In my past, before I started to live as a vegan, I could eat a piece of meat and thus ignore the suffering, exploitation of death of the nonhuman victims.
I could drink a glass of milk, and thus ignore/be unaware of that I destroyed a family of cows, that I tore a calf away from her mother, and that the male calves and milk cows (when their productive declined) eventually ended up on the slaughter house.
In my past I could kill a mosquito and thus ignore/be unaware of that I killed a living sentient being.
I could catch a fish in the ocean, ignore/be unaware of the enormous suffering that I was causing, and that I was taking the life of a sentient being with an interest of living.
I could eat an egg and not caring/be unaware of that chickens were exploited, bred to be our resources, their families were destroyed, their male chicks were killed, and they ended up on the slaughter house when their productivity declined.
In my past I could wear leather and ignore/be unaware of that this leather came from a sentient cow, that was exploited to become my shoes and my wallet. I could wear wool and ignore/be unaware of that the sheep used for wool was exploited for this purpose and eventually killed.
I could visit a zoo and not caring/be unaware of that this was a prison of sentient beings, with an interest of freedom, being exploited for entertainment, and that many of the animals in the zoo were killed to be replaced by other animals – all for the sake of our entertainment.
In my past I could attend a circus ignoring/be unaware of that these animals were exploited for my entertainment, that their lives were control and freedom ignored.
I could buy a dog from a breeder, disregarding the interests of the animals, and paying for her to be ripped away from her precious mother and family; and paying for that animals should be breed up to a live that would be unnatural to them, where the are to a large extent controlled/limited by their owner (e.g. what to eat, when and where to go out, etc.).
In my past I could justify vivisection and claim that our lives are more valuable than theirs, exploiting and shortening the lives of other animals so that humans should find cures to live longer.
I could use and exploit animals in various other ways, treating them as my resources/property and ignoring their interests, instead of respecting them as sentient beings and respecting their interests.
Then I woke up. I became aware. I decided that I don’t want to be a part of exploiting, harming and killing sentient beings. I realized that I have to leave behind my egoistic and self-centered ego that could justify exploiting animals for convenience, pleasure, tradition or justifying it with other various excuses; and I decided to live a life of nonviolence and justice. I decided to stop victimizing and bullying other animals. I rejected speciesism and chose to be vegan.
Now I realize how many lives I have murdered, how many families that I have destroyed, how many animals that I have exploited and harmed. I am truly and sincerely sorry and regretful for all of the harm that I have caused others.
Visar inlägg med etikett fish. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett fish. Visa alla inlägg
lördag 7 juni 2014
måndag 5 maj 2014
Why vegans don't eat fish
Did you know this about the fish:
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves".
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Not that it should matter whether an animal is 'good-natured', curious, sensitive, have "a personality" as we define it, etc. in order for him/her not to be exploited.
More to learn
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/07/14/do-fish-feel-pain/
---
If you don't want to harm a sentient being with a desire not to be harmed.
If you don't want to kill a sentient being with a desire to live.
If you don't want to exploit a sentient being with an interest of living. Then, go vegan.
Is it right to disregard the fundamental rights of other sentient beings to satisfy our most trivial interest of pleasure or convenience?
If you answer 'No'. Then the only rational choice is to go vegan.
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves".
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Not that it should matter whether an animal is 'good-natured', curious, sensitive, have "a personality" as we define it, etc. in order for him/her not to be exploited.
More to learn
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2012/07/14/do-fish-feel-pain/
---
If you don't want to harm a sentient being with a desire not to be harmed.
If you don't want to kill a sentient being with a desire to live.
If you don't want to exploit a sentient being with an interest of living. Then, go vegan.
Is it right to disregard the fundamental rights of other sentient beings to satisfy our most trivial interest of pleasure or convenience?
If you answer 'No'. Then the only rational choice is to go vegan.
tisdag 21 maj 2013
Claims of "health benefits" of drinking probiotic milk or eating fish does not justify exploitation of animals
You
wrote” That being said, I'm not sure if humans consuming a little
animal products is blatantly immoral if it is what our bodies are
conditioned to do, and in some instances, like eating fish and probiotic
dairy, can benefit our bodies in ways that are difficult to
synthesize.”
