The True Meaning of Animal Rights

[Brandon Becker]

Learn about the true meaning of animal rights, including what is and is not rights advocacy and examples of rights advocacy compared to other advocacy: http://www.rpaforall.org/rights.html

From the introduction:
-----
"Animal rights" is almost always used incorrectly by the news industry and most animal organizations and advocates. This hampers animal-rights advocacy by creating confusion about its goal, divergence from rights-promoting strategies, and delusion about what constitutes progress toward animal rights. People have helped animals in countless ways for thousands of years without promoting rights for them. Promoting rights means describing the rights other animals need to lead fulfilling lives, why meaningful protection is impossible without rights, and why human beings as well as other animals will benefit when all have the rights they need.
------

[Rob Brevendt]

Hi Lynne, regarding nature and its utter inability to take care of the poor creatures it generates, you're ignoring crucial facts mentioned above, unfortunately.

Our goal is not to eliminate the Earth's ecosystems, but to veganize them. Seems like the ultimate goal for people whose religion is ethical veganism. And the major religions and scriptures do indeed picture a (past and future) paradise where nature actually is harmonious and balanced, i.e. vegan.

[David Pearce]

The empathetic cognitive style typical of animal most advocates is different from the hyper-systematising cognitive style typical of utilitarian ethicists:
Crudely, a case of low AQ vs high AQ:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html

IMO global veganism is compassion systematised. I often wish we could broaden the range and depth of our empathetic understanding of human and non-human animals alike. But unless this empathetic concern leads to policy initiatives that are impartial, rational and systematic, the consequences can frequently make a bad situation worse.

Adriano Mannino said:

David, it is indeed fascinating how many AR people seem to believe that their approach will have the best consequences for the animals in this world and that consequentialism is fascism. What's going on?

[Kerry Baker]

If you truly want global veganism it will mean the extinction of many species. Raptors and owls will have to be eliminated as their beaks are totally inadequate for other than carnivorous diet. You will have to get rid of just about all of the animals located int eh polar regions, polar bears, arctic fox, penguins etc for obvious reasons. Oh and probably include the Inuit in that. The whales and orcas will of course have to go. You will have to get rid of just about every species of snakes on the planet as among other things they are ground dwellers and will not be able to exist on a what's available at that level. Crocodiles and alligators are not adapted for vegetarian diets, that is their teeth and jaws won't be able to eat fruit. You will need to then drastically reduce the breeding capacity of herbivores as this planet will be unable to sustain enough food for the numbers that will grow as a result of getting rid of their predators. You will need to get rid of beavers for humanitarian reasons as their teeth are designed to keep growing as they use them for cutting small branches etc for the dams, which won't be in sufficient numbers any longer because as happened in Yellowstone the elks ate them all when the wolves were all but eradicated and the elk numbers grew and ate all the natural greenery the beavers use. You will need to consider what to do about the weak and sick animals and the ones who suffer injuries like broken legs when there are no predators around, as these will have slow and painful deaths. And what to do about the water supply when forests are being eaten since it is the old growth forests that keep the water levels stable.

And I'm sure you don't exclude humans from the carnage. You will have to ban cars, planes, trains and ships due to the injures in their millions they cause to many species. Ships might be OK because under your scheme there won't be all that many ocean going creatures left to harm.  As a matter of fact, perhaps you should just get rid of the human race altogether since you suggest humans have superior cognitive abilities to make choices, and based on the comments you get in the vegan V omnivore diet no way will people go vegan. That is unless you are suggesting enforced genetic engineering of humans also.

Adriano Mannino said:

Hi Lynne, regarding nature and its utter inability to take care of the poor creatures it generates, you're ignoring crucial facts mentioned above, unfortunately.

Our goal is not to eliminate the Earth's ecosystems, but to veganize them. Seems like the ultimate goal for people whose religion is ethical veganism. And the major religions and scriptures do indeed picture a (past and future) paradise where nature actually is harmonious and balanced, i.e. vegan.

