Another thrilling round of "Anarchism and Animal Rights

Social Darwinism was just the using of natural selection and "survival of the fittest" to justify stamping on the poor and disadvantaged...and ultimately anything else that was "inferior". They created a hierarchy of life and importance, where competition and rule of might were justification enough for dominating everything else. Yes, as a sociological view it is within humanity, but it was only an extension of the same approach to the animal world.

It actually isn't though, by definition.

ok, I'll rephrase that for you...

Socialism has nothing to do with being "better than animals" what you're talking about is the same ideas which motivated the Social Darwinists, and every other anthro/ego-centric cult -Christians, Marxists, Neo-Con end-of-historyists. Evolution has not happened out of some great destiny, and if human beings are superior to animals then it should be in terms of the greater depths of our minds, creativity and ethics.

All of which are based on social relations and science, not on some hippy shite about morality. I mean where do you think langauge and reason comes from, they evolved from shifting social dynamics within groups of early humans. How do you think the human brain increased in size during social evolution? By magic?

I could debate all day about the irrational in humanity, and i'd agree it does exist, but it is not the driving force of social and economic development. The driving force is the rational and material, which is economics, social relations and technology.

I mean the only way you could think animals are humanities equal is if you were some primmo nutter, quite clearly us humans have socially evolved and now live a much preferable existence to the rather short, pointless and brutal lives of animals.

cantdo, I believe in evolution I just dont think it implies a hierarchy of worth and the right to abuse every other creature on the planet. I believe a superior human would see pass that, see pass oppressing other human beings, animals and the environment. Its not some hippy shite because it boils down to our very survival and, if you want happiness, on this planet.

A "co-operative society" that has no problems fucking the rest of the world up is not libertarian.

how does farming and meat eating involve fucking up the rest of the world?

-libertarian humanist-

I'd like to point out what i assume is a typo in violin's post:

should have read:

I'd tranlsate the rest of the post but as it was in some queer dialect which considers

to be a sentence with some meaning, i feel i am unable to. Best guess, violin is saying that it only boils down to "on this planet" if you want happiness, whereas it boils down to "our very survival" whether you want happiness or not. My university's linguistics department is working on the post as we speak, but don't hold your breath for a translation anytime soon.

Maybe he's covertly try to prove us wrong about human superiority through development of language and rational thought.

I dunno, cats and dogs do pretty well out of us, but then we've bred them to over thousands of years. And parrots live for AGES.

i've seen parrots roller skate 8)

and ride tricycles - they're like an avian samba band

who would deny a monkey the pleasure of testing real skunk

you do realise that normally posting pictures automatically losers you the arguement and invalidates all your opinions? unfortunately there was some idiot on this thread comparing the holocaust to the meat industry, so that's cancelled it out. and then some. man, i wish i could be arsed to debate this stuff, then the fact i'm vegan wouldn't associate me with complete mentalists...

....

"Its not some hippy shite because it boils down to our very survival and, if you want, happiness, on this planet." Perhaps too much meat is going to your brain, the only thing missing is a comma. But atleast it distracts from the main point, eh?

Just about every aspect of meat production—from grazing-related loss of cropland and open space, to the inefficiencies of feeding vast quantities of water and grain to cattle in a hungry world, to pollution from ‘factory farms’—is an environmental disaster with wide and catastrophic consequences. You've got massive water pollution, land misuse and soil erosion. Methane produced by cattle is a major cause of global warming, mass deforestation and hunting down of wildlife all for meat production. Not to mention, you're exacerbating world hunger and causing an immeasurable of amount of systematic, machine-like destruction of life.

I dont think you understand the term humanist. Most humanists make it a point to argue for the welfare and/or rights of animals. I just read an article about Marx and his humanism; how he supposedly said "even the creatures must be free"...and that's saying something. Even an old neo-bourgeois authoritarian could find it in his heart to mention animals!

i believe the un says that there's enough food produced at the moment to feed over twice the world's population. the problem of starvation is obviously down to the inefficiency of capitalism in meeting human needs, not that of meat production. but i would hope in a communist society then society would go towards the most efficient form of land use and food production i.e. a vegan diet, so that land can be used for other stuff, as well as humans developing their ethics to the most advanced state as everything else would be...

Surely humans, with our superior mental capacity, should realise that it's not justifiable to kill something unless it's neccesary? You're right when you say we're not like other animals - we're clever enough to understand suffering, and to develop alternative diets so that other animals don't have to die to feed us. Much as I hate liberals who are into animal rights because 'they're soooo cute!' I also don't see how you can justify killing a sentient being (don't know what other words to use) for no good reason without sounding like a chauvinistic cock.

Personally i prefer liberals who are into animal rights because 'they're sooo cute'.

Oh and volin, come off it with the ''animal farming is destroying the whole world!!11!!'' prophet of doom bollocks. Sure certain forms of capital intensive animal farming, such as certain types of mass cattle farming, are highly wasteful and environmentally detrimental, but eating animals and using them is not. Smaller animals, such as chickens, which make up the bulk of meat production globally i beleive, do not damage the environment, certainly not to an extent that we should be concerned about. Likewise in africa and asia insects and other smaller animals are often farmed or used for food, their production is not environmentally damaging either.

The production of soya can cause a lot of damage to the soil if it is used incorrectly, shuld we stiop using soya because of capitalist mis-management?

It is a tendancy of capital to over-intensify production for maximum capital gain in the shortest period of time, cutting corners with costs in a lot of areas, therefore it is hardly surprising that soil erosion and global warming are rising problems assisted in part by capital intesive farming techniques. To blame it all on animal farming is to miss the point entirely and in short, is an extremely selective and liberal arguement.

