From: ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr (Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List)
Date: 04 Feb 1997 10:14:06 UTC   (06:14:06 AM in author's locale)
To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr

Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:49:12 0100 (MET)
>From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-sn.no>
This will be my last posting on this subject. I don't think anything
more I could possibly say would change anybodys mind. I find this
discussion - though necessary - pretty surrealistic, and not particularly
pleasant. Others can carry on if they want.
David Oliver, thank you for giving me right at least at one point - in
your words: "The only *individuals* on earth who have scruples about
their ecological impact are humans." (You are correct in saying that it
is as [socialised] individuals we may have these scruples.) I respect
this honesty, something I too often find lacking in the "animal rights"
movement. But when you write "Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-sn.no> is
an opponent of animal liberation," I wonder what you are trying to say.
What exactly is animal liberation? Surely what we are talking about is
human conduct towards animals, and in the end the quality of human life.
Only the most bigoted man would speak in terms of a one sided relation
when talking about women's liberation.
The great majority of meat eaters would have no trouble opposing the
factory-like breeding of animals in small cages where they can hardly
move. This is something most people can relate to, as they can to the
simple, seemingly cruel, fact that quality of meat is reduced when
animals are raised in these conditions. (In this regard the mad-cow
disease was a blessing.) But I very much doubt if the class blind,
moralistic fundamentalism of animal rights advocates will do much to put
an end to these conditions, especially not when including among their
forbidden fruits fish, shrimps, honey (for the exploitation of bees), eggs,
cheese and milk.
Further on you write something which I find interesting: "Are we to
respect the rights and interests of others only if they can reciprocate?
What if blacks, retarded children, women and poor people couldn't
reciprocate? Could white rich 'normal' men then exploit them? Is the
world you anarchists are struggling for one where you behave ethically
only when it suits you? This is a conception of anarchy that disgusts
me. Non-human animals cannot force us to respect their interests. Does this
suffice for you to go on eating them and generally exploiting them?"
I think you got things mixed up: Anarchism, unlike leninism and social
democracy is _not_ founded on "serving the people" but on building
people's self confidence and strength to a point where they will not let
themselves be oppressed and exploited, where they and are able to serve
themselves. What then about retarded people and small children? Besides
trying to behave in a way that builds their self-confidence and
self-reliance, it is a question if we are able to develop a socialised
morality among ourselves of the kind Kropotkin for one wrote about. No
rights can guarantee them being treated with respect.
When most people sees it as repugnant to maltreat animals and yet have
no scruples eating meat - if it is not from their favourite pet - animal
rights advocates should ask why this is so. One answers is that they are
not living in cyber space, or the land of fairy tales, but in the real
world. That is in a world where it is not possible to feed 5 billion
people and simultaneously act the way animal rights advocates would like
us to do. That is not to deny that we probably could all become vegans,
but not unless we are _also_ willing to kill other animals to keep them off
our territories and keep their numbers below a certain level. It
would also result in the uprooting of a lot of people.
To my claim that: "The resources of this planet are limited.. What makes
you believe that you cause the death of less animals being an vegan.
When you grow vegetables grain etc. you steal the food and living grounds of
animals and cause painful starvation, not drinking milk makes
you even more murderous, because it causes you to take even more of
their pastures."
Alka Chandna replied: "I really wish you'd do a bit of research before
you posted these comments! The animals that we raise for food in turn
must be fed grains, etc. In fact, in the U.S. some 80¨f all of the
major grains and beans are grown for animals so that we can eat their
flesh. So, if you truly care about displacing wild animals, you should
go vegan, since there will less requirement of land for the production
of your food."
This description was hardly new to me. Whether it gives the whole
picture or not, I recognize the tendency. You have greatly misunderstood
me if you believe that the present state of affairs of agriculture is
of my liking. The cause and remedy, however, has primarily to do with a
social relations, and not with people's personal eating habits. The
problem with Chandna's argument from a animal rights point of view is
that to make a real difference these herds of cattle had to be
slaughtered. Another "genocide". One of the things animal rights
advocates seldom consider is what would happen to the animals if they
had all been freed. It would be tempting to suggest that Chandna's view
is that they should starve to death. Bob Helms post about the situation
in India goes a way to illustrates my point. (The observation that there
surely are more vegetarians in India than i US is obviously correct, though
it is a whole other phenomena, and there is little indication of that this
kind of religious beliefs has begotten much more than poverty for the
