NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I was looking at the My Nation description, something about "yoshis have more rights than the average citizen" and I'm like "what the hell?"; while I don't always (or probably not even usually) model my nation after my views (often I'm just aiming for certain stats) I do recall that I tend to lean away from the "animal rights" options when those come up, so I wondered what I did; then I thought based on the "number of times back" and remembered that I chose an environmental option that valued the environment over civil rights since the civil rights stat was adequate and then thought about the seemingly random juxtaposing of environmentalism and animal rights as if they were the same thing, and how it's not like it's something I haven't seen before. So I figured since my 300th post is coming up might as well do it about that.

Of course, this is in a sense part of the bigger subject of ideology labels that I've talked about before, but I wanna focus on this specific example in particular. Why is it that people talk about environmentalism and animal rights interchangably as if they were just one issue? Bad enough that people don't look at it in terms of separate issues within these subjects, but not even between them? I remember a couple years ago when I was defending the seal hunt, talking about how there were plenty of seals, easily enough for the quota and since they eat certain fish that we almost wiped out killing some seals might actually be beneficial for the environment (and no, I don't know as much about it now as I did then and for the record I'm not so confident now that I knew as much then as I thought I did) a few other people who were defending it were saying (about the few activists I was talking about) "they only think it's bad for the environment because they are just environmentalists and are ruining economies" and I'm like "what the hell?" since being concerned about the environment doesn't mean you're going to randomly assume something is bad for the environment, since it's kinda contradictory, but it seems as if people lump those two separate things, animal rights and environmentalism, in with each other at the same time, as if it's all part of the super-juxtaposing label "liberals"; whom ideology labels purists would say like the minimum wage, homosexuality, abortion, pot, moral relativism, and rap music all at the same time as if they all point in the same direction, and are opposed by "conservatives" whom ideology label purists would say like guns, tradition, private businesses, churches, creationism, and country music all at the same time as if they all point in the same direction. It's ridiculous. But I'm straying a bit, but still it's about the ideology labels.

Anyway, back to the current example, though, I'm an environmentalist, but I'm completely against animal rights, and see that as a separate subject. Future generations of human beings should be a good enough reason to protect the environment if you ask me. And what if the other way around, someone came along who wasn't particularily environmentalist but happened to believe in animal rights, who's to say there aren't cases of that?

As for how animal rights and environmentalism are connected in some cases, yes, sometimes things being relevant to both connect them, but this doesn't mean that animal rights and environmentalism point in the same direction, in some cases they may contradict. For example, I remember hearing about a wolf hunt that was done in a case where predator population didn't decline with prey population and as such hunting wolves to decrease the wolf population would actually be beneficial for the local environment. Whether or not that is the case in this specific example, it shows that a connection between animal rights and environmentalism doesn't mean they point in the same direction.

EDIT: Oops, forgot the calculus-reference component. Now, in this case, according to this juxtaposing of environmentalism and animal rights, it'd be as if the views on one were limited to the views on another; that when forming your own set of opinions, there's a limit such that animal rights and environmentalism must be connected; but since animal rights =/= environmentalism, the limit does not exist.

So anyone else notice this odd, random-seeming juxtaposing of animal rights and environmentalism in particular? What do you think of it?

Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.

Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.
What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?

Not wishing to paint with too broad a brush but the motivation for being active in animal rights, over simply caring for animals generally, often stems from hatred of other people.

The effect is often to harm humans, either by trying to halt medical study (Huntingdon Life Sciences), destroy the livelihoods of people, some of whom are subsistence living (Orangutans) and generally placing the welfare of animals over that of humans.

This is fine if not for the fact that we have cases where the actual livelihood of animals themselves are not always taken into account over the act of 'liberation' or whatever act is undertaken by animal rights activists.

In terms of environmentalism, there's always a benefit to humans in mind, of preserving our planet, the difference you're looking for in terms of animal rights is that humans are not considered a priority by the extreme end of animal activism and, sometimes, neither are animals.

Again, I paint with a broad brush but I'm sure I could run with this POV for a while if so inclined.

EDIT: Actually, Orangutans is a poor cite as it completely contradicts my argument, the dangers of posting off hazy memory :)

EDIT EDIT: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." — PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue

That's more what I mean - such humanitarianism!

