Tuesday, February 22, 2005

The New Abolitionism: Capitalism, Slavery and Animal Liberation

By Steven Best

Read full article...

Posted 02/22 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. ‘A disciple of the Buddha should have a mind of compassion and cultivate the practice of liberating sentient beings. He must reflect thus: throughout the eons of time, all male sentient beings have been my father, all female sentient beings my mother. I was born of them, if I slaughter them, I would be slaughtering my parents as well as eating flesh that was once my own. This is so because all elemental earth, water, fire and air—the four constituents of all life—have previously been part of my body, part of my substance. I must therefore always cultivate the practice of liberating sentient beings and enjoin others to do likewise—as sentient beings are forever reborn, again and again, lifetime after lifetime. If a Bodhisattva sees an animal on the verge of being killed, he must devise a way to rescue and protect it, helping it to escape suffering and death. The disciple should always teach the Bodhisattva precepts to rescue and deliver sentient beings.’

    (From the Brahma Net Sutra.)

    Posted by Theo from Greece  on  02/22  at  09:08 AM

  2. “If capitalism is a grow-or-die system based on slavery and exploitation—be it imperialism and colonialism, exploitation of workers, unequal pay based on gender, or the oppression of animals—then it is a system a movement for radical democracy must transcend, not amend.”

    In life, some things are more prone to be questioned (i.e. capitalism) than others (i.e. democracy).  But perhaps we can learn something from questioning the rarely questioned, such as “is democracy really the best system of governance for us today”? (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html)

    Dr. Best calls for a “radical democracy” to transcend the undesirable side-effects of a species-descriminating capitalism.  From one perspective, a more radical democracy will certainly include some who have previously been excluded.  But from another perspective, any form of democracy (rule of the majority over the minority) will always be exclusive, in some form or another.

    Perhaps the things that we don’t generally readily question… deserve to be.

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  02/22  at  11:43 AM

  3. What about testing animals so human lives can be saved?  If liberation movements are based on the self-emancipation of the oppressed (with some help from others, slaves, peasants, and workers ultimately liberate themselves rather than rely on elite college students and professors),
    how do animals fit into this?  They are INFERIOR
    to humans by nature, yet our ever heroic, priviledged 1st World professors and students are going to come “free” them. 
    I heard of a recent case in Iowa City Iowa where some idiot “animal liberationists” vandalized animal research that could have saved human lives.

    Posted by CHE from Amerikkan Empire  on  02/22  at  02:22 PM

  4. The uselessness, fraudulence and harmfulness to both humans and animals caused by reliance on animal experimentation is well-documented. Almost on a daily basis some high-profile drug, previously tested as safe on animals, is withdrawn due to harmful/fatal side effects on humans. NAVS, BUAV, PCRM, HSUS, AVAR, AFMA, PETA, In Defense of Animals, InterNICHE are but a few of the major worldwide organisations with expanding bodies of evidence proving the wastefulness and scientific invalidity of using animals in research.

    Posted by Eva Berriman from Australia  on  02/22  at  07:53 PM

  5. CHE

    lets clarify a things you said before we continue…

    1. “with some help from others, slaves, peasants, and workers ultimately liberate themselves rather than rely on elite college students and professors)”

    I think you are making an untrue (but very revealing) statement that elitist professors and college students are the only ones who have interst in liberating animals.

    2. “They are INFERIOR
    to humans by nature, yet our ever heroic, priviledged 1st World professors and students are going to come “free” them.”

    please give us your definition of inferior.  Also this is the second time you brought up professors and college students as antagonists; please explain your problem with higher education....

    3. Please provide us with some information on this animal research lab, so that we can know what cause the animals were being killed for and then we can decide if it was a worthy one.

    thanks

    Posted by Steve from CA  on  02/22  at  08:02 PM
  6. a beings capacity for sentience is a necessary and sufficient condition for having basic rights.
    Rights are a human creation.  The question if an action is right or wrong, the question what is moral can only be understood by a human.  If man (or some other similarly intelligent creature) did not exist the idea of rights would not exist.  An animal will never think of it self having rights because it can not.  No wild animal has the right to live in nature.  It has the chance to try to live, reproduce, and to die. 
    <objectifies animals by dichotomizing the evolutionary continuum into human and nonhuman life. As racism stems from a hateful white supremacism, so speciesism draws from a violent human supremacism, namely, the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise.</blockquote>
    A snake “is allowed” to eat a mouse because it can. The snaked evolved to be able to eat mice.  Man “is allowed” to use animals because man can.  Man evolved with the ability to use tools, weapons, etc, and can use them.  Once again “supremacism” is a human concept.  A snake doesn’t think itself better because it can eat a mouse, it just does, it evolved that way.  Man isn’t better because he can use animals.  He just can. 
    Rights are unique to humans because we created them as we evolved.
    Posted by Vergil from  on  02/23  at  03:54 PM

