VeganXenofeminist [comrade/them]

  • 2 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 7th, 2021

help-circle

  • 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!)





  • Hey there, relate so much to what you’re saying. I’m incredibly lonely and isolated and I feel like it’s killing me slowly. I hate this atomised neoliberal hell-world so much. I desperately wish I had a tribe, a community where I could feel a sense of belonging and togetherness. But no, capitalism forces us all to Bowl Alone. We weren’t meant to live like this. But I hope you feel a bit of solidarity even if it is just coming from an internet stranger through a screen. ❤️








  • Except that the only reason our species has made it this far is literally because "apes together strong". We're social creatures, we evolved to be part of a tribe. And why do people act like human needs and desires would magically disappear if the capitalist mode of work was abolished? As long as humans have needs and desires, humans are going to expend effort to meet those needs/desires.

    Hell, I’m reading Practical Ethics right now and Peter Singer (who I thought had some Marxist sympathys) makes the HuMaN nATuRe claim early on in regards to how to achieve an egalitarian society lol

    I've been meaning to read Singer. Has he never heard of historical materialism?


  • Right on. I think that one of the more important concepts that we can spread is that tech is simply an amplifier. It will make achieving our goals easier, but if our goals are shit, better tech will just make things shitty even faster.

    Absolutely. Technology is just a tool, it is our political organization that determines how it's used/distributed. Just look at the Texas power outage. People deprived of an essential utility when they didn't have to be, because the people who control the resources would rather power empty corporate offices than homes.

    Automation seems a useful way to reach people about this: “Hey everyone, I developed a robot to automate your jobs!”

    Indeed, under capitalism, technology doesn't exist to serve human need. Capitalism is a parasitic, morally repugnant system.

    Also, I guess he probably never actually said it but, a quote you may enjoy:

    Where's the lie? I raise you a quote from Dostoyevsky in return:

    The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations–and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves.