Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Outlaw_(A)_Punk, Oct 1, 2009.

  1. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Modern pharmacology is a great thing. New emergent medical technologies like stem-cell therapies, and nanotechnology, hold the promise for even more. It’s very likely that in the next decade or two, we could effectively cure AIDS and cancer. I don’t think I have to sketch out what that would mean for the human race, especially in Africa, where AIDS is spreading like a wildfire. In the western world one in every two men and one in every three women get cancer.
    As for nuclear power, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I’m very critical of standard fission reactors, the kind we use predominantly, today. Fusion reactors are an entirely different animal. It creates virtually no nuclear waste. Miniscule amounts, not remotely comparable to what we produce today. What little radioactive material there would be would also have a drastically shortened half-life. Again, we have to make it work, first. The ITER reactor in France is the latest, most promising candidate. This is essentially clean power, and we have enough of the essential elements to keep it going until after the sun is expected to go supernova.
    I’m not lending any untoward support to the corporations and governments who try to control/capitalize/misuse/etc. these technologies; they are for the most part predatory institutions. However, the science is a gift to mankind. Surely I shouldn’t have to explain how curing epidemics, extending the quantity AND quality of life, and providing clean power are good things, and why an Anarchist, or just any decent human being, might desire them.

    The technologies themselves are really good, or at worst, neutral. Technology is like language, it merely exists. There are no bad words and there is no bad technology, except that which doesn’t work very well. There are, however, bad people, who use technology in destructive or shortsighted ways.

    If I was I wouldn’t be broke. On a serious note, though. I’m just really shocked by how one-dimensional and backward so many so-called Anarchists really are. We need to think about the big picture, and we need an Anarchism for the future. What made sense in the time of the haymarket riots doesn’t necessarily still apply. We also need to take a scientific and logical approach.

    That’s’ a bogus comparison.

    I never claimed it was. I just was trying to get you to admit it wasn’t all negative.

    No, I haven’t seen the film.
     
  2. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    in response to debiant, i agree that human nature has brought about civilisation. our greed, our attachments, our forever wanting more more more (for what reason?). but i fail to see how it is a good thing that in conquering these forces of nature, we have succeeded to oppress all that we can. take all that we can. not only what we need, but more and more and more. for what? and i wouldn't "say that civlized people wouldn't do such things to animals", because it is civilisation that has made it this way. or it is this that makes civilisation the way it is today. but i don't believe that is the way it needs to be. zoos exist to make money, through entertainment, out of what were wild animals now in totally unnatural habitats.

    if i was to try to put myself in that position (although this is impossible as the only position i can truly be in is my own) i doubt that i would care if the spectators of my misery felt more connected to me, and developed a love for others like me (so that they could put more like me in similar situations to be close to them too). i don't think that being safe and comfortable could distract me from the boredom and frustration of the enclosure i was bound to. and i don't think i would give a flying shit that i was being preserved, if i was losing my sanity and will to live as a result of it. i think that lack of empathy is to blame for a lot of this ignorance. a lack of empathy, and an abundance of speciesism. perhaps it is human nature, but that does not make it a good thing. and it does not mean that it cannot change. change, after all, is the only constant in life/nature.

    on a sidenote, i find it strange the way people keep saying what someone writes is ridiculous. it seems like a bail-out to saying actually why they think it is ridiculous. just that they think it is. why is comparing a zoo to a prison ridiculous? both take away the incarcerated's freedom. in a prison, in the uk at least, people are kept comfortable to a degree, and probably as safe as any zoo animal. in fact, there's the whole argument people use to say that people can be reformed by prisons, into a 'good' person. so do you think prisons are good because of that? of course the word 'freedom' means something different to each one of us. it is just a word after all, and we label a concept of our own with it. i think that freedom stretches far beyond the restraints of our humanity, let alone of our society, concepts and language.

    also, from where i'm standing in the uk, people are fighting and fucking all over the place. seemingly far more than debating and making love! :S
     
  3. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    no, but where did those epidemics come from, why do we need to live longer, and what do we need the power for? a number of theories about the epidemics, including those that they make money for the government via pharma. if we live longer, we can work more, spend more, consume more. and we can buy that power, powering our consumer goods, that we bought. to me, it all points to fuelling the capitalist machine. and why does it make someone indecent, not to feel that desire? what about people who want to experience the beauty of nature? the beauty of living alongside each other? who don't want to go through life constantly wanting more and more, never satiated. why is that indecent?

    i wholeheartedly agree it isn't all negative. i don't believe i ever said it was. humans are capable of so much love. capable of caring for those more vulnerable than ourselves. capable of co-operating with each other, and with nature. capable of learning. but also capable of questioning all that we learn, and capable of making our own minds up. capable of dreaming. and of so much more. i see that you are saying some of these technological advances are positive. i just don't agree.
     
  4. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    p.s. i'm not necessarily saying they're all bad bad negative either, by the way. just not positive. or necessary.
     
  5. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    I'm vegetarian (not vegan though). I only eat shrimp and fish, soon only shrimp. Then perhaps no shrimp or anything along the way.
    I smoke cigarettes, will smoke weed sometimes, and drink.
    I don't understand why straight edge and vegetarianism/veganism is always bunched together... I'm not vegetarian for my health.
     
  6. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    They came from evolution. Viruses and bacteria evolved or mutated to become more virulent and more resistant to our immune system. Civilization, or specifically, technology, is the reason that doesn’t happen more often. That’s why theres’ so much death and illness in the third world, they don’t have the medicine, antibiotics, sanitation, etc. The Black Plague is thought to have killed over 100 MILLION people. That’s’ what happened in medieval times. It spread like wildfire, you caught it, then you died. That would be virtually impossible, today.

    That’s’ up to you. If you hate life so much you can do what you feel is necessary. However, many of us would like to be alive. More than that, we’d like to be alive and healthy, and to stay that way. Quality may trump quality, but a century ago the global average lifespan was in the mid-30’s. You’d be close to dead, if you made it this far. You would not be able to see you’re children grow up and have families of their own, you couldn’t have a career. A marriage would last maybe 10-15 years then one or both of you would be dead. The less time you have, the more you decrease the potentiality for joy. Also, there are some forms of joy, a long, satisfying career, 20 or 30 years of marriage, seeing your children grow up, etc., that you can only experience on a longer time scale.

    To live fuller, more productive lives. Abundant clean power allows us to live more harmoniously with the world, to wean us off of dirty fuels. To unlock the secrets of the universe with the LHC, and so forth.

    If you’re implying that diseases are some kind of global conspiracy, that’s’ just insane. Unfortunately, monolithic organizations restrict access to these technologies, and that is bad, but the technologies themselves are wonderful.

    You’re being disingenuous. You’re combining two separate things. There’s a capitalistic sort of materialism, (Not to be confused with philosophical materialism, which is right and good.) which is an unhealthy sort of narcissism, and then there’s the desire for growth, self improvement, the yearning for a better world. That is totally positive. As Wilde said, history is a progression from utopia to utopia. As we develop our standards change and we can imagine a world even better than the one we live in. That is totally positive.

    When we look at the shots from the Hubble telescope we marvel at the beauty of nature. I mean, how can you look at a fucking supernova, and not be awed by it’s beauty and complexity. Technology can help us to appreciate the wonder of the universe more. Now with the LHC and quantum physics we are unlocking the very fundamentals of time and existence.

    Actually you did. You’re whole argument, nebulous as it is, rests on a refutation of civilization. I mean, drop the keyboard and be my guest. Don’t expect it to be pleasant. However, if you’re going to advocate this for everybody else that’s something else entirely. You’re obligated to meet a burden of proof you haven’t even come close to. I don’t know how else to explain it so you can understand it. The freedom from illnesses and diseases, being able increase the longevity and quality of life, to literally touch the sky. These are wonderful things.
    I also want to make another point, along with empathy and sympathy, another ESSENTIAL, FUNDAMENTAL facet of human nature is curiosity, the search for knowledge, in a word: science. Technology is just applied science. If you stunt that growth, if you shut that down you cancel out a fundamental aspect of ourselves, you repress part of that which makes us fundamentally human. As long as there are people to look up at the stars they will dream of ways to reach them. I would not want to live in a world where it was otherwise, such a world would not be WORTH living in.

