Vegetarian Discussion: Animal Rights And The New Enlightenment

Animal Rights And The New Enlightenment
Posts: 26

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

O.pearl
2009-08-22 07:20:56 EST
'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment

Dr. Steve Best

Five million years ago, our ancestors branched off from ancient apes;
within the next two million years, hominid lines of evolution underwent
tremendous changes in the transition to evolve into a species that was
not only bipedal, but also big-brained and in command of language
and technology.

In the last hundred thousand years, human beings changed very little in
their biology, but they evolved rapidly in their social and technological
capacities. Unfortunately, our technological evolution has greatly
outdistanced our moral evolution. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., "We live in a world where misguided men use guided missiles."

Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture,
it took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice,
and biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy, and
inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme of
things.

Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s.
The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements
advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers
of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.

During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations
against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty,
homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a
vision of a "world house." In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around
the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and
material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.

But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King's world house
is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn't challenge the
needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The
humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-
called "enlightened" and "progressive" human beings extend nonviolence,
equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.

The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights
and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.
Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
commonalities as subjects of a life.

This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined
in democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and identities?

The animal rights movement poses a fundamental evolutionary challenge
to human beings in the midst of severe crises in the social and natural
worlds. Can we recognize that the animal question is central to the
human question? Can we grasp how the exploitation of animals is
implicated in every aspect of the crisis in our relation to one another and
the natural world?

Animal rights is an assault on human species identity. It smashes the
compass of speciesism and calls into question the cosmological maps
whereby humans define their place in the world. Animal rights demands
that human beings give up their sense of superiority over other animals.
It challenges people to realize that power demands responsibility, that
might is not right, and that an enlarged neocortex is no excuse to rape
and plunder the natural world.

These profound changes in worldview demand revolutionizing one's daily
life and recognizing just how personal the political is. I teach many radical
philosophies, but only animal rights has the power to upset and transform
daily rituals and social relations. "Radical" philosophies such as anarchism
or Marxism uncritically reproduce speciesism. After the Marxist seminar,
students can talk at the dinner table about revolution while dining on the
bodies of murdered farmed animals. After the animal rights seminar, they
often find themselves staring at their plates, questioning their most basic
behaviors, and feeling alienated from their carping friends and family.
The message rings true and stirs the soul.

Let's be clear: we are fighting for a revolution, not for reforms, for the
end of slavery, not for humane slavemasters. Animal rights advances the
most radical idea to ever land on human ears: animals are not food,
clothing, resources, or objects of entertainment.

Our goal is nothing less than to change entrenched attitudes, sedimented
practices, and powerful institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
Indeed, the state has demonized us as "eco-terrorists" and is criminalizing
our fight for what is right.

Our task is especially difficult because we must transcend the comfortable
boundaries of humanism and urge a qualitative leap in moral consideration.
We are insisting that people not only change their views of one another
within the species they share, but rather realize that species boundaries are
as arbitrary as those of race and sex. Our task is to provoke humanity to
move the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and subjectivity.

We must not only educate, we must become a social movement. The
challenge of animal rights also is our challenge, for animal rights must not
only be an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's
most oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of
their pain. As with all revolutions, animals will not gain rights because
oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people
become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to
shake them until new social arrangements emerge.

Are we asking for too much? Justice requires only what is right, and is
never excessive. Is the revolution remotely possible? In a thousand ways,
the revolution is gaining ground. From the near nation-wide ban on
cockfighting to making animal abuse a felony crime in 37 states, from
eliminating the use of animals to train doctors in two thirds of U.S. medical
schools to teaching animal rights and the law seminars at over two dozen
universities, from increasing media coverage of animal welfare/rights issues
to a 2003 Gallup Poll finding that 96% of Americans say that animals
deserve some protection from abuse and 25% say that animals deserve
"the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation" it
is clear that human beings are beginning to change their views about other
species.

Human beings simply will have to reinvent their identities and find ways to
define humanity and culture apart from cruelty. Whether people realize it
or not, this is not a burden but a liberation. One no longer has to live the
lie of separation and the opening of the heart can bring a profound healing.