Only read the first few sentences, and I have to respond:

You do realize that NationStates exaggerates everything a bit? It's called satire. The game is satirical of everything.

Not wishing to paint with too broad a brush but the motivation for being active in animal rights, over simply caring for animals generally, often stems from hatred of other people.

The effect is often to harm humans, either by trying to halt medical study (Huntingdon Life Sciences), destroy the livelihoods of people, some of whom are subsistence living (Orangutans) and generally placing the welfare of animals over that of humans.

This is fine if not for the fact that we have cases where the actual livelihood of animals themselves are not always taken into account over the act of 'liberation' or whatever act is undertaken by animal rights activists.

In terms of environmentalism, there's always a benefit to humans in mind, of preserving our planet, the difference you're looking for in terms of animal rights is that humans are not considered a priority by the extreme end of animal activism and, sometimes, neither are animals.

Again, I paint with a broad brush but I'm sure I could run with this POV for a while if so inclined.

EDIT: Actually, Orangutans is a poor cite as it completely contradicts my argument, the dangers of posting off hazy memory :)

EDIT EDIT: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." — PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue

That's more what I mean - such humanitarianism!

I dunno. Humanity has done a good job fucking itself, what with nuclear weaponry, global warming, polution contaminating various water sources many people depend on for survival, causing the extinction of many plants and animals, many of which had the possibility of aiding mankind, etc.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that we have too many people. Resources are limited. When our population hits 10 billion, God isn't going to magically give us more fertile land, clean fresh water, various metals, etc. Mankind has the power to screw itself, possibly to extinction. A few hundred million would have been plenty. But no. We are so focused on raising our life expectancy to levels we probably shouldn't raise them. We need birth control badly.

Not that I value animals more than people. It's just that we're getting too powerful and corrupted by power. All the landslides, epidemics, earthquakes, and hurricanes should remind us that nature is more powerful than mankind; that we should work with natural forces instead of against them. Once everyone realizes that we don't have the ability to colonise other worlds yet and that we're stuck on the wet dirtball we're screwing up, we can really use nature to our advantage instead of just trying to get rid of it.

Once everyone realizes that we don't have the ability to colonise other worlds yet and that we're stuck on the wet dirtball we're screwing up, we can really use nature to our advantage instead of just trying to get rid of it.

I just had to answer a question somewhat related to that for my Environmental class.

Some people have proposed that the earth could solve its population problem by shipping people off to space colonies, each containing about 10,000 people. Assuming we could build such large-scale, self-sustaining space stations (a big assumption), how many people would we need to ship off each day to provide living space for the 81 million people added to the earth's population this year? Assuming a space shuttle could carry 100 passengers, how many shuttles would have to be launched per day to offset the 81 million people added this year? According to your calculations, determine whether this proposal is a logical solution to the earth's population problem.

We would have to ship 221,917 people each day to provide living space for the 81 million people added to the population each year. This would mean that there would have to be 2,219 shuttle trips per day shipping people to the space colonies. This is not at all a viable solution to the world’s growing population issue.

Highly improbable.

In terms of environmentalism, there's always a benefit to humans in mind, of preserving our planet, the difference you're looking for in terms of animal rights is that humans are not considered a priority by the extreme end of animal activism and, sometimes, neither are animals.

There is your problem. If humans always have the priority, then the environment goes by the waste side simply because preserving affects human be it timber, mining, etc. The rainforest is disappearing daily because it's more important for people to have farms can cattle production are needed.

Again, I paint with a broad brush but I'm sure I could run with this POV for a while if so inclined.

EDIT: Actually, Orangutans is a poor cite as it completely contradicts my argument, the dangers of posting off hazy memory :)

EDIT EDIT: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it." — PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue

That's more what I mean - such humanitarianism!

Interesting. You know Dr. Goodall has tried to improve the living conditions of the test animals(particularly apes and monkeys)? She has this silly idea that depressed/stressed animals respond different to testing. The industry didn't want to hear it.

I don't mind peta. I don't mind their stances. Zelots tend to keep a watch on people. Of course Buisnessmen would never ever do anything unethical right? There has never been BS tests before right?

Clearly animal right and environmentalist are 2 different thing. You liberate and release animals into the wild? You either kill that animal because it doesn't know how to survive in that environment, or you disrupt and destroy the local habitat. Just look at what the Snakeheads are doing to so many lakes? It is rather insulting to think that people actually associate environmentalist who's doing real work and researches trying to make a difference, with idiots who talks about unconditional animal rights.

Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.

Fortunately, around here anyway, they also seem to hate clothes!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1156/578102363_b862f4f9f5_o.jpg

:D

There is your problem. If humans always have the priority, then the environment goes by the waste side simply because preserving affects human be it timber, mining, etc.

I don't agree with this so much in a rational sense because we rely on our environment to exist, so it's in our interests to preserve it.

However, given Jared Diamond's book (title?) starts with (from memory but essentially...) - "What thought was going through the mind of the Easter Isalnder who cut down the last tree on the island?" - I have to say rationality isn't always the....ammm...rationale for human action.

The rainforest is disappearing daily because it's more important for people to have farms can cattle production are needed.

Yeah, my Orangutan cite was thus poor. Due to the idea that palm oil is more environmental, huge swathes of land are being cleared to grow palm, hence orangutans are being killed as they seek food, therefore clashing with subsistence farmers - guess who loses that war.

Again, rationality is not always used.

Interesting. You know Dr. Goodall has tried to improve the living conditions of the test animals(particularly apes and monkeys)? She has this silly idea that depressed/stressed animals respond different to testing. The industry didn't want to hear it.

I'm all for halting unnecessary suffering but, frankly, I place humans above animals if only because I'm human - there's a difference between looking to help and using violence to disrupt.

I don't mind peta. I don't mind their stances. Zealots tend to keep a watch on people. Of course businessmen would never ever do anything unethical right? There has never been BS tests before right?

I don't disagree, without extremists, issues aren't raised and a debating tactic I often use is to take an extreme position and then draw down to get agreement on my side of the debate - it works but then I'm not a violent debater and many people have shown that violence is not the only means of resolving issues.

PETA hurt humans, often physically, to help animals, and in some cases hurt animals as well - I conclude that their interest is not animals but humans, their negative opinion of them.

Fortunately, around here anyway, they also seem to hate clothes!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1156/578102363_b862f4f9f5_o.jpg

:D

I change my position - I support PETA!

:p

Fortunately, around here anyway, they also seem to hate clothes!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1156/578102363_b862f4f9f5_o.jpg

:D
are those leather boots they're wearing?

are those leather boots they're wearing?

Nope. I checked. :D

stupid environmentalist sociopaths. :sniper:

People who use animal activism as an excuse to hurt society should be tied up and forced to watch bull fighting for days on end.

Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.

PETA =/= Animal Rights Activists

PETA =/= Animal Rights Activists

Indeed, with US$29 million in annual income, it seems a highly profitable business.

Indeed, with US$29 million in annual income, it seems a highly profitable business.

Not to mention they have absolutely no compassion for animals at all, going as far as to kill them so their carcasses can be used for publicity whoring propaganda purposes.

I'm all for animal rights and such. After all, many people who tortured animals as children grew up to be serial killers, using what they learned torturing animals to kill people. And if you can torture a cute animal to death, just imagine what you would do to a person you hate.

Environmentalism and Animal Rights are related, but not synonymous. I consider myself an environmentalist as well, albeit I'm not much of an animal rights activist. I'm not categorically opposed to animal testing, hunting, or meat on the dinner table. I oppose cruelty and inflicting unnecessary pain, though.

Animal rights extremist piss me off, mainly because when my dad was working as an abbatoire inspector, he was taught to look under his car for bombs, in case these people decided to blow him up because of his job.

What makes you think that?

Because if you criticize the people who support a position you don't have to come up with a reason for rejecting the position.

I was watching an episode of Frontline and it was talking about conservative Christian environmentalists in Virginia. After years of liberals pointing out how strip mining for coal is destroying Virginia and West Virginia the residents finally had to admit that they were right when the runoff from those coal mining operations were poisoning their well-water, making them all sick, and not producing the jobs that the coal industry promised because even though the mines have gotten more and more productive, the technology has reduced the needed labor force and the wages have not increased with the productivity of the operations.

And then I was shocked to hear that they still didn't want to associate themselves with liberal environmentalists because "they don't care about people. They only care about the earth, but they don't care about people getting sick or feeding their children." Even when they're dying for having refused to acknowledge the message, decades of ingrained propaganda have still left them trying to reject the message because they don't like the messenger.