Even if there was any health benefit of consuming animal products this wouldn’t justify us to breed animals into slavery, to use them, to exploit them, to hurt them and to kill them, just in order to get the health benefits. Just as any potential health benefit of drinking human milk for human adults, wouldn’t justify us to exploit a human mother. To get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow without her approval, to breed a baby into an existence of slavery and to coerce the cow into milking. This is what is done in the cow milk industry. Most humans understand that doing the exact same thing to a human woman is unethical. Most people don’t understand that doing this to a woman of the species ‘cow’ is unethical. Our culture justifies the exploitation of a cow because of being vastly influenced by the erroneous and immoral ideology of speciecism – discrimination based on species.
Domestication of animals is violence, it is slavery, and it has also resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. Learn more in this book: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook
Breeding an animal into captivity is morally wrong. Everyone understands this is the case with humans; however because of the vast influence of speciecism most people don’t understand it is wrong to breed an animal into captivity and to a life being controlled by a human. More of why domestication is wrong can be found here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UZvJ45xYV8E
“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animal rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione [ https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach ]
As for the health benefits, I don’t believe in it. Fish is unhealthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2003nl/030200pufishisnothealthfood.htm ; dairy is also unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm
Want health, eat a starch based diet: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/jan/grains.htm
----
Further comments about speciecism:
Do you see the words on the truck -- "Livestock Auction"?
When else, in human history, did we auction off sentient beings? Oh yeah. When we had chattel slavery. And the only difference is species which is not an acceptable criteria to justify treating others as commodities, to justify exploiting and killing others.
Even if there was any health benefit of consuming animal products this wouldn’t justify us to breed animals into slavery, to use them, to exploit them, to hurt them and to kill them, just in order to get the health benefits. Just as any potential health benefit of drinking human milk for human adults, wouldn’t justify us to exploit a human mother. To get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow without her approval, to breed a baby into an existence of slavery and to coerce the cow into milking. This is what is done in the cow milk industry. Most humans understand that doing the exact same thing to a human woman is unethical. Most people don’t understand that doing this to a woman of the species ‘cow’ is unethical. Our culture justifies the exploitation of a cow because of being vastly influenced by the erroneous and immoral ideology of speciecism – discrimination based on species.
Domestication of animals is violence, it is slavery, and it has also resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. Learn more in this book: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook
Breeding an animal into captivity is morally wrong. Everyone understands this is the case with humans; however because of the vast influence of speciecism most people don’t understand it is wrong to breed an animal into captivity and to a life being controlled by a human. More of why domestication is wrong can be found here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UZvJ45xYV8E
“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animal rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione [ https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach ]
As for the health benefits, I don’t believe in it. Fish is unhealthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2003nl/030200pufishisnothealthfood.htm ; dairy is also unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm
Want health, eat a starch based diet: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/jan/grains.htm
----
Further comments about speciecism:
Do you see the words on the truck -- "Livestock Auction"?
When else, in human history, did we auction off sentient beings? Oh yeah. When we had chattel slavery. And the only difference is species which is not an acceptable criteria to justify treating others as commodities, to justify exploiting and killing others.
onsdag 10 april 2013
Fish and health, compared to a vegetarian, vegan diet
We should treat others as we want to be treated ourselves
All animals are conscious and they do value life as much as we do.
If we don't want to be killed, we shouldn't kill other animals (regardless of species - humans, dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.).
If we don't want someone else to steal our family, we shouldn't steal their family.
If we want to find our purpose in this world, we shouldn't steal others purpose.
If we don't want to be exploited and abused, we shouldn't abuse anyone else.
If we don't want to become enslaved, we shouldn't keep anyone else as a slave.
If we don't want to hurt any animals, we must become vegans (i.e. stop eating, wearing and using animal products, and in other ways do actions that are hurting and killing animals).
If we love animals, we don't kill animals. We don't kill and eat anyone that we love. If we love animals, we must support their want to not be oppressed, including not to be killed.
I recommend this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgGnP0pWzM
All kind of animal products, including eggs and milk, are causing humans and other animals terrible suffering, oppression, starvation and death. Being vegan is the only way not to participate in the oppression.
All animals are conscious and they do value life as much as we do.
If we don't want to be killed, we shouldn't kill other animals (regardless of species - humans, dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.).
If we don't want someone else to steal our family, we shouldn't steal their family.
If we want to find our purpose in this world, we shouldn't steal others purpose.
