The "Advocacy for Animals" is a beautiful and essential work whose fate lon both bruised and grew. Bruised because he gives us a succession dagonies and to quote Marguerite Yourcenar, "it displeases me to digest agonies"; grown, because both the mind that heart there draw great wealth. The quality of this book is to me specious compassion sen emerges. While animal advocates are often accused of sentimentality or fanaticism, Matthieu Ricard puts things in perspective and remember what our society has an annoying (and voluntary) tend to forget: it is legitimate sindigner and this is our current attitude dindifférence which is extreme and unspeakable, not awareness of it. Compassion towards animals does not exclude that towards humans and animal advocates have often been defenders of human rights. No way dhumaniser danimaliser the pet or the man, it comes just déprouver of lempathie to the weakest and to stop considering that they exist for the pleasure or the sole use of man. A second aspect that interested me is the quality of the analysis and philosophical history. Matthieu Ricard traces, so intelligent and accessible evolution of our relationship with the pet and appealed to great thinkers to illustrate his point. We understand better and how we got here, this moral bankrupt, because as recalled Milan Kundera, "The real moral test of humanity is its relationships with those who are at his thank you: animals. And it is here that sest produced the biggest rout of man, fundamental debacle which all others flow. " All aspects of animal abuse, past and present, are reviewed at laune of the most basic compassion, and this dreadful picture emerges a permanent denfer vision. Matthieu Ricard névite no taboos, whether the validity of animal experiments (hundreds of small monkeys separated from their mothers to test the depth of breast lattachement: Is this world serious?), Which stops at our compassion the limit of our plate (we gladly eat an animal that suffered martyrdom while considering our dog as a family member), or the bad faith of fans who talk about fair fight where for a dead matador, there 41,500 bulls were slaughtered to the cheers of the crowd ("triumph linstant where grocers are taken to Néron" pretty Brel formula cited by Matthieu Ricard). Mount two chapters particularly challenged: "The bad excuses," where are removed one by one the arguments often faced animal advocates, and "The mass killing of animals" where lanalogie (not the comparison) with camps concentration is explained, recalling particular author that "this is in the Chicago stockyards that the Nazis learned how to handle the body" (Coetzee) and that they are the survivors of the camps themselves who established this sinister link. Everyone can remove some dinfiniment precious thing this book. Vegetarians and vegans will find echoes of their deep conviction through dune intelligent and informative discussion with the comfort of being part of a growing movement of awareness. As for the others, they will do what they want to read them: simple information dordre moral or intellectual or want to change behaviors become ethically unjustifiable in the light of what they know. Failing BE sensitive to animal suffering, they may be challenged by the fact that our excessive meat consumption is at the expense of the poorest and that during the famine in Ethiopia, their grain were used for livestock in rich countries . Information from hundreds others who can not quinciter reflection Matthieu Ricard does not judge and not nexhorte people to change: it informs, without restraint, what one hides too often, it asks the right questions and thereby invites the reader to ask them. Thank you, Mr. Ricard, this book combines a rare degree intelligence and empathy.
