Veganism and moral rightenousness

[Bilan]

An end to moral righteousness, and an analysis of the root of the suffering.

One of the main things that got me involved to animal rights was the sense of disgust at the injustices committed against animals in the various industries which animals are used in – Meat and dairy, as well as circus's, etc. That things are now are worse than they've ever been (with the exception of circus's, as many animals are being taken out of circus's, or banned in various towns, etc.) with the introduction of new technology to extract as much produce – meat, and dairy – from animals as possible.
But it wasn't just the words that held the power. No, the most common tactic of animal rights activism is photographs depicting cruelty against animals – for example, the films of animals having their skin pulled off of them whilst they're still conscious.
The sense of what almost seemed like a duty to do something becomes apparent, and drastic action becomes absolutely necessary.
“To educate peoples about the injustices committed against animals”.

I find it near impossible to believe that there is an animal rights activist out there now who has not been, or is not going through this currently.

But there are fundamental flaws in the 'analysis' by animal rights groups about the cruelty committed against animals, and so on.
They are:

A/ The root of the injustices
B/ The alternatives, and their results
C/ the way they A and B relate
D/ the methods to overcome, or prevent these injustices (i.e. Direct action, etc).

The last one is of the biggest concern, because it highlights another issue about animal rights, and that is its inability to understand the nature of capitalism, and its lack thereof any class analysis – or, simply to understand the way their type of direct action – i.e. Arson, etc – affects not just the companies, but those who are on the bottom of end of the current socioeconomic system in Australia (and in all nation states).
Animal rights groups have almost continuously, with few exceptions – except for moderate reformist groups (who don't actually want to abolish the system or the cruelty, but slowly reform it – which is just as absurd (e.g. The RSPCA)) – have realized, or take into account, the necessity of class analysis in their politics, and the way their activism negatively affects regular working class people, and how this form of activism alienates working people.

Note: (This is not to say however, that all means of direct action alienate peoples, rather, that such moralist vandalism does negatively alienate peoples, rather than inspire peoples – unlike other forms of direct action [such as in the workplace, or community] of which does just that)

Instead, when such issues are raised, the sense of moral-active-urgency to “stop the slaughter” over rides the issue of the continuation of suffering of people, and the displacement of people from working places; these issues are shrugged off, and naturally, to then make evident the root of animal rights activism – that of the comfortable middle class people.

The inability to relate to suffering in the work place by activists, creates the inability to comprehend it, and then to take it into account whilst taking part in 'activism'.

To return to the point 'a' of this, the real root of the suffering, is to merely expand on what was just said about the activism.
The root of suffering against animals becomes evident in almost all animal rights propaganda, but is not the issue being addressed by activism – and is something in my time as an activist, that I even found to be advocated by some activists.

The nature of the capitalist system has not changed, and to think that it applies differently to humans and animals is nothing short of a distortion of the truth.
This is something which is increasingly evident – more so with animal rights activism then what has been acknowledged – in our times.

The major issue of animal rights in this sense, is its inability to dig for the root of the problem, and it rather address's the symptoms of it.
Evidently, I'm referring to the nature of capitalism, and the way in which the capitalist class will – and does- carry out exploitation in the various areas of life.
Animal rights groups often refer to how animals are kept in cages the smallest possible size to maximize the amount of animals held, and to maximize profit.

It is, however, portrayed as if this is something that is saved only for animals. This is plain and simply a myth.
What needs to be realized is that the direct link between the exploitation of workers – here, and in all nation states (as, despite popular misconceptions, no where in the world is “socialist”, “communist”, or run by the people – it takes more than a hammer and sickle, and to be named “the peoples republic” to make it so) – has a direct link to the exploitation and cruelty against animals: capitalism

A system in which production is controlled by the ruling class (in this case, the rich – heads of state, corporations, etc), and the aim is to maximize the profit obtained by the bosses, it is only natural that they will take any measure to do that – that can be in any form, such as the changing of Laws (e.g. The IR reforms in relation to workers, and the existing laws for animals in factory farms, etc), and the cutting of corners by corporations (such as finding loop holes in law to keep as many animals in a pen/cage, etc as possible; or by simply by carrying out dodgy practices – such as ones done in circus's – of which the public and the state aren't aware of).