If we don't want to be exploited and abused, we shouldn't abuse anyone else.
If we don't want to become enslaved, we shouldn't keep anyone else as a slave.
If we don't want to hurt any animals, we must become vegans (i.e. stop eating, wearing and using animal products, and in other ways do actions that are hurting and killing animals).
If we love animals, we don't kill animals. We don't kill and eat anyone that we love. If we love animals, we must support their want to not be oppressed, including not to be killed.
I recommend this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgGnP0pWzM
All kind of animal products, including eggs and milk, are causing humans and other animals terrible suffering, oppression, starvation and death. Being vegan is the only way not to participate in the oppression.
måndag 1 april 2013
According to science fish are conscious and do feel pain
Quote from article claiming that fish don't feel pain:
" However, the new research, which reviewed a series of studies conducted over the years, discovered that only an extremely small number of “C fibres” - a type of nociceptor responsible for pain - can be found in trout and other fish."
However,
Both A-delta and C fibres are noiceptors responsible for pain:
In higher vertebrates nociceptive nerves are either A–delta or C fibres with C fibres being the predominating fibre type. However, in the rainbow trout A–delta fibres were most common, and this offers insights into the evolution of nociceptive systems. Administration of noxious substances to the lips of the trout affected both the physiology and the behaviour of the animal and resulted in a significant increase in opercular beat rate and the time taken to resume feeding, as well as anomalous behaviours. This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort. "
Quote: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1520/1115
A-delta-fibres are associated with the first sensation of pain: Link [ Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system L. U. Sneddon1,*, V. A. Braithwaite2 and M. J. Gentle1; Proceedings of the Royal Society ]
Another quote: "Professor James Rose from the University of Wyoming in the US, who led the study, also found that the fish brain does not contain the highly developed neocortex needed to feel pain, so do not experience it in any meaningful way like humans.
Wrong.
Many other researchers now believe that animal consciousness does not require a neocortex, but can arise from homologous subcortical brain networks. See: The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness 7 July 2012. Written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. University of Cambridge.
-------
" However, the new research, which reviewed a series of studies conducted over the years, discovered that only an extremely small number of “C fibres” - a type of nociceptor responsible for pain - can be found in trout and other fish."
However,
Both A-delta and C fibres are noiceptors responsible for pain:
In higher vertebrates nociceptive nerves are either A–delta or C fibres with C fibres being the predominating fibre type. However, in the rainbow trout A–delta fibres were most common, and this offers insights into the evolution of nociceptive systems. Administration of noxious substances to the lips of the trout affected both the physiology and the behaviour of the animal and resulted in a significant increase in opercular beat rate and the time taken to resume feeding, as well as anomalous behaviours. This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort. "
Quote: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1520/1115
A-delta-fibres are associated with the first sensation of pain: Link [ Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system L. U. Sneddon1,*, V. A. Braithwaite2 and M. J. Gentle1; Proceedings of the Royal Society ]
Another quote: "Professor James Rose from the University of Wyoming in the US, who led the study, also found that the fish brain does not contain the highly developed neocortex needed to feel pain, so do not experience it in any meaningful way like humans.
He
concluded that fish are able to experience unconscious, basic
instinctive responses, but that these did not lead to conscious feelings
or pain."
Many other researchers now believe that animal consciousness does not require a neocortex, but can arise from homologous subcortical brain networks. See: The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness 7 July 2012. Written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. University of Cambridge.
-------
Anyone who made it through Biology 101 knows that fish have nerves and
brains that sense pain, just as all animals do. Dr. Donald Broom, a
scientific advisor to the British government, explains, "The scientific
literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and
biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds
and mammals."
Neurobiologists have long recognized that fish have nervous systems that comprehend and respond to pain. Scientists tell us that fish brains and nervous systems closely resemble our own. For example, fish (like "higher vertebrates") have neurotransmitters such as endorphins that relieve suffering; the only reason for their nervous systems to produce these painkillers is to relieve pain. Researchers have created a detailed map of pain receptors in fish's mouths and all over their bodies. A team at the University of Guelph in Canada recently surveyed the scientific literature on fish pain and intelligence. They concluded that fish feel pain and that "the welfare of fish requires consideration."
