Protest/Demo/installation for animals

[auroraglacialis]

Photos from an amazing demo in Madrid, Spain. | Facebook

Demonstration against speciesism. All the animal corpses were gathered from the bins at slaughterhouses or fur farms....the activists and the public could not help crying.

[Raptor]

What's wrong with speciesism? Isn't that inherently programmed into us by evolution to help us survive. Hell, every species exhibit speciesism.

Of course, if we take the life of another animal, we should do so humanely. But I feel that arguing against speciesism doesn't make sense.

[Aquaplant]

I don't want to open that link...

[auroraglacialis]

I think its more about how we do treat these animals - slaughterhouses and factory farms and all that. Plus senseless killing.


For me personally, I do not think humans should not kill any other being - life and death are sisters. All other animals kill as well - they eat or use others for their offspring, their homes. But no other species I know of kills the same way as humans do - on a massive industrial scale after a lot of suffering and in some cases for fashion or fun even.

Speciesism is to me like racism or sexism in definition.
It makes a difference if someone employs a person of african descent just like any other person, if one desires love with a partner - or if one treats the other like a "negro" or a "****". So I also would make that distinction between treating other species respectful, as having a value by themselves and take only what I need - or to abuse them.

In any case - that installation/protest is a pretty strong image...

[Raptor]

The problem is, because they are of a different species, they aren't our equal. Perhaps they take an equal role in the ecosystem, but they simply can't be treated equally. Comparing racism and speciesism is just too far.

In addition, in some cases, we may have to kill animals for the good of their species and for the environment. For example, if a certain species is overpopulating the ecosystem, they can wreak havoc and destroy their environment and themselves in the process. I value the welfare of a species more than the welfare of an individual of that species.

That said, we should not be abusive to other animals, but that doesn't mean we should treat them in the same way we treat humans.

[Marvellous Chester]

Very sad indeed, we show such savagery towards each other so it's no surprise to see other beasts being abused in similar ways Speciesism is a vile thing, everybody should see these pictures but as ever some will closer their eyes to the problem and say 'If I can't see it, it isn't happening'

Raptor, I would argue (and correct me if this is wrong) that species only overpopulate and destroy their environment when their predators are taken away by humans, much like the fast expanding deer population in Britain. If we'd just leave things alone, everything would work as nature intended forever.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

For me personally, I do not think humans should not kill any other being

Excuse me, but genetic and chemical engineering is hard. Come back in a few decades, we'll have moved on by then.

Originally Posted by The Silver Stag

If we'd just leave things alone, everything would work as nature intended forever.

Humans are not, contrary to apperances, the only thing which alter the environment substantially. Also, nature intending anything is, IMO, your own anthropomorphization; an "entity" that is not self-aware cannot intend anything.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by The Silver Stag

Very sad indeed, we show such savagery towards each other so it's no surprise to see other beasts being abused in similar ways Speciesism is a vile thing, everybody should see these pictures but as ever some will closer their eyes to the problem and say 'If I can't see it, it isn't happening'

Raptor, I would argue (and correct me if this is wrong) that species only overpopulate and destroy their environment when their predators are taken away by humans, much like the fast expanding deer population in Britain. If we'd just leave things alone, everything would work as nature intended forever.

I have to disagree with you.

First off, speciesism is inherently programmed into most animals. An animal will value a member of its own species more than other animals. Why should we be different? Speciesism isn't the same as animal abuse. For example, I think it's fine to test in animals for medical research, as long as the experiments are done ethically to minimize the suffering of the animal.

Although we have our share of fault for destroying numerous environments, we're not the sole cause. Also, do realize that we ourselves are predators, so we aren't independent from the ecosystem. Taking away humans may upset the balance of the ecosystem, because in some cases, there are no other predators to take our place.

I don't believe that any species is superior or inferior, as they all have their roles in the ecosystem (except those damn mosquitoes ). But that doesn't mean all species should be treated in the same manner.