    Because it is. There’s a reason why the word is in the lexicon. Just like fat, stupid, etc. It may not be pleasant to hear, but there are people who exemplify these characteristics. When I hear the words “speciesism”,..it’s like when I hear scientologists talk about the alien god Xenu. It tells me this person is circling the outer fringes of sanity. It tells me logic is to be found elsewhere. Freedom for animals and freedom for humans is two very different things. Prisons exist for the socially maladapted to punish or rehabilitate, they… This is going to take all day…, suffice to say the sufficient conditions are not compatible, as Debiant pointed out, quite well.

    I want to make this final point; that this opposition, this imaginary conflict between “nature” and technology/ civilization is fundamentally bogus. It’s a false dichotomy. Our capacity to envision and build tools is a natural adaptation afforded us by evolution. Those tools we create can only be created from what exists in nature. It is a fundamental law of physics matter cannot be created or destroyed. Nothing has been added to the periodic table that didn’t exist before we found it. Beavers build dams, men build huts, then apartments, then Large Hadron Colliders.
     
  7. (A) timmy (E)

    (A) timmy (E) Active Member Forum Member


    35

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I think they''re often bunched together because it may seemed as a way of a health life and something as a final point for a guy who is not a fuckface that only goes to gigs and follow the fashion, but a smart dude
     
  8. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    ngnm83, we just bth have a completely different view of life. i do not hate life. i appreciate every second. but no, i do not want to live it the way we are told we should, at school, by the media, by our families and peers who learned at school and through the media. so, a successful life is one where i must get married, have kids, get a career? i wrote a song a couple of years ago. here is a part of it. it still stands:

    shuddupaya face, it's not your place to tell me how to live my life
    "grow up, smarten up, get a regular job, buy a house and be someone's wife"
    take your marriage, take your mortgage, take your babies, take your ties
    you don't seem so content to me, and that's no life in my eyes

    i'm going to die and so are you
    so don't you tell me what to do
    and i'll leave your life up to you

    ... and it is trying to convey that the life we are sold is not the only one we can take. we have a choice. and different people want to live different lives.

    BUT, i will speak up if i see humans or non-human animals suffering because of this. i will use my voice to speak out for the ones that are not heard. and that is what i am doing here.

    yeah, same goes for me. you see my view as very narrow, i know. but that is the way i see yours. to me, you are not looking at the wider picture. we have learnt from different places, and developed different ideas, and ways of thinking. i continue to question mine, rather than be set in my ways. but everything you have provided me with so far, i have already considered previously, and still come to my current (although continuously evolving) conclusion.
     
  9. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I'm not trying to get in the middle of this discussion because it's evidently pointless to everyone except NGNM85, who thinks he's "winning." But I have to chime in on the point of technology being neutral and the current state of civilization being a part of a necessary teleological progression: YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CRITIQUE.

    The technologies that exist were not developed in an ideological vaccuum. To paraphrase George Carlin: "the history of American technological development has been learning how to deliver more destructive force over a smaller surface area." Western (post-)industrial technology has been, in ever increasing fashion, developed by a class of specialists whose research is dictated by monied interests. Technology, or the simple concept of human innovation, would be produced from below in an egalitarian society. It would be easily accessible and reproducible, but our current mode of research depends on making technology inaccessible and irreproducible because otherwise you can't sell it!

    You want to talk of technology curing diseases and bolstering public health? 17 million children die every year of curable diseases. Our "value free" medical technology (occasionally) produces secret cures reproducible only by specialists behind laboratory walls that are only available to first world whites. You deny that modern diseases are caused by a lifestyle inundated with modern technology? Where do you think these E. Coli outbreaks come from? Cancer? Nobody died of cancer 100 years ago. Why don't you ask a Navajo person living on a reservation surrounded by government uranium mines how they feel about that particular "value free" technology. Go ahead, tell 'em it's for the good of mankind. Jesus, how about car wrecks?!

    I think modern science is useful in a lot of ways but it is not ideologically neutral. In particular, the Cartesian idea that everything in the universe is made up of discrete parts and that the way to understand something is to penetrate it, take it apart and put it back together is steeped in Western male rationalism. I'm not saying Western male rationalism is without value, but I am also saying that continues to be responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in history. Science is a guilded profession that has been controlled since its inception by white males of social status and, like any business, it responds first to money and maybe third or fourth to human need and then only to the needs of some humans.