*snip*

Totally - hold my hands up to it, I'm not a great fan of animal activists and that does cloud my judgment on the issue, not a great admission.

I guess it hijacked the thread a little, which was why do we lump those involved in actively trying to change such issues into one bundle?

I guess, in this case, it's because they're both to do with nature, they're both seen as an area dominated by people we'd term as hippies to some extent - no negative connotation implied - and therefore all are tarred with the same brush.

However, and I know your post isn't directed specifically at me per se, I'll bear in mind whether I'm attacking the messenger rather than the message in future.

When our population hits 10 billion, God isn't going to magically give us more fertile land, clean fresh water, various metals, etc. Mankind has the power to screw itself, possibly to extinction. A few hundred million would have been plenty. But no. We are so focused on raising our life expectancy to levels we probably shouldn't raise them
Shouldn't be raising our life expectancies? Why not keep raising them and say we "shouldn't be reproducing as much as we do" instead?

Though I do agree to some extent that we're hurting ourselves; that's kind of my point with regards to environmentalism without animal rights. As for the "god isn't going to magically give us more fertile land" comment, frankly I think the whole idea of basing an argument on the assumption that this "god" exists is ridiculous to begin with...

Totally - hold my hands up to it, I'm not a great fan of animal activists and that does cloud my judgment on the issue, not a great admission.

I guess it hijacked the thread a little, which was why do we lump those involved in actively trying to change such issues into one bundle?

I guess, in this case, it's because they're both to do with nature, they're both seen as an area dominated by people we'd term as hippies to some extent - no negative connotation implied - and therefore all are tarred with the same brush.

However, and I know your post isn't directed specifically at me per se, I'll bear in mind whether I'm attacking the messenger rather than the message in future.
Environmentalism in itself has nothing to do with appeals to nature, only with simply taking into account that ultimately we come from it and damaging it will have effects on us. Suggesting that environmentalists must like nature is like suggesting that someone who is hanging from a cliff edge by holding onto barbed wire must like the feeling of barbed wire on their hand.

<snip> What do you think of it?
I agree with pretty much everything you said there. I think too many people lump environmentalism and animal rights all in the same category. I'm in favour of greater environmental protection and protection of ecosystems. This includes curbing emissions, protecting endangered species (Which is something that coincides with animal rights), preventing overexploitation, protecting fish stocks, ect. Allowing commercial exploitation to run rampant will only gain short term benefits to a few but will screw humanity over in the long run. But I'm less comfortable with animal rights. I think hunting abundant species is OK, and I think that even hunting more treatened species can be part of an efficient conservation program (Obviously depends on the circumstances). Also, animal rights people don't like leather, but from what I've heard it's more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based synthetics (Though I'm not completely sure on that). And there's the wolves and seals examples that were given.

So I think environmentalism good, animal rights bad. I'm against examples of animal cruelty for the sake of it, but that can go under a platform of animal welfare rather than animal rights.

I'm all for animal rights and such. After all, many people who tortured animals as children grew up to be serial killers, using what they learned torturing animals to kill people. And if you can torture a cute animal to death, just imagine what you would do to a person you hate.
Guilt by association much? First of all, those who did one doing the other doesn't necessarily mean one caused the other. Of course in this particular case there is good reasoning behind a probable connection; violent tendencies could make people do both, but the point is just about how the extent to which the actions themselves are different. Whether or not these animals are cute is irrelevent; they're not human. More importantly, though, second of all, torturing animals for the sake of torturing animals is different from doing experiments on animals to develop better treatments for life-threatening diseases, and some people tend to see the latter as just "torturing animals"; Banting and Best doing experiments on dogs helped them see the connection between the pancreas and diabetes, which in turn is what gave them the idea to use insulin to treat it, saving millions of lives, including my own. To those against experiments on animals I ask you, if you ended up with type 1 diabetes, would you use insulin to save your life?

I have no problem with the 'animal rights' movement, so long as it doesn't interefere with science or industry. It lets people feel good about something, contribute to something, etc., and that's usually good. But that's where it ends.

PETA =/= Animal Rights Activists
Agreed.