majority of people, and some very bloody wars.)
You go on writing: "This is to say nothing of the war which is actively
being waged against wild animals by the livestock industries. An
excellent book on this topic has been written by Lynn Jacobs. The book
is called, "Waste of the West" and in it, Jacobs details the existence
of the prairie dog as a keystone species in the natural order of animals
in western U.S. states like Montana, etc. Cattlemen have *selectively*
killed the prairie dog, knowing that the entire chain of species will
collapse around it. They are willing to biologically sterilize the
region for the sake of a few filthy dollars. What's more, the
cattlemen's lobby has actively promoted the wholesale slaughter of
wolves, coyotes, moutain lions, bison, and other species in protecting
"their" land"
Sure they are protecting their buck and "their" land, but in so doing
are also protecting the cattle from being bestially tortured by other
non-human animals. And this is not specific for the rich and mighty, it
is just as true for poor peasants hardly able to survive. But certainly
they often could be herded better, and I agree with you, we should let
some cows be tortured so that other species can survive. Surely there is
a conflict of interests not only between humans and other animals but
between different non-human animals involving life and death. On the
other side it is hard to think about anything we humans are doing that
is not encroaching and denying the life of individuals of other species,
including sentient ones. You could start by trying to figure out how
many individual animals you have murdered as a result of the computer
equipment you are using, the books you are referring too etc. We could
of course commit collective suicide but that would not keep the rest of
the world from go on feeding on each other.
There also is a lot of land on this earth of ours where growing crops is
not an realistic alternative, or where keeping animals, or a combination
of the two is far more ecological and adequate use of resources. And I
admit, as most people I would hate going on a pure vegan diet. As
repellent as it may sound in some ears, this has also something to do
with the joy and celebration of life.
I confess to having some trouble seeing the rats in my backyard when I
grew up as individuals and have some trouble thinking about the rabbits
of Australia as such. However, should I ever acquire a rabbit pet,one of
the paradoxes of life is that I would have to see her/him as an
individual creature - even if never as an equal to a human friend. Neither
would a vegan. The peasants give their cows names, those Samis
who keep reindeer (and most of them don't) can distinguish and name every
reindeer in the herd. Their old ways are fading and they have been sucked
into capitalism, still they would consider it as disrespect of
life not to take of what nature has given. Somehow I found this thinking
immensely more profound than the political philosophy of veganism. To be
honest, veganism considered as more than a personal choice of diet, also
seems to be in complete lack of a basic ecological understanding.
Alka Chandna replied to my contention that "... the vanguard of the
'animal rights' movement, like the Animal Liberation Front, has the same
kind of elitist approach, willing to kill human beings for their sacred
cause."
with ... "Again, this is patently false!!!! The Animal Liberation Front
very specifically makes the distinction between violence against
property and violence against sentient beings. They support the former,
and loathe the latter."
My only comment is that I am sure the members of this list is well
enough informed to make their own judgement on this. But then again ALF
officially don't have a single member, so they don't stand responsible
for any act.
David Oliver wrote: " Someone said that since meat-eaters don't try to
oblige us to eat meat (how nice they are!) (actually, meat-eaters *have*
tried to oblige me to eat meat; they did it for years, for instance,
when I was a child), we shouldn't try to oblige them to become
vegetarians. To me this sounds like someone saying to me that since
slave-holders don't oblige me to have slaves, I shouldn't oblige them to
renounce to having slaves. I see no justification for killing and eating
others, especially when it is in no way necessary for survival; this
holds whether these others are humans or not. Vegetarianism is for me no
private, personal matter; it's a struggle against an oppression."
And Alka Chandna commented on my customary e-mail signature (In
solidarity, Harald Beyer-Arnesen ...) with this remark:
"In solidarity with whom? Certainly not with me, and not with the
millions of species on this planet whose only crime was to be born other
than human," and also wrote " ... I might remind you that Isaac Bashevis
Singer once wrote that to the animals of the world, all humans
were Nazis."
Their kind of anarchism is one that sees the immense majority of human
beings on this earth as the enemy. I consider the political philosophy
of veganism as the success of capitalism of alienating some people not
only from nature but from a fundamental sense of reality. This unreality
they mistake for morality.

Harald

TO SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE write to RA-L-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, WRITE TO : listserv-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr
with the text SIGnoff RA-L (no subject nor signature).

Moderator/Moderador/Moderateur : Ronald Creagh
Co-Moderator : John P. Clark
e-mail : rcreagh-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr
snail mail/correo ordinario/courrier ordinaire : Ronald Creagh, Universite
Paul Valery, B.P. 5043, 34032, Montpellier-Cedex, France.
fax : (33) 67 64 77 23