What’s done is done. I hate to see the warming ups recently of movies, even series. Let alone the BS the music industry does with real treasures. I stick with the old-but-gold. Here’s what I mean. old and precious And now back to writing…
1 Like
We’re not the first generation to be faced with a changing anthropogenic environment … take the Luddites of the early 19th century:
Someone somewhere said ‘the only constant is change’ … the biggest change for our generation may be the rate of change … that for those who are not benefitting, can’t seem to catch a breath …
The question always is, when legislatures legislate laws to stop the inevitable, who really benefits, and who does not?
In years long past, groups that were adversely affected by prejudice and discrimination could move away toward areas of our planet (assuming they could find them) where the prejudice and discrimination against them either didn’t exist or were irrelevant.
Deserts and other less populated regions were popular for many groups with divergent schools of thought looking for the room to grow and evolve. The diversity that exists in many cities could sometimes serve the same purpose.
Those times, however, are long gone. Instead, humanity needs other mechanisms to allow the inevitable variations between human groups to exist closer together, in the almost same physical space, while allowing the expression of a divergence in thought that ultimately might end up saving us all.
Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan, in their book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (book) - Wikipedia wrote about the tension and conflict that they believed is an integral part of what it is to be human; that the differences that developed between groups of humans was actually a necessary condition to ensure the survival of humanity from the unknown threats that we would be faced with.
The increased social friction we see today, largely as a result of the higher rate of social change, may reflect the increased threats that humanity perceives from such conditions as overpopulation and consumption that the planet can no longer support if we are to survive as a species.
At the same time, such friction can also serve as the vehicle to initiate, inaugurate and/or promote the inception of a divergent group that will ultimately evolve a pattern of thought that could save humanity.
Carl and Ann indicate that there may be an optimal distance that needs to develop between groups, a separation between the various groups that allows each group to develop a distinct pattern of thought that would not be possible if they remained within the dominant culture.
Their view of the optimal distance between groups represented one that allowed for a continued connection between the now separate groups (e.g. not too far apart) in order to maintain the order and stability within each group that humanity learned was necessary for the now separate groups to survive, but still distant enough for the new thinking that might save humanity to evolve.
For me, Carl & Ann’s argument forms the basis for the very concept of why humanity needs diversity. But what is missing from the argument for diversity (and one I believe Carl & Ann struggled with) is a mechanism that allows for the diverse group to somehow co-exist, safely within the otherwise dominant group, even though the views of the diverse group are not accepted, and possibly even condemned, by the dominant group.
When there was the physical space for diverse groups to physically move away from the dominant group, the differences between the groups could evolve, develop and mature toward a competence for human survival, thus enabling humanity to survive the unknown threats that develop over time.
That physical space to move away from the dominant group no longer exists. So humanity is confronted with how to evolve and develop what appear to be inconsistent thoughts within the dominant group. Given our finite knowledge of the unknown threats that we will face, currently such thoughts simply will not and cannot develop within the dominant realm of thought without some sort of dissociation or separation.
It’s like asking the fossil fuel extraction companies for a strategy to put themselves out of business in order to save our planet for human habitation. It’s a concept they simply cannot accept as part of their dominant thinking. We will continue to use fossil fuels for some time, but likely not for as long as the extractors imagine they will continue to be in business. The transition is simply something the dominant conservative culture is incapable of rationally considering.
Whether it is COVID-19, earthquakes in Turkey, invading Russians, or whatever, the unknown unknowns will always arise to threaten humanity. The existential threat that is climate change could not have even been imagined a century ago (except for a few) to become the existential threat to all of humanity that we now understand it is.
Even as short as a half-century ago, the vast majority of humanity could not have imagined how severe climate change would become (think Alberta, Canada on a much wider scale), and how even having children could become a question for some of those who understand the threat we face.
A conundrum for sure.
(Apologies for the above bit of unsorted rambling. It’s late and I need to sleep.)
scrive
It’s kind of ironic, if you think about it, that climate change also created and shaped mankind in the first place. Even worse: Imagine that stupid rock didn’t hit Earth, removing the nasty dinosaurs and turning them into tasty chickens.
You never know what it’s good for in the long run. Maybe a thousand years from now two cyborgs will sit on the beach and stare into the night sky of a distant world, being pretty happy that a severe crisis forced those lazy humans to get off their planet.