Animal rights is the next stage in the development of the highest values
modern humanity has devised - those of equality, democracy, and rights.
Our distorted conceptions of ourselves as demigods who command the
planet must be replaced with the far more humble and holistic notion that
we belong to and are dependent upon vast networks of living relationships.
Dominionist and speciesist identities are steering us down the path of
disaster. If humanity and the living world as a whole is to have a future,
human beings must embrace a universal ethics that respects all life.

Growth is difficult and painful, and the human species is morally immature
and psychologically crippled. Human beings need to learn that they are
citizens in the biocommunity, and not conquerors; as citizens, they have
distinct responsibilities to the entire biocommunity.

The meaning of Enlightenment is changing. In the eighteenth century it
meant overcoming religious dogma and tyranny; in the late twentieth
century, it demanded overcoming racism, sexism, homophobia, and
other prejudices; now, in the twenty-first century, it requires overcoming
speciesism and embracing a universal ethics that honors all life.

We can change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.

http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm

Giga
2009-08-22 11:40:20 EST

"O.pearl" <private@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:twQjm.29797$j7.493382@news.indigo.ie...
> 'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment
>
> Dr. Steve Best
>
> Five million years ago, our ancestors branched off from ancient apes;
> within the next two million years, hominid lines of evolution underwent
> tremendous changes in the transition to evolve into a species that was not
> only bipedal, but also big-brained and in command of language and
> technology.
>
> In the last hundred thousand years, human beings changed very little in
> their biology, but they evolved rapidly in their social and technological
> capacities. Unfortunately, our technological evolution has greatly
> outdistanced our moral evolution. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King
> Jr., "We live in a world where misguided men use guided missiles."
>
> Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture, it
> took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice, and
> biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy, and
> inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme of
> things.
>
> Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s. The
> student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements advanced
> the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers of
> prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
>
> During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations
> against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty,
> homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a vision
> of a "world house." In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around the
> globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and
> material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
>
> But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King's world house is
> still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn't challenge the
> needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The
> humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until
> so-
> called "enlightened" and "progressive" human beings extend nonviolence,
> equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.

Their would a whole lot less of these animals you say you care about if
people could no longer make a living breeding, looking after them and
slaughtering them for food. What you advocate would decimate the animal
population of this world.

>
> The next logical step in human moral evolution

Logic and moral have nothing much to do with each other.

is to embrace animal rights
> and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
> progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
> last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
> that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.

Of course they have rights, to not suffer needlessly etc.


> Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
> commonalities as subjects of a life.

What about plants then, or bacteria (throw away those anti-biotics).

>
> This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
> enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined in
> democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
> retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
> all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and
> identities?

Probably artificial meat and fish is not too far away. It'll probably be
cheaper and guilt free for you so enjoy (though I'm sure there will be some
nuts who find a reason against even that).

