'Man, Controller of the Universe' is speciesist

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Speciesandclass
Offline
Joined: 4-08-14
Aug 8 2014 14:40
'Man, Controller of the Universe' is speciesist

http://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/08/man-controller-of-the-universe-is-...

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Aug 8 2014 15:10

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Beheading_Holofernes_(Caravaggio)[/url] - Caravaggio - is misandrist.

Just look at poor Holofernes, naked, objectified, rendered helpless by alcohol, suffering decapitation by Judith, while her maid looks on menacingly.

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump - Joseph Wright - glorifies vivisection.

It's about time to have another Bonfire of the Vanities. Burn it all!

Jesus christ, these people must have a really joyless life.

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Aug 8 2014 15:49

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 8 2014 16:15

So, serious question for the "socialist animal liberationists", is "speciesism" the same as "anthropocentrism"?

And I ask that as someone who is proudly anthropocentric, I should add.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 8 2014 17:05
Quote:
anthropocentrism

Forgive me, but could you give me a definition of this? Thanks.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 8 2014 17:11

Basically,

anthro = man; think "anthropology"

Centro = well, center

The idea that humanity should be the main concern of environmental movements or food supplies or whatever.

If you're feeling philosophical, you could read Peter Singer who's a big animal rights advocate and critical of anthropocentrism - although I think he's basically a nob.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Aug 8 2014 17:34


Is this how we want to see our kids grow up?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 8 2014 17:36

Surely, to some degree at least(I would say a large degree) the 2 things are interdependent. That aside the question then becomes a moral one, does it not? That in turn then becomes a practical one as compassion and the desire to cause the least suffering possible must surely be central to any well functioning society? I see it often said on Libcom that morals are not what communism is about but I just don't by it. My happiness absolutely depends on me acting within my conscience to the best of my ability. So to me morality is a major part of our class interest. It amuses that radicals will berate the ruling class and their collaborators for their immoral attitudes and behaviour but then pull out the morality is not a revolutionary issue card when it suits their purpose.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Aug 8 2014 19:50

plasmatelly, your imaginings of a dystopian future with carrots replacing ice-cream is a giant strawman. and even if it was the case that we had to have no ice-cream, what kind of person values ice-cream over animals?

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Aug 8 2014 20:13
boomerang wrote:
plasmatelly, your imaginings of a dystopian future with carrots replacing ice-cream is a giant strawman. and even if it was the case that we had to have no ice-cream, what kind of person values ice-cream over animals?

What kind of person struggles to recognise a joke when they see one? There's been too much unwelcome animal rights shit on this forum of late.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 8 2014 20:50

Well PT, you could just as easily say there's been too much shit talked about animal rights by the anti crew. Depends on your point of view doesn't it? I'm keeping out of the actual substance of the debate because in the current Libcom climate it's a waste of time, but I think the amount of bluster, bombast and bullying that's gone on is a real let down.
The joke in itself was pretty funny though, but once again it was bound to put someone's nose out of joint just because of the level of sensitivity that's been created by others lack of sensitivity. Shame.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Aug 8 2014 20:51
Chilli Sauce wrote:
So, serious question for the "socialist animal liberationists", is "speciesism" the same as "anthropocentrism"?

And I ask that as someone who is proudly anthropocentric, I should add.

I haven't worked things out philosophically so much, so this is kind of tentative, but I'd say I support a combination of anthropocentrism and a hierarchy of needs. So in that model, the most essential human needs would come first, followed by the most essential needs of non-human animals, followed by less essential needs of humans, followed by less essential needs of non-human animals, etc.

In practical terms, it means supporting the right of humans to kill animals for food if they don't have other options for feeding themselves. But it would not support the right of humans to kill animals for food because they like the taste.

I'd also want the principal of "least harm" to be mixed into that philosophy, in cases where harm is necessary to meet a highly essential human need. So if some humans really do need to kill animals for their survival, they should refrain from keeping them in conditions that make the animal unhappy, and kill them in a way that minimizes pain.

cresspot's picture
cresspot
Offline
Joined: 8-09-13
Aug 8 2014 21:24
boomerang wrote:
what kind of person values ice-cream over animals?

YOU SHOULDN'T MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE'S SERIOUS MORAL DILEMMAS THAT THEY SUFFER FROM

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Aug 9 2014 07:57

Speciesandclass is just spamming the shit out of these forums with wholesale cut and pasting of articles from his/her weirdy blog. He/she then makes no effort to contribute to any subsequent discussion. If that's not spamming, I don't know what is. Frankly, it's lowering the tone of the neighbourhood.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 9 2014 08:51
Quote:
plasmatelly, your imaginings of a dystopian future with carrots replacing ice-cream is a giant strawman. and even if it was the case that we had to have no ice-cream, what kind of person values ice-cream over animals?

