Life In 19x19

I felt bad about the extent to which I've derailed foe's thread so I'm creating this thread to relocate the animal rights discussion that was going on there. I do have more to say on the subject but for now I just wanted to start this thread to make sure no further damage is done to that one. (Sorry foe )

Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Well, if you want a discussion, how about starting with this? make sure you watch the video.

http://www.care2.com/causes/should-anim ... id=4666836

logan wrote:..... However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

You will find some discussion of this in "environmental ethics" books.

But when you say "convey the relationship" that implies that there is a relationship to be conveyed. While it is true that sometimes "animal ethics" folks and "environmental" folks will find themselves of the same side in some particular battle they just as often (or even more often) find themselves on opposite sides of another. That's because their basis is close to entirely different.

The "animal ethics" folks begin with considering the issues from the point of view of individual actually living organisms. Collective entities such as species or even entire ecosystems are not actual living beings and so not of concern except to the extent that an individual animal "gotta have a habitat to carry on" << from a children's environmental song >>

The "environmental" folks begin with consideration of the entire ecosystem and from that point of view the life of any individual organism in it isn't important. They are concerned with the health, integrity, well being, etc. of the community of life but that is not the same things as being concerned about the particular fate of any living being in it.

It is a problem for these communities to devise means out how they might be able to work together on some issues while recognizing that they will be opposed on others. The demand (usually coming from the animal ethics side) that "you have to join our religion" isn't going to work.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry for making a thread and basically just abandoning it; I do have things to say but I'm really busy at the moment so it will have to wait.

logan wrote:Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Could you recommend some things worth reading? I've never really read much that isn't simply propaganda and would really like to get a better handle on these issues.

Mike Novack wrote:But when you say "convey the relationship" that implies that there is a relationship to be conveyed. While it is true that sometimes "animal ethics" folks and "environmental" folks will find themselves of the same side in some particular battle they just as often (or even more often) find themselves on opposite sides of another. That's because their basis is close to entirely different.

The "animal ethics" folks begin with considering the issues from the point of view of individual actually living organisms. Collective entities such as species or even entire ecosystems are not actual living beings and so not of concern except to the extent that an individual animal "gotta have a habitat to carry on" << from a children's environmental song >>

The "environmental" folks begin with consideration of the entire ecosystem and from that point of view the life of any individual organism in it isn't important. They are concerned with the health, integrity, well being, etc. of the community of life but that is not the same things as being concerned about the particular fate of any living being in it.

It is a problem for these communities to devise means out how they might be able to work together on some issues while recognizing that they will be opposed on others. The demand (usually coming from the animal ethics side) that "you have to join our religion" isn't going to work.

There's a very important relationship between the two and I think your dichotomisation is far too simplistic; how can the animal ethics folks ignore the impact that environmental issues have on countless individuals? And are all environmentalists motivated simply by the desire to protect human habitats, or do they care about those we share it with? Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

Splatted wrote: Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore they create a divide between meat eaters and people who like just a little bit of meat wherever they go, so much so that you can't order a slice of pizza with both meat and vegetables, it has to be one or the other.

I personally try to use natural and naturally renewable products whenever possible, the way I see it creates economic incentive to manage natural resources, it is a tricky proposition, because these days you really don't know how things were done. For example, I wanted to build a live edge head board for my bed, I went with a slab from a dead fall walnut, however while looking for some lumber there are any number of places that will sell old growth rain forest products. OK so by purchasing large slabs you put an incentive on growing large trees, but that's not the way it works, because they aren't replacing them. Then you look at rain forest and it looks like they are wontonly destroying it, but then you look a little deeper and it turns out people in the amazon had been terraforming the amazon for eons, slashing and burning creates terra preta, "black earth", and the rain forest only really exists where they had slashed and burned in the first place, it's just that they are doing it on an industrial scale, and there are unintended side effects and consequences like extinctions. On the other end you have farm raised trees, is mono cropping a good idea, it's hard to say, but returns on forest investment are some of the fastest growing assets, and you can get into them at any stage from investing in the land to, buying out ready to harvest timber to let it mature for that premium in large trees.

Edited for spelling ipad doesn't like wontonly.

SmoothOper wrote:I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico.

I am not totally vegan (although I have had spells of it) but I am vegetarian and I will not knowingly use any animal products in my clothes or in life in general except for a little non-rBST cheese and local free-range eggs. I generate most of my own power, grow most of my own food, and try to buy locally when I cannot grow it. I cut my own firewood and try to do it sustainably. My one concession, forced upon my by the need to have health insurance, is that my commute is longer than I would like it to be, but I do go into work only 100 days a year.

I do not think I could separate any parts of this lifestyle. To me being environmentally conscious goes hand in hand with being aware of the sentient nature of all other creatures and trying to avoid harm to them.

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

Splatted wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry for making a thread and basically just abandoning it; I do have things to say but I'm really busy at the moment so it will have to wait.

logan wrote:Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Could you recommend some things worth reading? I've never really read much that isn't simply propaganda and would really like to get a better handle on these issues.