Why do we assume that animals are going to be independent of this, if nothing else is?
If the capitalist class is going to exploit environment – land, water, etc – people – work, destruction of culture, etc – the removal of animals from this equation will only intensify the exploitation of other areas to sustain the existing order, of which profit is the central theme too.
This is already evident with the destruction of rain forests along the Amazon to grow soy crops; the continual movement of growth of the basics of vegan products being moved to “developing” nation states, so that production can be as cheap as possible to maximize possible, regardless of the detrimental affect against workers and the environment.


The root of the problem is the socioeconomic system; the injustices against animals – such as factory farming – are a symptom of this system, as are all forms of exploitation of this nature (exploitation of workers, the environment, etc).

The eradication of factory farms is not going to eradicate suffering of anything but animals. And even then, the habitats of others will subsequently be destroyed.
I suppose thats just a lose-lose situation.

[BobKKKindle$]

The 'flaws' you've identified are issues of concern for people who are engaged in the struggle against the exploitation of animals, but they presuppose that a problem exists and that it is thus necessary to find some kind of solution to eliminate this problem; the problem being that the abuse of animals occurs and is bad. This is a major issue for me. I don't see any reason to consider the protection of animals as an end unto itself; instead of as a means to protect the benefits humans can gain from the study of the animal population. What is the underlying ethical argument behind the movement's objectives? Why should I consider animals as of equal value to humans, or as having any kind of independent value whatsoever?

I apologize if the above is a distortion of the movement, its not a political issue with which I'm very familiar. What would the ideal society be like, from the perspective of animal rights activists, in terms of the relationship between humans, and animals and the natural world in its entirety? Would it be beneficial for humans to abandon the consumption of meat - is this the only ethical course of action? What exactly constitutes the 'abuse' of animals - would keeping a pet and preventing it from returning to the wild be considered abusive?

As an anarchist, I assume you don't advocate laws to regulate the treatment of animals and force people to act according to what you consider appropriate - so do you think it's possible that the general population can change the way they view animals - or will animal rights, at least in its most radical form, always be a concern for a small minority?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well all societies exploited animals. From primitive communism to the most modern capitalism.

Its just that it is intensified under capitalism, due to capitalism own unique dynamic.


Do you hate the industrialised nature of animal farming? In that, you are opposed to it's practice and want it abolished, or are you opposed to animal farming in general and seek the abolition as meat and furs as commodities?

Also, do you take a utilitarian approach in your animal rights opinions?

[BobKKKindle$]

No, the most common tactic of animal rights activism is photographs depicting cruelty against animals – for example, the films of animals having their skin pulled off of them whilst they're still conscious.

I don't know if you condone this tactic - but for me, it sounds very similar to the strategy employed by the anti-abortion movement - the use of graphic images to try and excite an emotional response, in the absence of strong persuasive arguments based on the use of logic. I am wary of any movement that seeks to gain support solely through this emotional approach.

[Bilan]

I don't know if you condone this tactic - but for me, it sounds very similar to the strategy employed by the anti-abortion movement - the use of graphic images to try and excite an emotional response, in the absence of strong persuasive arguments based on the use of logic. I am wary of any movement that seeks to gain support solely through this emotional approach.

I actually write about that in the next article. (I'm writing a zine on it).
I don't support that strategy. I despise it.

As for your previous post, I'm no longer an Animal Rights activist, and haven't been for sometime.
This whole thing might be a bit confusing, because it's from a zine, and the opening of that (the zine) explains alot of this, but eh.

I hold some positions of Animal Rights activists, around that factory farming is an issue (cruel, disgusting and unhealthy, mainly) and argue for more environmentally friendly, and humane methods of farming.

I don't think the state should make the decisions, or create laws to decide these positions: rather, I think it should be decided on from what knowledge we can gain from science, and from the positions of communities on the issue.

[Kitskits]

To Proper Tea is Theft:

I agree with your analysis to some extent. However I would like to state some points that I think are important for a deep utilitarian analysis of this subject.

1. The one and only source of "injustice" (vague term) forced upon animals as sentient beings, is pain when inflicted.

So the whole effort should attack the root of the problem: pain. We should find solutions that erase the possibility of pain without using methods causing pain. I am not an anarchist, I am a Leninist so I don't have a problem with imposing laws. My proposed solution would be imposing laws against introducing animals to situations that can cause them pain i.e. ban crowding a lot of animals together, ban circuses, ban every animal execution method except for some painless method (It's boring to start thinking about that, there are a lot of painless execution methods).

