Marxist Animalism
- This topic has 973 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not sure if that's right. To be none-speciesist would either involve veganism (since if it is not right to eat humans or use them for food products, it is not right to do so to animals either) or cannibalism (since if it is ok to eat animals it is ok to eat humans to). As far as I'm concerned Peter Singer's (that's where this comes from) arguments about speciesism are rather specious, but that doesn't mean I'm pro blood sports or whatever….[/quote]First, I wish to apologise to you and Vin for aggressive wording from me in a couple of instances. That is my fault. I`m sorry. You are socialists, which means one thing: like myself, you are all much larger minds than online debate would indicate, where brief messages are flowing back and forth and I, especially, often get hot under the collar. Please forgive me.I do not like Peter Singer. There is a link I can post in a minute on the animal rights movements. I will do so after this.I`m glad you`re not pro-blood sports, and that`s good enough for me. You don`t have to be like me or in agreement with me. I stand for socialism too. We`re just talking. You don`t have to be a cosmicist (anti-speciesist) to be a socialist. Pax!
Socialism and Ecology wrote:As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations.You've misunderstood the meaning of the word "consciousness" in this context. But to be fair you'd have to go back to an earlier passage where "consciously-acting" is defined:
Quote:Other animals too can be said to engage in production in some sense. Birds change nature to satisfy their need for shelter when they build nests, and beavers change nature when they construct dams, as do bees with their hives and ants with their ant-hills. But nevertheless production remains an overwhelmingly human activity. It is not, as it is for other animals, an inherited instinctive behaviour pattern but results from conscious, premeditated decisions. This in fact is the only way that humans can react to their environment. All their actions (except for certain basic bodily functions and reflexes) pass first through the mind and thus are both conscious and deliberate. Humans are "consciously-acting animals" and this includes when they intervene in the rest of nature to provide for their needs.Maybe a better term to avoid the sort of misunderstanding you've made (since lots of other animals are conscious) would be "purposefully-acting". Humans can delay their reaction to outside stimuli and "consciously" decide how to react. Humans are capable of abstract thought. No other animals are.I don't see why it is arrogant to claim that humans are like the "brain" of the biosphere. Anyway, it's only a claim about life on Earth. Of course we're only specks as far as the whole universe is concerned. And of course the human species will die out at some stage along with the Earth and all the animals on it.The idea actually comes from Murray Bookchin in one of his long, rambling (because nobody dared edit them) books about ecology and ethics. His point was that the only species capable of doing anything about the pollution and the environment of the Earth's biosphere are humans (even if much of it is due to their actions). Only they can intervene, purposefully, to put things right. No other animal can. In fact the only species that can save some other animals from extinction is the human species. This doesn't give the human species the "right" to dominate and be cruel to other animals. On the contrary, and this is the point I was trying to make, it means that they have the "duty" not to.
Happy new week everyone!Hans Ruesch`s NAKED EMPRESS: THE GREAT MEDICAL FRAUD has just been donated to the Socialist Party library. Read in it about human vivisection as the logical consequence of nonhuman vivisection. Read also about human vivisection in an issue of The Socialist Standard, ca. 1989/90 (pale blue cover)."Atrocious medical experiments are being made on children, mostly physically and mentally handicapped ones, and on aborted living foetuses, given or sold to the laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall." – Professor Pietro Croce, VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE?
ALB, how does one isolate a quote here from a longer piece to reply to?
Are nonhumans not purposeful in what they do? Bird in that tree, how to get it (cat)? As far as I`m concerned, "instinct" is an invention of speciesists to deny reason to nonhumans!
By the way, these books: NAKED EMPRESS, SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT and VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE? are generally blocked by most animal rights organizations!
Another page on human vivisection: http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
John Oswald wrote:By the way, these books: NAKED EMPRESS, SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT and VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE? are generally blocked by most animal rights organizations!Sorry, what do you mean by "generally blocked"?
They seldom are featured by them, are seldom if ever mentioned, and, upon release,one organization apparently requested that one of the books be seized.
I suggested a link about animal rights/welfare organizations. I do not know if it is accurate or not. But I thought it worth reading.http://blatantpropaganda.org/public_html/propaganda/articles/animal_rights_fraud_bavap1.htmlPart 2 can be reached via Part1.
in Great Britain Slaughter of the Innocent lasted a few short weeks before being banned from the shelves.http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ruesch.html
http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html (also of interest)
Do you really think capitalism is interested in your health?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.