To the Spencer Art Museum:

As a native Kansan and KU graduate, I am writing to urge you to cancel “The Story of Chickens” project. While helping the public get to know chickens as “beautiful and unique creatures” and learn to care for and about them is admirable, the inclusion in this project of public slaughter is definitely not.  Just as public spectacles of human execution used to be the norm, public animal slaughter also used to be common, hardly noticed or even made into a sport, but that kind of behavior is fast becoming obsolete.  Consider this evidence taken from Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s recent book on the decline of violence, Better Angels of Our Nature: Fox hunting was outlawed in Britain in 2005, and the last U.S. state to permit cockfighting banned it in 2008.  As of 2010, bullfighting became illegal in the entire Spanish region of Catalonia, and the state-run Spanish television network has ended live coverage of bullfights because they are considered too violent for children.  The European Parliament has considered a continent-wide ban as well.  Regarding hunting, the proportion of Americans who report that either they or their spouse hunts has been steadily declining for decades.

Giving approval to public violence against animals, performing it in front of audiences which may include children, and especially elevating it to be considered “art” is to increase tolerance for violence, to make a wider segment of society accept and practice it.  There are good reasons why actions that are naturally repulsive are done behind closed doors.  To bring animal slaughter into our neighborhoods coarsens society and stifles discussion of the options humans have to reduce  animal slaughter rather than promote it.  The project description refers to the planned slaughter as “a phase of the [chicken's] life cycle.”  While death is certainly part of a chicken’s natural life cycle, being killed by a human is not.

I have no problem with allowing shocking art forms as part of the free speech we all cherish, but the line must be drawn at exhibits which include actual harm, pain or killing of living beings as part of the exhibit.   That KU would be sponsoring such an exhibit casts a bloodstain on its otherwise fine reputation.  I urge you not to be a party to making public animal slaughter acceptable; cancel “The Story of Chickens.”

The article,  begins as follows:
Ok, here’s the bad news. You’re going to have to become vegetarian. Sorry. As soon as possible, so you may as well put down that chicken sandwich and start now. Not just you though, all of us are going to have to stop eating meat and dairy products if the world has any hope of not going to hell in a hand basket.  

What?  Did I read that correctly?  Of the myriad reasons for veganism, why were investment bankers being urged in that direction?  The answer is water, already scarce in some parts of the world, facing increasing demand due to increasing population and affluence, and wasted unconscionably by livestock agriculture.  Water is the new oil, a resource that is being alarmingly depleted, yet unlike oil, is absolutely necessary for life.

But if these guys are investment bankers, there must be some way to make money off this advice, right?  Are you sitting down for this?  If access can be gained to a scarce resource, in this case water, it can be sold at a profit.  To keep it profitable over the long term, the investor is continually looking for more water he can buy up and resell, and this is where veganism comes in.  If meat consumption drops significantly, more water becomes available to sell–from one part of the world which is–pardon the pun–flush, to another part of the world where water may be desperately needed.

The report concludes by suggesting that meat eating be made illegal.  Now that idea is right as rain.

If a typical American couple has two children, each parent has effectively added one more person to the planet.  That child, later adult, grows to consume about the same as the parent would, which in the U.S. is much more than most of the world’s people can ever hope to enjoy.  Although the child eventually replaces the parent, there are an average of 50 years during which both are alive and consuming double what just one of them would.  Grandchildren of course add even more.  Now let’s go back and assume that this couple did not have children.  100% of the resources necessary for two offspring are now not being used, and can ease the stress on the planet and make a better life for people already here.

As practical peacemakers we can, in everyday conversations and blog posts, encourage more people to remain childless, or at least to limit family size.  We can strengthen societal approval of the childless and point out the many benefits.  We can help deconstruct the belief that childless adults are either deprived or selfish.  (For more on this, including research showing that childless marriages are happier, see the chapter on overpopulation in my book The Practical Peacemaker.)  In this time of unprecedented droughts and floods that reduce harvests, of food riots, precarious economies leading to increased unemployment, and water scarcity affecting 1.2 billion people (according to the UN), what we do NOT need is unquestioned encouragement of childbearing, especially in the affluent West where each person consumes so much.