2. The one and only source of pain in animals is their nervous system.

This is going to sound like far-fetched utopic mad-man thought but if the scientific research is done in a co-operative fashion in the future communist society, science can reach astronomical levels quickly and in the far future we could possibly redesign the animals DNA in a way they won't feel pain and then slaughter them, do with them whatever we like, without any moral problem.

[Luís Henrique]

Thread moved to Science and Environment.

Veganism and "animal rights" are not revolutionary theory; please don't post threads about that in the Theory Forum. Thanks.

Luís Henrique

[Bilan]

Thread moved to Science and Environment.

Veganism and "animal rights" are not revolutionary theory; please don't post threads about that in the Theory Forum. Thanks.

Luís Henrique

Sorry...Didn't know where else to put it.

[Vanguard1917]

The central truism here which we have to be able to understand: The 'liberation' of animals and the liberation of human beings are contradictory concepts - they're not complementary. Human liberation necessitates a greater conscious human control over nature - which includes animals. The project of human emancipation entails subordinating humanity's natural environment - i.e. man's material surroundings - to the will of humanity.

Let me give a very non-abstract example. The member who started the thread is against factory farms. And it is indeed undeniably true that the factory farming of animals, along with other intensive agricultural methods, have given way to less freedom for animals to act as they please and for crops to grow freely according to their wild instincts. There is no doubt that this is true. But it is also true that intensive agricultural methods have had an immensely liberating impact for human beings. As a result of such advances in agriculture, human beings are producing more food than ever before. This means that food is less scarce than ever before and that human hunger is less of a problem than ever before.

For example, around 50 years ago in the UK, before the advances in the mass production of livestock which we have today, food products like beef and chicken were relatively very expensive and scarce. As a result, their consumption was limited to the more privileged sections of society. Today, with single factory farms capable of producing many thousands of animals a day ready for slaughter, meat output has massively increased and almost everyone in Britain is able to add meat to their daily diets.

This, in most people's opinions, and in their everyday experiences, represents great progress. Freeing people from food scarcity is a central feauture of any project of human liberation. That's why i - along with all genuine progressives, especially Marxists - have no sympathy whatsoever for 'animal rights' activists.

[chimx]

Oh good lord VG. I'm gone for months and you are still trying to ride the factory farming issue as if it is a point that hasn't been soundly defeated on here?

As has been pointed out to you in the past, if you are going to break down husbandry and agriculture down to technological efficiency, than factory farming is extremely inefficient when you take into account the wasted resources (i.e.: land, water, proteins and nutrients) in raising animals for slaughter.

People eat meat despite this resource inefficiency because the aesthetic value of such a diet outweighs the cons of loosing resources. At least be honest about it.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It is not inefficient though if it satisfies human 'want' or 'fancy'.

It is more inefficient to deny people the satisfaction of 'wants'

'wants' are not based on calorific values.

It's like suggesting a person drink the most efficient fluid and give up the satisfaction of anything else.

simply put, water and vodka are not equal to each other.

[chimx]

Of course, and I mentioned that, but it isn't want based on human necessity but cultural preference.

[Pawn Power]

[quote=bloody_capitalist_sham;1049295]It is not inefficient though if it satisfies human 'want' or 'fancy'.

It is more inefficient to deny people the satisfaction of 'wants'

that sure is a strange definition of "inefficient."

i don't even see a correlation between efficiency and desire. i could drive an old time car around because i "desire" its aesthetic, though it would still be much less efficient to do so (as far as full and maintenance goes). Similarly, I could hear my home with a wood burning stove because I want the "look" and feel of a fire place, though it would be much more inefficient to do so over a coal stove or an oil burner.

I am sure factory farms are inefficient (because like all production operating under capitalism profit is the motive and not human well being or efficiency). However, they are still probably more efficient then individuals raising their own livestock. people want to eat meat not because it is efficient or inefficient to do so but because it taste good. and just because they desire that does not make it magical more efficient.

i consume and do many thing that are probably inefficient but we are not robots.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well, if, for example, some kind of workers-controlled factory decides to spend resources on improving their own working conditions instead of using them to produce more "efficiently" or whatever, is that "better"?


that sure is a strange definition of "inefficient."

If resources aren't used by humans in a way that satisfies human needs, what's the point of "efficiency", then? Praising some kind of abstract economical deity?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As has been pointed out to you in the past, if you are going to break down husbandry and agriculture down to technological efficiency, than factory farming is extremely inefficient when you take into account the wasted resources (i.e.: land, water, proteins and nutrients) in raising animals for slaughter.