2 Likes
How true! A ready-made story line if there ever was one …
Right now, I’m focused on a simple metric to help get us through, if possible, the next millennium.
scrive
1 Like
Hi again!
As a biologist and vegan, I feel compelled to remember that humanity is killing all of nature because of our anthropocentrism. There are those who do not conceive the idea that the Earth exists without human beings, but it already existed before us and will continue to exist after us.
As moral agents (subjects responsible for their actions), we have a moral obligation to live without harming third parties as far as possible. This precept also includes animals. The underlying mindset with human slavery and climate change resides in the belief that power legitimizes right.
The fact that we are able to abuse those who are weaker does not justify our actions. The world would be a better place, in every way, if we respected each other among humans and didn’t exploit animals. According to FAO data, more than 70% of agricultural crops go to enslaved “livestock”. Without animal husbandry and other forms of animal exploitation, there would be no major ecological damage, and above all, we would not condemn billions of animals to death every year. The numbers of animals killed every minute are atrocious and 99.9% have no greater justification than “I like the taste of their meat.”
If anyone wants to delve into the meaning of veganism, I recommend visiting: https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
Regards.
1 Like
Although I agree that we should treat other beings better, I’m in no mood to go down that rabbit hole. And I’m also quite hungry. But it’s always fascinating how much the answer reflects the field of expertise / interests of the person you ask, to the point of “now, if we fix that problem, basically everything else is a piece of cake”. It usually isn’t.
2 Likes
Hi. I did not mean to imply that it is a simple matter. Since English is not my native language, I tend to express myself much more simply or forcefully than I would in Spanish. I don’t feel capable of doing all the necessary nuances because my verbs and words would start to fail.
Veganism is not a universal panacea. Veganism is just an ethical principle that seeks to end animal exploitation/slavery, just as abolitionism in the past was an ethical principle intended to end black exploitation/slavery. My goal in pointing this out was to indicate that there is a historical and psychological relationship between social and ecological phenomena. Our actions on the planet and on other animals are a reflection of our perception that the Earth and its inhabitants belong to us and that we can do whatever we want.
This phenomenon is called, in legal philosophy, “moral reification.” There have already been two large groups of experts that have postulated in favor of recognizing legal rights for all sentient animals (the same criteria applied to justify Human Rights): the Cambridge Declaration and the Toulon Declaration. You can find more information if you wish.
As an anecdote, I became a vegan working with horses that were victims of exploitation in my country, Spain. It did not seem coherent to me to treat the wounds of some animals while sending cows, sheep or chickens to the slaughterhouse.
Regards.
1 Like
Hi. Being a vegetarian is better than not, of course. But it should be noted that a vegetarian can continue to participate in the exploitation of cows, chickens, bees, or even visit zoos, dolphinariums, aquariums, or go hunting, fishing or horseback riding. These forms of exploitation cause as much suffering, misery and death in the victims as those who are directly killed. Every useless animal ends up in the slaughterhouse when it no longer serves its intended purpose.
Someone may be a vegetarian for health, environment, religion, and other self-centered reasons. On the other hand, one can only be a vegan when one stops participating in all forms of animal exploitation by seeing them as subjects of rights, instead of mere objects at our service.
Sincerely,
2 Likes
Maybe this was one of those lost nuances, but it sparked my response, because it’s quite a bold statement:
Unlikely. But regardless, morality rarely wins over appetite. There’s an easy fix: Let people eat as much meat as they want, but… they have to kill the animals first. Personally. Nine out of ten will sign up for spinach.
Hello again. I base this statement on FAO studies:
I will try to explain myself. I intend to point out the ecological fact that livestock farming, from its beginnings and especially in current times, is both unethical and anti-ecological. The basic reason lies in the thermodynamics of trophic systems, the biomass obtained from a herbivorous mammal raised on a farm is around 1% of the biomass used to feed it throughout its life until it is killed. This means that 100 times more biomass is invested in feeding animals than humans. Although, obviously, there is no full use of the biomass when it is processed. In sum, the biomass extracted from plants and consumed by humans (plant based products) are 20 times more efficient from the energy point of view. This fact means that livestock unnecessarily multiplies the impact on water, space, food transport, antibiotics, etc. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry produces almost as many antibiotics for enslaved cattle as it does for humans.
