As a pro-animal rights meat eater...

[CynicalIdealist]

(Okay. I'll allow myself to be pigeonholed and admit to being a former vegan of two months and a former on/off vegetarian. :()

As socialists, I don't think we should dismiss animal rights offhand. I can see where animal rights liberals can potentially redirect energies that could be directed toward class struggle in an insignificant, overly consumerist direction, but I don't think this forces us to be humanists in an absolutist sense.

Animals still feel pain. Don't get me wrong--I understand full well the naivete of even trying to achieve a modicum of animal rights in a capitalist society (and the need to feed people, but that's a given). Therefore, I feel that when we've achieved something of a post-scarcity world, we can then begin to really care about animals and perhaps even develop an ethos around minimizing the killing and suffering of animals to whatever degree possible.

Thoughts?

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I like animals, and I don't like the way they are produced, as commodities. This is why I am a vegetarian.

Its a bit like boycotting a corporation, not eating meat, except there is the fact that animals are alive and feel pain. But we should understand that not eating meat is a personal choice, and is not a part of the fight against capitalism. If we have to eat animals, we should at least allow them to live in the best of conditions before doing so. This wont happen in a profit driven system though.

On that, I agree that under a more humane system, the suffering of animals should be minimalized to the best capability of the given economic conditions. Surely animals can be kept and killed in a much fairer way than they are now, where they can be animals up until they become food products. I still wouldn't eat meat though, I've completely gone off it since giving it up.

[Viet Minh]

(Okay. I'll allow myself to be pigeonholed and admit to being a former vegan of two months and a former on/off vegetarian. :()

As socialists, I don't think we should dismiss animal rights offhand. I can see where animal rights liberals can potentially redirect energies that could be directed toward class struggle in an insignificant, overly consumerist direction, but I don't think this forces us to be humanists in an absolutist sense.

Animals still feel pain. Don't get me wrong--I understand full well the naivete of even trying to achieve a modicum of animal rights in a capitalist society (and the need to feed people, but that's a given). Therefore, I feel that when we've achieved something of a post-scarcity world, we can then begin to really care about animals and perhaps even develop an ethos around minimizing the killing and suffering of animals to whatever degree possible.

Thoughts?

I think radical animal rights groups are counter-productive, the emphasis should be on education and exposure of the meat industry, and the food industry as a whole. The main factor is urbanisation, the 'townies' have little knowledge of the meat species, cows, pigs, chickens etc. Pets are cats and dogs and hamsters, the rest are for eating. What we need is some kind of Agrarian initiative, though less extreme than the Khmer Rouge obviously! :lol: Also I don't think animal rights are completely ignored, animal charities usually recieve mroe donations than homeless, third world and childrens charities for example.

btw as a humanist I would say humanism directly relates to animal rights, and not inversely. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Animals exist in a kind of quazi world of rights. They can feel pain and abuse so they should be treated with some sort of respect for those qualities--on the other hand they aren't members of society in the slightest so they needent be respect as equal to humans.

In human relationship to animals human reasonableness and rationality should a key factor an how they are treated.

[Che a chara]

I think our furry brothers and sisters and indeed other creatures play an important role in the lives of humans and in the biodiversity and preservation of the planet. of course they aren't equal to humans, but they should be given rights and not be mistreated in anyway, other than for testing and medical research (via ethical procedures as up to being practical) and of course through humane slaughter.


on the other hand they aren't members of society in the slightest so they needent be respect as equal to humans.

I think you maybe a bit underestimating the critters. i would see a lot of animals as playing an important role in society, therefore being members. Companionship, rehabilitation, use in sport (i don't mean hunting), livestock, uses of animal manure, animals used for 'population control' against other animals, for the preservation and growth of crops are a few examples as to why i think they deserve moral respect and recognition, but of course not equal.

[Viet Minh]

I think our furry brothers and sisters and indeed other creatures play an important role in the lives of humans and in the biodiversity and preservation of the planet. of course they aren't equal to humans, but they should be given rights and not be mistreated in anyway, other than for testing and medical research (via ethical procedures as up to being practical) and of course through humane slaughter.



I think you maybe a bit underestimating the critters. i would see a lot of animals as playing an important role in society, therefore being members. Companionship, rehabilitation, use in sport (i don't mean hunting), livestock, uses of animal manure, animals used for 'population control' against other animals, for the preservation and growth of crops are a few examples as to why i think they deserve moral respect and recognition, but of course not equal.

