“We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form.” — William Ralph Inge
Congratulations for recognizing the truth about human nature, even though it is a real downer, and thank you for being courageous enough to speak it. "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free," as they say. And the truth is that there is a perfectly reasonable, logical, and compelling case to be made for misanthropy. At a more granular level, however, the truth is that while 90+% of our species are the selfish bastards you describe, something like 5-10% represents the evolutionary pinnacle of altruism in the natural world. An altruism that transcends species lines and embraces all sentient life-forms. In effect, our species, Homo sapiens, is culturally distinguishable as two very distinct species: Homo empathicus and Homo vastens. And the ethical imperative becomes to raise and exult the former while crushing the latter.
Vladimir Lenin, for all his manifest faults, at least organized the Bolshevik Party along some rational lines: every party member was entitled to dignity and respect from his comrades within the Party; anyone outside the Party was considered either an enemy or, at best, a useful idiot. Anything that advanced the interests of the Party was considered, by default, good while that which impeded it was the opposite. And that's how members of the empathicus party should conduct themselves. The party-line should be that the current trajectory of humanity is immoral and unsustainable; and anything (and everything!) that can be done to destroy, impede, or frustrate it is, by definition, Good. All people subscribing to that doctrine are to be treated as our brothers and sisters irrespective of race, religion, background, etc. All individuals falling outside the party are so much disposable trash.
At least one personal benefit of such a worldview is that it frees one from any ethical obligations to advance, help, or succor non-party members. It does, however, oblige every party member to work for the violent overthrow of humanity's tyrannical reign. 10% against 90% does not sound like winning odds in the long run but at least it guarantees you a place in heaven.
Excellent analysis of the grim and ghastly reality shaped by our species and inflicted on the rest of the living world. Seeing how people think and behave, with few exceptions where other creatures are concerned, I believe we must forge ahead on behalf of animals in spite of the bleak reality and the reasonable prospects for a bleaker future, as if life for our victims could be any bleaker than it already is. Our obligation as animal rights/liberation activists is to Keep Faith with those we have pledged to fight for, win or lose. Keep Fighting!
Looking at the facts, we see that most people do not even care in any rational manner about their own health and wellbeing. Yes, the preference for horrible eating habits and related obscenities is cultivated by the Agribyssmal industries and their affiliates, but contrary to claims that people are the helpless victims of these industries, commercial advertising and so on, we are also responsible for the choices we make about what - WHO- we put in our mouths. Go to any supermarket or Big Box outlet and the amount of healthful animal-free food is huge. Take all the junk out of the shopping carts and replace it with the wealth of animal-free affordable choices.
I emphasize diet in this comment because conventional diets are responsible for the most misery on Earth, and because diet is something that almost every individual has control over. Why do we reinforce the notion that people are nothing but victims of the government and corporations while condemning promotion of personal autonomy as "blaming the victim" instead of what it is: Empowering the Victim to stop being a Victim and a facilitator of bad government/corporations. What incentive do these amoral, immoral entities have to change if we continue buying their stuff?
To conclude, thank you Unparalleled Suffering for saying what needs to be said instead of echoing platitudes. Let this be a call to nonstop, relentless Action for Animals and for all good things.
Another excellent post. It's unreal how humans will continue to do the most backwards things, paying no mind to all the harm it causes, when we have so many alternatives!
I've often thought the same thing - if a plant based food company caused some sort of mass outbreak, there would be NO leniency and they'd likely never be able to come back from it, yet these industries exploiting animals can get away with pretty much anything.
So well written and really highlights the apathy and disregard humans have towards others which includes members of their own species. People would rather deal with pandemic after pandemic whether it comes from animal “farming” or animal research instead of simply just being decent. And it is quite simple to be decent, it doesn’t take much effort at all. But humans place so much value on convenience, far more value than they place on basic decency. Such is life, I guess.
Ahimsa42, I get your point about the unfeasibility of intervening in an endless run of frequent discussions in the same location day after day, so in this regard, we agree. It would be like, each time I'm in the checkout line at the supermarket, I would call out the people in line with me about the contents of their shopping cart. I do, nevertheless, speak up on some such occasions but would soon be a basket case if each time I went to buy food I felt I must say something to each customer.
That said, there remain many occasions when we can and should say something or politely put a brochure or a card (like our "Dying for Dinner" card showing and briefly describing a former slaughterer's description of the FEAR in each chicken's eyes as they hang upside down on the slaughter line) in a person's hands without getting into a dispute with them, but just saying, "please look at this when you have a chance. Thank you."
The one thing I cannot agree with is the idea that being an advocate (which necessarily means speaking or acting out in the public domain) is a waste of time and a hopeless cause. Many people use that excuse because they are timid about approaching a stranger or a friend or relative. We cannot control what other people are going to do with our information, but we have complete control over our own activist behavior. Moreover, many people have become animal advocates and vegetarians/vegans because someone put a thought in their ear, a brochure in their hand: even if they did not respond immediately, eventually, they did.