[Rob Brevendt]

@Kerry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oGdH5B_HEI

You are giving us reasons for big, long and careful research programs, not for doing nothing and letting the unspeakable massacre of nature go on forever. Let me point out again that there are non-violent means to control populations (for the benefit of the individuals!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunocontraception#In_animals - and that we can develop more of them if we choose to.

There are two ways for the deadly carnivorous traits to be phased out: evolution and extinction. I don't think there's a moral problem with either. Here's why: Anti-speciesism means thinking in terms of individuals, their interests and their well-being rather than in terms of species. For instance, it would be speciesist to save the last two individuals of one species rather than 1000 individuals of another species. You'd be discriminating based on species-membership. A "species" is an abstract entity (and a biologically problematic one at that), a species cannot be in pain or feel good. Ethically, it doesn't matter how many species (or groups of whatever kind!) there are in the world (and by the way, 99% of all the species that have ever existed have gone extinct). What matters is that the individuals that do in fact exist have good lives - regardless of which and how many species they belong to. Animal individuals don't care what "species" they belong to. What they care about is that if they exist (non-existents cannot care about anything, of course) they be able to live a good and happy life. A world with less species and less suffering and death is much better in moral terms. It may be worse in your aesthetic terms, but aesthetic preferences surely cannot override moral reasons.

And what transhumanism is suggesting regarding humans is voluntary genetic (and social!) change for the better. If we change the genome of our children (or of non-human children), that may seem to some as being forced, oppressive or whatever. But think about it: No child has a choice regarding the genes that it's born with. So it's either nature/evolution that decides and forces its choice on the child or it's us. And if we (e.g. via preimplant genetic diagnosis) can make more informed, intelligent and compassionate choices, then we ought to do so. We can thereby prevent many physical and psychological diseases and abolish a whole lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. And we'll also be able to endow ourselves with far greater tendencies towards empathy and altruism, intelligence and happiness. What could be wrong with that? It's what we've been trying to achieve all along, just with different and limited means. We can and should still pursue the social path, it's extremely important too, but why reject additional paths when they become available?

[Kerry Baker]

And then there's the problem with a dramatic increase on contagious diseases that will affect all animal species.  We won't have carnivorous fish to eat mosquito larvae so there will be a huge increase in malaria.  And all hose animal carcasses lying around rotting that would normally have been eaten by carnivores after animals die from disease or accidents or just old age will result in cholera and dysentery.  I'd suggest vultures might be the answer but they don't always wait for something to die before they start eating it and hey we can't have that can we!  Animals that are injured from fights or accidents will have slow and lingering death. Another forum on another website suggested an estimate of 50 billion factory farmed animals died last year, so if what's going on in nature far outweighs that then you are going to have an awful lot of rotting flesh lying around, getting into water supplies and so on.

There will be less space for animals and fights will become more common.  Look at meercats for example.  hey are tribal and they are very violent towards each other to claim territory and will kill the young of other tribes if they can to be dominant.  They are not the only species that do this.

So here we get to it.  You have no problem about wiping out whole species.  You have no problem about forced genetic manipulation of the human race.  Before you were talking about the pain and suffering of individual animals being torn apart by carnivores but now it's not about individuals, their interests and their well-being.  You didn't actually answer my question Adriano.  What if the human race doesn't want what you are proposing? What are you going to do, put us all in concentration camps?  Oh but wait you aren't worried about that because humans can still have their factory farms in your model so you won't have to face up to the challenge.

You know you remind me of a popular British comedian who comes to Melbourne for our annual comedy festival  One time he was talking about global warming and he said 'No you don't have to worry about what we're doing. It's not us, IT'S THE SUN!'

You don't happen to work for Monsanto do you Adriano? 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Thanks, Lynne! 

I agree with what you suggest our fight/aims should be. The problem seems to be that in making these things our focus, we would have to address the difficult topic of human overpopulation, and it seems that many advocates are not willing to address this problem or admit that this might be the root of all of the other problems. 

As per usual, the oceans seem to be conveniently ignored when speaking about other animals and ecosystems.  As you said, the vast majority of ocean animals are predators. It seems ridiculous to suggest our goal should be to eliminate predation, or predators, whilst ignoring most of the predators on the planet. 

Lynne Yates said:

Hi Carolyn!  I totally agree with you. I cannot believe that that animal rights advocates can suggest we interfere with the lives of free-living animals. THe eradication of predators and scavenges would rid the oceans of the vast majority of its animals. The great wales (even those thought to be vegan are not! Krill and half the plankton are free-living animals), dolphins, seal, sea lions, and practically every other mammal would go together with all the sharks and about 40% of all fish species.  The number of invertebrates that are carnivorous is staggering. The open oceans would be barren! I could do a similar audit for land animals but is too depressing.

I have been a Vegan for over 30 years and state that my religion is Ethical Veganism on all documents but I would leave the movement tomorrow if I thought that being an advocate for animal rights meant that I was campaigning for the elimination of the Earth's ecosystems. 

There is one species on this planet that needs controlling - humans. They are the ones who wilfully and knowingly harm sentient beings including there own kind.  Our fight should be to persuade all humans to become Vegans, to reduce human populations, learn to respects all free-living organisms and give back land to allow natural ecosystems can re-establish themselves.  Finally we should take from the Earth as little as possible and leave nature to take care of itself!

[David Pearce]

Just a quick technical note. The nature of a food chain - with the useful energy loss at each "trophic level"
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level ) - 
means that members of "prey" species outnumber predators on land, sea and air alike.
These bland terms from ecology hide a multitude of horrors.

[Rob Brevendt]

Isn't it ironic that those who make the boldest claims about us "never" (!) being able to understand enough of how the environment works seem to be ignorant even of the basics of what we already do know?

Every further problem that is listed is an argument to set up big research programs in order to figure out whether there's something we can do about it. We've only had some 400 years of technolgical progress - and innumerable "miraculous" technologies have been developed and implemented on large scales. If there's one lesson to be learned from just 400 years, it's this: The "impossible" very often becomes possible and then actual. And there's even better news: As David has shown, we can already anticipate the technologies that are likely to help us do the trick.

Again, there are many more wild animals than there are animals in factory farms (http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-nature.html), by several orders of magnitude. Due to wasteful reproduction strategies, the vast majority of wild animals die gruesome deaths as children already. And therefore there is even more suffering in nature than in factory farms.

There will not be less space. As I said: Ignorant of what we know and what we can to already. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunocontraception#In_animals

There is no problem with a species going extinct because species don't have rights. A species cannot suffer nor can it die. Individuals can and individuals do have rights. But the number of species in the world doesn't matter ethically. What matters is that the individuals that do exist have good lives and that their rights are protected.

I reject the forced genetic enhancement of humans. But I do insist on my and our personal right to do it voluntarily and ethically. Whoever rejects this right is claiming ownership over other people's bodies for no objective reason (such as that they are causing others to suffer). That's fascism.

It's always about individuals and their well-being (or rather their non-suffering).

What if our fellow humans don't want to abolish factory farms? Are we going to put them in concentration camps? Of course not. We're going to do non-violent activism, educate them about the problem and the vegan solution and thereby try to change their attitude and behaviour. And the exact same thing is to be done with regard to the transhumanist or the broader transanimalist cause including compassionate intervention in nature.

Factory farms must, of course, be abolished (and should be our main current political focus); and Monsanto's business practices are revolting. But that doesn't change the fact that genetic engineering has great ethical potential, as should be evident to any thinking person.

[Kerry Baker]

Adriano and David.  Firstly, you assume that those of us who have challenged your view of how things should be do so because we in some way romanticise nature.  Not so.  I am very well aware of what goes on in the wild and I suspect so are those who have objected to your suggestions for wildlife management.  There are significant flaws in your posts which you seem not to be aware of.  In a nutshell;

1. You wish to eliminate speciesism but the only way you have identified to do that is to completely extirminate whole species

2. Your reasons for doing this are because of the manner in which they are killed

3. Your later posts say it is not about species but about individual rights, but you make absolutely no mention of the individual rights of the carnivores which should be included in consideration of animal rights

4. The only animal you exempt from this discussion is humans, who are alone responsible the cruelty and torture of billions of animals and birds, and uncounted casualties that are not included in these calculations (for example, male day old chicks thrown alive into grinders only because they can't lay eggs)

5. You insist that however factory farmed and other animals humans are responsible for cruelly treating and killing, this number is dwarfed by the numbers being killed in the wild.  Well where is your evidence and quantification?  This is what one would expect from any scientific journal article rather than the blanket unusbstantiated statements you have been making throughout this discussion

6. You offer no explanation for how to manage the ecosystem, despite there having been evidence to show what happens when top order predators are extirminated, other than yet more genetic engineering

7. You don't explain how the planet will be able to sustain sufficient space and vegetation if the only ones left after your holocaust are herbivores

8. You are quite prepared to grant humans the opportunities to evolve towards more compassionate ways of life, but you deny this to any other species to allow them to evolve

As I understand other concerns expressed, and certainly my own, is that there is no justification in this level of meddling in the genetic makeup of animals to the point of extirmination. Carnivores have very unpleasant ways of killing that is understood.  But they don't completely kill off a whole species in the doing of it.

As has been said so many times guys, we humans are the greatest criminals of all when it comes to cruelty and horrendous treatment of animals. It's us you should be trying to change. It isn't only about factory farms although they are horror stories enough. it's also about people deliberately driving a car over a lizard trying to cross the road, or slowly torturing an animal to death for the enjoyment of their sick friends over the internet, or making 'crush movies' for the pornography trade and the list goes on.

The reasons why you haven't convinced anybody is because you are demonstrating speciesism and trying to rationalise it to suit your own belief system. An argument looked at from a different angle to yours is not uninformed, just based on different concerns.  You have no idea about animal rights at all because you are too steeped in your superiority to truly care. Your desire to stop cruelty in the wild is admirable, but for every upside there are a dozen downsides.  It's called impact analysis and is what is missing from your proposal. But if you ever get to the point of trying to destroy the whales, or the big cats, or the arctic fox or any of the other predators, you will have to do it literally over my dead body because I will die rather than allow species fascists like yourself to do this harm. And I suspect there will be several million environmentalists and animal rights activists on the front lines as well.  

[Rob Brevendt]

You manifestly have not understood our position and arguments. Nor have you bothered to read David Pearce's and Oscar Horta's papers, which give you the "evidence and quantification". Some of it was included here as well, but you have chosen to ignore it. All your points, from 1 to 8, are flawed or based on flawed assumptions and misrepresentations that have already been pointed out to you.

[Rob Brevendt]

(Actually, the fact that you're willing to take up arms and violate our rights shows at least some consequentialist-utilitarian spirit!)

[Kerry Baker]

Adriano, go away and come back when you have a model that will not involve the slaughter of several billion individuals so you can get rid of species that you don't like.  make sure you have addressed the ecosystem so that it will be able to support a world filled with herbivores.  And most importantly, find a way to stop human animals inflicting the most abhorrent violence and cruelties on other species for no reason other than the ignorant belief that animals are in some way beneath us and that they don't have feelings like we do. Then you will have some credibility because at the moment what you are suggesting has nothing to do with animal rights.

Adriano Mannino said:

(Actually, the fact that you're willing to take up arms and violate our rights shows at least some consequentialist-utilitarian spirit!)