The philosophy of Anarchism has considerable overlap with the Animal Liberation Movement yet there is much debate by people within the respective camps. Both philosophies hold that individuals should be free from the dominion of others but as many Vegans seem to overlook the inconsistency of a state that violates individual rights. Many anarchists overlook the hypocrisy of advocating for the slaughter of non human animals.
Animal rights are the logical extension of human rights. One can not argue for the freedom of one's people without advocating for the freedom of others that are sentient beings but different in appearance and awareness.
Until there is a reconciliation between the two philosophies, which are essentially the same, we do not truly have a freedom movement.
In this video, I delve into the issue of Carnism and why it is not consistent with Anarchist philosophy by dismantling the arguments within a 2015 post made by Larken Rose.
"What Carnists of all types fail to understand is that vegans don’t believe what they do from a utilitarian perspective. Although they realize a non carnist world will do better than a carnist one, veganism is not adopted for a better society, or any other such collectivist notion. The belief in freedom/Ahimsa is philosophical. It is held by all beings with the certain knowledge that they have a right to live their own lives, to pursue their own happiness, and no other man, or groups of men, has any moral right to rule them or impede their individual liberty.
So when you say ‘it won’t work’, it’s entirely irrelevant. There are answers to all your irrational fears about overpopulation, bacon though, lions though. But, they are entirely beside the point. While vegans and vegetarians understand that a vegan world will always outperform one where we slaughter animals we claim to love to appease our base desires, that is not why they believe what they do. Vegans are vegans because it is the only fully moral and non-contradictory position anyone can hold about himself and other human and non human animals". - Vegan Rose ;)
Is it wrong for a lion to eat a gazelle? Biologically we are designed to eat animals too, to reject that, is to reject the natural law. For me it is absurd, however, I respect the vegans, but an anarchic movement that forbids me to eat anything, ceases to be an anarchic movement.
Fail. You're not a lion. Stop trying to justify your actions by what others do. You're biologically designed to be able to survive by eating both plants and animals, not that eating animals is optimal. Go eat only animals and let me know how healthy you are after decades.
I think I'm aware that I'm not a lion, in fact, it seems to me that the vegan posture is the one that is not aware that we are humans, and that humans are omnivorous.
I have not said that only as meat, now, vegans if they plan to eat only vegetables, do you see the irony?
However, I propose the same, go eat only vegetables and let me know how healthy you are after decades.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5168823/Dangers-vegan-diet.html
As I said in my first comment, I respect the vegans, They simply can not respect the rest of the people who decide to eat meat?
Are you sure about this? Sure humans have adapted to consume meat because we've been in places where our ideal food source is not available, though biologically carnivores have shorter and thicker intestines to digest meat compared to humans and other primates with long ones which are made for plants—mostly fruit.
To only apply non-aggression principle/equal freedom rule only toward humans is essentially narrow-minded as what separates humans from other animals? Anarchy means without rulers, so why can humans rule over non-animals; that's a spook.
Everything I have read on this subject seems to indicate that yes, I obviously don't have the absolute truth about anything.
Oh, my understanding of anarchy does not include animals, because it is a government of humans, designed by humans, I never thought of extending the principle of non-aggression to them because we are not the same species. Lions have their rules among lions, do not impose their rules on other species, wolves do not either, that is, they have a collective behavior that governs their species, a natural law that governs their species, but they do not extend their "rules" to other species.
I have not really heard much about this, I like to eat meat, and I think I'll eat meat the rest of my life, on the other hand, I do not force anyone to eat meat, as I said, I respect vegans, I just do not share their vision.
It's quite clear that humans are not designed to eat meat and it's not our species specific diet. Try to going out in the wild and eat meat, versus pick some fruit from a tree; which one you think is more convenient for humans in an ideal circumstance? It seems pretty evident that we didn't evolve in an environment where being a carnivore was viable until we left the tropical forest into the more hostile and less human-food rich savannah. Also, the primary anatomical limitation which distinguishes diets between animals, our digestive tract(short intestines), prove that humans can't digest meat like a carnivore(long intestines, even though we still try to and why humanity is filled with diseases and sickness.
Humans are animals, to believe otherwise is a spook. There is no defining characteristic that separates humans apart from animals that is not based on some dogma. This doesn't mean humans have differences between other animals namely like the huge one between cognition.
It's not natural for these carnivorous animals you mention to have rules of conduct when it's in there nature to rule(eat) others. If you believe humans are the same, than it seems to me that your suggesting that using force, conquest, or exploitation is natural and ok, while freedom is not. Basically, humans are "low level" animals which it's to be expected that they prey and dominate others. Bonobos are closest relative, have almost no propensity to aggression or domination and they eat mostly fruit.
Many philosophers seem to negate the discussion of food and diet, besides a few select enlightened ones. But yeah, eating meat can be pleasurable in the moment though this is the same with many other things. I don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything, I just believe that humanity will stay stuck in this vicious cycle of insanity and destruction until they finally acknowledge the root of their problems and choose to live up to their potential.
Would you justify eating meat under specific situations?
Absolutely, I'm not really a moralist, eating meat was how we survived in harsh climates and environments as we header out of where our primary food source was not available. There are times and places which this choice would be necessary unfortunately, like those people on Flight 571 that crashed in the Andes, they needed to eat their fellow humans in order to survive and I would of done the same.
Also, this is probably why there has been a backlash against general vegetarianism by some people who've lived in say places like Norway where they've eaten meat for thousands of years and it seems "natural", which it perhaps is in that sort of environment. A huge chunk of the developed world lives in places which are not suitable for human habitat outside of relying on industrialization and advanced technology. Most people aren't willing to accept that our ideal human environment is the tropics and food grown there.