Were stock farming truly inefficient, nobody would do it.

[chimx]

Here is a quick google search on stats that are not reputable enough to cite:

Due to the high protein feeds given to cattle in factory farms, beef provides only 10 pounds of edible protein for every 100 pounds of protein consumed by the cattle. Obviously I am not suggesting the human consumption of the feed, but when you take into account the agricultural requirements to grow this food, the protein inefficiency is quite significant.

It also takes significantly more water to grow one pound of animal protein than one pound of plant protein.

Again, humans consume animals despite this resource inefficiency due to culture, tradition, and aesthetic preference.

[Wilfred]

Were stock farming truly inefficient, nobody would do it.
Sheesh, subsidies? Inequal trading agreements?

[Luís Henrique]

If resources aren't used by humans in a way that satisfies human needs, what's the point of "efficiency", then? Praising some kind of abstract economical deity?

Evidently. Haven't you worshiped Mammon today, infidel?

Luís Henrique

[kromando33]

Well, if, for example, some kind of workers-controlled factory decides to spend resources on improving their own working conditions instead of using them to produce more "efficiently" or whatever, is that "better"?



If resources aren't used by humans in a way that satisfies human needs, what's the point of "efficiency", then? Praising some kind of abstract economical deity?
The point is avoiding sectarianism in economic distribution and the relations of production. Once you give 'local self-control' to each factory, each plant, each neighborhood, and indeed each ethnicity, you breed a dangerous division in the working class, you could have workers from factory #1 who develop resentment towards factory #2. I believe I made a similar post about this tonight and highlighted the Titoist Yugoslavia experience as evidence. Comrade, it's not about trading material conditions for 'efficiency', it's about having a united proletariat and not having West against East and North against South. It's not about centralized control but centralized directive, so that the working class can coordinate effectively on that national level, so they are not harming each others interests and material conditions by not working together. Solidarity, comrade.

[Vanguard1917]

The idea that meat production is responsible for human hunger makes no sense whatsoever. Human hunger is not caused by any absolute failure to produce food (we already produce more than enough food to feed the world), but by flawed social and economic organisation.

Indeed, it has been predicted that, if our most advanced agricultural methods and technology (for example, intensive farming) were applied worldwide, the world could feed 30 billion+ people - and that's with methods and tecnology already known today.

The problem is capitalism, and the solution is socialism. The implication that we can fight world hunger by becoming vegetarians is, at best, extremely dunderheaded. More seriously, it's in effect extremely reactionary, since it shifts blame away from capitalism.

[Pawn Power]

Well, if, for example, some kind of workers-controlled factory decides to spend resources on improving their own working conditions instead of using them to produce more "efficiently" or whatever, is that "better"?

Yes, of course. Perhaps you are misunderstanding me; i did not intend to qualify "efficiency," that is i was not equating efficiency with superiority. Humans are much to complex to live there lives by stringent economic efficiency standards. Nevertheless, I do think it would be a greatly inefficient (and eventually detrimental to human well being) if everyone would started driving around tractor trailers to get around and no one used public transportation or if everyone decided to eat goose foie gras as there main source of protine. While it is surely delicious to many, it probably isn't the most efficient way for us to get our daily amount of protein. But that doesn't mean one cannot eat it because they desire it.

If resources aren't used by humans in a way that satisfies human needs, what's the point of "efficiency", then? Praising some kind of abstract economical deity?

I don't know what god has to do with it but i do know culture is of the utmost importance when discussing such matters. Surely, people's lives are acted out in a realm of cultural norms and traditions. Does that mean just because a practice satisfies a human need that it cannot be inefficient way to satisfy that need?

Cultural norms obviously influence how human needs are satisfied but do not alway dictate those needs. To take one last poor example (to go with my others); humans have been farming for 10,000 years. At first they farmed wild plants, replanting their seeds. They found that selecting seeds from plants with larger and more fruits (and other beneficial characteristics) yielded better crops and more efficient farming, since one did not was their own energy one growing crops that they did not want do to size, taste, etc.

Humans look for more efficient ways to do things to satisfy their own human needs of leisure in addition to their many others.

I probably could have done this with a simple definition of efficiency...

Efficiency is a technical term which refers to desired energy output per energy input. It is not strictly speaking referring to solely economics but it is indeed technical and when applied in such a manner as "It is not inefficient though if it satisfies human 'want' or 'fancy'" disregards the technical nature of the word.