I don't know Boomerang, I think that's a bit of strawman, too. There's no reason that we can't have ice cream and animal welfare under communism.

If, in the here and now, the goal is to reduce animal suffering, the best way to do that is to improve working conditions in the industry. A huge amount of suffering is caused, for example, by the speed-ups at slaughterhouses or the assembly-line deskilling caused by industrial production methods.

In any case, I refuse to somehow take moral responsibility for capitalist production methods.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 9 2014 08:54

Oh and if we're talking about vegan ice cream...

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Aug 9 2014 09:17
Webby wrote:
Well PT, you could just as easily say there's been too much shit talked about animal rights by the anti crew. Depends on your point of view doesn't it? I'm keeping out of the actual substance of the debate because in the current Libcom climate it's a waste of time, but I think the amount of bluster, bombast and bullying that's gone on is a real let down.

Apologies in advance if you, like me, hate when people strip down a post and address it point by point, but there is something in your post that has got me a-thinking.

Quote:
you could just as easily say there's been too much shit talked about animal rights by the anti crew

To your first point, Webby - afaik, issues of diet have only been wheeled out by vegetarians, animal rights types, crystal starers and tofu weavers; perhaps with the exception of a couple of posters, people have given the pro crew a decent hearing, but IMHO their arguments have self imploded without any particularly wide take up of discussion. Worse still, most of the debate has excluded any class analysis - something that would, IMO, have engaged most posters on here.

Quote:
I'm keeping out of the actual substance of the debate because in the current Libcom climate it's a waste of time

Your second point is curious - current climate? Though most possibly a throw away phrase, you sound like your a bit of a sleeper here mate! As long as it says on the label that Libcom is a class struggle resource forum, will there every be a climate more conducive to discussing the nonsense of Species and Class or healing vegetables? I really hope not. As for your usual default argument that people are close-minded, and that you became a vegan as part of these discussions: I certainly don't think because not everyone is a vegan that people are close-minded - you're making it all sound like some mystic enlightenment. As for your going vegan as a consequence of these discussions, well possibly; though you were by your own admission, a former vegan with diabetes. Or perhaps you simply were always a vegan?

Quote:
I think the amount of bluster, bombast and bullying that's gone on is a real let down

Your last point - bluster and bombast, yeah there's been a bit of that, not enough to personally piss me off yet - but bullying? I disagree here, though we all have different perceptions of being bullied. The mods here are pretty good on that front; unless you can evidence this, I would probably let daft accusations like that slide (and maybe file it under bluster and bombast).

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Aug 9 2014 11:42

I think the real breakthrough will not be convincing people to eat the chemical mush of soy proteins, stabilizers and thickeners to make poor analogues of dairy and meat, but for gm processes (eg. example making milk from yeast cells, leather from cells grown in labs) which are identical in taste, flavour and structure. Then there would be a no brainer case for wide spread adoption of a vegan diet, if you cannot tell the difference, its cheaper and more environmentally frindly until then it is only a moral choice that not many people are willing to do.... Dont see what this has to do with class politics though...

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Aug 9 2014 13:40

I've no problem with someone raising this issue for discussion on this site but must agree with Serge that this poster is not contributing in the spirit of this site but simply using it to advertise their own site in a way which got the ICC warned and then banned a long time ago until they started contributing in a sensible way so the same rules should apply here.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 9 2014 17:33

Just for clarity - never a vegan, just a teenage anarcho punk veggie. Hardly the same thing. Default position of being open minded? No more than my default position of trying not to be a liar, a sexist, a racist or just a cunt.
I didn't mean bullying of people, I meant trying to bully a discussion off of the forums by posting videos of crystal healers, the use of terms like 'tofu weavers' and generally being sarcastic, dismissive and belittling something that is important to many people. Just not allowing a sensible debate to happen. What's really strange here is that usually when people aren't interested in the topic of a thread they leave it to people that are, but with this all sorts come riding in to town with insults and deliberate avoidance of the things that don't suit them, like the fact that when I bumped the vegan thread I just told of my experience with food and health. I didn't mention animal rights or make any claims about what a vegan diet can do for anyone but me. There is also the obvious lack of willingness to even try to understand what is being talked about as exemplified in Mr Jolly's post about

Quote:
convincing people to eat the chemical mush of soy proteins, stabilizers and thickeners to make poor analogues of dairy and meat,

That shit is as likely to get near my plate as the lips and bumholes concoctions that cheap burgers consist of are to the plate of any meat eater with half a fucking clue about what they should put in their body for both taste and nutrition.
I said I was keeping out of the animal lib debate because it was pointless at the moment. The fact that I'm now having to justify not having a closed mind and become a spokesman for The British League for the Abolition of Beanburgers is strongly suggesting that I'm right.

