On Flow and Water

Even if one doesn’t give a damn about the sentient being whose life was just as important to her as ours is to us, one should realize that a single hamburger is likely the equivalent of at least two bottles of water. Add some cheese to that burger and you’ve probably got three bottles of water. Add some bacon to that cheeseburger and you probably have four bottles of water.

Yes, and this is completely ignoring the murder of the innocent being one is consuming.

While I can agree that avoiding bottled water is good and even necessary, I cannot possibly see how buying a bottle of water is even remotely comparable to eating a burger, whether it’s a humanburger or a hamburger, from an ethical or moral standpoint.

Mary,
You said, “But it's time I feel as bad as if the water was a burger.”

Yes, we should “feel bad” about the water (I never denied that), but to say we should “feel as bad” as we do about the burger, when the burger is so connected with (unbelievably) excessive water use, deforestation, pollution, etc, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, was the direct result of murder, is ridiculous to me. Sorry; just calling it as I see it. The two are so different as to not be “comparable” at all. It is like comparing driving a Hummer to intentionally killing someone with your Hummer. The former is something to be avoided; the latter is morally deplorable.

If you really feel as strongly about the bottle of water as you do about the hamburger, then we have drastically different views when it comes to sentient beings and their right to be left alone. On the other hand, perhaps it was careless wording. Either way, I found the statement shocking.

I read a good book recently about bottled water. Bottlemania by Elizabeth Royte, who also authored Garbage Land, which I haven't read.

If a person was once honest enough with his/herself to admit and acknowledge the truth about the exploitation of non-human animals (i.e., that the use of any nonhuman animal is the result of exploitation…period…regardless of levels of suffering [an idea which welfarism uses to further their personal interests]), then that person is primed to readily take the next step and shift their perspective to an even broader, more enlightened level – where one begins to recognize the root cause of the institution of exploitation and oppression is one in the same for all animals, including human animals.

I'm glad you mentioned this documentary, Mary; I saw it, too, a couple a months ago. And like you, I already knew that buying bottled water was not good for a number of reasons, and that corporations were scamming us with tap water. I just didn't know that the exploitation ran so deep by these mega-corporations (multinationals).

For anyone who thinks that bottled water is not as bad as a hamburger, then I would suggest you must also think that wool, silk, honey, and leather are equally not as bad as a piece of meat.

However, if you do not accept any level of suffering in the form of exploitation of (non-human) animals, then you should not accept any level of suffering in the form of exploitation when it comes to human animals as well. Meaning oppression is oppression, wherever and however it is found, and should be fought as such without placing a definitive hierarchy on suffering to further your personal beliefs/goals (i.e., the notion that the suffering of one individual is worse than another based on numbers, the type of atrocity committed, or any other criteria; a single child suffering the effects of starvation, thirst, disease, etc. and that of another single non-human animal suffering the effects of starvation, thirst, disease, etc. are both equally deplorable, reprehensible,and horrifying). For if wool is no worse than meat, then the suffering that people are experiencing all over the world because of mega-corporations like Coke, Pepsi, and Nestle is no worse than wool.

Many groups of people are living in abject poverty (including states of starvation/disease) because of the invasion/intrusion of mega-corporations forcing themselves into their vulnerable communities. These people are being denied and deprived of their *own* water (and being charged for it no less, if they "want" it). The accessiblity of water is a human right. I consider this deprivation a form of torture and cruelty, and a distinct rights violation.

These are the same corporations that are killing animals and ruining the planet. These giant corporations do not make a distinction between animal rights violations and human rights violations. It is all the same to them as long as the violations put money in their pockets. Take Nestle alone – their violations span the world and are not set aside for any one thing/person alone. They exploit children, babies, women, men, workers, many other animals (for meat/dairy products, crap pet food, testing for cosmetics, etc.), the environment…you name it, they exploit it!

Because the mega-corporations are the ones ultimately with the power, they set the pace, the tone, the attitudes for the rest of the world – most of whom unknowingly (without being enlightened or informed of the facts) follow suit.

