totestthetoxicityofhouseholdproducts, therewouldbea
national uproar. The use of millions of animals for this
purpose should causeat leastas much concern, especially
since this suffering is so unnecessaryand couldeasily be
stoppedifwewantedtostopit.Mostreasonablepeoplewant
topreventwar,racialinequality,poverty,andunemployment;
the problem is that we have been tryingto prevent these
thingsforyears,andnowwehavetoadmitthat,forthemost
part,wedon’treallyknowhowtodoit.Bycomparison,the
reductionofthesufferingofnonhumananimalsatthehands
of humans will be relatively easy, once humanbeings set
themselves to do it.
Inanycase,theideathat“humanscomefirst”ismoreoften
usedasanexcusefornotdoinganythingabouteitherhuman
or nonhuman animals than as a genuine choice between
incompatible alternatives. For the truthis that there is no
incompatibilityhere.Granted,everyonehasalimitedamount
oftime andenergy,andtime takeninactiveworkforone
causereducesthetimeavailableforanothercause;butthere
isnothingtostopthosewhodevotetheirtimeandenergyto
humanproblemsfromjoiningtheboycottoftheproductsof
agribusinesscruelty.Ittakesnomoretimetobeavegetarian
than to eat animal flesh. In
fact,aswesawinChapter4,thosewhoclaimtocareabout
thewell-beingofhumanbeingsandthepreservationofour
environmentshouldbecomevegetariansforthatreasonalone.
Theywouldtherebyincreasetheamountofgrainavailableto
feed people elsewhere, reduce pollution, save water and
energy, and cease contributing to the clearing of forests;
moreover, since a vegetarian diet is cheaper than one based on
meatdishes,theywouldhavemoremoneyavailabletodevote
to famine relief, population control, or whatever social or