There are levels of inefficiency. Things can satisfy human needs or wants and be more or less efficient then one another.

[Forward Union]

Here is a quick google search on stats that are not reputable enough to cite:

Due to the high protein feeds given to cattle in factory farms, beef provides only 10 pounds of edible protein for every 100 pounds of protein consumed by the cattle. Obviously I am not suggesting the human consumption of the feed, but when you take into account the agricultural requirements to grow this food, the protein inefficiency is quite significant.

It also takes significantly more water to grow one pound of animal protein than one pound of plant protein.

Again, humans consume animals despite this resource inefficiency due to culture, tradition, and aesthetic preference.

Do a similar search for how much "food" is used to produce alcohol. Do you want to ban or stop the production of that aswell?

Like meat consumption, we consume alcohol because it's fun, not because it's "efficient" if I wanted to be efficent I'd do pressups, and read rather than reply to your post. I'd drink water rather than orange juice, and eat nothing but the bare minimum to sustain me properly.

Using more food to produce less food that tastes better is fine. It would only be a problem if doing so meant some people couldn't eat. But that's not the case. People don't starve because meat is produced they starve because of bad economic systems of distribution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Here is a quick google search on stats that are not reputable enough to cite:


Then why mention them at all?


Due to the high protein feeds given to cattle in factory farms, beef provides only 10 pounds of edible protein for every 100 pounds of protein consumed by the cattle. Obviously I am not suggesting the human consumption of the feed, but when you take into account the agricultural requirements to grow this food, the protein inefficiency is quite significant.

As VG1917 stated, the amount of food produced is not the issue. Don't forget that the energy in the protein does not just disappear - what does not become meat falls out of the other end of the animal in a very useful form indeed.


It also takes significantly more water to grow one pound of animal protein than one pound of plant protein.

This is an argument for better procedures for dealing with stock farming waste, not an argument for vegetarianism.


Sheesh, subsidies? Inequal trading agreements?

Which have been around for a miniscule amount of time in comparison to stock farming, and again is "solving the wrong problem" - it's an argument against capitalism.

[chimx]

Do a similar search for how much "food" is used to produce alcohol. Do you want to ban or stop the production of that aswell?

Where in this thread have I said meat production should be banned?

The only thing I have said is that VG is incorrect to say that meat consumption is more efficient, and that vegetarianism is "contradictory" to any progressive society.


Then why mention them at all?

Because I wanted to be honest?

I don't necessarily believe that the numbers are exactly correct given the sources, but I have read enough legitimate sources on the subject to know that the jist of what those sources saying is essentially true. I don't want to be bothered to find an academic journal that has similar numbers though.


As VG1917 stated, the amount of food produced is not the issue. Don't forget that the energy in the protein does not just disappear - what does not become meat falls out of the other end of the animal in a very useful form indeed.

Having some fertilizer is a good thing, but most agree that the amount of waste produced by the animal husbandry industry today is extremely excessive and one of the leading causes of environmental destruction -- specifically methane pollution.

You would be interested to hear though, that I recently read that scientists in Australia are working on genetically modifying cows with genes from kangaroos, because kangaroos don't release methane gas.

But if that work is successful, the point still stands that we produce more cow shit than we need.


This is an argument for better procedures for dealing with stock farming waste, not an argument for vegetarianism.

Water conservation is a pretty important issue. Almost all crops grow annually, whereas pigs and cows take a couple of years to grow and require a lot of water every day. Unless scientists figure out a way for mammals to survive without drinking water, which isn't likely, this problem will always exist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because I wanted to be honest?

I don't necessarily believe that the numbers are exactly correct given the sources, but I have read enough legitimate sources on the subject to know that the jist of what those sources saying is essentially true. I don't want to be bothered to find an academic journal that has similar numbers though.


Very well then, but why bring up efficiency at all when the amount of food produced is not at issue?

The problem is a matter of distribution.


Having some fertilizer is a good thing, but most agree that the amount of waste produced by the animal husbandry industry today is extremely excessive and one of the leading causes of environmental destruction -- specifically methane pollution.

You would be interested to hear though, that I recently read that scientists in Australia are working on genetically modifying cows with genes from kangaroos, because kangaroos don't release methane gas.

But if that work is successful, the point still stands that we produce more cow shit than we need.