As a staunch animal rights supporter AND an environmentalist, I disown the self-appointed flagship organizations of both movements - PETA and Greenpeace - they both do more harm than good. Please don't take the ill-composed propaganda these groups spew to be representative of the majority of environmentalists and animal rights supporters. I'm tired of being asked if I'm "one of those PETA people" or a "crazy tree-hugging Greenpeace hippy".

Agreed.

As a staunch animal rights supporter AND an environmentalist, I disown the self-appointed flagship organizations of both movements - PETA and Greenpeace - they both do more harm than good. Please don't take the ill-composed propaganda these groups spew to be representative of the majority of environmentalists and animal rights supporters. I'm tired of being asked if I'm "one of those PETA people" or a "crazy tree-hugging Greenpeace hippy".

I think this is a lot of the problem, yet extremism does draw publicity to a problem, the corresponding problem with that is the issue is then tied to the extremists.

Same with religion, where extremists are taken as representative of the whole - it really comes down to Domici's point, the messenger often obscures the message.

There is your problem. If humans always have the priority, then the environment goes by the waste side simply because preserving affects human be it timber, mining, etc. The rainforest is disappearing daily because it's more important for people to have farms can cattle production are needed.
Well the rainforest land may be important to people looking to use, but the rainforests themselves are important to humanity as a whole because they are an upward force on oxygen concentration and a downward force on carbon dioxide concentration. Again, other humans, or future generations of humans, are still a good reason for environmentalism.

I think this is a lot of the problem, yet extremism does draw publicity to a problem, the corresponding problem with that is the issue is then tied to the extremists.

Same with religion, where extremists are taken as representative of the whole - it really comes down to Domici's point, the messenger often obscures the message.
No matter what the case, that's a problem in and of itself to begin with, and for that matter one that needs to be fixed. People need to realize that the validity of a thought doesn't depend on the validity of someone behind the thought. As someone on YouTube put it, "if a crazy serial killer who believes he is surrounded by teletubbies argues that if you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground because gravity will pull the ball towards the Earth... does the ball start falling upwards from now on?"

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13293183']I agree with pretty much everything you said there. I think too many people lump environmentalism and animal rights all in the same category. I'm in favour of greater environmental protection and protection of ecosystems. This includes curbing emissions, protecting endangered species (Which is something that coincides with animal rights), preventing overexploitation, protecting fish stocks, ect. Allowing commercial exploitation to run rampant will only gain short term benefits to a few but will screw humanity over in the long run. But I'm less comfortable with animal rights. I think hunting abundant species is OK, and I think that even hunting more treatened species can be part of an efficient conservation program (Obviously depends on the circumstances). Also, animal rights people don't like leather, but from what I've heard it's more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based synthetics (Though I'm not completely sure on that). And there's the wolves and seals examples that were given.

So I think environmentalism good, animal rights bad. I'm against examples of animal cruelty for the sake of it, but that can go under a platform of animal welfare rather than animal rights.
I think that's a more relevant point than the other things you mentioned; an example of how they contrast. And, you know, if someone who believes in animal rights thinks "well leather may be better for the environment but is the environment worth animal suffering?" (which frankly I think would make sense because they're already implying that finding life-saving medical treatments isn't worth animal suffering) then as much as I might disagree with it, I'd be glad to see others breaking free from the juxtaposing of environmentalism and animal rights on the "opposite" side (if that's a good way of describing it) from that expressed so far by some people in this thread including myself...

People need to realize that the validity of a thought doesn't depend on the validity of someone behind the thought.
On the one hand, everybody loves Wagner's opera, but few are willing to read this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future).

On the one hand, everybody loves Wagner's opera, but few are willing to read this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future).
Meh, I'm too lazy to. Then again I don't really know what Wagner's opera is so I wouldn't "love" that either...

Then again I don't really know what Wagner's opera is so I wouldn't "love" that either...Trust me; it's the bee's knees.

I have no problem with the 'animal rights' movement, so long as it doesn't interefere with science or industry. It lets people feel good about something, contribute to something, etc., and that's usually good. But that's where it ends.

Why are science and industry so sacred that they cannot be interfered with?

Environmentalism in itself has nothing to do with appeals to nature, only with simply taking into account that ultimately we come from it and damaging it will have effects on us. Suggesting that environmentalists must like nature is like suggesting that someone who is hanging from a cliff edge by holding onto barbed wire must like the feeling of barbed wire on their hand.