Regarding your statement about ethics. I partially agree. If everyone had to get food from it, far fewer humans would kill animals. However, this would mean reducing the ethics of the matter to effort and not to the intrinsic value of animals. Would it be ethical to kill human beings if one made the great effort to do so? The Hunger Games? 
Most of society follows an “inertial ethic.” This means that most never ask what is right and what is wrong. The average human being acts in accordance with the majority and what they have been taught in the family, educational and professional environment. This is the reason, for example, why we inherit religion, the sense of belonging to a group, our vision of clothing or the sense of modesty.
If there were a growing number of humans who were opposed to animal exploitation, as was the case in the past with respect to human exploitation, the majority of the group will gradually adapt. Although it is somewhat reductionist, it can be hypothesized that a social change occurs in three phases: ridicule, opposition and acceptance. I have some bibliography, but it is in Spanish.
First, society mocks, parodies, confuses concepts, ignores the issue and claims nonsense. The defenders of the new movement are labeled as crazy, ignorant, fanatics, disruptors, etc. Veganism is in this phase.
Second, when the number of people who defend an idea increases to 10 or 15%, strong opposition begins to emerge at a social, economic, etc. level. There may be violent confrontations, demonstrations against this new perspective, etc. This was the case when whites began to attack blacks and demonstrate for the maintenance of discrimination and Apartheid. This is the current state of feminism and other struggles in developing countries.
Third, when the number of people reaches 50%, the other half, when their actions are not motivated by rational or morally justifiable reasons, begin to accept the new status quo. This is the current state of feminism, for example, in Western countries. There will always be speciesist people just as there will always be racist or sexist people, but the new status quo ensures that there is a legal framework to protect victims.
Regards.
3 Likes
I understand that. But getting rid of livestock is not the only solution to this problem and this problem isn’t the only one causing major ecological damage (see: the destruction of forests to create space for oil-palm monocultures).
You know what else would fix both? Reducing the human population to a reasonable size.
Does it really matter if the result is the same, though?
Who gives you the right to kill plants? Are they less worthy than animals? Who made this decision?
Again, I agree that the human treatment of animals leaves much to be desired. But killing happy animals in their natural environment to eat them? That’s how animals live (until the latter happens). There was never really a concept of animals dying peacefully in the presence of their loved ones, some kind of good old times before humans introduced the idea of eating them.
Sure, the argument could be made: “We are not lions, we can decide to eat something else.” That’s true. But we could also decide not to eat plants.
2 Likes
Hi. I will try to briefly respond to each of your arguments in order.
In case you misunderstand, I have not spoken of “eliminating” cattle as if we were referring to killing them or releasing them in the field. The cessation of animal exploitation is necessarily gradual. With that said, it is biologically possible for small populations of domesticated animals to reintegrate into natural habitats. That is studied with rats and even with the wild cows of Chernobyl.
Livestock is the backbone of other crops. The cultivation of soybean or palm oil is directly related to livestock and by-products intended for them. A large part of world soybean production goes to livestock. It is not the only problem in our society, of course, but it is one of the most serious and is only caused by a habit of consumption inherited from the Neolithic. All the necessary nutrients are found in the plants. Animals do not produce biomass, we only rearrange the molecules contained in food. There are very few species that are strict carnivores (by an inability to synthesize certain amino acids), but humans are not among them.
The fact that two actions have, apparently, the same result does not mean that both have the same ethical justification, nor does it mean that both evolve in the same way. For example, it is not the same for humanity to stop eating animals due to ethics than due to lack of money or resources. Just like it is not the same for a man to respect women for ethics or for him to decide not to rape so as not to be arrested.
The result may be the same at any given time, but when circumstances change, the human being will incur the same previous actions again. This is the reason, for example, why transportation by horses disappeared when the automobile became popular, but other sports with horses still exist. If the oil runs out or other resource problems occur, millions of humans would again bet on animal traction. Our mentality towards animals has not changed at all in the last two centuries.
Veganism does not defend animals for being animals. This is a common misunderstanding. Veganism refers to animals because animals are the only group of living beings that can feel. If plants, fungi or other beings (aliens, for example) felt, then they would deserve equal respect.
