Dear 43 Things Users,

10 years after introducing 43 Things to the world, we have decided we have met our last goal: completing the incredible experience that has been 43 Things. Please join us in giving one last cheer to all the folks who have shared their goals with the world, as well as all the people who have worked at The Robot Co-op to build this incredible website. We won a Webby Award, published a book, and brought happiness to a lot of people.

Starting today, 43 Things users can export their goals and entries from the site. Starting August 15, we will make the site “read only”. 43 Things users will still be able to view the site and export their content, but we won’t be taking any new content from users. We hope to leave the site up for folks to see and download their content until the end of the year. Ending on New Year’s Eve takes us full circle.

It has been a long ride (one of our original goals was to "build a company that lasts at least 2 years” - we beat that one!) While we wish the site could live on, it has suffered from a number of challenges - changes in how people use the site, the advertising industry, and how search engines view the site. We wish the outcome was different – but we’ve always been realistic about when our goals are met and when they aren't.

As of today, you will be able to download your goals and entries. See more about that on the FAQ page. Thanks for 10 great years of goal-setting and achieving.

- The Robots.

Export My Content

Rosa is doing 29 things including…

be a better vegan


Rosa has written 4 entries about this goal

The Rhetoric of Apology in Animal Rights: By Karen Davis, PhD

I thought this was interesting, hope you like it :)

Speech, July 1O, National Alliance for Animals Seventh Annual International Animal Rights Symposium, July 8 through July 1O, 1994, Washington Dulles Marriott

Several years ago I published an article in Between the Species entitled “The Otherness of Animals” (Fall 1988). In it, I urged that in order to avoid contributing to some of the very attitudes towards other animals that we seek to change, we need to raise fundamental questions about the way that we, the defenders of animals, actually conceive of them. One question that needs to be raised concerns our tendency to deprecate ourselves, the animals, and our goals when speaking before the press and the public. Often we “apologize” for animals and our feelings for them. In Between the Species, I argued, “Anxious not to alienate others from our cause, half doubtful of our own minds at times in a world which views other animals so much differently than we do, we are liable to find ourselves presenting them apologetically at Court, spiffed up to seem more human, capable, ladies and gentlemen, of performing Ameslan [American sign language] in six languages. . . .”

We apologize in many different ways. More than once, I have been warned by an animal protectionist that the public will never care about chickens, and that the only way to get people to stop eating chickens is to concentrate on things like health and the environment. However, to take this defeatist view is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we, the spokespersons for animals, decide in advance that no one will ever really care about them, we will convey this message to the public. Insisting that others will never care about chickens projects the feeling, “I don’t think that I can ever care much about chickens.”

This negative attitude about chickens epitomizes the apologetic mode of discourse in animal rights. It is the “I know I sound crazy, but . . .” approach to the public. If we find ourselves “apologizing” for other animals, we need to ask ourselves why we do this. Is it an expression of self-doubt? A deliberate strategy? Either way, I believe that the rhetoric of apology harms our movement tremendously. Following are some examples of what I mean.

1. Reassuring the public, “Don’t worry. Vegetarianism isn’t going to come overnight.” We should ask ourselves the question: if I were fighting to end human slavery, child abuse, or some other human-created oppression, would I seek to placate the public or the offender by reassuring them that the offense will still go on for a long time and that we are only trying to phase it out gradually? Why, instead of defending vegetarianism are we not affirming it?

2. Patronizing animals: “Of course they’re only animals. Of course they can’t reason the way we do. Of course they can’t appreciate a symphony or paint a great work of art, but . . .” In fact, few people live their lives according to “reason,” or appreciate symphonies, or paint works of art. As humans beings we do not know what it feels like to have wings or to take flight from within our own bodies or to live naturally within the sea. Our species represents a smidgeon of the world’s experience, yet we patronize everything outside our domain.

3. Comparing competent, adult nonhuman animals with human infants and people who are mentally defective. This is an extension of number 2. Do we honestly believe that all of the other creatures on earth have a mental life and range of experiences that are comparable to diminished human capacity and the sensations of newborn babies? Except within the legal system, where all forms of life that are helpless against human assault should be classified together and defended on similar grounds, this analogy is both arrogant and logically absurd.

4. Starting a sentence with, “I know these animals aren’t as cute as other animals, but . . .” Do you say to your child, “I know Bill isn’t as cut as Tom, but you still have to play with him”? Why put a foregone conclusion in people’s minds? Why even suggest that physical appearance and conventionalized notions of attractiveness are relevant to anything that matters in a relationship?