I am grateful that by not having any children or grandchildren I continue, every day for decades, to make a profound contribution to the well-being of the planet and our worldwide human family.  I invite others to do likewise.

In this post I want to focus on just one of his many practical suggestions for how we can infuse our thinking and actions with greater compassion: avoid comparing yourself with others.  Huh?  On the surface, that doesn’t seem very harmful; certainly not on a level with anger and cruelty.  But think about it for a moment.  There are two sides to our tendency to compare ourselves: either we consider ourselves lacking in that comparison, or we consider ourselves superior.

In the first case, we become envious and dissatisfied on seeing the things others have that we don’t.  We want to go out and grab, grab, grab.  The acquisition of all those–usually unnecessary- -things depletes the earth’s resources to produce and possibly requires us to work more hours or even go into debt.  Working more leads to spending less time with family and the pursuits that do make us happy.  Our hearts close with greed instead of being open and compassionate.  In the second case, in which we have more than others, we again close our hearts, taking personal credit for what we have achieved, deepening our resolve to hold on to what we have and acquire even more, and strengthening a selfish pride that separates us from others.

The unhappiness, mistrust, and struggle that arise from this kind of comparison mean that a society like ours, which has a wide disparity between the few wealthy and the many poor, is one in which contentment, compassion and peace will be less likely.  How can we as practical peacemakers help turn that around?  We can read and study helpful books such as Beyond Religion.  We can understand and internalize the truth that once our needs are met, more toys, awards, and money will not bring long-term happiness. We can refuse to engage in comparisons which lead to dissatisfaction and separation.  Instead of seeing differences between ourselves and others, we can instead remind ourselves of our similarities: we all want to be happy and avoid suffering.

Growthbuster Dave Gardner in action against growth profiteers.

For those of us concerned about poverty, environmental degradation, and climate change, the idea that economic growth underlies these problems will probably not come as a surprise. Growth–higher production of consumer goods, stepped-up extraction of resources, more and bigger houses, freeways and shopping malls–has been accepted almost unconditionally as the best way to run governments and assure prosperity. It is seen as the most potent answer to lifting people out of poverty and assuring full employment. Go out and shop more, we are told. Few people dare to publicly challenge the American religion of growth, and those who do should be read, supported, and discussed.

Or in the case of one new documentary, watched. I’m referring to Growthbusters: Hooked on Growth (remember Ghostbusters?), in which Dave Gardner, a courageous citizen of Colorado Springs, Colorado, becomes sufficiently fed up with the development, congestion, and depletion of resources he sees around him to run for his city council. The film follows his campaign, interspersed with headlines and newsclips from around the world praising growth, and shows the destructive effects of such growth. Gardner keeps it from becoming too heavy with a generous dose of humor; for example, he calls the Pope to offer him Endangered Species condoms.

Growthbusters is effective because it not only provides viewers with the reasons to oppose growth, but shows an average guy stepping forward and challenging his city officials. He comments that his campaign for city council often took him outside his comfort zone, but he did it anyway. I was glad to see a long segment on overpopulation, a subject often considered too controversial to address. I hadn’t realized how many countries are actually encouraging couples, by giving tax breaks and bonuses, to have more children–this is madness! A segment on the Transition movement was included, but I would have liked to see more on what a steady-state economy might look like, as well as something on the environmental effects of diet, specifically showing the benefits of plant-based diets. However, the film is still powerful; its message is critically important to share with as many people as possible. Keith and I hosted a screening last night, and attendees were favorably impressed. Here’s how to schedule a screening in your area.