Edit: Spikeymike. Totally agree

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 9 2014 18:41

DP

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 9 2014 19:29

Webby your ignoring that the vary minimal mockery, was directed towards vegans making exaggerated unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of particular diets, some of which are really dangerous if taken seriously.
If you want a "sensible debate" to happen you need to acknowledge the fact that some vegans are making claims that are outright false and potentially harmful. Cause at the moment you seem to be taking any criticism of any claims made by any vegans as a personal attack.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Aug 9 2014 21:25

Unless things have been directly aimed at me I really haven't taken things personally, in fact if anything I'm a bit miffed that the pretty simple points I've made have been constantly swerved.
I am quite aware that the vegan world is full of hucksters, naval gazers and assorted hippies. The majority of vegans probably aren't like that but I only know a few so I could be wrong. So what anyway? The whole 'diet' market is full of hucksters and idiots anyway. That's as disingenuous as me mocking meat eaters because of the paleo nutjobs like Daniel Vitalis. We all know that practically the whole commercial world is made up of false claims, many of which can be harmful
Minimal mockery? Not from where I'm sitting. That said, I've found quite a bit of it funny but it would have been funnier if I wasn't so suspicious of the motives behind it.
Once again, instead of my points being addressed, new questions appear for me to answer. It's getting a bit tiresome.
Anyhow, I really must try to step away(lol) so in the interest of not disappearing up my own arse, I'll bow out(lol again) with a joke I'm told is well known but I've only just heard:

Q. How do you know if someone's a vegan?

A. Don't worry, they'll tell you all about it!

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 9 2014 22:18
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Oh and if we're talking about vegan ice cream...

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Aug 9 2014 22:19

If by bullying you mean me posting up a crystal healing video in response to a poster who uses words like genocide to discuss eating meat, or

Quote:
What are, in your mind, the essential characteristics of my granny that make her slaughter more of an atrocity than an animal's?

Or promotes a diet which has as many testimonies from people who have been made sick by that diet as a mechanism of curing illnesses and then posts up inane videos of buff people doing acrobatics in lieu of any substantive argument, yeah then I'll take it. But there again, I wasn't directing it at you, I was directing it at, as RadicalGraffiti said

Quote:
vegans making exaggerated unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of particular diets, some of which are really dangerous if taken seriously.

And particularly at people whose primary agenda is promoting animal rights, not human welfare. And yes, I am going to take the piss out of someone who cites humans not having claws as evidence that we are not predators.
But there again this

Posted up outside a Glasgow hospital in which a woman and her newborn had just died of swineflu
Or this

Work of humanity, created after a young man in Manitoba was murdered, beheaded and cannibalized on a bus, looks very much like evidence of human predatory behaviour to me.

Nobody said you can't be healthy and a vegan, including myself. What is disingenuous is selling veganism as a cure all to problems which are far more complicated.

And Speciesandclass, whoever they are, should grow a fucking spine and come back and argue their points about the sort of toss they're posting up. And if anyone argues that speciesism is in any way in the same league as racism or sexism, they're going to get scorn poured it upon it by me. Or probably not because I've had enough of this bullshit.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Aug 9 2014 22:20
boomerang wrote:
plasmatelly, your imaginings of a dystopian future with carrots replacing ice-cream is a giant strawman. and even if it was the case that we had to have no ice-cream, what kind of person values ice-cream over animals?

I do essentially. I have no desire to cause animals pain for no reason, but for me I think that keeping cows for milk along with all the suffering that I know this involves is justifiable fortunately it also has useful bi-products such as meat and leather.

Yes, but I value the personal pleasure I take from icecream over cows suffering. What sort of person does that make me?

Devrim

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Aug 10 2014 07:14
Devrim wrote:

Yes, but I value the personal pleasure I take from icecream over cows suffering. What sort of person does that make me?