5. Letting ourselves be intimidated by “science says,” “producers know best” and charges of “anthropomorphism.” We are related to other animals through evolution. Our empathic judgments reflect this fact. It does not take special credentials to know that, for example, a hen confined in a wire cage is suffering, or to imagine what her feelings must be compared with those of a hen ranging outside in the grass. We are told that humans are capable of knowing just about anything we want to know—except what it feels like to be one of our victims. Intellectual confidence is needed here, not submission to the epistemological deficiencies, cynicism, and intimidation tactics of profiteers.

6. Letting the other side identify and define who we are. I once heard a demonstrator tell a member of the press at a protest at a chicken slaughterhouse, “I’m sure Frank Perdue thinks we’re all a bunch of kooks for caring about chickens, but. . .” Ask yourself: does it matter what the Frank Perdues of this world “think” about anything? Can you imagine Frank Perdue standing in front of a camera, saying, ‘I know the animal rights advocates think I’m a kook, but . . .”?

7. Needing to “prove” that we care about people, too. The next time someone challenges you about not caring about people, ask them what they’re working on. Whatever they say, say, “But why aren’t you working on _? Don’t you care about ____?” We care deeply about many things; however, we cannot devote our primary time and energy to all of them. We must focus our attention and direct our resources. Moreover, to seek to enlarge the human capacity for justice and compassion is to care about and to work for people.

8. Needing to “pad” and bolster our concerns about animals and animal abuse. This is an extension of number 7. In keeping with the need to recognize the links of oppression and the indivisibility of social justice concerns, it is imperative to recognize that the abuse of animals is a human problem that is as serious as any other abuse. Unfortunately, the victims of homo sapiens are legion. As individuals and groups, we cannot give equal time to every category of injustice. We must go where our heartstrings pull us the most, and do the best that we can with the confidence that is needed to change the world.

The rhetoric of apology in animal rights is an extension of the “unconscious contributions to one’s undoing” described by the child psychologist, Bruno Bettelheim.* He pointed out that human victims will often “collaborate” unconsciously with an oppressor in the vain hope of winning the oppressor’s favor.

In fighting for animals and animal rights against the collective human oppressor, we assume the role of vicarious victims. To apologize in this role is to betray “ourselves” profoundly. We need to understand why and how this can happen. As Bettelheim explained, “But at the same time, understanding the possibility of such unconscious contributions to one’s undoing also opens the way for doing something about the experience—namely, preparing oneself better to fight in the external world against conditions which might induce one unconsciously to facilitate the work of the destroyer.”

We must prepare ourselves this way. If we feel that we must apologize, let us apologize to the animals, not for them.

What would you do if you knew you can't fail?

Veganism exists as a way to step out of a system of cruelty; that’s what it is, that’s what it’s there for.

Lately I really want to take a few more steps, and especially I’ve been thinking that I want to be a better advocate for veganism by taking care of myself; I’ve written in here before that I want to be a better communicater, a calmer more relaxed person around this subject (which can be hard sometimes because it’s so painful what happens to the animals.)

Before I decided to go vegan I didn’t realise see my actions as having a real impact – they do, whether I give them much thought or not. By being responsible for them I’ve made them mine and own them. I can make my own choices. You really feel the value of that. Now I don’t just worry or hope “its okay really…” anymore, and that’s given me the response-ability to take action.

You have to pick a side because (to paraphrase a quote I like) “all evil needs to succeed is that good people do nothing.”


I just want to add a note to say that if anyone is thinking about being vegan, I really think it’s worth doing.

It’s done so much for me on a lot of levels (physically, mentally and even spiritually). I feel like it’s helped me so much by doing something I believe in – just these small choices everyday – and I now feel much more proactive in my own life and that my choices and actions do matter and have an impact, and not just in my own life either. I think it’s a really empowering and positive thing to do :)

Speaking my truth

This goal isn’t so much about stopping myself from eating animals (and things like leather seem so violent and the very same as fur) but it’s more about learning how to handle how I feel so I can express myself well and feel better around non-vegans.

I want to show veganism in an open and inteligent light. I want to learn how to simply and clearly and honestly put my point across (like placing it down rather than shoving it down someone’s throat). Secretly I get such passionate feelings about it! I hide it when I’m talking to people (even when they’re mocking me) but I’m still hurting someone and that’s myself.

I really want to be a better vegan by being more at peace with myself and in my limitations in what’s happening in the world. I want to give veganism a good impression. It’s intriguing. I want my best argument to come from my example, and that means I need to take care of my emotions…


I want to:
43 Things Login