Shit like this really fucks with me. If people here, who came to a website explicitly ML, who believe in everything from wage slavery to reparations to abolishment of all borders, still side with "fuck off, animal slavery is fine" over "enslavement is cruel" then what's the fucking point?

  • PaulWall [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    What about using animals as components in permaculture-type land restoration programs? Cows and pigs are great at restoring rangeland and making healthy pasture if managed properly. Also, the creation of healthy pasture from degraded land sequesters carbon in the soil while increasing the production of biomass which also sequesters carbon.

    • AlexisOhanian [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      We could just introduce the wildlife that naturally filled that role, giving them their habitat back rather than continue to exploit animals we still end up slaughtering.

      • PaulWall [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        If we had the capabilities to produce synthetic meat on a wide enough scale, then would you consider it a moral obligation of humans to work towards decoupling various natural predator-prey relationships by protecting the prey and providing synthetic alternatives to the predators? I’m curious if the same ethical obligations apply under non-human engineered, system-wide instances of slaughtering.

        Because if the point isn’t only climate restoration but rather also the ending of unnecessary suffering, then it seems the natural predator-prey relationship that exists in the wild becomes unnecessary given sufficient human technology and management.

        I know this isn’t exactly relevant to your response, but I’ve been pondering on the ethical implications of widely available synthetic meats.

          • VeganXenofeminist [comrade/them]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Hi comrades, don't mean to hijack the convo but WAS is something I've been thinking about a lot lately! I literally made this post on a vegan leftist FB group today:

            Hi all. I wanted to ask if any of you are familiar with the term “Sentientism” and whether you think humans have a moral obligation to actively intervene in the suffering of animals in nature. Should we aim to mitigate/eliminate the effects of things like predation, starvation and disease for non-human animals, who don’t have the capacity to engineer technical solutions to these things themselves? Veganism is a moral baseline, IMO, but does the welfare of non-human animals fall into the purview of leftism? Would love to hear your thoughts!

            To which someone commented:

            I’ve been wondering about this lately, too! I see my veganism as a boycott of animal exploitation and oppression by humans, as well as feminist solidarity with all nonhuman animals, whose bodily autonomy is violated in both reproductive and non-reproductive ways. While I do think reducing suffering is an admirable goal in the broad sense, and I’m sympathetic to the idea that humans should intervene in the healthcare of nonhuman animals, for me the possibility of intervention in starvation and predation begins to feel fraught, paternalistic, and as if it could compromise the autonomy of obligate carnivores. That being said, I’m really new to this myself and would love to see as much discussion as possible on it. To anyone reading this: I’ve seen a whole lot of resources on the topic but feel overwhelmed and don’t know where I should start on it. Does anyone have personal recommendations?

            My response:

            Really appreciate the response, and I'm totally in agreement with everything you've said! The reason I'm a leftist and a vegan is because I think suffering is bad and that we should aim to reduce harm wherever possible. I think the criteria for moral consideration is sentience-- the capacity to suffer. I feel like, as humans, we are uniquely equipped with the intelligence to alleviate suffering, and that we should harness our sapience for the benefit of all sentient beings. "From each according to their ability to each according to their need", as it were. That being said I share your concerns re: paternalism. I feel like a lot of leftists may dismiss the idea of wild animal welfare as "meddling". Some might even say it's a colonial mindset. I'm not sure how to reconcile my leftist views with my sympathy for the plight of animals, both domesticated and wild.

            I'd love to pick y'all's brains on this too :) (Sorry to insert myself into this exchange, I'm just so ecstatic to see fellow leftists discuss animal ethics!)

      • PaulWall [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Well the animals will breed naturally while they are on the rangeland, this is typically what happens anyways. You’d have to implement some type of population control if you wanted to maintain lack of population growth. I’m not sure if that’s really what you meant by not breed them.

        It’s also not only about the effect it has on the animal, but the effect it has on the climate system as a whole. Managed grazing of pastureland is going to be necessary for the rapid restoration of lands. We can’t artificially recreate the positive effect animals have on the land without using animals themselves, and if we don’t actively manage it then the restoration will not be rapid enough to combat desertification.