  7. Don’t know why the above looks so messed up…

    a being’s capacity for sentience is a necessary and sufficient condition for having basic rights.
    Rights are a human creation.  The question if an action is right or wrong, the question what is moral can only be understood by a human.  If man (or some other similarly intelligent creature) did not exist the idea of rights would not exist.  An animal will never think of it self having rights because it can not.  No wild animal has the right to live in nature.  It has the chance to try to live, reproduce, and to die. 
    <objectifies animals by dichotomizing the evolutionary continuum into human and nonhuman life. As racism stems from a hateful white supremacism, so speciesism draws from a violent human supremacism, namely, the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise. </blockquote>
    A snake “is allowed” to eat a mouse because it can. The snaked evolved to be able to eat mice.  Man “is allowed” to use animals because man can.  Man evolved with the ability to use tools, weapons, etc, and can use them.  Once again “supremacism” is a human concept.  A snake doesn’t think itself better because it can eat a mouse, it just does, it evolved that way.  Man isn’t better because he can use animals.  He just can. 
    Rights are unique to humans because we created them as we evolved.

    Posted by Vergil from  on  02/23  at  04:00 PM

  8. Greetings CHE:

    “What about testing animals so human lives can be saved?”

    How about turning the meaning around:  What about testing humans so animal lives can be saved?

    The problem is that you forgot that humans *are* animals.  Either way the question is posed, the answer is mu.

    The largest obstacle currently is the profound pounding of anthropocentrism into our children’s heads.  Ergo, it is the children that are finally learning and leading themselves into the next paradigm.

    Posted by Jaye from Eureka (like the vacuum)  on  02/24  at  01:14 AM

  9. Greetings Vergil:

    “An animal will never think of it self having rights because it can not.”

    Dare I ask if you can site what/when/how an *animal* thinks?

    You and I are human animals--we can guess that we humans might think alike, that is, similarly.  That is all we can do.  We can not think cat since we are not cats.

    “Man isn’t better because he can use animals.  He just can.”

    And therefore man can enjoy coronary arrest, vasculature disease, cancer (etc, ad nauseam.) The point was already well established that humans are no longer bound to brutal behavior for basic (or advanced) survival.

    Posted by Jaye from Eureka (like the vacuum)  on  02/24  at  01:29 AM

  10. To Jaye

    Dare I ask if you can site what/when/how an *animal* thinks?
    Well I think be could able to test animals to see if they understand certain concepts that I consider necessary to the idea of rights.  These include a concept of self, a concept of logic, abstract thought, etc....  However, I do concede that a few other animals (chimps) may have some of these.  However, the vast majority do not.
    And therefore man can enjoy coronary arrest, vasculature disease, cancer (etc, ad nauseam.) The point was already well established that humans are no longer bound to brutal behavior for basic (or advanced) survival.
    Yes, I do agree that most if not all things we get from animals could be obtained from non living things (besides some extreme examples).  However, the reason I feel we *should* not kill animals for meat, skins, etc is because we can feel empathy and sorry for them rather than the some sort of right they have.

    Posted by Vergil from  on  02/24  at  02:02 PM

  11. Greetings Vergil:

    “Well I think be could able to test animals to see if they understand certain concepts that I consider necessary to the idea of rights.  These include a concept of self, a concept of logic, abstract thought, etc....  However, I do concede that a few other animals (chimps) may have some of these.  However, the vast majority do not”

    The first line of your response indicates a failure to understand my premise.  *We* can not pass the fly test.  Please understand, I am talking about a very small being; humans do not know how to adequately communicate with flies, yet humans know that flies communicate with each other.  To form a test that other (non-human) beings are going to be subjected (or more aptly subjugated) to is right up there with the old I.Q. test that the U.S.A. once practiced to demonstrate how inadequate (stupid) negros were.

    I realize that there is real science involved with learning communications skill involving non-humans.  The problem is that most of the work is trying to teach non-humans how to speak human speak--far less work has been conducted to teach humans to speak non-human speak.

