality.

Although, on second thought... if you are not an "Animal Person" and are not caring about *Animals Well-Being* perhaps it's not the best idea for you personally in your life.

Just a question for you "kili" out of curiosity (and I seriously mean no disrespect to you)... have you ever in your life been the guardian of a Companion Animal like a Dog or a Cat? You can LEARN SO MUCH FROM THEM AND THEY REALLY DO CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOR THE BETTER BY HELPING YOU TO GROW AND LEARN ABOUT UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AND COMPASSION THROUGH THEIR *SENTIENCE* AND UNENDING "TRUE-BLUE" GENUINE FRIENDSHIP.

They change the way you see and interpret the World. They change your "worldview" and expand your horizons in beautiful and amazing ways. You'd be amazed at what you can learn from them and what they can teach YOU. The sky's the limit... really.

~solidarity & peace~
CARE. . .
CARE. . .
What does it mean to have a “HOME” ?
What does it mean to have a “HOME” ?

My religion is better than your religion 14.May.2012 14:54

a christ

Many religions profess beliefs in dietary exclusions of one kind or another. This is not new or hip. And it has NOTHING to do with the Left.

SENTIENCE is learned from Animals… this is TRUE. 15.May.2012 00:50

MindPlay RePlay

Animals really do help to teach us the true meaning of what it is to be 'Sentient'— thus they help us to better understand our own Connection to the Earth and how everything is interconnected in the 'Balance of Life'— (It is very 'mind expanding' and 'eye opening' that we learn this *Concept of Sentience* best, much of the time, from our Animal Friends).

Funny there's yet to be any "response" to this inquiry... (if kili shares their life with any animal companions— since they seem very interested in questions and dialogue on the subject of 'sentience' and how and what is the BEST WAY to learn about its true meaning). It would be interesting to know the answer.

Having animals in your life as friends makes a real difference with 'calling into question' the whole matter of which animals are to be designated as those which you love and bond with "relationship-wise" and those animals which we designate as existing only for 'food for sacrifice/slaughter' and distinguish only as "resources/commodities/objects for our consumption and disposal". When you learn about the 'sentience of animals'—> from animals themselves it (creates food-for-thought) and makes it more difficult to differentiate between which animals you consider 'friends' and which animals you consider to be merely food sources and whose lives you see as having *No Other Value Besides Existing Solely for Human Consumption*.


rex 17.May.2012 20:08


You are correct, they do not have a brain and nervous system like us, but then you are getting into the anthropomorphism, that it can only be sentient if it is like us. If you say it can't be sentient because it isn't like us then you start down the slipper slope, well what else isn't like us: giant squid have copper instead of iron in their hemoglobin, so maybe there isn't any chance they are sentient.

And another part of this is how often do we find something if we are not looking for it? There is some research that indicates that plants may have a nervous system. If they don't then how would the be able to react to external stimuli? I am in central america teaching an ecology class right now, and I saw a Mimosa pudica/sensitive plant, it very obviously reacts to external stimuli. Western science hasn't been looking for plant sentience, but if you start reading about many indigenous cultures, they often report communicating with plants(not metaphorically!).

Something else to consider, is that this is a complex subject, if you want it simple, then just stick with: "Eat animls bad! Eat plants good!" and save yourself some sentience. When we try to simplify a subject, we start eliminate details. If we don't simplify some it can be too complex to handle, but we tend to oversimplify and that is where we cause most of our problems: conservative/liberal, democrat/republican, black/white, us/them, etc. We like to simplify and draw hard lines around things that don't have boundaries. You see this all of the time in biology, where we want to say this is a species ignoring all of the integrating taxa, or this is an ecosystem and it ends here. Ecosystems don't really exist. they are just a way we have created to talk about a part of a biological system. We like to take things apart, but we really don't do very well at putting them back together.

Here's the deal and this should make many of you very happy. You win. I will stop posting about this. You have silenced another voice.

rex: thank you for at least listening.

Animal lover: I have had many cats, dogs, turtles and fish. Boy, you people make a lot of assumptions about those you disagree with.

a question 17.May.2012 20:11


That is a good point, I will have to think on this.

ok, fair is fair 18.May.2012 09:54


I'll concede your points here, but the overall scope of the argument still stands where it does now I think.

We have an absence of evidence regarding plant sentience. I am not so bold as to say that lack of evidence is proof there is NOT sentience. But until I am shown proof or at least a reasonable argument for that sentience, I can't really make that leap.

and regarding anthropomorphism - the only person here guilty of that is you. you are attributing human characteristics to plants, when you have no evidence that they exist. That is the textbook definition of anthropomorphism.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to spell out your position. If you're teaching an ecology class then, in different circumstances, I'm sure we would have much more to agree about than to disagree about.