Animal manure has more uses than simply feriliser. That methane is useful. We should harvest it, especially in light of the oil situation.


Water conservation is a pretty important issue. Almost all crops grow annually, whereas pigs and cows take a couple of years to grow and require a lot of water every day. Unless scientists figure out a way for mammals to survive without drinking water, which isn't likely, this problem will always exist.

Water doesn't just disappear. It becomes mixed up with stuff, the trick is to seperate it and treat it.

[chimx]

Very well then, but why bring up efficiency at all when the amount of food produced is not at issue?

The problem is a matter of distribution.

Well VG started this discussion on efficiency. My purpose in this thread has been to show that he is incorrect in saying that factory farming is more efficient, in terms of resource usage, than the harvesting of plants.

The amount produced is important though, in terms of nutrients. My point is that animal husbandry uses more nutrients than it produces.


Animal manure has more uses than simply feriliser. That methane is useful. We should harvest it, especially in light of the oil situation.


Water doesn't just disappear. It becomes mixed up with stuff, the trick is to seperate it and treat it.

Both of these technologies are pretty far off, especially in terms of economic feasibility and efficiency.

[Comrade Rage]

Maybe the first point is far-fetched, but the second isn't. There are desalination and water purification plants everywhere.

[Jazzratt]

Well VG started this discussion on efficiency. My purpose in this thread has been to show that he is incorrect in saying that factory farming is more efficient, in terms of resource usage, than the harvesting of plants.

I always read vanguard's point as being that factory farming is more efficient than "free range" meat.

[chimx]

Maybe the first point is far-fetched, but the second isn't. There are desalination and water purification plants everywhere.

I'm talking about the need to turn animal piss into drinkable water.


I always read vanguard's point as being that factory farming is more efficient than "free range" meat.

Well perhaps I am misinterpreting him. He said: "The 'liberation' of animals and the liberation of human beings are contradictory concepts - they're not complementary." He then goes to argue that the reason they are contradictory is because "intensive agricultural methods have had an immensely liberating impact for human beings. As a result of such advances in agriculture, human beings are producing more food than ever before."

He says eating exclusively plant-based food is "contradictory" because the technological advances of the animal husbandry industry produce more food. Again, I don't think this is true at all given the amount of resources it takes to feed and water animals before they are able to be butchered.

[Vanguard1917]

My point is that the intensive farming of animals (i.e. 'factory farming') is more efficient than the non-intensive farming of animals. The same goes for the intensive farming of crops. As long as the vast majority of human beings desire to eat meat, we need to find more and more efficient ways to produce it. Also, as i explained in my second post, blaming hunger on meat production is ridiculously false and reactionary.

[chimx]

So advocating a vegetarian diet isn't inherently reactionary or contradictory to socialist ideology?

[Vanguard1917]

Opposing modern agricultural methods and technology, and being in favour of backward methods and technology, is reactionary.

You're free to 'advocate' your lifestyle choices and moralise with people about 'animal cruelty'. But, unfortunately for you, people are more rational than that and are today are eating more meat than ever before. As people become wealthier, one of the first things that they tend to do is add more meat to their diets. Meat consumption will continue to rise in the foreseeable future insofar as incomes rise.

All the Western middle class ethical preaching will do nothing to reverse this. That's why the anti-meat industry activists feel the need to call for authoritarian methods to try to stop people eating meat - such as greater state bans and restrictions (e.g. greater taxes) against the meat industry. It's this which is dangerous and must be resisted.

[chimx]

Meat consumption will continue to rise in the foreseeable future insofar as incomes rise.

Thus, a good reason to attack factory farming and create economic blockades for capitalists in such business ventures, while at the same time advocating the development of modern agricultural techniques. It would create a larger surplus of plant-derived proteins and nutrients.

[Vanguard1917]

Thus, a good reason to attack factory farming and create economic blockades for capitalists in such business ventures, while at the same time advocating the development of modern agricultural techniques.

I.e. authorianism by a vegetarian few.

[chimx]

Well generally laws like this are created when there is a public outcry for their creation. Such as animal cruelty laws, laws against veal production, etc.

I have an off-topic question for you VG. Are you voting for Ron Paul by chance?

[Vanguard1917]

Well generally laws like this are created when there is a public outcry for their creation. Such as animal cruelty laws, laws against veal production, etc.

You would, in effect, like to see the mass consumption of meat banned. You would not win mass support for this. That's why you call for authoritarian measures (i.e. state restrictions against the meat industry).

