[ALB]

Socialism and Ecology wrote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations.

You've misunderstood the meaning of the word "consciousness" in this context. But to be fair you'd have to go back to an earlier passage where "consciously-acting" is defined:

Quote:

Other animals too can be said to engage in production in some sense. Birds change nature to satisfy their need for shelter when they build nests, and beavers change nature when they construct dams, as do bees with their hives and ants with their ant-hills. But nevertheless production remains an overwhelmingly human activity. It is not, as it is for other animals, an inherited instinctive behaviour pattern but results from conscious, premeditated decisions. This in fact is the only way that humans can react to their environment. All their actions (except for certain basic bodily functions and reflexes) pass first through the mind and thus are both conscious and deliberate. Humans are "consciously-acting animals" and this includes when they intervene in the rest of nature to provide for their needs.

Maybe a better term to avoid the sort of misunderstanding you've made (since lots of other animals are conscious) would be "purposefully-acting". Humans can delay their reaction to outside stimuli and "consciously" decide how to react. Humans are capable of abstract thought. No other animals are.I don't see why it is arrogant to claim that humans are like the "brain" of the biosphere. Anyway, it's only a claim about life on Earth. Of course we're only specks as far as the whole universe is concerned. And of course the human species will die out at some stage along with the Earth and all the animals on it.The idea actually comes from Murray Bookchin in one of his long, rambling (because nobody dared edit them) books about ecology and ethics. His point was that the only species capable of doing anything about the pollution and the environment of the Earth's biosphere are humans (even if much of it is due to their actions). Only they can intervene, purposefully, to put things right. No other animal can. In fact the only species that can save some other animals from extinction is the human species. This doesn't give the human species the "right" to dominate and be cruel to other animals. On the contrary, and this is the point I was trying to make, it means that they have the "duty" not to.

[ALB]

Depends how you define "speciesism". If it's the view that humans are "the lords of creation" and can do what they like to other animals, then it's something to be criticised. If "anti-speciesism" means that members of the human species are not entitled to eat other animals and that people who say that we can are "speciesists" then it's a load of nonsense, more properly called as you suggest "speciousism" if only because it doesn't challenge the "right" of other species of animal to eat other animals. The worse thing about Peter Singer is not so much his specious philosophising on this point but the fact that he claims to be a Marxist. Marx must be choking on his frankfurters.

[ALB]

But nobody here is in favour of bull fighting or animal cruelty (the member who defended bull-fighting on the WSM Forum is now an ex-member and has joined Left Unity though he does appear here from time to time).You are right "Animal rights" and "anti-speciesism" have nothing to do with vegetarianism. You don't have to be a vegetarian to espouse these, though that animals have "rights" is a dubious concept. It's more that humans have a "duty" not to be cruel to them. As we say in the concluding paragraph of our Ecology and Socialism pamphlet:

Quote:

As the only consciously-acting life-form within the biosphere, humans ought to act as the biosphere's "brain", consciously regulating its functioning in the interest of present and future generations. But before humans can hope to play this role we must first integrate our own activities into a sustainable natural cycle on a planetary scale. This we can only do within the framework of a world socialist society in which the Earth and its natural and industrial resources have become the common heritage of all humanity.

[ALB]

John Oswald wrote:

I remember my dad teaching me about socialism and Shelley, saying, "We agree with what Shelley says, but not his vegetarianism, so ignore his pieces about that"

I see your dad understood the Party case.

[ALB]

Now the Church of England gets in on the act (well, actually, they were there before the pope):http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/15/uk-economy-tale-two-cities-archbishopsSome extracts:

Quote:

The book of essays, to be published next week, is edited by the archbishop of York, John Sentamu. On Rock or Sand? has unmistakable echoes of Faith in the City, the Church of England report published 30 years ago that infuriated the Conservatives, who denounced it as “pure Marxist theology”. (….)The book advocates a new redistribution of wealth, quoting the slogan popularised by Karl Marx: “From each according to his resources, to each according to his need.” (…)“If it is the survival of the fittest, that’s what I call living in the jungle and I don’t want to live in the jungle – this is supposed to be a civilised society. It is nothing to do with being socialist or whatever. What it has got to do with is, is this how God created us? Has he created us to be people who go to Black Friday to fight with each other because they want the biggest bargain? No, that’s the rule of the jungle, we left that behind.”