Absolutely, we already produce enough food for the whole world but where exactly is that surplus food going? If not to the people that need it most. "The fact is that there is enough food in the world for everyone. But tragically, much of the world's food and land resources are tied up in producing beef and other livestock--food for the well off--while millions of children and adults suffer from malnutrition and starvation." -- Dr.Walden Bello

"The American fast food diet and the meat eating habits of the wealthy around the world support a world food system that diverts food resources from the hungry. A diet higher in whole grains and legumes and lower in beef and other meat is not just healthier for ourselves but also contributes to changing the world system that feeds some people and leaves others hungry." -- Dr.Walden Bello

"Our food system takes abundant grain, which people can't afford, and shrinks it into meat, which better-off people will pay for"-- Frances Moore Lappe

"A meat-fed world now appears a chimera. World grain production has grown more slowly than population since 1984, and farmers lack new methods for repeating the gains of the `green revolution.' Supporting the world's current population of 5.4 billion people on an American-style diet would require two-and-ahalf times as much grain as the world's farmers produce for all purposes. A future world of 8 billion to 14 billion people eating the American ration of 220 grams of grain-fed meat a day can be nothing but a flight of fancy." -- Alan B. Durning and Holly Brough, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.

There's three points;

1* Much of the surplus grain, plant matter and water resources are being wasted on the production of meat.

2* This meat based agriculture is being pushed on the developing world, where it (along with cash crops) completely goes against the material and food efficiency of their land.

3* With populations of humans and cattle growing, there is a worldwide reduction in food availability.

I dont think, well I know, that's not the position of the majority of animal rights supporters. They usually aren't politically active but they certainly dont base their opposition to animal oppression because the animals are "cute". That sounds more like all the little (liberal!) animal welfarists that love their dogs and kitties but dont give a damn about the cows or sheep going through the slaughterhouses.

Actually, it's because its true. You know, scientifically demonstrable...

With respect; you're a dumbass. Most of the chickens and "smaller animals" are in the factory farms of places like Thailand which have, coincidentally, given us such things as Bird Flu. Nobody farms insects (Christ ) and soya production is damaging in many countries such as Brazil because they're, along with cattle raising, cutting back on the rainforests. Soya is not the only foods veg*ans eat and can be easily farmed sustainably -which in terms of efficiency and ethics outstrips beef production.

Isn't it funny how meaties start to sound like defenders of capitalism with their derogotary "liberal" name calling and dismissing of obvious injustice. I am not a liberal, I'm a fucking anarchist!

no, you are a liberal if you think we've got the luxury of time to give a shit about the "suffering" of dumb beasts

I see the anti side of the debate has reached a new level of intellectual sophistication.

there's no need for sophistication - animal rights is a waste of time, it's not really an issue for debate - the only reason i give a shit about the subject is because of the worryingly high numbers of so called anarchos who appear to be into it - when we cant even do much for our own species

humans

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

animals

That's fine, mate: I respect all true believers. 8)

God

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

humans

Bourgeois

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proletariat

Men

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women

Whites

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blacks

Civilised

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbarian

....there, it must be true! Is hierarchy and domination by/of the one over the other ever justified? If Humans are somehow above animals why should we kill/torture/oppress when we dont need to? (no-one really answers that)

that's how stupid the AR argument is

animals are not the same as humans, if you want to compare speciesism to racism or sexism that's fine, it makes you look like even more of a prick than normal and distances your ideas from normal people and other acitivists

which is a good thing 8)

Volin:

Difference #1: Blacks/women/proletariat etc are human beings and can liberate themselves - or do you believe "we" have to act on their behalf to free them?

Difference #2: We strive for unity and equality between men and women; black and white. How can we ever achieve unity and equality between animals and humans?

Difference #3: Human suffering as a result of racism, sexism, exploitation etc vastly overshadows any level of animal suffering - they don't compare.

Kill - An animal's life consists of eating, mating and shitting, it's not capable of any more - to kill it is deprive it of nothing.

Torture - You know, you can torture an animal all day long, but it still won't talk . So maybe yes we can find more humane ways of killing/keeping animals - in other words, relatively minor reforms of the meat industry, not an argument for doing away with it altogether.

Oppress - It's damn near impossible to oppress a creature with a more limited consciousness - ok a pig may suffer to a degree because it's pen is a bit too small for it to comfortably eat, shit and root around in, but for something that in the wild would only eat, shit and root around in a few acres of forest it can't be much worse than having to stay in on a wet weekend. Now compare that to the suffering of an imprisoned human, a creature with the ability to imagine freedom, with a need for creative expression, with a capacity to be psychologically scarred, with a deep and complex need for love and companionship. An animal's capacity for being oppressed pales into insignificance.

quite clearly it isn't

so all chicken farming now produces bird flu?

what an absolutely ridiculous and mental arguement, how does this in any way shape or form adress the point i made that chicken farming doesn't do that much damage to the environment.

oh right so silk farms are a myth then are they? along with bee hives aswell?, i guess. People use insects all over the world for food sometimes cathcing them or sometimes allowing them to grow in controlled conditions, its very efficient. I mean you can't do it much in the northern hemisphere other than with bees obviously, because our insects are tiny and its the wrong climate so we wouldn't produce enough of them, but in asia and africa people do it all the time. Its fairly irrelevant here, but your the one suggesting ALL use for animals for agricultural purposes is wrong.

er, its also to do with the way soya is grown. Jesus agricultutre isn't abouit just planting the same crop every year in the same field you idiot.

so its all about efficeincy now is it, shall we all start eating dehydrated algae and micro-plankton? jesus you are a nutter

Yeah beef production is fairly innefficient, i'd agree but as was saiod before, beef production is not the only form of meat productuion is it.

definitely a liberal

Then why do you take the reductionist point of view that everything should be reduced down to how effiecient it is? And why are you using moral arguements?