[Bilan]

Opposing modern agricultural methods and technology, and being in favour of backward methods and technology, is reactionary.

You use that term way to much.
But you're argument seems to, essentially, come down to this:
This is a progression from the previous technology, it is more efficient; thus, it is better.
The equation you've drawn out ignores so many other important factors. Such as the impacts of these methods of production on peoples, the planet, etc.
Now, I know you don't give a shit about environmentalism, or the environment, but the fact is, everything we, and anything does, has an impact on it: and this has a majorly negative impact on it.
It's efficient, yes, but it produces huge amounts of waste - and I mean huge.

What people advocate is not going back to old methods (unless they're primitivists...): but developing better, cleaner methods of farming.


But, unfortunately for you, people are more rational than that and are today are eating more meat than ever before.

I find it comical you fail to see anything negative about mass over consumption and the way it not only fucks up the planet - and just about everything - but its terribly unhealthy for those people as it is.
I'm not against others eating meat - despite it being not the most healthy, environmentally friendly, or efficient thing in the world - but you're just being silly.
And to claim that its due to rationality is just...beyond any logic.



All the Western middle class ethical preaching will do nothing to reverse this.

It shouldn't be about purely ethics. Theres much more to the picture than that, and you're willfully ignoring that.

[chimx]

You would, in effect, like to see the mass consumption of meat banned.

If you would like to search the archives and find where I mentioned this, or even where I advocated animal rights, I will be pleased as punch.

[Vanguard1917]

If you would like to search the archives and find where I mentioned this, or even where I advocated animal rights, I will be pleased as punch.

If you're against the mass production of meat (intesive, factory farming), you're against the mass consumption of meat. If you want mass meat production banned, you effectively want mass meat consumption banned.

Proper Tea is Theft:


I find it comical you fail to see anything negative about mass over consumption and the way it not only fucks up the planet


I find it disturbing that you fail to see that trying to reduce (!) people's consumption is completely contrary to leftist politics. We Marxists want to raise people's living standards. Environmentalists, on the other hand, think that living standards - at least in the West - are already too high.

The fact that meat is a less and less scarce product for hundreds of millions of people is something to be celebrated - and advanced even further.

[Bilan]

Proper Tea is Theft:


I find it disturbing that you fail to see that trying to reduce (!) people's consumption is completely contrary to leftist politics. We Marxists want to raise people's living standards. Environmentalists, on the other hand, think that living standards - at least in the West - are already too high.


I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Allow me to clarify.
I am not, by any means, against raising the living standards of people, and undoubtably support increasing the living standards of all to the most comfortable position desired by said persons (not against their will, however, which is where we clearly differ).
What I don't support, however, is the mass overconsumption in the West - as such an enormous mount of is wasted, not to mention is cheaply produced and is harmful to humans, animals and the environment.
What needs to be done is technology for farming, and so on, be improved so that those issues can be addressed.
Globally, I support the growth of industries to support the needs of people - for food, shelter, clothing, etc. But not against the will of the people.

Okay?



The fact that meat is a less and less scarce product for hundreds of millions of people is something to be celebrated - and advanced even further.

Even though the way its over produced is harmful to humans, animals and the environment?
You seem to see it as that quantity is what is important, though the quality of these products are absolutely shithouse - obviously, the worser cuts of meat are put in supermarkets in Working class communities and restraunts and the rich get the better food.

[Vanguard1917]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Allow me to clarify.
I am not, by any means, against raising the living standards of people, and undoubtably support increasing the living standards of all to the most comfortable position desired by said persons (not against their will, however, which is where we clearly differ).

What I don't support, however, is the mass overconsumption in the West - as such an enormous mount of is wasted, not to mention is cheaply produced and is harmful to humans, animals and the environment.
What needs to be done is technology for farming, and so on, be improved so that those issues can be addressed.
Globally, I support the growth of industries to support the needs of people - for food, shelter, clothing, etc. But not against the will of the people.

Okay?

You say that you support raising living standards and yet you complain that there is 'mass overconsumption in the West'. I can only deduce from this that you believe that living standards in the West are too high and need to be reduced.

Yes?

And let me point out that the societies which produce the least waste are also the societies with the highest levels of poverty. Increased levels of waste are a product of increased wealth. Increased wealth is a good thing.



Even though the way its over produced is harmful to humans, animals and the environment?