Looks as if the churches have taken up the leftwing reformist banner abandoned by the Labour Party (because it didn't work). But the Archbishop is right: it doesn't have anything to do with being socialist.

[ALB]

There's some silly arguments there, Alan, but there's no real need to have a grand philosophical debate about this. As far as I'm concerned if someone wants to make a lifestyle choice of being a vegetarian, fair enough, go ahead, but leave the rest of us to get on with our wider eating habits. To be honest this is what most vegetarians do. The trouble is that some are over-zealous and criticise the rest of us, so provoking arguments. They think they've got the moral high ground but just come across as smug. And of course those who associate vegetarianism with socialism have to be refuted. Actually, we can turn the tables on them here by pointing out that only within a socialist framework can a rational food policy not involving the mistreatment of animals be put into practice.

[ALB]

Thanks. Until I re-read that letter from Richard Condon I had forgotten how abysmally low was the theoretical understanding of the rank and file members of the "International Socialism" Group at the time. Some of the others were able to put up more of a fight:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-791-july-1970/debate-%E2%80%9Cinternational-socialists%E2%80%9DAnyway, we've asked for a review copy of the book. Don't know if we'll get one though.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

But no more SPGB candidates will be announced right?

I can't see any more branches coming forward to contest the parliamentary elections, but there are local elections the same day in two of the seats we've chosen: Brighton Kemptown and Folkestone & Hythe. There are elections to Lewes District Council (and East Sussex County Council) in the former and to Shepway District Council in the latter. Personally, I'd be in favour of contesting a council seat in each, so as to raise further our profile and also provide a focus for leafletting. Candidates would have to live in the council area but we have members, even parliamentary candidates, living in both.

[ALB]

Yes, scroll down to Elections in 2010s:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easington_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29Scroll down even further to Elections in the 1990s and see how we did in 1997.I see no one wants to stand there as a Tory or LibDem. Can't say I blame them.

[ALB]

Missed this other possible candidate in Brighton Pavilion:

Quote:

On 12 December 2014 sex worker Charlotte Rose stated her intention to stand for the seat, although she did not state if she would be standing as an independent candidate or representing a party

The lists above may well not be the final list as other candidates will probably coming forward in the coming months.

[ALB]

I see our candidatures are now on wikipedia too:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_East_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_West_and_Abingdon_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_Pavilion_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_Kemptown_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkestone_and_Hythe_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swansea_West_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easington_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29Our opponents are the usual suspects except in Oxford West & Abingdon where we're up against the National Heath Action Party too and in Folkestone & Hythe against various odds and solds (TUSC and the YPP, whatever that is).Anyway, the gauntlets have been thrown down.

[ALB]

This might of relevance:http://www.firstpost.com/living/homeless-kitty-saves-abandoned-baby-2049441.html

[ALB]

Actually, there is a sense in which humans are superior to other animals: we have better brains. Other animals are superior to us in other respects (better hearing, sight, smell, even with senses we don't have, etc) but we have better brains, one capable of abstract thinking and forward planning. This doesn't mean that we are entitled to abuse or "dominate" them. Quite the opposite. It means that we are the only animal that has the ability to save other animals. It could even be said that we have a duty to do this. But this doesn't mean that we should not eat some of them any more than it means that some animals should not eat other animals.

[ALB]

Just realised that in French "Je suis Charlie" means both "I am Charlie" and "I follow Charlie". Don't know if that has any significance.

[ALB]

Très interessant, but I noticed that Sade wasn't a vegetarian, far from it ("Sade n’était pas végétarien, loin s’en faut"). But then of course you don't have to be one to be against the mistreatment of animals.

[Author]

Posts