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.
------

[Bonn1997]

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Rob Brevendt]

No, the average lifespan would be 1000, because the annual death rate of 30-year-olds is 1 in 1000.

[Rob Brevendt]

Oh and by the way, I'm devoting half of my practical life to the spread of anti-speciesism and veganism and to the abolition of factory farms. But of course, I know nothing about what I'm doing and "animal rights and stopping cruelty is the last thing I am interested in". And you have no way of knowing whether I do even exist or whether I'm just a spamming program.

True. What's also true is that I have no way of knowing whether you're writing this from home or from the computer room of a mental hospital.

[Kerry Baker]

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Rob Brevendt]

We don't have to tweak humanity's genome in order for it to be able to live on a vegan diet. What we have to do is change humanity's attitudes toward other animals.

If we were obligate carnivores, we would be advocating the careful use of genetic engineering in order to enable us to go vegan. And again, the only effective thing to achieve this starting from a minority view would be to try to changes people's attitudes as fast as possible. (Though that would be an even more difficult task than the one we are in fact facing.)

So no: We are absolutely not treating humans differently in any speciesist sense.

[Bonn1997]

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Kerry Baker]

Bonn, extirmination has been acknowledged in earlier posts by your colleagues.

Bonn1997 said:

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Bonn1997]

What? I'm my own person. I'm not gonna pick posters to label as your "colleagues," Kerry, and then use their statements in my replies to you. That's ridiculous.

Bonn1997 said:

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Kerry Baker]

If you are in disagreement with David and Adriano, and I assume Lukas about this, then I welcome your recognition that extirmination is not the solution. The problem however remains that a number of species will have to be extirminated to achieve what has been proposed, as many will for various reasons not survive in their environments, or because they are physiologically not suited to consuming vegetation. And the domino effect on the ecosystem will cause serious problems.

Bonn1997 said:

What? I'm my own person. I'm not gonna pick posters to label as your "colleagues," Kerry, and then use their statements in my replies to you. That's ridiculous.

Bonn1997 said:

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Bonn1997]

You can't possibly know that. There are an infinite number of possibilities. Maybe 100 million years from now we'll be able to give carnivores a time released pill that gives them all the nutrients they need. Right now, the only thing that needs to be addressed is whether it's worthwhile to improve well-being in nature by altruistically intervening. If the answer is yes to that, then we need to devote resources to figure out how to do so.

Kerry Baker said:

If you are in disagreement with David and Adriano, and I assume Lukas about this, then I welcome your recognition that extirmination is not the solution. The problem however remains that a number of species will have to be extirminated to achieve what has been proposed, as many will for various reasons not survive in their environments, or because they are physiologically not suited to consuming vegetation. And the domino effect on the ecosystem will cause serious problems.

Bonn1997 said:

What? I'm my own person. I'm not gonna pick posters to label as your "colleagues," Kerry, and then use their statements in my replies to you. That's ridiculous.

Bonn1997 said:

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Kerry Baker]

Bonn, what has very clearly been suggested is one of either genetic manipulation to change carnivores into vegans, or through immunocontraception to allow the species to die out.

That's why all the fuss and the concerns about the effects on the ecosystems quite apart from the questions about animal rights and the ethics involved. 

I note that scientists have recently produced artificial meat, that is meat that was grown in a laboratory, which I think bodes well for the future particularly with regard to humans and companion animals. If a solution were found that would feed animals but let them be as they are in their native state, I would be greatly interested to see if it would work.

That is not what the arguments have been about. Now that you have declared yourself as opposed to extirmination I remove any inference that I include you in comments targeted to those that have been made by Adriano and David in particular. An intelligent discussion about ways we can feed carnivores without the need for the kill would I think be a far more productive way to progress this thread. My only concern that being the case would be to figure out how to maintain a healthy ecosystem once natural predation removed would result in growth in numbers of lower order animals that would need to be sustained by the environment. I think that would be achievable.

Thanks for your last two posts.

Bonn1997 said:

You can't possibly know that. There are an infinite number of possibilities. Maybe 100 million years from now we'll be able to give carnivores a time released pill that gives them all the nutrients they need. Right now, the only thing that needs to be addressed is whether it's worthwhile to improve well-being in nature by altruistically intervening. If the answer is yes to that, then we need to devote resources to figure out how to do so.

Kerry Baker said:

If you are in disagreement with David and Adriano, and I assume Lukas about this, then I welcome your recognition that extirmination is not the solution. The problem however remains that a number of species will have to be extirminated to achieve what has been proposed, as many will for various reasons not survive in their environments, or because they are physiologically not suited to consuming vegetation. And the domino effect on the ecosystem will cause serious problems.

Bonn1997 said:

What? I'm my own person. I'm not gonna pick posters to label as your "colleagues," Kerry, and then use their statements in my replies to you. That's ridiculous.

Bonn1997 said:

You guys keep using the word "exterminate" as if you think I'm advocating that for any species even though I keep correcting you.

Kerry Baker said:

Bonn, because your argument is that humans should be treated differently. You are not advocating extirminating humans because we are in the majority carnivorous.

Bonn1997 said:

"I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species."

Can you provide a reason why it's a different discussion? (Note that I have not argued for the elimination of species anyway.) Both deal with our interventions in nature. There is no prima facie reason why they have to be separate discussions.

Kerry Baker said:

I am pointing out that humans exact the greater toll when it comes to killing.  That's a different discussion than the genetic manipulation of animals in nature, which is about extirminating whole species.  Humans have developed social systems and methodologies that completely disregard animals, for example encroachment on native habitat. We are the greater evil.

Bonn1997 said:

I do not follow your argument. I argued that humans intentionally cause substantial avoidable harm to animals through their selfish interventions in nature. And you concluded that that means we should not focus on animals in nature?

Kerry Baker said:

All the more reason to focus on humans and leave animals alone.  However, the point about accidents is correct.  It has been estimated for example that if medical science gets to the point of being able to make humans live forever, the average lifespan would be around 200 years because an accident will finally kill you.

Bonn1997 said:

It is known in advance that your lawn mower will painfully shred insects. It's a mistake to use the word "unintentional" here. "Selfish" is the proper word.

Brandon Becker said:

Unintentionally killing animals by stepping on them when walking or other similar behavior is dissimilar to intentionally forcibly sterilizing every carnivore and other non-herbivore on the planet in the interest of creating your transhumanist techno-dystopia. That's not the kind of "global veganism" I work for and there's nothing "compassionate" about this fascist eugenics program.

[Bonn1997]

Wait, you're putting words in my mouth. I still don't know what you mean by "extermination" and definitely haven't declared an opposition to anything Adriano and David have mentioned. I thought you were obsessed with the idea of genetic tweaking (I think that's what you mean by "extermination") even though that's only one of many paths being discussed.