Intensive farming methods are not harmful to humans or to the environment. In reality, intensive farming has allowed us to eat better than ever before. Human beings are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Obesity is a health problem, sure. But it pales into insignificance when compared to the problem of food scarcity which human beings have had to confront for throughout history.

Intensive farming methods are also better for the environment, allowing us to produce more with less pressure on the land.

As to its effects on the animals involved: i find it stark raving mad to consider the 'welfare' of an animal whose sole purpose is to provide us with food.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Also, modern factory farming, if rolled out world wide, would likely kill any chance that the H5N1 form of Avian Influenza has in mutating and being able to infect and potentially kill millions.

That's a huge benefit. Developed nations are lucky to have this technology, something that South East Asia really needs, as they are unlikely to be able to afford much in the way of treatment for any avian influenza outbreak.

[Bilan]

You say that you support raising living standards and yet you complain that there is 'mass overconsumption in the West'. I can only deduce from this that you believe that living standards in the West are too high and need to be reduced.

No.



And let me point out that the societies which produce the least waste are also the societies with the highest levels of poverty. Increased levels of waste are a product of increased wealth. Increased wealth is a good thing.


...no...not quite.
And what the fuck? What has that got to do with anything?
I was referring to resources being wasted. Not waste itself. argh.



Intensive farming methods are not harmful to humans or to the environment.

Yes, certain methods are. Such as the drugs used by companies to increase milk produce: that effects the milk, and makes it dangerous to humans.
There are various other examples of this and you're well aware of that.



In reality, intensive farming has allowed us to eat better than ever before. Human beings are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Obesity is a health problem, sure. But it pales into insignificance when compared to the problem of food scarcity which human beings have had to confront for throughout history.

Well, actually, that's not something that was inherent in all places and cultures. For example, Indigenous people in Western Australia had an abundance of food. And due to their farming methods, food scarcity was much more uncommon: of course, until Australia was colonized, then everything changed.



Intensive farming methods are also better for the environment, allowing us to produce more with less pressure on the land.

With 3 times as much water and waste pollution.



As to its effects on the animals involved: i find it stark raving mad to consider the 'welfare' of an animal whose sole purpose is to provide us with food.

since when did they have a "purpose"? A purpose is created by humans, and it can be just as easily be removed.
that is, of course, unless you're referring to certain texts in the bible...

[Vanguard1917]

No.

So you differ from the mass of the environmental movement by agreeing that living standards - levels of general consumption - are not high enough in the West?



...no...not quite.
And what the fuck? What has that got to do with anything?
I was referring to resources being wasted. Not waste itself. argh.


Industrialised capitalist societies are no more wasteful than agricultural capitalist societies. The problem is not the existence of industry, but capitalist relations of production.



Yes, certain methods are. Such as the drugs used by companies to increase milk produce: that effects the milk, and makes it dangerous to humans.
There are various other examples of this and you're well aware of that.


I need examples of cases where mass produced milk has caused danger to humans.


With 3 times as much water and waste pollution.

And a million times more food.



since when did they have a "purpose"? A purpose is created by humans, and it can be just as easily be removed.
that is, of course, unless you're referring to certain texts in the bible...


Yes, purpose is created by humans. For human society, the only purpose that a chicken has is to lay eggs and provide meat.

[Vanguard1917]

Well, actually, that's not something that was inherent in all places and cultures. For example, Indigenous people in Western Australia had an abundance of food. And due to their farming methods, food scarcity was much more uncommon: of course, until Australia was colonized, then everything changed.


If that was the case, it was because of the small size of the tribal populations. Those methods cannot feed even a tiny fraction of our growing population.

[Bilan]

So you differ from the mass of the environmental movement by agreeing that living standards - levels of general consumption - are not high enough in the West?


In certain places, they are.
But for the general working class, I'd argue they're not high enough, no.




Industrialised capitalist societies are no more wasteful than agricultural capitalist societies. The problem is not the existence of industry, but capitalist relations of production.

Yeah, no shit. But the capitalist production is highly pollutive, and damaging to the environment - permanently damaging.



I need examples of cases where mass produced milk has caused danger to humans.

I'll get some soon.
But also, check out the doco, "The Corporation".



And a million times more food.




Yes, purpose is created by humans. For human society, the only purpose that a chicken has is to lay eggs and provide meat.

The purpose, as easily as it can be created, can be removed, and supplemented with something better.