Under that line of logic, we can do other things that lions do 'naturally', such as killing our offspring, stealing from others, force-ably having sex with others when they don't want it, and being violent and killing others when we are upset because we have been designed to. Natural law is not about doing what comes naturally to your design. It’s the idea that your rights as an individual are not determined by the state or through the democratic process but are derived from self-ownership or inherent within the universe.
Unlike lions, we do not require the consumption of meat in order to thrive, moreover as I'd imagine most humans tend to have more consciousness when it comes to the understanding of right and wrong, it would seem incumbent upon us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. By your analysis, if alien vampires decided to feed on human beings the way we feed on animals, it would be permissible for them to do so as it is within their nature. Your position is logically inconsistent unless you concede to this.
I'd also correct you by saying that we are behaviorally omnivores however physiologically herbivores.
There are many arguments to support this point but the most salient is that true carnivores do not suffer from atherosclerosis when consuming meat, unlike humans and other herbivores. (See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/)
The fact that there are over 700+ million examples of healthy and thriving vegetarians and vegans in the world, among them world-class athletes eg Carl Lewis, Timothy Shief, Alexy voevoda, Venus Williams and the greatest minds that have ever lived e.g. Albert Einestein, Tesla, Leonardo Da Vinci, Pythagoras, Benjamin Franklin etc would make this fact self-evident.
Have you watched the show Alone? You should check it out. Without modern agricultural systems, humans cannot survive in most places on this planet without consuming other creatures. It is simply not possible to get enough calories. Therefore, if those modern systems shut down, most people would starve without fish, other meat, etc. Is that would you promote? A person can only live as a Vegan because modern agricultural systems make it possible. What happens when, not if, those systems shut down? Are you going to break down as the vegans did on the Alone show and eat meat? Or are you going to starve to death?
Yes, a lot of the developed world relies on agricultural systems because humans made the mistake of choosing to live in environments which are not suited for them, as well as becoming dependent on agriculture instead of also forging for food. By choosing to live in these places you are essentially hoping industrial systems will work to sustain yourself, this is true for many who live in cities. It would be probably be cheaper if people in temperate and cold climates moved to sub-tropical and tropical areas where our original food source is abundant. The masses of people wouldn't do this I bet, so their best bet is to rely on industry hoping it all works out.
Like I said previously, I believe a big reason the masses of people don't become vegetarian is because they come from an environment where eating meat was the only way to survive for thousands of years, so they think it's the natural way of eating and that the rest of world is like this.
This is an uniformed idea and misconception about veganism/vegetarianism. A great part of people in the Indian subcontinent have been vegetarianism for thousands of years without relying on modern agricultural systems. Also, you don't need any form of modern agricultural system to feed all the peoples on earth. Permaculture and the principles of "do-nothing" natural farming could easily work if massively adopted, not to mention fruit trees can be grown in vast amounts spread around everywhere easily. A single avocado tree produces 200-300 fruits per crop after only a couple years of planting and only requires one seed so you could have 300 trees from a single fruit; they are relatively small, calorically dense and imagine how many people could be fed in a couple acre field of avocado? This is just getting started, think about bananas, melons, papayas, cherries, etc. Food is abundant we've been lied to.
This is a parallel and reminds me of when statists say we need the services of military, police, teachers, other bureaucrats, and the system of taxation or else society would be in chaos.
All of what you said only works in certain places on the planet. You said it too. I completely agree that it is possible depending on where you live. A vast majority of people living on this planet right now would be forced to move if they could no longer depend on modern systems and meat. I'm all for people doing that too, but we can't force them to do it.
Congratulations @krishool! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPSo is Larken not actually in this video?
No, it's a video of Krishool dissecting Larken's argument. Would be cool to see a live debate someday.
Larkens too intelligent to have a public debate on that. It'd be like arguing for flat earth on a space station overlooking our planet.
@kafkanarchy84, @mckeever, and @krishool, it's a more complicated issue than most people realize. I am a student of bushcraft and survival. Anyone who studies the skill sets quickly realizes humans cannot survive on plants alone without modern agriculture systems. In other words, it isn't possible to be Vegan and live without those systems. The only reason Vegans can exist today is because of a system that did not exist before and most likely will not exist in the near future.
@finnian This is a misinformed idea, read my post above.
Go out into the wilderness alone in the Northern hemisphere, and see how difficult it would be to get the needed calories to survive. It would not be easy at all. Could you do it in the tropics? Absolutely. In most places on the planet where billions of people currently live? No, you'd starve.
Yeah your right, the Southern Hemisphere can be harsh as well in parts of South America, Australia, and of course Antartica. Humans aren't designed to live in such places, especially in large numbers without access to advanced technology or relying on unnatural diets and ways of living to sustain themselves. The eskimos come to mind as a certain population who've done this and they have some of lowest life expectancies in the world.
The solution? Correct the original problem. Don't live in these places; unless of course you are willing to be dependent on industrialization or live as cave men did.
Plenty of vegans live without modern animal agriculture. The majority of land animals are herbivores.
I'm not talking about animal meat production of course. I'm talking about turning diesel fuel into food. That process has allowed millions of humans to be alive today that would not be alive without it. Again, I'm all for people deciding what they want to eat, but it is a complicated system and not easy unless you live in a tropical or other place that allows year round plentiful plant growth.
I currently do not live in such a place by the way.