It is the greed of those profiting from mega-corporations that is killing our planet. Pointing fingers at the average person who is in a state of cognitive dissonance and who is only following the powerful dictates of the socio-economic model is useless…hate to say it, but their behavior in following current trends is normal for human beings and will not change (unless the trends set forth for them change). And those billionaires maintaining their power/money by the trends that people follow will do *everything they can* to reinforce the lies and keep people from knowing/believing the truth. The only way things are going to change is by changing the "business model" where unregulated companies run rampant in their expansion and ability to squeeze massive profits by oppressing others (both human and non-human). Corporations are now privatizing even our water – they will stop *at nothing* to make a buck and protect their bank accounts. The reigning socio-economic structure currently in place is facilitating these corporations to exploit all animals and ruin our (meaning all animals') most vital resources (air, water, food…our basic needs and rights). And they do it without repercussions. Until that business model dies (the model that stands for global expansion, mergers/monopolies, massive deregulation, profiting at any cost, military/political/judicial-industrial complexes, hierarchy, etc. – i.e, capitalism)…exploitation will continue.

Remember, if we lose our water, everything (animals/plants/human animals) dies. When it comes to water…everyone is affected.

Fascinating comments.

To the question of emergency water: Have you considered buying a single container for water, intended for that purpose, and filling it yourself once a year? When it comes time to change the water, you can use it on your garden or lawn. We bought ours at an emergency preparedness store. You use a teaspoon of bleach in a gallon of water to disinfect it when new and once a year, then fill with boiled water. I have a 15 gallon one, it takes me a couple hours to boil enough water and pour it in, one pan at a time. It's still a lot of water, but at least it's not from a bottling corporation.

Bea – how are they planning on feeding the livestock without crops? Doesn't it take more crops to produce the flesh? I don't understand the rationale…

Throwing around labels and names is not going to enlighten anyone. Though, if you want to play it that way, I would say anyone who believes the suffering of a nonhuman animal is more horrible than the suffering of a nonhuman child, then that person is a speciesist. Plain. And simple. I am equally against oppression toward any animal. When I say I stand for "Animal Rights," I include humans. Otherwise, the term should be called "Nonhuman Animal Rights."

Speaking only for myself, I was trying to make a very important point that the current spectrum of all forms of oppression has one root cause. In this case, a bottle of water represents the oppression of human animals AND nonhuman animals (and the destruction of our natural resources). And I believe you totally missed my point about the notion of "levels of suffering" and the contradictions therein when someone applies them unequally to nonhuman animals and human animals, but I won't repeat myself.

Once the connection is made regarding the common cause (and intersections) of oppression, thinking solely inside the Francione box suddenly feels too restricted. Though, it seems like even Francione himself is starting to think outside his own box lately; his blog has been showing signs of reflection regarding the larger interconnectedness of forms of oppression/exploitation. I just don't think he focuses on it. Which is fine (he brings home other very valid and important points). However, other animal rights philosophers and advocates do and will pick up where he leaves off to offer a (dare I say "larger") perspective that encompasses the whole enchilada.

Hoof,

If I were to judge by what you wrote in your comment about Francione, I'd have to assume you've never read Francione's work. Gary repeats himself ad nauseam about the common roots of oppression.

To clarify (and repeat myself from yesterday), my objection is not against Mary's general theme of avoiding bottled water, with which I agree with her entirely. I understand the reasons for that, including the connection to gross injustice, etc very clearly. My ONLY objection was the implied equality in her one statement of the wrongs of buying bottled water with consuming a flesh burger (regardless of the species of the being whose flesh it happens to be). If Mary had worded that differently to the point of changing the meaning, I would not have commented in this thread at all.

Angus and Dan, I wrote my last 3 comments (one of which hasn't been posted yet as I write this) before reading both your comments, so mine may seem out of context.

Angus, my mention of silk was merely part of the "levels of suffering" point I was trying to make. Regardless of the amount or type of exploitation toward silkworms in relation to any other exploitation, I would not knowingly purchase any product made from silk.

Dan, point taken. (I have read Francione's books – over a year ago. In comparison to David Nibert's book, which I am reading now, Francione does not touch on the idea of the root and entanglements of oppression where they are clearly presented as the focus of his ideas…not even nearly to the extent that Nibert does. If you happen(ed) to read Nibert's book, you'd see my point.)