    We are using human perception in everything we do or think, a major hindrance in learning non-human speak.  There is a book that is currently being penned that I hope will help empathetic readers understand this divided situation.  The author will help readers learn what is second reality (ego) and help them learn and adapt a more grounded understanding to first reality (all that is.)

    Much of this philosophy is documented in a text book “Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence, 3rd edition,” Armstrong & Botzler published by Mcgraw-hill.

    Humans can not survive without consuming living things, however, humans can survive very well without consuming our fellow animals.

    Holmes Rolston III states that “only humans are moral agents.” Read his essay Values in and Duties to the Natureal World:
    http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RolstonEnvEth.html

    --

    Wishing you well.

    Posted by Jaye from Eureka (like the vacuum)  on  02/25  at  06:20 AM

  12. As I sit here contemplating the big juicy steak defrosting in my fridge for tonights din-din all I can say is WOW! its great to be at the top of the food chain.

    The more animals that further medical progress through testing the better for man.

    #### animal rights. They have the “right” to be my dinner and that’s about it. All of you simpering, pussy vegans need to face reality.

    Posted by Bogtrotter from In the red zone thank friggin' GOD  on  02/26  at  10:24 AM

  13. Bogtrotter
    Read my lips -
    “The uselessness, fraudulence and harmfulness to both humans and animals caused by reliance on animal experimentation is well-documented. Almost on a daily basis some high-profile drug, previously tested as safe on animals, is withdrawn due to harmful/fatal side effects on humans. NAVS, BUAV, PCRM, HSUS, AVAR, AFMA, PETA, In Defense of Animals, InterNICHE are but a few of the major worldwide organisations with expanding bodies of evidence proving the wastefulness and scientific invalidity of using animals in research”.

    Posted by bereva from  on  02/26  at  07:16 PM

  14. Anyone trying to convince me that there are better ways to test drugs than with animals, or that an animal-free diet can be healthier or better for the environment would prolly get little argument from me to the contrary. However, once they started talking about rights or the morality of it all, I would lose all interest in the conversation.
    I find terms like “specieist” and “species-discriminating” kinda amusing coming from animal rights advocates, since whatever position that they take can’t help but be species-discriminating. After all, not too many folks are advocating that we stop eating all living organisms, or that we phase out the use of antibiotics so that bacteria may live and prosper.
    Any position on animal rights can’t help but be subjective. Some folks see humans as superior to other animals, most see vertebrates as superior to plants and protists and the rest. Personally, I try not to see any as superior. So if other organisms must die for my survival, I try to not concentrate my butchery on any one particular kingdom or family—I spread the love around.

    Posted by Braz Cubas from The 'Burbs  on  02/26  at  08:58 PM

  15. Domesticated animals are slaves.  My dog is trained.  She listens to me whenever I bark a command.  When she is out on her own, it never fails she comes back home for something to eat.  She loves beef fat.  Never argue with a dogs appetite.  Her master’s voice is what she lives for, though.

    In reality, you are a slave to yourself.  Try to go a few days without eating.  It takes tremendous will power to go without foodstuffs.  I was a vegetarian for approximately three years.  I fasted for 16 days and could run a strong 15 miles with no problems.  I also dreamed of eating roast beef.  If you can dream it, you can do it.  Those were the days that came to an end.  I’m an omnivore and can’t deny it.  However, wheatgrass will take you a long ways on the road to recovery.

    If you’re stranded in the wilderness, you can chew on the grass to stay alive.

    If you want to test your will power, don’t eat.  Your mind will play tricks on you.

    I’ve seen rabbits seek new ground after a crop duster plastered a field with herbicide.  It will make your eyes water.  I’ve seen grain bugs so thick in the barley bin, your beer is brewed from half malt and half bug protein.  That’s living on earth in 2005.

    Posted by MDPB from over there  on  03/03  at  01:53 PM

  16. You state “capitalism is a system of slavery, exploitation, class hierarchy and inequality, violence, and forced labor.”

    That is 180 degress from accurate.

    By definition, capitalism is an economic system where prices and wages are determined by market forces!  Nothing is violent, forced, or exploited in capitalism. 

    You’re description is more accurate of Manorialism or feudalism, which capitalism replaced.

    JJB

    Posted by JJB from Glendale, AZ  on  03/23  at  08:31 PM
    17. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Objectivity in Independent Media

    Previous entry: Lies, Disinformation, the Media and What Is the Truth Exactly?

    [ads]

    Support Press Action