>
> The animal rights movement poses a fundamental evolutionary challenge to
> human beings in the midst of severe crises in the social and natural
> worlds. Can we recognize that the animal question is central to the human
> question? Can we grasp how the exploitation of animals is implicated in
> every aspect of the crisis in our relation to one another and the natural
> world?
> Animal rights is an assault on human species identity. It smashes the
> compass of speciesism and calls into question the cosmological maps
> whereby humans define their place in the world. Animal rights demands that
> human beings give up their sense of superiority over other animals. It
> challenges people to realize that power demands responsibility, that might
> is not right, and that an enlarged neocortex is no excuse to rape and
> plunder the natural world.
>
> These profound changes in worldview demand revolutionizing one's daily
> life and recognizing just how personal the political is. I teach many
> radical philosophies, but only animal rights has the power to upset and
> transform daily rituals and social relations. "Radical" philosophies such
> as anarchism or Marxism uncritically reproduce speciesism. After the
> Marxist seminar, students can talk at the dinner table about revolution
> while dining on the bodies of murdered farmed animals. After the animal
> rights seminar, they often find themselves staring at their plates,
> questioning their most basic behaviors, and feeling alienated from their
> carping friends and family. The message rings true and stirs the soul.
>
> Let's be clear: we are fighting for a revolution, not for reforms, for the
> end of slavery, not for humane slavemasters. Animal rights advances the
> most radical idea to ever land on human ears: animals are not food,
> clothing, resources, or objects of entertainment.
>
> Our goal is nothing less than to change entrenched attitudes, sedimented
> practices, and powerful institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
> Indeed, the state has demonized us as "eco-terrorists" and is
> criminalizing our fight for what is right.
>
> Our task is especially difficult because we must transcend the comfortable
> boundaries of humanism and urge a qualitative leap in moral consideration.
> We are insisting that people not only change their views of one another
> within the species they share, but rather realize that species boundaries
> are as arbitrary as those of race and sex. Our task is to provoke humanity
> to move the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and
> subjectivity.
>
> We must not only educate, we must become a social movement. The challenge
> of animal rights also is our challenge, for animal rights must not only be
> an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's most
> oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of their
> pain. As with all revolutions, animals will not gain rights because
> oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people become
> enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to shake them
> until new social arrangements emerge.
>
> Are we asking for too much? Justice requires only what is right, and is
> never excessive. Is the revolution remotely possible? In a thousand ways,
> the revolution is gaining ground. From the near nation-wide ban on
> cockfighting to making animal abuse a felony crime in 37 states, from
> eliminating the use of animals to train doctors in two thirds of U.S.
> medical schools to teaching animal rights and the law seminars at over two
> dozen universities, from increasing media coverage of animal
> welfare/rights issues to a 2003 Gallup Poll finding that 96% of Americans
> say that animals deserve some protection from abuse and 25% say that
> animals deserve "the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and
> exploitation" it is clear that human beings are beginning to change their
> views about other species.
>
> Human beings simply will have to reinvent their identities and find ways
> to define humanity and culture apart from cruelty. Whether people realize
> it or not, this is not a burden but a liberation. One no longer has to
> live the lie of separation and the opening of the heart can bring a
> profound healing.
>
> Animal rights is the next stage in the development of the highest values
> modern humanity has devised - those of equality, democracy, and rights.
> Our distorted conceptions of ourselves as demigods who command the planet
> must be replaced with the far more humble and holistic notion that we
> belong to and are dependent upon vast networks of living relationships.
> Dominionist and speciesist identities are steering us down the path of
> disaster. If humanity and the living world as a whole is to have a future,
> human beings must embrace a universal ethics that respects all life.
>
> Growth is difficult and painful, and the human species is morally immature
> and psychologically crippled. Human beings need to learn that they are
> citizens in the biocommunity, and not conquerors; as citizens, they have
> distinct responsibilities to the entire biocommunity.
>
> The meaning of Enlightenment is changing. In the eighteenth century it
> meant overcoming religious dogma and tyranny; in the late twentieth
> century, it demanded overcoming racism, sexism, homophobia, and other
> prejudices; now, in the twenty-first century, it requires overcoming
> speciesism and embracing a universal ethics that honors all life.
>
> We can change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.
> http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm



Ed
2009-08-22 11:53:03 EST
On Aug 22, 7:20 am, "O.pearl" <priv...@iol.ie> wrote:
> 'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment
>
> Dr. Steve Best
>
> Five million years ago, our ancestors branched off from ancient apes;
> within the next two million years, hominid lines of evolution underwent
> tremendous changes in the transition to evolve into a species that was
> not only bipedal, but also big-brained and in command of language
> and technology.
>
> In the last hundred thousand years, human beings changed very little in
> their biology, but they evolved rapidly in their social and technological
> capacities. Unfortunately, our technological evolution has greatly
> outdistanced our moral evolution. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther
> King Jr., "We live in a world where misguided men use guided missiles."
>
> Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture,
> it took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice,
> and biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy, and
> inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme of
> things.
>
> Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s.
> The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements
> advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers
> of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
>
> During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations
> against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty,
> homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a
> vision of a "world house." In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around
> the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and
> material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
>
> But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King's world house
> is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn't challenge the
> needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The
> humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-
> called "enlightened" and "progressive" human beings extend nonviolence,
> equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.
>
> The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights
> and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
> progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
> last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
> that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.
> Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
> commonalities as subjects of a life.
>
> This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
> enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined
> in democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
> retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
> all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and identities?
>
> The animal rights movement poses a fundamental evolutionary challenge
> to human beings in the midst of severe crises in the social and natural
> worlds. Can we recognize that the animal question is central to the
> human question? Can we grasp how the exploitation of animals is
> implicated in every aspect of the crisis in our relation to one another and
> the natural world?
>
> Animal rights is an assault on human species identity. It smashes the
> compass of speciesism and calls into question the cosmological maps
> whereby humans define their place in the world. Animal rights demands
> that human beings give up their sense of superiority over other animals.
> It challenges people to realize that power demands responsibility, that
> might is not right, and that an enlarged neocortex is no excuse to rape
> and plunder the natural world.
>
> These profound changes in worldview demand revolutionizing one's daily
> life and recognizing just how personal the political is. I teach many radical
> philosophies, but only animal rights has the power to upset and transform
> daily rituals and social relations. "Radical" philosophies such as anarchism
> or Marxism uncritically reproduce speciesism. After the Marxist seminar,
> students can talk at the dinner table about revolution while dining on the
> bodies of murdered farmed animals. After the animal rights seminar, they
> often find themselves staring at their plates, questioning their most basic
> behaviors, and feeling alienated from their carping friends and family.
> The message rings true and stirs the soul.
>
> Let's be clear: we are fighting for a revolution, not for reforms, for the
> end of slavery, not for humane slavemasters. Animal rights advances the
> most radical idea to ever land on human ears: animals are not food,
> clothing, resources, or objects of entertainment.
>
> Our goal is nothing less than to change entrenched attitudes, sedimented
> practices, and powerful institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
> Indeed, the state has demonized us as "eco-terrorists" and is criminalizing
> our fight for what is right.
>
> Our task is especially difficult because we must transcend the comfortable
> boundaries of humanism and urge a qualitative leap in moral consideration.
> We are insisting that people not only change their views of one another
> within the species they share, but rather realize that species boundaries are
> as arbitrary as those of race and sex. Our task is to provoke humanity to
> move the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and subjectivity.
>
> We must not only educate, we must become a social movement. The
> challenge of animal rights also is our challenge, for animal rights must not
> only be an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's
> most oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of
> their pain. As with all revolutions, animals will not gain rights because
> oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people
> become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to
> shake them until new social arrangements emerge.
>
> Are we asking for too much? Justice requires only what is right, and is
> never excessive. Is the revolution remotely possible? In a thousand ways,
> the revolution is gaining ground. From the near nation-wide ban on
> cockfighting to making animal abuse a felony crime in 37 states, from
> eliminating the use of animals to train doctors in two thirds of U.S. medical
> schools to teaching animal rights and the law seminars at over two dozen
> universities, from increasing media coverage of animal welfare/rights issues
> to a 2003 Gallup Poll finding that 96% of Americans say that animals
> deserve some protection from abuse and 25% say that animals deserve
> "the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation" it
> is clear that human beings are beginning to change their views about other
> species.
>
> Human beings simply will have to reinvent their identities and find ways to
> define humanity and culture apart from cruelty. Whether people realize it
> or not, this is not a burden but a liberation. One no longer has to live the
> lie of separation and the opening of the heart can bring a profound healing.
>
> Animal rights is the next stage in the development of the highest values
> modern humanity has devised - those of equality, democracy, and rights.
> Our distorted conceptions of ourselves as demigods who command the
> planet must be replaced with the far more humble and holistic notion that
> we belong to and are dependent upon vast networks of living relationships.
> Dominionist and speciesist identities are steering us down the path of
> disaster. If humanity and the living world as a whole is to have a future,
> human beings must embrace a universal ethics that respects all life.
>
> Growth is difficult and painful, and the human species is morally immature
> and psychologically crippled. Human beings need to learn that they are
> citizens in the biocommunity, and not conquerors; as citizens, they have
> distinct responsibilities to the entire biocommunity.
>
> The meaning of Enlightenment is changing. In the eighteenth century it
> meant overcoming religious dogma and tyranny; in the late twentieth
> century, it demanded overcoming racism, sexism, homophobia, and
> other prejudices; now, in the twenty-first century, it requires overcoming
> speciesism and embracing a universal ethics that honors all life.
>
> We can change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.
>
> http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm

For some reason those who advocate “animal rights” speak almost
exclusively of the rights of quite large animals. This is odd because
large animals like whales, polar bears and chickens are numerically a
very small part of the animal kingdom. It is the small (relative to
human beings) animals who represent the majority of animal life on
earth. Insects, bacteria and protozoa represent far and away the
largest mass of animal life.