But can we make appeals to protect the environment that aren't purely self-interested? Does nature have inherent value that is worth protecting?

The effect is often to harm humans, either by trying to halt medical study (Huntingdon Life Sciences), destroy the livelihoods of people, some of whom are subsistence living (Orangutans) and generally placing the welfare of animals over that of humans.


Or possibly they place the welfare of animals equivalent to that of humans, in which case they feel that humans can't justify doing whatever they want to animals simply because it might have some modest benefit for them.

But can we make appeals to protect the environment that aren't purely self-interested? Does nature have inherent value that is worth protecting?Depends on zour interpretation of "value"...

Fortunately, around here anyway, they also seem to hate clothes!

<snip image>

:D

I'd rather they not go naked.

On the one hand, everybody loves Wagner's opera, but few are willing to read this (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future).


I have no idea of what Wagner's opera is, so i don't think you can say "everyone" likes it.
As for that wikipedia thing alot of it seemed biased against one type of person or another.
It seemed a little long and go on forever, i must admit that i don't think i could manage typing all that ou,t so kudos to the effort but the content itself is a little bizzar and often tangenital.
Well that's my judgement passed on someone elses work, i wonder what other people think of it.

As for that wikipedia thing alot of it seemed biased against one type of person or another.
It seemed a little long and go on forever, i must admit that i don't think i could manage typing all that ou,t so kudos to the effort but the content itself is a little bizzar and often tangenital.
Well that's my judgement passed on someone elses work, i wonder what other people think of it.Dunno. I saw "Una-bomber" and didn't bother.

Depends on zour interpretation of "value"...

No, it depends on each of our interpretation of value.

Why are science and industry so sacred that they cannot be interfered with?
I wouldn't call INDUSTRY something to "not be interfered with" but with regards to science, if not for science you wouldn't be posting this here and I would have been dead.

Again, I asked this already; if you ended up with type 1 diabetes, would you use insulin (idea for such came from experiments on dogs) to save your life?

But can we make appeals to protect the environment that aren't purely self-interested? Does nature have inherent value that is worth protecting?
Well I suppose it would be wrong to destroy it entirely, but just what ABOUT nature are you saying would make it worth protecting? Why would that value be "inherent"?

Dunno. I saw "Una-bomber" and didn't bother.Bingo.
Well I suppose it would be wrong to destroy it entirely, but just what ABOUT nature are you saying would make it worth protecting? Why would that value be "inherent"?
Be careful. You are wading deep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology) into the jungle of leftism.

Try asking how any value can be considered inherent, as they all depend on a context. Then ask what context our values depend on, and if the context itself has value. IMO the natural environment has a kind of contextual value.

Well I suppose it would be wrong to destroy it entirely, but just what ABOUT nature are you saying would make it worth protecting? Why would that value be "inherent"?

We depend on nature for our survival. How? Various plants and whatnot in nature convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. We need oxygen for our survival. When we use up oxygen, we produce carbon dioxide. Our bodies can not use carbon dioxide and can not produce pure oxygen.

Another example is water. Human beings need clean water. Dirty water is crawling with paraistes and germs that could easily infect and kill us. Very dirty water can be toxic, even without the dangerous organisms. It would be cheaper to just not fuck up our water supply than to de-fuck it up.

Our survival depends on nature. Water and plants and whatnot ARE nature. They are apart of nature. You endanger one aspect of nature, you endanger a part of nature we need, directly or indirectly.

Fortunately, around here anyway, they also seem to hate clothes!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1156/578102363_b862f4f9f5_o.jpg

:D

Those are what you call "naturists".

Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.

Only people like you.

PETA can be obnoxious, I agree, but fundementally, I agree with the notion that just because animals aren't people doesn't mean you get to be horrible to them.

The people netted by Operation Backfire were from my county. They used to practice for their "legitimate targets" by firebombing district police stations.

I think I know why people have this "animal rights = environmentalism" stereotype going on. It's because a lot of both movements' rank and file overlap. Many of the animal rightists I've encountered are also deeply concerned about the environment. And they still have this programming that if you kill something, it's because you hate it and want to destroy it. Never mind that by building and living in houses, we're actively and pro-actively destroying wildlife. And hate doesn't have a thing to do with it.