[Advent]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Excuse me, but genetic and chemical engineering is hard. Come back in a few decades, we'll have moved on by then.

And then what? We'll eventually be demonstrating about the ethics of that. Humans are generally senseless in the grand scheme of things. If you don't want animals slaughtered, don't eat them.

[Tsyal Makto]

I have no problem with killing animals for food (we did originate from hunter-gatherer groups, after all). The problem is the absolute amount of waste and cruelty in the modern, mass-production meat industry. If you want proof of this just go watch videos like Food Inc or Meet Your Meat. Not to mention how we are overfishing and depleting the oceans for fish. We, as a species, need to either increase the efficiency of use of the animals we kill (just like our ancestors), or eat less meat altogether (which, animal welfare aside, and given the environmental load of meat production, is probably the ideal option). Preferably we can do both of these.

As for fur apparel, nothing can justify killing an animal for fur alone, IMO. It's completely unnatural, no animal kills another animal just for it's pelt. The only way fur farming can be justified, IMO, is if the rest of the animal is put to use, just as tribes use every bit of the animals they kill.

The emotional disconnect from our food also plays a major role in this. We need to somehow put the sacredness back into the animals we kill and the food we get from them, as our ancestors have. We will never truly be able to find harmony with nature again until we put the emotional and holistic value back into it.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I have no problem with killing animals for food (we did originate from hunter-gatherer groups, after all). The problem is the absolute amount of waste and cruelty in the modern, mass-production meat industry. If you want proof of this just go watch videos like Food Inc or Meet Your Meat. Not to mention how we are overfishing and depleting the oceans for fish. We, as a species, need to either increase the efficiency of use of the animals we kill (just like our ancestors), or eat less meat altogether (which, animal welfare aside, and given the environmental load of meat production, is probably the ideal option). Preferably we can do both of these.

I'm starting to think there isn't any problem less people wouldn't fix

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

or eat less meat altogether

[Marvellous Chester]

Originally Posted by Raptor

I have to disagree with you.

First off, speciesism is inherently programmed into most animals. An animal will value a member of its own species more than other animals. Why should we be different? Speciesism isn't the same as animal abuse. For example, I think it's fine to test in animals for medical research, as long as the experiments are done ethically to minimize the suffering of the animal.

Although we have our share of fault for destroying numerous environments, we're not the sole cause. Also, do realize that we ourselves are predators, so we aren't independent from the ecosystem. Taking away humans may upset the balance of the ecosystem, because in some cases, there are no other predators to take our place.

I don't believe that any species is superior or inferior, as they all have their roles in the ecosystem (except those damn mosquitoes ). But that doesn't mean all species should be treated in the same manner.

Hmm I would argue that experimenting on animals is abuse regardless of whether or not he/she suffers but we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess I appreciate that every species wants to put it's own species first although I still wish as supposedly compassionate and intelligent humans, we'd treat the other animals much better than we do.

Originally Posted by Clarke

Humans are not, contrary to apperances, the only thing which alter the environment substantially. Also, nature intending anything is, IMO, your own anthropomorphization; an "entity" that is not self-aware cannot intend anything.

Oh big words I think the problem here is you are a sciency type who sees Nature as .... well I don't know and I'm not so I see her as a entity or being who is aware. But I've no wish to take this thread off course so that's all I say.

[Raptor]

Well, we don't have an Eywa here on Earth. Our nature isn't an entity and doesn't have "awareness." I treat it as a system that has a very fine balance to keep its inhabitants thriving. You can feel spiritual about nature, and as you said, we can agree to disagree.

As a side note, if we don't test on other animals, who do we test on? Other humans?

[ZenitYerkes]

Self-awareness isn't a quality like color or size, it's not anything to do with the senses but the conclusions we draw from our own appreciation and feelings towards the world we see.

This is called empathy.

While some aren't capable of any, some feel it towards any other living being to the point of making others' pain theirs. It's not wrong, but I can't say you can make any decisive and conclusive stand from empathy (or the lack of it).