You can start with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) for environmental ethics and Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) for animal ethics. They form the foundation of modern discourse in their respective fields, so they're important to at least have an awareness of. To this extent you'll be fine reading each of them in an afternoon.

For secondary source introductions you can look into:
Animals & Ethics, 3E (2009) by Taylor
Ethics & Animals: An Introduction (2011) by Gruen
Environmental Ethics, 5E (2012) by Des Jardins

If you have someone to work with you, then you can look into some of these primary source anthologies:
Animal Rights: Current Debates & New Directions (2005) by Nussbaum & Sunstein
The Animal Ethics Reader, 2E (2008) by Armstrong & Botzler
Environmental Ethics, 6E (2011) by Pojman
Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (2010) by Keller

tj86430 wrote:What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

Simple. All animals would be herbivores.

DrStraw wrote:

tj86430 wrote:What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

Simple. All animals would be herbivores.

And have huge population crashes when they overeat their food source. Predators play a vital role in maintaining the health of herbivores as species, and sometimes as individuals by culling the sick.

SmoothOper wrote:

Splatted wrote: Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore they create a divide between meat eaters and people who like just a little bit of meat wherever they go, so much so that you can't order a slice of pizza with both meat and vegetables, it has to be one or the other.

You may need to change where you buy your pizza but you raise some good points. Speaking as a vegan I agree that the separation that exists between those that eat meat and those that don't is not completely helpful. It does serve the purpose of raising awareness of animal friendly lifestyles, but it definitely alienates a lot of people as well. I wish people would understand that if they want to make a difference then eating almost no meat is almost as good as eating no meat and that many veggies/vegans will happily support anyone who wants to reduce the amount of animal products they consume, even if they aren't willing to go cold turkey.

As for the issue of vegans who embrace fossil fuels, I think that has to be viewed in the same way. Someone who calls themselves a vegan should probably be making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, but the fact that we still do some things that are harmful shouldn't be viewed as a sign of hypocrisy that invalidates our cause. It is hypocritical, but the point is that we're making an effort to reduce the negative impact our lives have on others. It's a step in the right direction and if our standards are a bit lax that just makes it all the easier to join us.

logan wrote:

Splatted wrote:Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry for making a thread and basically just abandoning it; I do have things to say but I'm really busy at the moment so it will have to wait.

logan wrote:Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Could you recommend some things worth reading? I've never really read much that isn't simply propaganda and would really like to get a better handle on these issues.

You can start with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) for environmental ethics and Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) for animal ethics. They form the foundation of modern discourse in their respective fields, so they're important to at least have an awareness of. To this extent you'll be fine reading each of them in an afternoon.

For secondary source introductions you can look into:
Animals & Ethics, 3E (2009) by Taylor
Ethics & Animals: An Introduction (2011) by Gruen
Environmental Ethics, 5E (2012) by Des Jardins

If you have someone to work with you, then you can look into some of these primary source anthologies:
Animal Rights: Current Debates & New Directions (2005) by Nussbaum & Sunstein
The Animal Ethics Reader, 2E (2008) by Armstrong & Botzler
Environmental Ethics, 6E (2011) by Pojman
Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (2010) by Keller

Thanks this really helps.

skydyr wrote:

DrStraw wrote:

tj86430 wrote:What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

Simple. All animals would be herbivores.

And have huge population crashes when they overeat their food source. Predators play a vital role in maintaining the health of herbivores as species, and sometimes as individuals by culling the sick.

Only along the current evolutionary path. Had evolution taken a different course which resulted in the absence of carnivores then almost cetainly it would have taken care of the problem along the way.

Splatted wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Splatted wrote: Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore they create a divide between meat eaters and people who like just a little bit of meat wherever they go, so much so that you can't order a slice of pizza with both meat and vegetables, it has to be one or the other.

You may need to change where you buy your pizza but you raise some good points. Speaking as a vegan I agree that the separation that exists between those that eat meat and those that don't is not completely helpful. It does serve the purpose of raising awareness of animal friendly lifestyles, but it definitely alienates a lot of people as well. I wish people would understand that if they want to make a difference then eating almost no meat is almost as good as eating no meat and that many veggies/vegans will happily support anyone who wants to reduce the amount of animal products they consume, even if they aren't willing to go cold turkey.

As for the issue of vegans who embrace fossil fuels, I think that has to be viewed in the same way. Someone who calls themselves a vegan should probably be making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, but the fact that we still do some things that are harmful shouldn't be viewed as a sign of hypocrisy that invalidates our cause. It is hypocritical, but the point is that we're making an effort to reduce the negative impact our lives have on others. It's a step in the right direction and if our standards are a bit lax that just makes it all the easier to join us.

I don't know, there are a number Vegans I wouldn't walk down the same side of the street as. They seem to have this personal world where they are superior, but then they make some of the worst most energy inefficient and polluting business decisions.