(highlight:: Industrial Animal Agriculture Hurts Animals AND Farmers
Summary:
In the past 50 years, the number of farmers has decreased while the number of animals has stayed the same.
This benefits the agricultural industry, but not the farmers themselves. We believe that there is no division between city and countryside when it comes to wanting a healthy environment.
Both want clean water, nature preservation, and a healthy environment.
It's a shared priority for everyone.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
But not, you know, not in advance choosing the way of industrial farming and keeping this dead-end road. Yeah, because this, that's like factually, it's a dead-end road. In the past 50 years, the amount of farmers has only gone down. But the amount of animals hasn't gone down. So what that means, you get less farmers, but bigger farms. And the only one who profit from this is the agricultural industry. Like the people that make the multinationals that make the feed for animals, they profit from that. The ones who build the big stalls, how do you say the big farms and the banks who profit when farmers have to get big loans from the banks to make their farms bigger and put a lot of filters Or whatever, not on it. But the farmers themselves profit the less, less and less from that. So it's a dead-end road for everybody, for animals, people. And so we try to put that across. And I guess that's the most important thing to acknowledge and our tactic is to show that there is not a lot of disciplines, not a lot of difference from people living in cities and a more On countryside. We always say every person, countryside or city wants a healthy environment for the children, for themselves. They have the ones on green around them. They want to be healthy living. And so there is no difference in that. But the farmers' party and some who support the farmers' party are really trying to make this myth of a division between city and the rest of the country to make it bigger, to make it seem Like everything that we do for MOL Fair or organic farming or nature that's something from the city. The city people want that. And the people from the country don't want that. But it's just not the fact. When we look at, for example, in my region, regional parliament has asked the people living in our region what they think is important for the future of our region. And what came out of that is that they thought that taking care of our water problems, we have a lot of water quality problems, etc. It's priority. Taking care of nature is priority and a healthy environment's priority. Above all the commercial other stuff they could choose from. Those three are things, priorities for us. And when the researchers look into, okay, but who says this is a priority for us, what kind of people say that? They found out that it's people from the city and country alike. So it's all the same priority and it makes sense.)
- Time 0:42:18
-

(highlight:: The Animal Advocacy Movement Should Be Politically Agnostic
Summary:
The debate of staying bipartisan on animal issues is discussed.
The party for the animals believes in acting with compassion towards all beings, and not being limited by left or right political thinking. They emphasize the need for a different kind of politics to address the current challenges in biodiversity, employment, and treatment of animals.
Their focus is on being part of Team Planets and having a vision for a better world.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
And do you have a view of if some people say, we should keep animal issues very bipartisan, we shouldn't take sides, we should try to be very engaged with both sides of the spectrum. Do you think that's true? Or do you think almost by definition, our issue is quite coded towards some people and we should focus energy, because it's going to be just most effective there? And yeah, what are your thoughts on that whole debate?
Speaker 1
Yeah, it's always a debate that comes to the agenda of our meetings with other sister parties as well. What we see naturally is that our sister parties are acting from compassion, right? That's a big value that applies to animals. But I don't see how you can be compassionate towards non-human animals and not being that towards humans. It eventually doesn't work. It's not one that it isn't consistent, it isn't rational. So when you take that into mind, then that translates itself to a lot of other policies as well. But I don't like personally, and the party for the animals also doesn't like to work with this left, right, middle. It's just all kinds of old political thinking in which you have to put yourself in one corner. I think the challenges that we have to face right now are unbelievable. It's so big, it's nothing that we have ever seen before. And when you say we want different kind of politics, we want different kind of politicians, then you cannot rely on this left-right middle. It's just, obviously, maybe some more than the others, but all have contributed towards the different crisis of biodiversity, employment, and total moral crisis when it comes to Treatment of animals. They have all contributed to that in one way or another. So I would just like to say to people, don't buy into that left or right. I don't like to call myself any of that. I just say, you're not team left or team right, we are just team planets. And that's the focus we have and whatever others want to call us, that's okay. But the most important thing is that you have this vision.)
- Time 0:49:49
-