That it is necessary to bring attention to these strengths shows the degree to which our society has lost what most earlier societies had and what many other cultures still possess today: a respect for elders. Until recently, elders had the most knowledge and experience, essential to advising or even leading the tribe through difficulties. (I say, until recently, because it is only recently that the rate of change has been such that the technologies mastered by elders have been superseded within their lifetimes.) Elders still have much good advice to give. Grandparents formerly had an important, and usually highly beneficial, role in raising children; they inculcated an appreciation of the child’s history and family background, modeled prudent behavior, and taught essential skills, all while giving parents a break. Now grandparents often live hundreds of miles away, and children have little interaction with elders. Historically, the opinions of elders were sought out, deferred to, and taken to heart. For example, among present-day Abkhasians, a long-lived central Asian people, an individual might lie about his age, but he will say he is older than he is, to gain more respect, instead of pretend to be younger, as we might do.

Apart from losing influence, how do the advantages/disadvantages of aging stack up in our society? First of all, there’s no denying that one’s body gradually slows down, with aches and pains more likely to appear. The positive side is that strategies for preventing huge amounts of discomfort, debilitating illness, and early death are proven, available to everyone, and free. Only two habits need to be remembered, cultivated, and practiced: a low-fat vegan diet, and regular exercise. This prevents or reverses heart disease, many cancers, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and numerous other ailments that plague the aging population, keeping elders trim, flexible, and active. Much advice and support in implementing these habits is available, so there are really no excuses left. One can expect to retain memory and maintain one’s appearance better with such a regimen as well. And a tip of the hat to modern dentistry, which allows elders to keep their teeth much longer than was formerly the case.

Even healthy elders may experience a decline of energy, but that is not likely to be a problem, because of a benefit of old age: elders don’t need to be constantly on the go, exploring and collecting new experiences, in order to be contented. Everyone needs some of that, of course; we all want to be aware of what’s going on around us, and try new things, but the need for novelty declines in intensity. It is a relief to be happy without needing to be always on the go. Sexual expression changes also, but need not disappear, nor become less enjoyable.

Far out ahead in all accounting of positives and negatives of aging, however, is retirement. I’ve been retired a year and a half, and can confirm that, next to good health and a loving partner, it is the most wonderful gift imaginable! To have no constraints on one’s time, freedom from the demands of a job and the stress of dealing with co-workers, administration, and customers, possibilities for travel (even if only modest), plus being able to spend more time with family members and pursue hobbies, is beyond all previous glimpses of paradise. For me, the freedom and peace of retirement completely supersedes negative aspects of aging.

What does all this have to do with being practical peacemakers? We create a more peaceful society if we respect and value our elders and draw out their talents. We decrease the need for expensive health care and the incidence of suffering among elders, by modeling and encouraging healthful vegan diets and exercise. By remembering that aging makes retirement possible, elders themselves can overlook the minor discomforts or limitations they experience and retain a more cheerful outlook. This will lead them to develop latent talents and have more to contribute to the improvement of society.

Whether retired or not, many elders are smart, experienced, resilient, content with simpler lifestyles, and often under less stress than when they were building careers and/or parenting. They are comfortable in their own skins, having let go worrying so much about appearances. They’re better able to take setbacks in stride, and find humor in everyday situations. Particularly since we have no choice about getting older–as the old joke goes, it’s better than the alternative–we can focus on and celebrate the strengths and freedoms that aging brings.

The desire people have for personal improvement is something we as practical peacemakers want to encourage.  Progress on any of the goals listed above leads to a more harmonious personal and family life, and thus a more peaceful society.  However, the urge to make improvements that require discipline is fragile; it is no easy thing to change long-standing habits.  In fact, it seems that the making of resolutions is considered a sort of joke: “yeah, sure, you’re going to quit smoking–how long is that going to last?” “You say you’re going to get up earlier in order to exercise–right.”

How can we turn around this expectation of failure and make the keeping of resolutions more likely?  I have three ideas.

The first is probably obvious: set goals modest enough to keep.  Instead of expecting yourself to exercise five mornings a week, start out with two.  Whatever amount of weight you want to lose, set the goal at half that.  This way you can feel good when you complete your personal challenge, and go on for more.