    :|

    ...because you're starving.

    Simple proposition: the development of modern civilization has been unduly shaped by the hand of wealthy white men. Our current available technologies as well as the direction of technological innovation most strongly reflects their interests. Civilization itself is not the enemy but, rather, this civilization.
     
  10. Carcass

    Carcass Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    143

    2

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    Also, there will not be a cure for cancer or AIDS in 10 years. The capitalist model of drug research does not seek cures, it seeks costly treatments that can be researched indefinitely at the cost of 20 billion non-human animal lives per year and more grant funding than you can shake a BMW at.

    Just curious, NGNM85, do you support vivisection because you're a utilitarian of because you're a Cartesian? Do you think it's morally acceptable to sacrifice one to save one hundred or do you just think animals are clockwork automotons?
     
  11. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    Yeah but animals other than humans don't seem to have the capacity or at least the ability, to actively *REASON*.
    And if you don't think this is valid, then here is an example of why it is valid: polar bears kill for fun. None of the other polar bears seem to object to that. So now this is when you say "so why don't we, as humans, just forget about our core emotions relating to morality and just kill people for fun, for you know, 'sporting purposes', like hunting. They use the excuse that hunting is required because if deer were not hunted they would essentially kill themselves because of the imbalance in the ecosystem. The imbalance is caused by technology/civilization, so it can't be imaginary.
    So what if it's "natural adaptation afford us by evolution". Sometimes that conflicts with others, not limited to humans. People always want to look into a problem on a vague and global level ,as opposed to trying to see things from the perspective of those who have been fucked over for the wrong reasons.
    Which reminds me of what my dad said, he did admit it sounded cold, but he said that people who die in car accidents because of their own error is just an example of survival fo the fittest, almost as if he is glad when it happens because it removes them from the road. So what, even if it could be used as an example of survival of the fittest, he wouldn't have said that or think that for that matter, if *I* died in a car wreck and it was only due to my own error. Which is why I said people fail to see things from the inside sometimes, when all they have to do is try to put themselves in the situation of someone who has suffered because of some "imaginary conflict". And the concept of "survival of the fittest" was created by humans... penguins display behavior that obviously suggests sadness, they can be sad/happy/ect... dogs can be sad/happy/ect., in fact I would propose that all mammals at least have a wide range of emotions just like humans. This is obvious but it needs to said here. They want to survive too, just because on a global level we can observe certain aspects of civilization and technology as examples of natural progress doesn't mean we should ignore our emotions because we feel as if it's just a cold, natural order, when in fact the more civilization and technology advances, the more things get less natural and the more we can manipulate the natural order itself, ie affecting the ecosystem, both attempting to preserve it and while doing so attempting to destroy it in the process of our supposed natural advancement offered by evolution.
    The maint point I guess I wanted to make is that humans have the ability to affect change and actually ACT on their emotions, do we observe other animals doing the same? Not really, not on the same level as mankind. So comparing the "natural order" to what humans do or explaining that it's part of it is sometimes pointless if it is the only basis for justifying something that is cruel and not having the ability to see things from the perspective of those who are victims of the cruelty, which is probably a lot easier for humans to do considering that other animals don't seem to act on their emotions linked to morality, ethics,ect. like we do.
    So I watched a documentary on wolves, and in it, they show how wolves fight for territory (like humans do... sort of) and you could say, well, humans don't seem so bad considering how this is a natural part of life for these wolves living in this area. Well, those wolves won't come to a peaceful resolution like humans have the ability to do in their own wars. Humans are more socially and mentally dynamic, which is why we cannot explain certain things by simply saying it's just a cold, unimportant part of the natural order. We have the ability to REASON and promote good ethics. Survival is not of the fittest anymore if you have a handicapped child, and let's say that predators want to eat that child because it's handicapped and it's easy game. It's YOUR child, so you cannot realistically explain that if your child was the prey of a predator out in the wild it was *just* nature, you would be sad too, in the same way that many other types of animals are sad if they lose their child. And I'm sad if I happen to watch the fucking news sometimes, but I have the ability to interpret what goes on using my mammalian brain.. can my cat interpret the news? No, so the human civilization and the human order can be explained differently than the order of other animals, living out in the wild. ect. ect. You get the point hopefully. "Nature" is not void of emotion and is not simply a cold "order".
     