"Oooooh, I hate rabbits and snakes! I'm gonna build a house right on top of 'em, yeah! That'll teach 'em!" Even the rabbits of Watership Down knew better; Fiver said "Humans have always hated us" and Captain Holly said, "No. We were just in their way."

Anyway...

Humans can and will find any rationales to bridge apparent discrepancies and inconsistencies, because the world isn't in black and white. It may appear that environmentalism and animal rights dovetail and overlap, and some people can make it work. Personally, though, I think many of the animal rights movement's methods are EXTREMELY detrimental to the environment. For example:

PeTA advocates that dogs and cats — yes, pets — be released into the wild. Not only is this potentially cruel and would cause untold suffering to the animals themselves, but would wreak tremendous havoc in both livestock and wildlife populations. This is why we have $1000 fines for pet abandonment.

Dogs are not wolves, nor are they coyotes. The physiological similarities may or may not be there, but dogs aren't nearly as efficient predators as wolves are. Notice how feral dogs and wolves hunt: feral dogs chase their prey, barking their heads off like puppies, and rarely attack effectively enough to take their prey down fast. Wolves on the other hand are professionals: they sight prey, go in with the minimum of fuss, cripple with surgical precision and dispatch the prey like they know what they're doing.

Cats are like small-scale, solo wolves: they know their job and they do it. This is why they devastate small game and birds whenever they're released to the wild. I know two people who run feral cat rescues; the animals they catch are usually pretty healthy, they might have fleas but otherwise they're in good shape. There's one family of ferals that live near me and actually cooperate with the local raccoons. The problem here is that while domestic cats that have gone feral thrive, the bird and small game goes into a tailspin and down the tubes.

(BTW, I do keep my cat indoors)

I also know a couple kids at veterinary school. What the animal rightists don't tell you is that animal research benefits not just humans, but animals, too — domestic and wild. Many treatments for animal diseases are found via animal testing: you can't stop at computer models, you have to see if it works in real life. When I was growing up most cats died at age 10, dogs at 14 at the oldest, horses at 18. Now we have doubled their lifespans, and the test subjects aren't always killed. We've already established that that film — you know, the one showing dogs and hawks in leghold traps and snares — was set up and filmed in the makers' back yards and there were people in back of the camera making threatening gestures and noises so the animals would thrash and appear traumatized. What else did they set up to make themselves look like angels?

How is animal-rights not an environmental issue?

- The meat industry produces more greenhouse gas than all the world's transport combined

-The production of 1 calorie of meat produces about 10-100 times more
CO2 than the production of 1 calorie of vegetables (including
processing and transports).

- Gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective
greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon
dioxide, respectively.

- 78 kilojoules of fossil fuel are expended to produce one kilojoule
of beef protein, whereas only two kilojoules of fossil fuel are needed
to produce the same protein from soybeans.

- To produce a pound of beef uses 2500 gallons of water

- Livestock farming has been estimated to contribute more than 50% of
US water pollution, and is responsible for 50% of tropical rainforest
destruction. In the US, 33% of all raw materials are used for meat and
dairy production.

- A conventional (meat-based) diet requires one hectare per person. A
lacto-ovo (dairy and eggs included) vegetarian diet requires half a
hectare per person. A vegan diet requires only one tenth of a hectare
per person (Vegan Society, NSW).

- One third of all the grain being produced in the world is being fed
to cattle and other "livestock".

-75% of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum and oats are fed
to animals.

-Growing grains, vegetables, legumes and fruit uses less than 5% of
the raw material consumption used in the production of meat

-Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural
land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet

sources:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1995/210/10850
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/water_animal_production.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/vegetarian-is-the-new-pri...
http://www.alternet.org/environment/40639



Animal rights activists don't love animals, they hate humans.

That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard.
Do we accuse those who choose to help refugees or victims of war of not caring about their own countrymen? Or those who work for the elderly of not caring about abused children? It is nonsense. The issue is not whom we value the most, but whether it is morally justifiable to exploit and abuse sentient beings — human or non-human. Many of the most passionate advocates for animals throughout the ages have also been at the forefront of campaigns for human rights.