The second is not to consider the project over the first time you fail.  For example, you resolve to avoid cookies or chips and before long, in a weak moment, you eat some anyway. Instead of beating yourself up, just start over, and keep starting over as often as it takes

The third way would be to pay as much attention at the end of the year about resolutions completed, as we do at the beginning about resolutions proposed.  If people expected to be taking a hard look at year’s end about how well they’d been able to keep their resolutions, they might set more realistic goals and keep on despite setbacks.  The Jazzercise Center I attend keeps track of how many classes each person attends, and recognizes with prizes and a round of applause those who achieve certain goals.  This is reinforcement that works

For most of us, however, no one is going to recognize and applaud us for keeping our resolutions.  Only you know how many pounds you’ve lost, or how many times you’ve chosen to save money instead of buying something frivolous.  So we must keep track ourselves.  I suggest writing on your calendar each time you’ve kept your resolutions.  Then you’ll have monthly totals, and at the end of the year you can review your resolutions and say, “I got up X number of days to exercise,” or “There were Y times I could have gotten angry but didn’t.”  The times you failed don’t even register.  This is how we’re going to succeed at the resolution game.

Media Images:
Crucial to the decision to use hair color and makeup is the belief that the way we look naturally is not acceptable.  How have we come to this viewpoint?  Presumably, from advertising images of models wearing makeup and hair color, and due to the deeply ingrained belief in our culture that aging is ugly.  Both of these influences are relatively recent.  In 1950 only 7% of American women artificially colored their hair; today Clairol estimates that at least 65% do.  Obviously until modern media, no one was constantly barraged with images of young models, and most cultures around the world greatly value their elders, rather than marginalizing them.  In these societies, when people lie about their age, they say they are older, because to be older is to be respected.  Speaking of media images, I’m glad to see that the world’s newest fashion icon, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, new wife of Prince William, doesn’t bleach or wear streaks or highlights in her gorgeous dark hair.  I hope this example is imitated.

Impact on Partners:
We may think we must use these “beauty” products to attract the love of our life, but that is not necessarily true.  My husband, to whom I’ve been married for 22 years, told me that when we first met he was more attracted to me because I didn’t wear makeup–he preferred the natural look.  Some years later, when I gave up hair color, he admired my newly gray hair, and said that each time I’d colored my hair, he’d noticed and disliked the unpleasant smell of my head next to his on the pillow at night.
An article entitled “Women Who Go Gray and Stay Sexy”  affirms that “women who keep their hair gray often find themselves more in demand than women who use hair dyes.”  It cites a study in which a woman’s profile was put up on a major online dating site in two different versions; each entry had the same description and same photo, except in one photo her hair was dyed, and the other showed her natural gray hair. The woman sought dates in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.  Three times as many men in each of those cities responded to the profile with the gray hair!  Good Morning America got wind of this and was skeptical.  They duplicated the experiment with another woman and got the same results.  Potential partners looking for older women preferred those with gray hair.

Money, Time and Stress:
To keep up these appearances, we must spend money–which means we must work more to earn that money.  I was floored not long ago when a friend revealed how much she spent to get a professional highlighting job.  If we don’t have the money for salons, and apply hair color ourselves, it is messy and time-consuming.  I remember all that–ugh!  The same money and time considerations apply to the use of makeup as well, and both can be stressful: in the case of hair color, we worry that our roots will show or that it will look artificial; in the case of makeup, we worry that being caught in the rain, crying at a movie, exercising, or touching our face accidentally will mess it up.   If we wear makeup, we must get up earlier in the morning to apply it and must touch it up during the day, requiring us to carry around a heavier purse.  We must also  keep up with fashion, to be sure we are not–heaven forbid–caught wearing “last year’s look.”