Dogs are useful members of society (inb4 catfags) but ants are fascist little pricks, exterminate them! Vive la Arachno-Communist revolution! :lol:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

animal rights liberals

No other kind. Rights-discourse is shit.
Animal liberation, yo.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet -- Albert Einstein

Personally, I don't think animals should be given rights per se, but regulation should exist against torturing animals and having slaughterhouses and such operate in a very clean, ethical, effective manner.

[Che a chara]

Dogs are useful members of society (inb4 catfags) but ants are fascist little pricks, exterminate them! Vive la Arachno-Communist revolution! :lol:

Ants are the definition of working class IMO. They are hard workers and break their backs carrying leaves and twigs for their queen.... free the ant from monarchical slavery !! :hammersickle:

The fascist, IMO, would be the crocodile. there's no room for dialogue, reason or common sense with a croc. (or maybe a fat cat, or a pig ? ;) )

I wonder what class the sloth (not "heeeyyyy yooou guuuyyss" :lol:) would be regarded as..... lumpen proletariat?

[Viet Minh]

Ants are the definition of working class IMO. They are hard workers and break their backs carrying leaves and twigs for their queen.... free the ant from monarchical slavery !! :hammersickle:

The fascist, IMO, would be the crocodile. there's no room for dialogue, reason or common sense with a croc. (or maybe a fat cat, or a pig ? ;) )

I wonder what class the sloth (not "heeeyyyy yooou guuuyyss" :lol:) would be regarded as..... lumpen proletariat?

Ant society is Fascist in nature though, and I don't think they can print the Communist manifesto small enough for them to read.. :(
Also they're kinda racist!
http://www.livescience.com/1177-genocide-rules-ant-warfare.html

Crocs are Anarchist, they obey no master! :cool:

I think the next species to become 'civilised' will be some species of bird, possibly corvids (crows). They haven't quite got opposable thumbs yet but useful beaks, and also complex group behaviour and communication skills (crows can immitate noise, even speech, not as well as parrots but still). Plus they may be at an advantage, in that generations come and go very quickly, allowing for a more rapid evolution, and faster spread of population and culture.

[Hoplite]

I look at animal rights thusly;

Animals have been killing each other since the dawn of time. Before we had the brains to grab a rock and hurl it, we were part of this system and technically we still are. The food chain has existed long before we, as we are now, were ever around and it will persist long after the dust from our bones has been long dispersed.

I think it's somewhat arrogant to assume that we are so special that we no longer need to be part of that system. We evolved to be able to eat both plant and animal and animals are still a big source of vital nutrition to us. I dont fault anyone for being vegetarian/vegan, but I dont really agree with the foundation of some of the reasons for being vegetarian/vegan.

That said, I strongly disagree with modern practices of industrial ranching and other similar methods of meat production. Meat CAN be obtained without conditions that I dont have any description for beyond hellish in many cases. There are plenty of viable alternatives, including accepting the fact that maybe meat just isnt meant to be priced at $1.99 a pound, that dont involve how the commercial meat industry operates.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think that's the biggest thing, that the current system of production is in many cases utterly senseless and regarding things like ocean fishing is unsustainable.

And you bring up another point, with an exploding global population, ever rising food prices that eave billions starving, and mammoth obesity rates in many western nations there is no question that our diet, especially in the USA, needs to shift from consuming cheap, wasteful mass produced product to...something else.

[Steve_j]

I think it's somewhat arrogant to assume that we are so special that we no longer need to be part of that system.

I dont think anyone is assuming this, we are all quite aware that we need to eat adequate food to live healthy lives, however advances in agriculture and distribution means that for many, eating meat has simply become (i would claim) a palatable preference, and no longer a part of the tradition food chain which was a system of survival. Furthermore the advances in agriculture and distribution are now so advanced that there is no reason why, in a responisble society this option would not be available to everyone.

Despite the wasteful practice of livestock farming, even if we were to make it more "humane" i would still see no point to eating meat other than personal enjoyment. And if personal enjoyment is a justification for killing other animals i might aswell go kick stray dogs and cats to death (that is if i would get jollies out of such practice).

Thats said i dont see animal rights to be explicitly tied with a communist society, how ever i would hope that a society that holds the regards of their fellow humans are able to extend that regards to other species, and not just cute and cuddly ones.

[Hoplite]

I dont think anyone is assuming this, we are all quite aware that we need to eat adequate food to live healthy lives, however advances in agriculture and distribution means that for many, eating meat has simply become (i would claim) a palatable preference, and no longer a part of the tradition food chain which was a system of survival. I would dispute part of that claim.

While I would agree that it is no longer STRICTLY necessary, I would argue that many of us do not have the time or income to structure a diet free of animal products, or even just meat free. I work almost 40 hours a week and my rare time off is usually spent doing things that need doing around the house or engaging in some form of entertainment to ensure I dont go insane from work. I dont really have the time to try to sit down and plan out meals and give a meat-free diet the kind of attention it needs to be done in a healthy way.

