Corine Pelluchon. Barbezieux-Saint-Hilaire, France, 1967. The author of the 'Manifesto for animal rights' holds that the reason an animal is not only ethical, but something that affects us as a society and that, for our sake, should also become a political issue. what is politicize the cause animal?If we do not care for them, it will affect us sooner or later. Many of our practices towards animals are not only fair, but that harm us. We ought to change, for our good.How I can put an example?The consumption of meat. I don't criminalizo. It bothers Me when a vegan accuses a butcher to be a murderer. But let's think about the meat consumption as an ethical issue, but rather economic: to produce beef in a world in which we already live 8,000 million of people starts to be unsustainable.And that can only be confronted from the policy. It is up to the governments.If the cause of the animal remains in the activism, it's not going anywhere. You need something more. In addition, it is a wrong strategy.Do you think that may be some day large parliamentary majorities that promote these changes? In Spain's PACMA does not have a single deputy.I am optimistic, because at least in France, there are increasingly more deputies sensitive to the problem. Environmentalists, many socialists and some of the party Macron.But Macron personal title no.True, he is not interested in the cause animal, but his minister of ecology itself. It is a slow process, but there is progress, because the young people grow increasingly concerned with the problem.Do you think that it is only a matter of time?It is difficult and will be slow, but there can be no other way. The politicization of the cause animal requires patience and strategy. There are many activists that they should stop using a language that is so violent, because they do not help. It's about changing consciousness with arguments and dialogue, not with insults.The animalistic and their opposites are like water and oil, it is true.There is that talk. In France, the vegans and the hunters do not talk to or respected. You can't condemn people for their decisions or their traditions. I wrote the Manifesto for animal rights because of the atmosphere of verbal violence to me seemed toxic.In the book compares the animalism with the abolition of slavery, of Lincoln.Are not the same, but it seems to me that there are that follow the same strategy: to legislate for the benefit of the majority, of progress and of justice, morality with the force of the arguments, having convinced the majority.Do you think it's right that you do experiments with animals?I am not against, but there are technological advancements that make it sometimes unnecessary. Why do we have to dissect animals in universities, if we can generate a 3D model perfect?What would you do with bullfighting?Change little by little. I understand the tradition, and that a lot of people feel like part of your identity. But at the same time, you would go to the bullfighting that think in the animal and in its subjectivity, in which feels and receives pain. And what help the bulls to the society.Will tell you that the bull produces work.In France it's the same with circuses or dolphinariums. But what kind of work? How and at the expense of what? There are practices that are no longer useful to the society. Take skins for example. The political action here would be to reconcile a moral commitment to animals and to help these sectors to be transformed.Is it the same for a mammal than an insect? I define animal as a sentient being: that which can suffer pain and fear, to feel vulnerable and to experience joy. It is a being that wants to live. Even the mosquitoes want to live! Now, it is obvious that it is easier to empathise with mammals with an insect.
According to the criteria of
Updated Date: 06 December 2018, 20:04