A two-year study by scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the U.K. proved what many marine biologists have been saying for years: Fish feel pain, just as all animals do. Anglers may not like to think about it, but fish suffer when they are impaled in the mouth and pulled into an environment in which they cannot breathe. Said Dr. Lynne Sneddon, who headed the study,"Really, it's kind of a moral question. Is your angling more important than the pain to the fish?"
A study by scientists at Queen's University Belfast proved that fish learn to avoid pain, just like other animals. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the researchers, said, "This paper shows that pain avoidance in fish doesn't seem to be a reflex response, rather one that is learned, remembered and is changed according to different circumstances. Therefore, if fish can perceive pain, then angling cannot continue to be considered a noncruel sport."
Fish can also suffer from fear and anticipation of physical pain. Researchers from universities across America have published research showing that some fish use sound to communicate distress when nets are dipped into their tanks or they are otherwise threatened. In a separate study, researcher William Tavolga found that fish grunted when they received an electric shock. In addition, the fish began to grunt as soon as they saw the electrode in anticipation of the torment that Tavolga was inflicting on them.
According to Dr. Michael Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., "Even though fish don't scream [audibly to humans] when they are in pain and anguish, their behavior should be evidence enough of their suffering when they are hooked or netted. They struggle, endeavoring to escape and, by so doing, demonstrate they have a will to survive."
[Quote: Cat Jones]Neurobiologists have long recognized that fish have nervous systems that comprehend and respond to pain. Scientists tell us that fish brains and nervous systems closely resemble our own. For example, fish (like "higher vertebrates") have neurotransmitters such as endorphins that relieve suffering; the only reason for their nervous systems to produce these painkillers is to relieve pain. Researchers have created a detailed map of pain receptors in fish's mouths and all over their bodies. A team at the University of Guelph in Canada recently surveyed the scientific literature on fish pain and intelligence. They concluded that fish feel pain and that "the welfare of fish requires consideration."
A two-year study by scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the U.K. proved what many marine biologists have been saying for years: Fish feel pain, just as all animals do. Anglers may not like to think about it, but fish suffer when they are impaled in the mouth and pulled into an environment in which they cannot breathe. Said Dr. Lynne Sneddon, who headed the study,"Really, it's kind of a moral question. Is your angling more important than the pain to the fish?"
A study by scientists at Queen's University Belfast proved that fish learn to avoid pain, just like other animals. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the researchers, said, "This paper shows that pain avoidance in fish doesn't seem to be a reflex response, rather one that is learned, remembered and is changed according to different circumstances. Therefore, if fish can perceive pain, then angling cannot continue to be considered a noncruel sport."
Fish can also suffer from fear and anticipation of physical pain. Researchers from universities across America have published research showing that some fish use sound to communicate distress when nets are dipped into their tanks or they are otherwise threatened. In a separate study, researcher William Tavolga found that fish grunted when they received an electric shock. In addition, the fish began to grunt as soon as they saw the electrode in anticipation of the torment that Tavolga was inflicting on them.
According to Dr. Michael Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., "Even though fish don't scream [audibly to humans] when they are in pain and anguish, their behavior should be evidence enough of their suffering when they are hooked or netted. They struggle, endeavoring to escape and, by so doing, demonstrate they have a will to survive."
----
The bottom-line is that fish are conscious.
A sentient being is a being who is subjectively aware; a being who has interests; that is, a being who prefers, desires, or wants. Those interests do not have to be anything like human interests. If a being has some kind of mind that can experience frustration or satisfaction of whatever interests that being has, then the being is sentient.
We engage in speciesist thinking when we claim that a being must have a humanlike mind to count morally. That is, it is speciesist to claim that a being must have a reflective sense of self awareness, or conceptual thought, or the general ability to experience life in the way that humans do in order to have the moral right not to be used as a resource. As long as there is someone there who is subjectively aware and who, in that being’s own way, cares about what happens to him or to her, that is all that is necessary to have the moral right not to be used as a resource.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/sentience/#.UVmlZFev_gM
One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.
The bottom-line is that fish are conscious.
A sentient being is a being who is subjectively aware; a being who has interests; that is, a being who prefers, desires, or wants. Those interests do not have to be anything like human interests. If a being has some kind of mind that can experience frustration or satisfaction of whatever interests that being has, then the being is sentient.