Animal rights advocates often are most interested in the right to life
and to a lesser degree the right not to be enslaved. Humans kill
small creatures in far, far greater numbers than the larger animals
often cited as examples. We enslave bacteria and protozoa to live in
our gut and digest our food for us. Yeasts are forced to produce our
alcohol. If there is any area where there is need to address the
moral issue of humans versus animals it is here, with the small
animals where the slaughter is so much bigger.

If I’m wrong and size is part of the moral issue, then we need to
carefully consider the moral relationship between humans and animals
that are even larger than we are, like whales, squid, alligators and
monitors.

Ed

George Orwell
2009-08-22 19:59:04 EST
In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
what hope have animals got?

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:20:56 +0100, "O.pearl" <private@iol.ie> wrote:

>'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment
>
>Dr. Steve Best
>
>Five million years ago, our ancestors branched off from ancient apes;
>within the next two million years, hominid lines of evolution underwent
>tremendous changes in the transition to evolve into a species that was
>not only bipedal, but also big-brained and in command of language
>and technology.
>
>In the last hundred thousand years, human beings changed very little in
>their biology, but they evolved rapidly in their social and technological
>capacities. Unfortunately, our technological evolution has greatly
>outdistanced our moral evolution. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther
>King Jr., "We live in a world where misguided men use guided missiles."
>
>Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture,
>it took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice,
>and biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy, and
>inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme of
>things.
>
>Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s.
>The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements
>advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers
>of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
>
>During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations
>against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty,
>homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a
>vision of a "world house." In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around
>the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and
>material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
>
>But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King's world house
>is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn't challenge the
>needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The
>humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-
>called "enlightened" and "progressive" human beings extend nonviolence,
>equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.
>
>The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights
>and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
>progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
>last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
>that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.
>Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
>commonalities as subjects of a life.
>
>This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
>enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined
>in democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
>retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
>all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and identities?
>
>The animal rights movement poses a fundamental evolutionary challenge
>to human beings in the midst of severe crises in the social and natural
>worlds. Can we recognize that the animal question is central to the
>human question? Can we grasp how the exploitation of animals is
>implicated in every aspect of the crisis in our relation to one another and
>the natural world?
>
>Animal rights is an assault on human species identity. It smashes the
>compass of speciesism and calls into question the cosmological maps
>whereby humans define their place in the world. Animal rights demands
>that human beings give up their sense of superiority over other animals.
>It challenges people to realize that power demands responsibility, that
>might is not right, and that an enlarged neocortex is no excuse to rape
>and plunder the natural world.
>
>These profound changes in worldview demand revolutionizing one's daily
>life and recognizing just how personal the political is. I teach many radical
>philosophies, but only animal rights has the power to upset and transform
>daily rituals and social relations. "Radical" philosophies such as anarchism
>or Marxism uncritically reproduce speciesism. After the Marxist seminar,
>students can talk at the dinner table about revolution while dining on the
>bodies of murdered farmed animals. After the animal rights seminar, they
>often find themselves staring at their plates, questioning their most basic
>behaviors, and feeling alienated from their carping friends and family.
>The message rings true and stirs the soul.
>
>Let's be clear: we are fighting for a revolution, not for reforms, for the
>end of slavery, not for humane slavemasters. Animal rights advances the
>most radical idea to ever land on human ears: animals are not food,
>clothing, resources, or objects of entertainment.
>
>Our goal is nothing less than to change entrenched attitudes, sedimented
>practices, and powerful institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
>Indeed, the state has demonized us as "eco-terrorists" and is criminalizing
>our fight for what is right.
>
>Our task is especially difficult because we must transcend the comfortable
>boundaries of humanism and urge a qualitative leap in moral consideration.
>We are insisting that people not only change their views of one another
>within the species they share, but rather realize that species boundaries are
>as arbitrary as those of race and sex. Our task is to provoke humanity to
>move the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and subjectivity.
>
>We must not only educate, we must become a social movement. The
>challenge of animal rights also is our challenge, for animal rights must not
>only be an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's
>most oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of
>their pain. As with all revolutions, animals will not gain rights because
>oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people
>become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to
>shake them until new social arrangements emerge.
>
>Are we asking for too much? Justice requires only what is right, and is
>never excessive. Is the revolution remotely possible? In a thousand ways,
>the revolution is gaining ground. From the near nation-wide ban on
>cockfighting to making animal abuse a felony crime in 37 states, from
>eliminating the use of animals to train doctors in two thirds of U.S. medical
>schools to teaching animal rights and the law seminars at over two dozen
>universities, from increasing media coverage of animal welfare/rights issues
>to a 2003 Gallup Poll finding that 96% of Americans say that animals
>deserve some protection from abuse and 25% say that animals deserve
>"the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation" it
>is clear that human beings are beginning to change their views about other
>species.
>
>Human beings simply will have to reinvent their identities and find ways to
>define humanity and culture apart from cruelty. Whether people realize it
>or not, this is not a burden but a liberation. One no longer has to live the
>lie of separation and the opening of the heart can bring a profound healing.
>
>Animal rights is the next stage in the development of the highest values
>modern humanity has devised - those of equality, democracy, and rights.
>Our distorted conceptions of ourselves as demigods who command the
>planet must be replaced with the far more humble and holistic notion that
>we belong to and are dependent upon vast networks of living relationships.
>Dominionist and speciesist identities are steering us down the path of
>disaster. If humanity and the living world as a whole is to have a future,
>human beings must embrace a universal ethics that respects all life.
>
>Growth is difficult and painful, and the human species is morally immature
>and psychologically crippled. Human beings need to learn that they are
>citizens in the biocommunity, and not conquerors; as citizens, they have
>distinct responsibilities to the entire biocommunity.
>
>The meaning of Enlightenment is changing. In the eighteenth century it
>meant overcoming religious dogma and tyranny; in the late twentieth
>century, it demanded overcoming racism, sexism, homophobia, and
>other prejudices; now, in the twenty-first century, it requires overcoming
>speciesism and embracing a universal ethics that honors all life.
>
>We can change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.
>
>http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm
















































































































