When opportunities arise, the anxiety of speaking up lasts one or two minutes or less. And we feel good afterward. When we forego feasible opportunities, the burden of guilt lasts a lifetime. This, anyway, has been my experience. -- Karen Davis, United Poultry Concerns. www.upc-online.org
“We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form.” — William Ralph Inge
Congratulations for recognizing the truth about human nature, even though it is a real downer, and thank you for being courageous enough to speak it. "Know the truth and the truth shall set you free," as they say. And the truth is that there is a perfectly reasonable, logical, and compelling case to be made for misanthropy. At a more granular level, however, the truth is that while 90+% of our species are the selfish bastards you describe, something like 5-10% represents the evolutionary pinnacle of altruism in the natural world. An altruism that transcends species lines and embraces all sentient life-forms. In effect, our species, Homo sapiens, is culturally distinguishable as two very distinct species: Homo empathicus and Homo vastens. And the ethical imperative becomes to raise and exult the former while crushing the latter.
Vladimir Lenin, for all his manifest faults, at least organized the Bolshevik Party along some rational lines: every party member was entitled to dignity and respect from his comrades within the Party; anyone outside the Party was considered either an enemy or, at best, a useful idiot. Anything that advanced the interests of the Party was considered, by default, good while that which impeded it was the opposite. And that's how members of the empathicus party should conduct themselves. The party-line should be that the current trajectory of humanity is immoral and unsustainable; and anything (and everything!) that can be done to destroy, impede, or frustrate it is, by definition, Good. All people subscribing to that doctrine are to be treated as our brothers and sisters irrespective of race, religion, background, etc. All individuals falling outside the party are so much disposable trash.
At least one personal benefit of such a worldview is that it frees one from any ethical obligations to advance, help, or succor non-party members. It does, however, oblige every party member to work for the violent overthrow of humanity's tyrannical reign. 10% against 90% does not sound like winning odds in the long run but at least it guarantees you a place in heaven.
Excellent analysis of the grim and ghastly reality shaped by our species and inflicted on the rest of the living world. Seeing how people think and behave, with few exceptions where other creatures are concerned, I believe we must forge ahead on behalf of animals in spite of the bleak reality and the reasonable prospects for a bleaker future, as if life for our victims could be any bleaker than it already is. Our obligation as animal rights/liberation activists is to Keep Faith with those we have pledged to fight for, win or lose. Keep Fighting!
Looking at the facts, we see that most people do not even care in any rational manner about their own health and wellbeing. Yes, the preference for horrible eating habits and related obscenities is cultivated by the Agribyssmal industries and their affiliates, but contrary to claims that people are the helpless victims of these industries, commercial advertising and so on, we are also responsible for the choices we make about what - WHO- we put in our mouths. Go to any supermarket or Big Box outlet and the amount of healthful animal-free food is huge. Take all the junk out of the shopping carts and replace it with the wealth of animal-free affordable choices.
I emphasize diet in this comment because conventional diets are responsible for the most misery on Earth, and because diet is something that almost every individual has control over. Why do we reinforce the notion that people are nothing but victims of the government and corporations while condemning promotion of personal autonomy as "blaming the victim" instead of what it is: Empowering the Victim to stop being a Victim and a facilitator of bad government/corporations. What incentive do these amoral, immoral entities have to change if we continue buying their stuff?
To conclude, thank you Unparalleled Suffering for saying what needs to be said instead of echoing platitudes. Let this be a call to nonstop, relentless Action for Animals and for all good things.
Karen Davis, PhD, President, United Poultry Concerns. http://www.upc-online.org
Another excellent post. It's unreal how humans will continue to do the most backwards things, paying no mind to all the harm it causes, when we have so many alternatives!
I've often thought the same thing - if a plant based food company caused some sort of mass outbreak, there would be NO leniency and they'd likely never be able to come back from it, yet these industries exploiting animals can get away with pretty much anything.
So well written and really highlights the apathy and disregard humans have towards others which includes members of their own species. People would rather deal with pandemic after pandemic whether it comes from animal “farming” or animal research instead of simply just being decent. And it is quite simple to be decent, it doesn’t take much effort at all. But humans place so much value on convenience, far more value than they place on basic decency. Such is life, I guess.
Ahimsa42, I get your point about the unfeasibility of intervening in an endless run of frequent discussions in the same location day after day, so in this regard, we agree. It would be like, each time I'm in the checkout line at the supermarket, I would call out the people in line with me about the contents of their shopping cart. I do, nevertheless, speak up on some such occasions but would soon be a basket case if each time I went to buy food I felt I must say something to each customer.
That said, there remain many occasions when we can and should say something or politely put a brochure or a card (like our "Dying for Dinner" card showing and briefly describing a former slaughterer's description of the FEAR in each chicken's eyes as they hang upside down on the slaughter line) in a person's hands without getting into a dispute with them, but just saying, "please look at this when you have a chance. Thank you."
The one thing I cannot agree with is the idea that being an advocate (which necessarily means speaking or acting out in the public domain) is a waste of time and a hopeless cause. Many people use that excuse because they are timid about approaching a stranger or a friend or relative. We cannot control what other people are going to do with our information, but we have complete control over our own activist behavior. Moreover, many people have become animal advocates and vegetarians/vegans because someone put a thought in their ear, a brochure in their hand: even if they did not respond immediately, eventually, they did.
When opportunities arise, the anxiety of speaking up lasts one or two minutes or less. And we feel good afterward. When we forego feasible opportunities, the burden of guilt lasts a lifetime. This, anyway, has been my experience. -- Karen Davis, United Poultry Concerns. www.upc-online.org