Devrim

a admin: flaming removed, this is a warning .

either that, or someone uninformed about the suffering dairy cows (and veal calves) endure.

take a few minutes to become informed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IDVdgmzKA

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Aug 10 2014 07:15
Chilli Sauce wrote:

In any case, I refuse to somehow take moral responsibility for capitalist production methods.

ok, chilli sauce. but what about post-capitalism? there are fully automated dairy farms out there. post-revolution, we could have cows living in the same horrible conditions we do now, without any humans suffering to make it happen. and it would be a more efficient use of land than free-range. so why not?

there's so much talk here about how there's no way to liberate animals in capitalism, and so veganism is pointless. but does anyone give a shit about animal liberation after capitalism? i think most people here would not give a damn if animals continued to suffer as much as they do now for our food, forever. a few relatively kinder ones will want to give them enjoyable lives before cutting that short by killing them.

what i don't get is these same people would be outraged and grief-stricken if i killed and ate their dog or cat. "oh, but they had such a nice life before i killed them! and i did it gently!"

there can be dairy and egg production which doesn't harm animals, but it would mean a big "waste" of resources (letting the males live, for one). i doubt there's many people here who'd campaign for this post-rev. because the bottom line is most people just don't care about animals - not their pain, not their joy, not their lives. or they do just a little, but not as much as they care about getting to have "real" ice-cream.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Aug 10 2014 08:21

Anarcho-communism is a political goal that makes human need the priority within a free society. Someone used the term anthropocentric and that defines us very clearly. However, that is not the same as us going out of our way to be cruel to animals. In fact I believe a communist society would mean that humans would need to act more in tune with the planet. That would also involve minimising animal suffering as much as possible. In terms of us treating pets differently to farm animals, of course we do and why wouldn't we? We bond with and have a close relationship with cats and dogs, and our relationship with dogs goes back to the dawn of humanity and has been symbiotic for much of that time.

In terms of diet, speaking as someone with shitloads of ailments, then I find vegan food to be beneficial. I am not a vegan and doubt it would be quite so beneficial if I was vegan all the time. That said, I do know a couple of very fit and healthy vegans and fair play to them. But that is a lifestyle choice and not something that should ever be proposed as a prerequisite of anarchism or communism. In a world where a type of rough vegetarianism or veganism is enforced on whole swathes of the population who have almost nothing and only have access to minimal amounts of basic cereals, rice and such like, then obsessions with meat eaters, animal liberation and repeated attempts to embed such ideas into our movement are in poor taste and the veganism of such people begins to sound more like a radical eating disorder.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Aug 10 2014 08:44

Boomerang, I find that post quite disingenuous, or at the very least based on some pretty serious presumptions. If you want to find out what people think about meat-production post-capitalism, then ask.

Quote:
ok, chilli sauce. but what about post-capitalism? there are fully automated dairy farms out there. post-revolution, we could have cows living in the same horrible conditions we do now, without any humans suffering to make it happen. and it would be a more efficient use of land than free-range. so why not?

As for me, I'd note that efficiency is not the main goal of communism - meeting human needs in a sustainable way that allows human creativity to flourish is. That will certainly mean some undesirable tasks will be automated, but it doesn't mean we'll automate just because it's more efficient. Just that opposite in fact - a lot of the assembly-line style tasks that are done now will probably be brought back down to a less "efficient" artisanal level so the people doing them can actually get some enjoyment and satisfaction in them.

It also means that we can have a debate about the balance of productivity and animal welfare (or resource use or whatever). Personally, I'd be happy to only have ice cream once a month if that's what it took to eliminate factory farms.

As for those auto-milking machines, my inclination is that they could probably be made much more humane for the cows if the profit motive was removed.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Aug 10 2014 14:55

Post-capitalism I assume that our level of meat consumption goes down drastically. A lot of production of corn, and this just one example, goes straight to fodder for cows so that we can eat meat as the main ingredient of our meals several times per week (I think in the US the average is 4-5 times). Back in the day we used to eat meat 1-2 times per week, and as an addition to to our meal rather than the main ingredient. Now I am not saying that we necessarily have to go back to the old days, but our current level of meat production is actually extremely inefficient in terms of the use of resources. "Growing" meat wastes a lot of water, fodder and not to speak of the animal cruelty found at factory farms and slaughterhouse (plus how a lot of cows e.g. are pumped full of all kinds of crap to survive the production process and to be more "efficient" in growing).

So for me the question isn't really vegan/vegetarian vs. meat, but rather how much meat we consume. There is such a thing as capitalist food culture, and obsession with meat is part of that.