  12. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    According to how arguments are supposed to be structured. A position stated, then supplanted by facts and examples. Most of what I’ve been arguing against has been pretty pitiful. At the very least I give you points for spelling and grammar.

    I understand you’re arguments. I’ve read Jensen, and Zerzan, who’s even more out to lunch. I’m familiar with these ideas. They just aren’t sufficiently logically sound to be compelling.

    I pretty much agree, however that doesn't mean much.

    I like Carlin, but that isn’t an argument, and it’s not even close to being true. I mean, it has elements of truth, but that’s’ it.

    Not necessarily. It’s much more complex. There’s a lot of corporate funding, too, but there’s also a lot of work being done by students in universities, and independent agents like Bill Gates and Albert Einstein revolutionizing science and technology in their spare time. Once a technology is created and patented, and proves to be reliable and have utility, then the corporations take it over. I’m very critical of corporations. They are essentially fascist structures. However, you have to separate the product from the agency which has taken over production. Just because Nike produces soccer balls in sweatshops, that doesn’t mean soccer balls, or the production thereof, are inherently malign in nature.


    This is nonsense. You can’t build a space shuttle in you’re backyard. Or a Large Hadron Collider. In a fascist society, or a libertarian socialist society, these extremely complex devices take a lot of expertise and organization and ingenuity to create.

    Mostly in the third world, because of lack of basic sanitation, medicines, etc.

    Again, I have serious problems, ethically, morally, with pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. The science, however is good. We should be making it available to as many people as possible to improve their quality of life. Everyone should have access to medicines. Healthcare is now starting to be seen as a fundamental right, as it should be.

    Bacteria predate civilization. There are outbreaks caused by unscrupulous corporations cutting corners, that’s’ all it is. You’re misdirecting the blame.

    Actually, they did. Hippocrates coined the term “carcinoma.” Another important thing to keep in mind is most people didn’t live long enough, something else killed them first. Cancer is partly the price of longer lifespans. However, it’s getting more and more manageable with time. I’d also mention it’s estimated something like 30% of cancers are caused by smoking.

    I dislike fission reactors. They are better than coal in many respects, but they also come with different kinds of baggage, as you mentioned, radioactive waste, which is difficult to manage. However, again, you’re distorting the issue. The science of how to split atoms and manipulate radioactive material is not inherently bad. Radiation allows us to perform important medical procedures, perform diagnostics, and treat cancers. NASA is strongly considering placing a reactor on the moon which could power a permanent community on the lunar surface. The technology is not bad, what is bad is using it irresponsibly. It’s just like language. Words aren’t “bad”, foul language is a myth. It’s entirely dependant on context.

    I don’t know precisely what the specific percentages are, but if you compare the billions of people who drive to work and home and to get food to the serious accidents,….it’s a miniscule percentage. That’s also disregarding all the other good things that they do. Automobiles profoundly changed society. Youth culture, attitudes, sexuality. It was part of the creation of teenage culture, of the sexual revolution, etc.

    Oh please, now you’re getting all Freudian. Well even Freud said “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

    Rationalism may have been created by western men, but why do they have the monopoly? Does this mean irrationality is inherently female? Rationalism is simply logical thinking. That isn’t male, or white, or Episcopalian, definitely not Episcopalian, it just IS.

    Please tell me you’re not invoking the third Reich because that is total bullshit. That cannot be laid at science’s door.

    Women are increasingly becoming leaders in the sciences. Two of the scientists who recently won the Nobel prize for advances in medicine were women. There are many brilliant and accomplished women scientists, doctors, physicists, etc.

    No, in order to have financial worth it has to have proven utility. Again, you keep bringing up economics, which is a separate issue.

    If you were you’d have a point. You’re taking the statement out of context.

    To some degree, yes. However, I’d dispute the extent of that.

    Without some sketch of what you propose as an alternative, I can’t judge that. If it’s some kind of fuzzy-minded, fantastical, primativist utopia, you can keep it.

    That’s’ simply not true. At all. Corporations ration treatments when they become available, usually charging obscene costs, but there is ENORMOUS scientific effort going on to cure AIDS, cancer, and a number of other ailments.
    These cures are also within reach. Aids patients are living way longer than they used to. Emergent technologies offer new hopes. For instance, 1% of Caucasians are immune to HIV, new gene therapies could conceivably allow us to inoculate future generations against it. There are plenty of other cutting-edge proposals. Nanotechnology, in particular, is offering very promising possibilities in defeating cancer, several trials are already underway.

    We have to develop treatments before we can come up with cures. It’s very simple. I think the funding is well worth it. Shit, compared to the war, or more tax breaks for millionaires. I’d be a hell of a lot happier if more of my tax dollars were going to the cure for cancer.

    Utilitarian. What are you, a deontologist?

    Of course. Regardless of his position on animal rights Bentham would concede that. Moreover, you’re talking about two different things. A person and a ferret are not equal.

    Nobody believes that, anymore.
     
  13. corvus corax

    corvus corax Member New Member


    9

    0

    0

    Oct 9, 2009
     
    ferrets and humans are not equal, because ferrets living in their natural environment fulfill their role in the biosphere, are intimately connected to and dependent/interdependent upon the natural world, and contribute in their own unique way to the stability, vitality, and diversity of this world.

    humans, however, have severed all ties with this natural world which nurtured them for eons; they have chosen to dominate rather than coexist, they have denied their animal nature and built fantastical castles of abstractions, have torn apart the natural world for their own vanity and hubris, and that makes them not at all equal to a ferret.

    i don't care how much nietzche or freud or kant or hawking or even zerzan you read--they're nothing more than hairless apes. and you're a hairless ape too. and all your flawlessly constructed arguments and rationalizations are but pretty parlor tricks, nothing more. it's this self-serving science which you laud that got the earth and its inhabitants into the mess that it's currently mired in, and your scientific miracles of some glorious 'tomorrow' aren't gonna do anything but plunge the world further into peril.

    i'd trade all your self-serving, narcissistic scientists for just one ferret. and fuck you too. the well-being of the physical, real world is primary, not your phony-ass ivory towers of theory, nor your ivy league bastions of 'science,' 'reason,' or ' progress.'

    (the intended recipient of this tirade should be obvious, i'm not gonna bother to name any names)
     
  14. Bananaman

    Bananaman Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    294

    2

    3

    Aug 9, 2009
     
    If there is a species that is even less beneficial to the ecosphere than humans than that is the Ferret. As cute as they may be Ferrets are domestic animals that have a very hard time adapting to the wild, and since all Ferrets alive today are descended from a rather small population they carry an ever increasing number of genetic disorders. The nature is just fine without Ferrets...

    There were epidemics long before modern science kicked in. In fact some animals may be wiped out by epidemics, like Tasmanian devil. The reason devils may go extinct is because they have a rather small population, which doesn't offer much genetic diversity. The reason why humans survived the black death is that there was enough of Homo sapiens around, and some had a mutation that made them partially immune to the disease. Over time this mutation spread throughout the population and is now the reason some people have partial to full immunity from AIDS. Survival of the fittest...

    Chinese developed the gunpowder, paper too. Japan is a country that has produced quite a few scientific inovations in recent years. They are not white western men...

    I could write much more, but I have more important things at the moment, maybe later. I just want to add that for people who have very limited understanding of Biology some of you sure write a lot...
     
  15. singerminger

    singerminger Member Forum Member


    22

    0

    0

    Oct 10, 2009
     
    to the patronising educated scientists out there. it is not that we have limited understanding of science, but perhaps we have questioned what has been shoved down our throats by government-funded education systems, and are trying to look outside the man-made box. trying to see reality through the clouds.
     
  16. ghost in the void

    ghost in the void Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    148

    0

    1

    Aug 8, 2009
     
    i wondered why i had such a kinship with ferrets.

    thanks for that post Bananaman. i am fascinated by biology, genetics, psychology and other interesting things. such as "religion" for example.

    i thought you meant to end your post with "...of bullshit." maybe it was my sense of humour, linguitics, or the interesting concept that i am one of "the enlightened", and a telepath.

    but then again, since you read PE, you probably know i'm utterly insane, provenly so, by biochemistry, genes and psychological evaluation.

    i'm VERY interested in "genetic memory". why baby birds will fly when they fall from a nest. why a mammal will drink milk as an infant, even that of another species. and why i remember things i've never done or seen in this lifetime.

    enlightenment / insanity is a bitch. and i'm a bastard.
     
  17. spence

    spence Member Forum Member


    20

    0

    0

    Oct 12, 2009
     
    I'm a long time veggie- though I've never made the transition to vegan. I also fancy myself as a poet/writer and wanted to share this with you all in lieu of a more conventional response. Let me know what ya think as words are my weapons in the struggle against 'the order'.
    The following is a poem that I posted on a few 'mainstream' poetry and writer sites I use.

    Choosing Life

    They lay murdered and ravaged in grocery stores packaged
    People picking through the pieces- it looks primitive; so savage
    Are they laughing like hyenas- or circling like vultures?
    Well aren’t they scavenging remains left dismembered by the hunters?

    Born just to be slaughtered- bred and culled for human food
    Sliced and diced, distorted, to sustain the baying brood
    They were cows and pigs, chicken, fish- deer and sheep and goats. (Et al)
    Now shot and shorn, ripped and torn, hung bleeding from the throat
    Did anybody ever tell you that the meat you eat will rot?
    Trapped in your lower intestine and will fuck you up- a lot!

    Death! Death! The stench of death!
    You’ve been chewing on a carcass
    I can smell it on your breath!
    Flesh! Flesh! Consuming flesh!
    Do you think of what you’re eating?
    Are you happy just to guess?


    They are used to ‘cure our cancers’- cosmetics burn their eyes
    Still repeating the experiments, (just to see how many die?)
    They are shot and bombed and poisoned to enact the waste of war
    And we support this butchery when we buy from certain stores

    Why buy vanity products, produced through animal testing?
    And in this day and age- why can’t we cut out vivisecting?
    They are self-conscious with beliefs and drives, emotions and desires
    I can’t condone their torture in research for ‘saving lives’
    While alternatives exist in technological advance
    It’s time the human race moved on, before we miss the chance

    Death! Death! You smell of death!
    Your perfume and your make up
    And your hair dyes smell of death!
    Flesh! Flesh! Your pound of flesh!
    Do you care for what you’re wearing?
    Are you happy just to guess?

    Humans, being omnivores, have survived far greater scales
    Than herbivores or carnivores in the evolutionary tale
    Warm blooded and intelligent- we can make informed decisions
    So here’s the truth of animal abuse that hides with such precision

    Consumption is big business- a global industry
    Billions slaughtered every year for endless gluttony
    Indiscriminate indigenous animal population displacement
    In the cheapest possible places to buy land for containment
    People are paid to spin the sin- drown out dissenting voices
    While advertising and media cull and control your choices.
    They need your approval to uphold these trades in death
    So they fill you with manure- and tell you- more or less,

    Kill! Kill! We have to kill!
    If you don’t eat meat
    It’ll make you very ill.
    Murder! Murder! The Hippies call it ‘Murder’!
    It’s just a passing fashion
    Don’t let them spoil your burger!

    The side effects of eating meat have been hidden now for years
    They won’t tell you risks of cancer or the drugs they use to rear
    The cattle to a size to fit their gross commodities
    That feed the hungry masses to immune-deficiencies

    The antibiotics that immunise the growing cattle
    Remain active in the meat and don’t help the human battle
    To resist such mundane illnesses as cold and flu and fever
    And steroids used for induced growth don’t help your body, either.
    As you become resistant to human medication
    Defences breached; bacterial leech- you die of common ailments

    Lies! Lies! They tell you lies!
    They’re going to make a killing
    And they don’t care who dies!
    Spin! Spin! They feed you spin
    As they cut up the corpses
    And sell you the rotting things!

    For every slaughtered cow- we’d feed a hundred starving people
    With food and water for its growth and fields that could have yielded
    Crops of fruit and vegetables, but our land is used in waste
    Excess methane harms the ozone- I hope you like the taste

    ‘Meat is murder’ are the murmurs of those that made ‘life’ choice
    For those penned and condemned entities we will use our voice
    Direct action has been outlawed as a form of terrorism
    While millions die, every day, in Animal Auschwitz prisons
    So if we trash an abattoir or a vivisectionist’s lair
    These aren’t acts of mindless violence- it’s the way we show we care

    Life! Life! Choosing Life!
    Defy the butcher’s apron
    And the vivisection knife
    Life! Life! Please choose life!
    Resisting senseless murder
    Words and action
    Choosing life!

    (If you’re hearing this and thinking twice- here’s my best ‘alternative’ advice
    Refuse to buy cosmetics and toiletries that have been produced through animal testing
    Support attempts to find alternative methods of medical research so we can stop vivisecting
    If you must eat meat, buy local to support organic smallholdings, eat less produced by multi-national corporations,
    Learn to hunt your own, but please do not condone
    The manufacture of a life-form
    On a factory line of flesh
    That is barbaric, cruel, destroys environments and eco-systems and consigns so many human animals to death.
    Red meat is extremely high in fat- it’s causes thousands of strokes and heart attacks
    (Has anyone ever told you that?)
    It’s just like smoking how they’ve lied!
    (It’s good for you- it’s true! We’re telling you, it’s true!)
    Rain forests fall for factory farms
    Intent to manufacture harm
    That is then sold on to you
    ‘3rd World’ held to ransom as poverty crushes self-sufficiency
    And they sell up their sparse resources and their arable lands- as human beings starve close by that have been forced to live in sand.
    (The process of exploitation running very efficiently, but that’s another, related, gory story)
    They would never tell you any of this- any more than they would confess to you the truth of our ability to survive, (better), with less meat or without meat in our diet.
    (For everything’s sake- just try it!)
    Consumers would be far too wise in decisions that they made
    Profits would be compromised and then influence in trade.
    In truth it’s like smoking and drinking and uppers combined
    In the future there will be limits to the type of meat we buy
    But for now it is acceptable, and immensely profitable, for us to consume flesh
    And so the smell of death still lingers on the human species’ breath.)
     
  18. DrunkSquid

    DrunkSquid Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    167

    0

    0

    Oct 11, 2009
     
    Survival of the fittest... so what?
     
  19. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Thank you. :D
     
  20. NGNM85

    NGNM85 Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I would be very curious indeed how you define "natural." You have a very peculiar take on it. Apparently, to you, natural is everything that has no direct contact or connection with humans. That is a bogus definition. You, and Drunksquid, obviously missed my point earlier. That you're lovely dilineation between "nature" and "technology/civilization" is an imaginary line. For the second time... Our ancestors, Neanderthals, and their immediate predecessors, NATURALLY evolved higher brain functions and opposeable thumbs to make tools. Even chimpanzees and other apes have been known to use sticks and such, just like those corvidae you're so enamored of build nests. Even something as sophisticated as a space shuttle is comprised of the same matter that has existed for over a million years, NOTHING new has been created. Therefore, for the last time, in virtually every way, my computer is just as "natural" as a birds' nest.

    This displays a marked, deep-seated self-loathing. Interestingly enough, this is what you want to reduce humans to. If you eliminate our higher brain functions, logic, artistic and creative capacities, ability to formulate abstract ideas,...yes, thats' what we would be. You want to essentially toss out all the features that define us as human.

    Again, you display this tunnel vision. No mention of curing polio, or other diseases, no mention of art, exploring outer space, etc. This is so one-sided it's laughable.

    Actually, cutting edge technology is the best tool to save this planet. Although, we should still make an effort with what we presently have.

    Damn all those selfish people trying to cure AIDS and cancer, and unlock the secrets of the universe. It's obvious why you'd hate them.

    Very clever.

    This is another bogus definition of "real." Anarchism is real even though it has no substance. So is hope, truth, and ultraviolet light. Also, it's interesting you associate education with classism. I'm working class, and largely self-educated. Anybody with a library card can get an education just as good as that afforded by the more prestigious schools. The rich have no monopoly on intelligence. I wish I could get into and ivy league school, of course I'd have to be able to afford the tuition.

    Message received.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - SxE Vegetarianism Veganism
  1. elahrairah
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,259