Veganism, like Human Rights, is based on the concept of “inalienable interests” (life, freedom and integrity). The moral difference between a subject and an object is that a subject has a subjective awareness of its existence. We know scientifically that possession of a nervous system allows an organism to modulate and retain action potentials. This physical phenomenon leads to consciousness, that is, to the differentiation between a “me” and a “not-me”. Only animals have cells capable of carrying out this process. This is the case because the cell wall of plant organisms does not conduct electricity and cannot depolarize.
As Darwin explained, the difference between us and other animals is one of degree. We have a more developed intelligence due to a series of mutations in the brain and the cells that support neurons. For the rest, there is no biological difference that can justify moral discrimination. Speciesism (moral discrimination between species) is as arbitrary as racism or sexism.
Our high intelligence allows us to understand and predict the consequences of our actions at very high levels. This implies that we are “moral agents” (subjects responsible for their acts); while animals are moral patients (subjects not responsible for their actions). We cannot ethically judge an animal any more than a small child of the human species. However, just as we assume that children deserve respect and legal rights, this should also be considered in the case of animals.
Most of Western society is welfarist. This means that it considers animals as objects or resources that exist to serve us and for which we only have the obligation to reduce their suffering to the extent that their damages (branding, taming, castration, murder, etc.) bring us a benefit social.
Welfarism was also the predominant ideology during black slavery. Not in vain, there were legal regulations that prevented the separation between black women and their children or even the prohibition of slaves working on Sunday. Welfarist regulations, as those measures against “animal abuse” are today, do not pursue the real defense of animals, but rather the perpetuation of animal exploitation by minimizing the moral impact that it has on our conscience to carry out avoidable and selfish actions that never we would accept for ourselves. The industry is the biggest supporter of animal welfare because it helps normalize the idea that if an animal lived “happy” then it doesn’t matter that it was killed for us.
Actions that harm third parties can never be ethical, since ethics is based on the principle of equality. At the moment that a moral agent does something that he would not want to receive as an action from a third party, this moral agent incurs a contradiction and his actions lack, or should lack, legal support.
I’m sorry for writing so much and the expression errors that will be in my message. I hope it is understood.
Regards.
2 Likes
Of course, I was also thinking of abandoning the practice / concept, not releasing (or killing) all cows at once or something like that.
But here’s the dilemma. Either you control their population in the wild, or they will eat your plants. Which leaves you basically with two realistic options: Killing them (hunting) or letting others do the wetwork (re-introducing predators). And unless you want to micromanage their life, they’d also encounter illnesses, injuries, temporary resource shortages and all sorts of suffering.
If you think that’s good enough for animals, why not hanselandgretel human children into the woods?
And as an ex-vegetarian, I say: Great, now find a way to make them more yummy! I predict that “artificial meat” (“real” meat cultured in factories, without animals) will eliminate the whole problem for the sole reason that it’ll be way cheaper.
Yes, and no amount of civilization, ethics or laws are going to change that, at least not in the foreseeable future. Unless you believe in the concept of “steady progress”, which got slapped in the face by history time and time again.
Plants experience stress and are able to communicate it (they usually don’t theatrically scream, though). They’re definitely sentient in a way. I don’t know if they’re conscious or not, but I also can’t rule it out based on my current a lack of understanding.
So, let’s say someome intends to seriously harm your horses, and you could stop that person with reasonable force. There is absolutely legal support for it. And it’s very ethical in my book. But you don’t. Because you also wouldn’t want to get punched in the face by someone else (who would?). That’s very hard to believe. But what do I know.
Most things in life are gray. But I’m also happy that we’re well-fed enough to have the luxury of this discussion.
1 Like
Hi again,
Suffering is not a moral value. We (moral agents) have the duty not to cause and to minimize suffering because other subjects do not want to suffer. However, that does not mean that suffering is bad. Relations between animals (moral patients) are not objects of veganism. This implies that there is nothing “wrong” with other animals killing and hunting.
We, on the other hand, can and should avoid harming animals as far as possible. Self-defense is legitimate, but it does not legitimize “per se” any situation or mode of defense. There is no real dilemma. In a vegan world, ethically acceptable formulas could be found, but the current reality is far from this because human beings prefer to domesticate herbivorous animals, exterminate carnivorous animals and then justify hunting animals because they are “plague”. How ironic.