Additionally, even with foodstamps, our food budget is not terribly flexible. It's much cheaper for me to buy 3 pounds of 70/20 ground beef for 8 bucks than to watch for price dips in the produce section. For some reason (my guess is rising fuel costs) the cost of produce has fucking skyrocketed in the last few weeks at every grocery store I've been to.

[Che a chara]

Crocs are Anarchist

:thumbup1:


they obey no master!

Except Steve Irw..... oopsy.... :eek:


I think the next species to become 'civilised' will be some species of bird, possibly corvids (crows). They haven't quite got opposable thumbs yet but useful beaks, and also complex group behaviour and communication skills (crows can immitate nose, not as well as parrots but still). Plus they may be at an advantage, in that generations come and go very quickly, allowing for a mroe rapid evolution, and faster spread of population and culture.

I hope the next species to become civilised are the Tea Party species. it seems it will take decades of taming and evolution though.....

[Tim Finnegan]

I think it's somewhat arrogant to assume that we are so special that we no longer need to be part of that system.
Did you miss the bit up near the top, where it says "Home of the Revolutionary Left"? Not-needing-to-be-part-of-the-system-ing is kind of our whole shtick. ;)

[RGacky3]

Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet -- Albert Einstein


Why?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Why?

There are like 10 million environmental and dietary reasons why its a good idea. The biggest reason is that cow meat per calorie requires tons more water, land and energy to produce than veg per calorie, because animals are higher on the food chain, and therefore as organisms take a "tax" if you will on the total calories they consume, leaving us with less calories.

Problem is, finding a vegetarian diet you can live off of is hard work. But Brahmins and other high castes in India have been surviving for thousands of years on a vegetarian diet, and the Aztecs were believed to have a largely vegetarian diet too. Its less taxing on the land and has a host of health benefits.

[NGNM85]

(Okay. I'll allow myself to be pigeonholed and admit to being a former vegan of two months and a former on/off vegetarian. )


As socialists, I don't think we should dismiss animal rights offhand. I can see where animal rights liberals can potentially redirect energies that could be directed toward class struggle in an insignificant, overly consumerist direction, but I don't think this forces us to be humanists in an absolutist sense.

Animals still feel pain. Don't get me wrong--I understand full well the naivete of even trying to achieve a modicum of animal rights in a capitalist society (and the need to feed people, but that's a given). Therefore, I feel that when we've achieved something of a post-scarcity world, we can then begin to really care about animals and perhaps even develop an ethos around minimizing the killing and suffering of animals to whatever degree possible.

Thoughts?

I think we should look carefully and soberly at most everything, however, I find the arguments proffered by most Animal Rights activists totally bogus. This topic has been covered extensively, and I highly recommend you refer to previous threads, such as these;

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-eat-t104650/index.html?t=104650&highlight=animal+rights

http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-humans-worth-t147912/index.html?t=147912&highlight=animal+rights

http://www.revleft.com/vb/meat-workers-counter-t146743/index.html?t=146743&highlight=animal+rights

http://www.revleft.com/vb/animal-liberation-and-t139823/index.html?t=139823&highlight=animal+rights

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vegetarianism-animal-rights-t136337/index.html?t=136337&highlight=animal+rights

I think all the pertinent points have been sufficiently covered. However, if anyone is really interested, I have no objection to restating my position on the subject, yet again.

[Hoplite]

Problem is, finding a vegetarian diet you can live off of is hard work. But Brahmins and other high castes in India have been surviving for thousands of years on a vegetarian diet, and the Aztecs were believed to have a largely vegetarian diet too. Its less taxing on the land and has a host of health benefits.
I would argue that we are in far different circumstances than the Brahmin caste and the Aztecs.

As an aside, the Aztecs domesticated several wild species for consumption, including wild turkeys. I dont think it's fair to compare our diet to the diets of people long passed. Many of them ate mainly vegetarian, but very few did so out of a desire to be vegetarian. Meat has, traditionally, been a much more difficult food to cultivate and store. We in the modern world dont have that problem.

[hatzel]

Meat has, traditionally, been a much more difficult food to cultivate and store. We in the modern world dont have that problem.

At the same time, though, it's traditionally (by which we mean historically) been difficult to maintain a strict vegan diet, in particular, whilst remaining healthy. We in the modern world don't have that problem, and, as has been pointed out, a widespread adoption of such a diet would drastically reduce our agricultural requirements, making it much easier for the ever-growing population to be fed by what the planet can itself provide...