We engage in speciesist thinking when we claim that a being must have a humanlike mind to count morally. That is, it is speciesist to claim that a being must have a reflective sense of self awareness, or conceptual thought, or the general ability to experience life in the way that humans do in order to have the moral right not to be used as a resource. As long as there is someone there who is subjectively aware and who, in that being’s own way, cares about what happens to him or to her, that is all that is necessary to have the moral right not to be used as a resource.
Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/sentience/#.UVmlZFev_gM
One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.
fredag 29 mars 2013
Fish have been shown to be highly sentient and intelligent (with intelligence at the same level as nonhuman primates), using tools, forming complex social relationships, etc. Go vegan
Again, so glad I'm vegan - wish everyone were! - Let's let the oceans
rebuild - fish have been shown to be highly sentient and intelligent
(with intelligence at the same level as nonhuman primates), using tools,
forming complex social relationships, etc. Of course the FDA recommends
you eat plenty of seafood - it assures plenty of profits for the
meat-medical-pharmaceutical complex!
Quote: Will Tuttle
Read more at www.worldpeacediet.org
Another quote about animals from Linda M.:
This reveals yet another point of confusion in Harris's thinking about animals-- how would he know if an alien he met had "richer experiences or mental capacities"? According to what criteria would he judge that? Human criteria, presumably.
But isn't that exactly what we do with animals? It's clear that animals do have richer experiences in many respects than humans do, with their often comparatively extended senses and countless abilities we don't have, such as the ability to fly, or swim underwater? And they often have higher mental capacities, in some respects, such as bees' and birds' ability to navigate. So Harris doesn't need to meet an alien to encounter someone who has "richer experiences and mental capacities" in some respects, than he does. Perhaps he should be bowing down to the entire animal kingdom. But rather than revering these abilities, as he says he would do, it's clear that he discounts these as unimportant, as people commonly do, because they are not the human-like types of cognitive ability that we privilege-- a form of speciesist prejudice.
So Harris is really saying that there is a moral hierarchy based on human-like cognitive abilities, which only we can judge to exist, rather than sentience alone--a huge error and harmful to humans and non-humans alike.
Quote: Will Tuttle
Read more at www.worldpeacediet.org
Another quote about animals from Linda M.:
This reveals yet another point of confusion in Harris's thinking about animals-- how would he know if an alien he met had "richer experiences or mental capacities"? According to what criteria would he judge that? Human criteria, presumably.
But isn't that exactly what we do with animals? It's clear that animals do have richer experiences in many respects than humans do, with their often comparatively extended senses and countless abilities we don't have, such as the ability to fly, or swim underwater? And they often have higher mental capacities, in some respects, such as bees' and birds' ability to navigate. So Harris doesn't need to meet an alien to encounter someone who has "richer experiences and mental capacities" in some respects, than he does. Perhaps he should be bowing down to the entire animal kingdom. But rather than revering these abilities, as he says he would do, it's clear that he discounts these as unimportant, as people commonly do, because they are not the human-like types of cognitive ability that we privilege-- a form of speciesist prejudice.
So Harris is really saying that there is a moral hierarchy based on human-like cognitive abilities, which only we can judge to exist, rather than sentience alone--a huge error and harmful to humans and non-humans alike.
tisdag 1 januari 2013
Det är inte naturligt att äta kött (=orsaka en annan individ smärta och död)
Att det inte är naturligt för människan att äta kött (och andra
djurprodukter) bevisas ju av alla de sjukdomar kött (och andra
djurprodukter-)konsumption leder till:
http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/
Lite fakta om fisken:
"
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves"."
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Många fler argument om varför det är onaturligt att äta kött: www.worldpeacediet.org
Det kan ju aldrig vara naturligt för en herbivor som vi är anatomiskt att orsaka en annan individ smärta och död - och skada både vår egen och deras hälsa.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/
Lite fakta om fisken:
"
Studies have shown that fish who are hooked and thrown back are so traumatized that many die from the experience. The pain of being hooked in the mouth is excruciating—Thomas Hopkins, professor of marine science at the University of Alabama, has compared it to “dentistry without Novocain, drilling into exposed nerves"."
"Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has written, “[Fish] are our fellow citizens with scales and fins. . . . I would never eat anyone I know personally. I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Många fler argument om varför det är onaturligt att äta kött: www.worldpeacediet.org
Det kan ju aldrig vara naturligt för en herbivor som vi är anatomiskt att orsaka en annan individ smärta och död - och skada både vår egen och deras hälsa.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)