Health:
“Hue How-To”  reminds readers that “most commercially available permanent hair colors come with a laundry list of unpronounceable carcinogenic chemicals.”  The article goes on to encourage use of less-toxic alternatives, but these are harder to find and often more expensive.  With some brands, only the semi-permanent color choices are free of obnoxious chemicals; which presumably means the customer will need to color more often.  The most natural choice is henna, but it is described as sticky, stinky and taking even more time to apply than other color options.  Hair that is continually colored and/or permed can become dry and brittle.  Why not go with our natural hair and skin, kept clean and appropriately moisturized?  If our faces are coated in makeup, wouldn’t this logically decrease the vitamin D we can absorb from sunshine?  Vitamin D is essential for good health.  In the winter in many U.S. cities, our face is the only part of the body exposed when we go out.  I still remember my joy when I first started feeling the sunshine and breeze on my un-madeup face.  One site advertising makeup urges consumers not to keep their makeup more than 12-18 months, as it can become a breeding ground for germs and bacteria.

Environmental and animal concerns:
It can’t be beneficial to the environment for the residues of all these chemical-laden dyes to be washed down drains during manufacture and end use.  Furthermore, it is not only the products themselves that use resources and pollute, but the plastic and paper packaging they come in that ends up in landfills.  And since makeup is packaged in very small containers–think eye shadow, or a single lipstick–more packaging is used than with items we buy in larger sizes.  Why would we want to increase our carbon footprint or add more pollution to the planet just for the sake of vanity?
Then there’s the impact on animals.  Historically, animals have suffered horribly in the testing of cosmetic products.  Now there are alternatives, but to avoid animal exploitation completely, it is necessary to research different brands to be sure our makeup and hair color is cruelty-free.  If we are not mindful about this, we may be contributing to the suffering.

The Feminist Argument (very briefly):
I noticed years before I was old enough to wear makeup that women wear it, and men don’t.  Men’s looks are considered fully acceptable without being covered or colored.  Let’s encourage women to claim the same for themselves.  Last year, Chicago writer Rachel Rabbit White started a No Makeup Week .  She concluded an interview by saying, “not wearing make-up is a form of self-care. I am doing something nice for my face by not slathering it with chemicals. And with that knowledge I can look at my naked face in the mirror and think, self-love, self-care, this is good. Rather than ‘argh I look awful.’ ”

Free yourselves, women of America!  Show your natural face; let it be a statement that you don’t think beauty comes out of jars and tubes.  Your example will encourage other women to do likewise.  Spare the planet a lot of garbage. Think of how you can spend the time and money saved on things you really want to do, and let’s relegate makeup and hair color to actors and television personalities.

My first reaction is to be surprised that people who are obese can stand to stay that way.  Last winter, I was newly retired, with a much lower activity level.  I got into making batch after batch of holiday cookies, because I’d never had enough time to do that when I was working.  In a short time, I was gaining weight.  By the time I reached eight pounds above my target weight, I was definitely feeling it, noticing the greater effort to go up a flight of stairs, feeling bloated and sluggish, and didn’t want to continue gaining.  I established some better habits, and am now back to target weight.  How much worse must it feel to be 50, 75, 100 or more pounds overweight!

I understand how people get caught, though, because food manufacturers deliberately add addictive substances to food.  The million-dollar advertising budgets of junk-food producers exacerbate the problem.  The obese person may be surrounded by friends and family who also eat junk food. The medical profession, for the most part, doesn’t know or doesn’t tell patients that obesity can be eliminated by a low-fat plant-based diet; bariatric surgery is so much more profitable.  It is sad to see so many suffer the inevitable consequences of obesity, and to see their families’ peace destroyed by having to worry about loved ones and medical bills.

In my book The Practical Peacemaker, the chapter on careless eating comments on how diets high in animal products lead to obesity. Fortunately, however, it seems like the health-producing message of a plant-based diet is getting out more clearly these days, thanks to Oprah’s Vegan Challenge last spring, several new books by prominent authors, and the film Forks Over Knives, among other influences.  I especially wish everyone struggling with the diseases of affluence could see Forks Over Knives, which is available to order on DVD.    The more we can all do to get this message out, the better.