John Stafford
2009-08-22 21:11:16 EST
In article <e7a18f588382dac656e720be3165cf38@mixmaster.it>,
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:

> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
> what hope have animals got?


And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?

Dave U. Random
2009-08-23 00:55:55 EST
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:11:16 -0500, John Stafford <nohj@nowhere.moc>
wrote:

>In article <e7a18f588382dac656e720be3165cf38@mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
>> what hope have animals got?
>
>
>And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?

So are humans. Should we eat them too?
.



John Stafford
2009-08-23 02:01:17 EST
In article <74480b5b130b74e426f438f88b568f73@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>,
Dave U. Random <anonymous@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:11:16 -0500, John Stafford <nohj@nowhere.moc>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <e7a18f588382dac656e720be3165cf38@mixmaster.it>,
> > George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> >
> >> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
> >> what hope have animals got?
> >
> >
> >And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?
>
> So are humans. Should we eat them too?

Why not? If they are dead. But I rarely eat meat. Only when my main dog
dies, then we eat him. It's part of the tribal way.

George Orwell
2009-08-23 06:47:22 EST
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:01:17 -0500, John Stafford <nohj@nowhere.moc>
wrote:

>In article <74480b5b130b74e426f438f88b568f73@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>,
> Dave U. Random <anonymous@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:11:16 -0500, John Stafford <nohj@nowhere.moc>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e7a18f588382dac656e720be3165cf38@mixmaster.it>,
>> > George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
>> >> what hope have animals got?
>> >
>> >
>> >And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?
>>
>> So are humans. Should we eat them too?
>
>Why not? If they are dead. But I rarely eat meat. Only when my main dog
>dies, then we eat him. It's part of the tribal way.

Like em tough hey?















Michael Gordge
2009-08-23 07:25:36 EST
On Aug 22, 8:20 pm, "O.pearl" <priv...@iol.ie> wrote:
> 'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment

Death to the cats that kill rats, yeah rats have rights, ewe wanker.


MG

D*@.
2009-08-23 09:34:04 EST
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:11:16 -0500, John Stafford <nohj@nowhere.moc>
wrote:

>In article <e7a18f588382dac656e720be3165cf38@mixmaster.it>,
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
>> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
>> what hope have animals got?
>
>
>And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron