swampman posted:Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying
by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.
jansenist_drugstore posted:Petrol posted:swampman posted:Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying
by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.
again its not about the 'worthiness of women', but about animals being as worthy and as deserving of care and comradely assistance as you or anyone else is. it is completely necessary for animal advocacy because animal advocacy is refusing to ignore the life and suffering of living things
it is perfectly possible to care for non-human life without dehumanising people. and to be clear i am NOT saying it's necessary to choose one or the other to care about, or that caring about animals is a mere indulgence while humans still suffer. it becomes a matter of the 'worthiness of women' when specific claims are made about the welfare of female animals being a feminist issue. feminism is about the rights and dignity of women, and the equality of all humans. to bring cows or any other non-humans into it is fucking gross.
swampman posted:Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types,
Yes it can be, because all those systems of control are distinct in purpose, method, and history. Also, if you want to eliminate empire's control over these things that's terrific, but patriarchy and human domination over other animals predate capitalism. They can outlive it as well.
If we want to look at this issue as communists, then we have to look at it from the proletarian point of view. Animals are not a part of the proletariat, only humans are. We know that ending factory farming is good because it is in the interest of the proletariat to avoid climate apocalypse. I think compassion for animals is very important to be a good person, but I can't place animals on the same level as humans. I think that, at least for now while the majority of humans are brutally exploited, the interests of animals can only be addressed as far as it benefits the oppressed class of humans.
Petrol posted:swampman posted:Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying
by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.
No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit
of course, the horizon of morality is determined in the last instance by the development of production. vegetarianism as a universal practice probably hasn't been thinkable for very long, in the context of the whole arc of history. but as we develop, and as our picture of harmonious and empathetic sociality continues to extend outward from kin to tribe to nation to species to mammals to animals, it's not hard to imagine a point where this familial regard will expand to encompass plants, as well.
hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.
i'm scratching my head to think of what the horizon after that would be, because i'm cursed to live in this fuckin depressing stretch of prehistory right here. it's all just blurry shapes on a cave wall.
swampman posted:Petrol posted:swampman posted:Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying
by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.
No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit
swampman posted:...the same respect...can't be separated...all of a kind...
all in the context of defending the inclusion of animal welfare among feminist issues. so it's fine to backpedal now but you did not even imply a distinction in that post
colddays posted:So to say that an animal reproductive system which functions in an analogous manner is "female biology" isn't right.
For the mammals we've been discussing it pretty much is
Even if we accept a vagina and uterus to be "female biology" in all mammals, in what way does that link human and animal "females" as being exploited in the same way?
Control over social reproduction is control over resource production and biological reproduction
Animals don't live in the human patriarchy.
Yes they do
The exploitation of women isn't inextricably tied to the exploitation of animals.
Dialectical materialism indicates that all things are inextricably tied together
Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types,
Yes it can be, because all those systems of control are distinct in purpose, method, and history.
No they aren't
Also, if you want to eliminate empire's control over these things that's terrific, but patriarchy and human domination over other animals predate capitalism.
They caused it
They can outlive it as well.
Not really. The only way to defeat capitalism, in fact, is to create a world where no relationship can be defined as domination.
If we want to look at this issue as communists, then we have to look at it from the proletarian point of view. Animals are not a part of the proletariat, only humans are.
If you read that recent Sakai book, you'll know that in many places and times, the number of "proletariat" was not always sufficient to create a true mass base for successful revolution. The example of the PRC revolution showed that harmony between workers, lumpen and nature was required to overturn society.
We know that ending factory farming is good because it is in the interest of the proletariat to avoid climate apocalypse.
You cannot pursue a negative like this. End factory farming, and do what instead? Something that enables Amerikans to keep up the pace of steaks? The alternative to factory farming, without massive adoption of vegetarianism and near-vegetarianism in the imperial core, is we turn Brazil into a ranch. I think they are already doing that anyway.
I think compassion for animals is very important to be a good person,
And to defeat Empire
but I can't place animals on the same level as humans.
Good, because that would require a belief in bourgeois "equality"
I think that, at least for now while the majority of humans are brutally exploited, the interests of animals can only be addressed as far as it benefits the oppressed class of humans.
Sorry, that's incorrect
Constantignoble posted:vegetarianism as a universal practice probably hasn't been thinkable for very long, in the context of the whole arc of history.
Not entirely sure what you mean by this but, yes it has
Constantignoble posted:hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.
i have some problems with techno-fetishist solutions to entrenched social problems
Petrol posted:swampman posted:Petrol posted:swampman posted:Animals should be treated with the same respect that we would also like to see extended to humans if we had any say in the matter. Empire's control of bodies and reproduction can't be separated into plant, animal and human types, they are all of a kind, extending from raw materials to microbes to goats to your mother. So recognize that female biology is exploited across class, race, and species, or die trying
by your logic a woman is no more worthy of care and comradely assistance than a cow, or indeed a 'female' plant. what dehumanising nonsense. i repeat that this is totally unnecessary for animal advocacy.
No, they are all worthy of care according to their needs... Where did I bring up this "equality" shit
swampman posted:...the same respect...can't be separated...all of a kind...
all in the context of defending the inclusion of animal welfare among feminist issues. so it's fine to backpedal now but you did not even imply a distinction in that post
There is no distinction in the concept of respect. They all deserve respect which is a binary quality in the context of actual fucking love care and nurture. You either respect something or you don't really respect it. Do you think I'm saying pigs and humans should live in the same conditions and like, eat the same things? No, we have an equal duty to each not to degrade and dominate them and cause them to suffer, and to create conditions that enable their happiness. And if you're willing to look away from the suffering and slaughter of animals you're preparing yourself to look away from the suffering and slaughter of those who can be sold to you as animals.
swampman posted:Not entirely sure what you mean by this but, yes it has
i mean like, the period where we've had tractors and such to boost farm production without relying on yoking oxen is teensy considering the ~10,000 years of human history, let alone the quarter-million or so years homo sapiens have been mucking things up.
but this is far from a specialty, so if you got good reads on it shoot 'em my way
Caesura109 posted:eating a potato may be gratuitous in a thousand years, but if there isn't anything lost in doing so beyond the plants functionality as a complex biological thing.
maybe! but also maybe not. part of the point is that it's a question that doesn't really make sense in our context -- in fact it's borderline absurd. but that stands to reason; it's not our question to answer
i wasn't really planning to dwell too long on far-flung speculation, either way. it's a fun spice, but not the protein, as it were
swampman posted:There is no distinction in the concept of respect. They all deserve respect which is a binary quality in the context of actual fucking love care and nurture. You either respect something or you don't really respect it.
Tautology aside, this is surely false. Respect is a matter of degree. Consider humans alone for a moment. Are all humans equally worthy of respect - of the same degree of respect? All humans regardless of their actions? All classes of human?
swampman posted:Do you think I'm saying pigs and humans should live in the same conditions and like, eat the same things? No, we have an equal duty to each not to degrade and dominate them and cause them to suffer, and to create conditions that enable their happiness. And if you're willing to look away from the suffering and slaughter of animals you're preparing yourself to look away from the suffering and slaughter of those who can be sold to you as animals.
This argument is a mess. No, I obviously don't think you're saying pigs should live in luxury apartments or whatever. But I am saying that while I may have some duty of care to all creatures, my duty differs between species just as it differs between members of my own species. This is in no way a slippery slope.
Even in the act of lining capitalists against a wall and gunning them down there is respect, they die quickly, and the possibility of life continuing to exist through the end of the century goes way, way up. Revolutionaries didn't gleefully execute people, they did it to survive. There is a duty of care to Henry Kissinger which is to chuck him straight into the lava without delaying a second to waste your spit on his eye. If someone does spit in it though, I won't mind as much as I do if they eat a ham sandwich.
animedad posted:a rare rhizzone thread that is correct
Caesura109 posted:hell, it's the year 18409, the creatures that are speciologically R-related (S-related?) to humans now absorb energy through biotech photosynthesis and and some kind of gravity-wave induction, and we transform stray particles in the air into nutrients via dermal dry nanomachine colonies. eating plants just seems gratuitous -- barbaric, even.
I don't know that i find it entirely reasonable to empathize with all life forms including plants. Why should one feel that destroying a plants life is meaningful at all? Just because its driven by some biochemical processes to grow and reproduce, and you are ending that?Most animals have infinitely more complex systems capable of feeling pain and pleasure the same way we do, which is why we empathize with them. We're social animals like they are, to different extents. Plants and such might as well be little automata to me. The value of their preservation is only important in as much as it props up complex life and earth systems. So yeah eating a potato may be gratuitous in a thousand years, but if there isn't anything lost in doing so beyond the plants functionality as a complex biological thing...
Edited by Caesura109 (today 15:56:52)
it's worth noting that arguments like 'animals have nervous systems and plants don't' aren't actually very meaningful because lots of contemporary research into plant physiology has shown that plants in fact do have systems analogous to the function of nervous systems in animals, they're not automatons at all. they're certainly not 'less complex' than animals(and invoking 'complexity' is a very thorny thing in biology anyway). of course cutting part of a plant off isn't the same as cutting an animal's limb off because of the modular way that they're put together, and probably the concept of pain is relatively meaningless when you're talking about a plant, but you have to be careful what arguments you use here.
swampman posted:Why are you still trying to argue with me when you almost understand what I'm saying. You are saying that your duty of care does not extend to preventing the death and suffering of some things that can experience death and suffering, full and vivid the way you yourself can. Well actually it does.
Even in the act of lining capitalists against a wall and gunning them down there is respect, they die quickly, and the possibility of life continuing to exist through the end of the century goes way, way up. Revolutionaries didn't gleefully execute people, they did it to survive. There is a duty of care to Henry Kissinger which is to chuck him straight into the lava without delaying a second to waste your spit on his eye. If someone does spit in it though, I won't mind as much as I do if they eat a ham sandwich.
You're wilfully misconstruing I'm saying and it's not cute. I wasn't talking about wanting to do violence to anyone, I was illustrating the point respect and duty of care are matters of degree, and you seem to understand my point and agree somewhere under the snark. And I certainly was not "saying that your duty of care does not extend to preventing the death and suffering of some things", but rather that my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous. If you think that's tantamount to saying animals are worthless then it is probably not worth continuing the discussion.
Caesura109 posted:wait is this just response to stimuli that we are talking about? Because I don't think I can empathize if they don't even have a nervous system. or do they have like a proto-nervous system? how could we tell?
behold: everything alive has complex emotions and can feel pain, the universe runs on obligatory murder for survival designed by a cruel demiurge who we must kill and eat to escape the cycle. full deicidal cannibal apotheosis now! *every gnostic catholic from every schism, heresy, sect, cult, movement, and heterodoxy come in with everything for a HUGE party*
shriekingviolet posted:the universe runs on obligatory murder for survival
Unsupported by the evidence
Petrol posted:my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous.
It's not more onerous. It's the same oner. We can't free the humans without freeing the animals. Not possible. Hence, all of this splendorous thread.
swampman posted:Petrol posted:my duty towards fellow humans is more onerous.
It's not more onerous. It's the same oner. We can't free the humans without freeing the animals. Not possible. Hence, all of this splendorous thread.
If you're saying our duty toward animals springs from our duty toward humanity then that's not only a different proposition but kind of proves my point.
swampman posted:Unsupported by the evidence
as opposed to the cruel demiurge, which everyone knows is real. that's fair! point: swampman.
vegetarianism is correct and the industrial slaughter of animals is an atrocity.
Caesura109 posted:is personal experience with animals a big factors into why many go vegetarian? because i know only two types, very health conscious older people and people who a close connection with animals.
i don't think an argument can really be made for a personal emotional empathy with animals as the causa causans of vegetarianism, people who consider themselves animal lovers rationalize the brutalization of animals all the time
https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/meat-is-for-assholes/