Also, animal-rights people don't "love" animals in the same way pet-"lovers" "love" animals . We don't think love for animals involves no more than stroking a cat, feeding the birds in the garden or commodifying dogs at a "dog show". We want to end oppression based on species membership and treat animals as the independent sentient beings that they are, and not as a means to human ends. We see the basic moral principle of equal consideration of interests is not arbitairily restricted to members of our own species.
No one, except a racist concerned to smear his opponents as "******-lovers", would suggest that in order to be concerned about equality for mistreated racial minorities you have to love those minorities, or regard them as cute and cuddly. So why make this assumption about people who work for the improvements in the conditions of animals?


Have any of you seen the film Earthlings?
EARTHLINGS is a feature length documentary about humanity's absolute dependence on animals (for pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research) but also illustrates our complete disrespect for these so-called "non-human providers." The film is narrated by Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix (GLADIATOR) and features music by the critically acclaimed platinum artist Moby.

link to part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw




By the way, PeTA is not an animal rights organization. They are welfarists.

Firstly, welfarist organizations like PETA advocate "humane" slaughtering methods. These slaughter methods are either designed to hide what's going on from the animals, or to restrain the animals - if the animal is stunned, there would be no broken bones, therefore the quality of meat would be higher and thus more profitable for the company. Welfarism makes animal exploitation more efficient.
Secondly, welfarist campaigns maintain the speciecist hegemony that is built into our society. Welfarism does not challenge the notion that animals are ours to use and the property status of animals. Instead, it makes people feel better about themselves. The reason welfarism has been accepted by the mainstream is because people don't like to be told what they're doing is problematic - they like to be told to continue doing whatever they're doing as long as they're being "conscientious". Welfarism also does not decrease demand for animal products, but instead creates a market niche.
Thirdly, welfarism also does not work because it encourages people to join large cult-like organizations in order to create change. History has shown that social change can only happen at the grass roots level. The way large welfarist organizations like PETA work is in many ways, akin to businesses, and if you look at PETA and the RSPCA's websites, you'll see they encourage a consumerist mentality. PETA in particular, gets recognized by the mainstream for their often sexist media stunts (trading one oppression for another) - they are professional activists who want the spotlight, they don't want to abolish animal exploitation, they even gave an award to slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin.
Fourthly, the welfarist-dominated animal-rights "movement" fails to recognize broader social issues and seems to have a fetish with only animal suffering and not the suffering of humans. To abolitionists, speciecism is an equal oppression to racism, sexism and homophobia in that you assume one group has the right to exploit a sentient other.


As for violence, many activists in the ALF think violence is radical but in fact it is quite conservative as violence isn't exactly something new and it doesn't address the root cause of exploitation. Instead, it offers the person committing violent acts temporary, personal satisfaction and creates a culture of hero worship while alienating the actual cause.

Thank You!

How is animal-rights not an environmental issue?
How IS it one? The burden of justification should be on you if you're saying that animal rights itself is an environmental issue in and of itself.

As for your examples, for the most part they're things that do environmental damage that animal rights people just so happen to be opposed to. In that case, however, others can be opposed to it on environmental grounds, not on animal rights grounds. Sorta like how I'm against factory farms because they tend to spew animal waste into the air, (or I think sometimes put it in the rivers, I'm not sure) polluting the surrounding area in which other human beings reside, (which creates a negative externality that is rather difficult to classify within the bounds of "consent") as opposed to earlier farming methods which allowed the animal waste to be "recycled" in the ground so to speak. If I was asked to name one problem I had with factory farming I'd probably choose that, whereas an animal rights person might be more inclined to reference how factory farms treat animals; ironically in this way the one who's less inclined towards animal rights would mention something that would be more relevant to the environment.

However, what about cases where certain things that animal rights people would happen to be opposed to were GOOD for the environment, like hunting overpopulated wolves? What about cases where opposition to animal rights was on a more medical ground, like, for example, experiments on animals? Banting and Best doing experiments on dogs helped them see the connection between the pancreas and type 1 diabetes, saving millions of lives, including my own. Granted, one could argue that might somewhat contribute to overpopulation, but reproduction is a greater enemy in that case, as such one you should be going after first; if not being conceived was akin to dying, then every waking moment one didn't spend reproducing would be a continuous mass murder. As such one has to tackle reproduction before going after something that extends the lives of those of us with life-threatening diseases we did nothing to get. If you happened to end up with type 1 diabetes, would you use insulin to save your life? Ok, I'm going slightly off topic and I think I'm repeating myself within the thread, so I'll stop there for now...