Lab meat requires animal exploitation to extract cells from such animals because such cells degenerate over time. Laboratory meat is also not viable from an economic point of view because there is no machine or artificial process that improves the rate of cell reproduction that exists in a living organism. The creation of artificial tissues is important in medicine, not in food industry. The whole lab meat thing is part of the industry’s propaganda to perpetuate the belief that meat is necessary, that it tastes unique, or that it’s okay to continue exploiting animals in “small proportions.” Nothing will change for them because 99.9% of the meat will be traditionally sourced.
Moral values change slowly, but they do. Individual actions can change the world. Since becoming an activist, I have helped over 200 people to become vegan. That’s already something.
Whenever a vegan talks about sentience, someone jumps in with the fact that plants also feel. This is not only false, but is as irrelevant to veganism as it is to feminism. Would women deserve less respect because other beings feel more or less?
According to what has been accepted by science up to now, plants cannot feel because of what has already been said about action potentials. The stress response comprises a set of chemical responses called “double messengers.” It is not a conscious response nor does it mediate any sensitivity. The mechanism of the double messengers is the same that allows the functioning of our antibodies and the one used by bacteria to initiate an infection process.
Life is made up of greys, of course. The problem is that our society perceives as gray what is not due to its ignorance of a matter, its convenience or its prejudices. And I don’t want you to interpret this as a personal attack. That’s not my intention. I also thought that it was not wrong to kill animals to eat, but after I realized that the separation between which animals are for food, companionship, experimentation, is an arbitrary separation that humans have created for utilitarian purposes. There’s really no difference between cats and dogs and other animals that we condemn every day for not being dog, cats or humans. If society understood that, there would already be a great advance.
I understand that our situation is better than in other countries, but justifying animal exploitation by “necessity” would be equivalent to justifying human slavery by equal necessity. Needs modulate our actions, but they do not change the validity of our actions in an absolute sense. Just as many countries stone women and homosexuals for various beliefs, most human beings, even the poorest, also practice animal exploitation out of beliefs and more than out of necessity in many cases.
Regards.
2 Likes
Don’t mind my saying this but I completely disagree with Veganism.
If it’s not bad (or wrong), what’s the purpose of stopping it? And keeping this question in mind…
…why? I mean, yes, you can’t hold it against carnivores to be the way they are, obviously, but for the eaten animals the outcome is exactly the same. Down to the fundamental argument of “they don’t want that to happen” (which I can relate to).
Fair point, I agree that doing it “the traditional way” (growing) is too slow and thus too expensive. But “3D-printing it” on an atomic level is not.
This kind of reminds me of the ghost driver who hears a warning on the radio that there’s a ghost driver and bursts out: “One? Hundreds!”
How can this idea be irrelevant if you determine that one being mustn’t be eaten by another being (to be precise: by another being that feels bad about it) if the reason is that it feels and doesn’t want to be eaten?
Considering that:
According to science (or other authorities of their times) a lot of beings didn’t feel (enough). Animals, different human “races”, women… until they did. While it’s easy to make fun of that in hindsight – how can you be so sure this statement is going to age well?
That’s true. I see it the same way. But I grew up with the fact the we eventually ate the same animals I named and taught tricks (no, not the cats and dogs).
1 Like
Interesting discussion.
It strikes me as conveniently animalist to judge the value of plant life based on animal biology. At its core, this view reduces to, “Plants are not animals, which makes them lesser beings than animals, thus they do not qualify to be considered third parties, therefore it is okay to eat them.”
Best,
Jim
2 Likes
Hi! Hello. If you read the entire conversation, you’ll see that your statement is a straw man. I have already specifically explained that veganism does not refer to animals for being animals. And the irony of the matter is that someone justifies animal exploitation by appealing to the hypothesis that perhaps plants feel while one knows that animals feel and does not mind participating in their exploitation. If you want to be fair, the logical thing would be to respect those who we know feel (humans and other animals) instead of introducing other beings into the equation and then magically concluding that animals don’t matter. Following that reasoning, then it wouldn’t be wrong to exploit human beings because “plants feel”. No?
Regards.
2 Likes
But that’s not the logical conclusion. Instead: “You also should not eat plants.” (If they have feelings.)