Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Polish serial killer obsessed by slaughterhouses. Every serial killer I have seen a documentary on began by committing atrocities on fellow animals.”
Yes all of the respected research bodies recognise “every documentary I have seen” as the gold standard when it comes to research. In research terms it has the highest accolades and respect alongside other high standard research methods such as “I met a bloke in the pub” and “my brother in law knows somebody who…”
You might find the following quote interesting:
“I knew a guy that used to work in the stockyards and he used to kill cows all day long with a big sledgehammer, and then go home at night and eat dinner with his children and eat the meat that he slaughtered. Then he would go to church and read the bible, and he would say, ‘That is not killing.’ And I look at him and I say, ‘That doesn’t make any sense, what you are talking about?’
“Then I look at the beast, and I say, ‘Who is the beast?’Charles Manson – reported vegetarian and convicted serial killer
There was an earlier one than Tony Benn:
A Forecast of the Coming Revolution: Interview with Paul Lafargue
“Meat and dairy produce: symbols of male power, sexual dominance and racial discrimination, 1997”
That has to get the prize for the most contrived and ridiculous title for in the last fifty years. Which soppy git wrote that?
The point being, that the degrading of nonhumans to property naturally degraded humans to property too. The concept of rule is born.
I think the link you make is exaggerated and unproven, you use the example of Norman French and Latin as linguistic proof, yet civilisations developed property and developed the concept of rule before either of those languages was used and in parts of the world far from the development of those languages.
you say – “Adam Smith noted that along with <i>crops</i>, herds of animals were the earliest form of private property”
Which supports my argument that if humans were non carnivorous they would have still grown crops and the concept of property would have still developed. Your overall theory that the domestication of animals was the root cause of the alienation of humans from nature and the source of the development of private property is at best tenuous and at worst complete bollocks.
Even if your theory was true, the development of propertied societies was a positive development in terms of the development of the means to create a Socialist society. Meat eaters can therefore be thanked for the positive impact they have had in the development of the means of production to the point where a socialist society is possible, let’s have a big round of applause for the meat eaters!!!!
He was interviewed on BBC 5 Live in the last week or so. Some interesting ideas, not quite there yet, but at least he countered some of the human nature arguments.
Not about eating meat, which was done in prehistory too (with humans being more scavengers than hunters, btw), but about the concept of ownership, of property, which livestock were.
As presumably were the fields in which the grain was grown and the vegetables which were harvested. As to the use of the word Chatell having any impact on this, it was derives from old Norman French, which developed many, many years after the agrarian revolution.
Ah, so its our old opponent D R Steele – another ex member – who Stuart invokes in support of his new found moderate bourgeois liberalism no doubt with an eye to the new kind of moderate bourgeois liberal readership he is writing for.
And may I suggest an eye to the kind of moderate bourgeois liberal salary that comes with it
Domestication, marked by the cultivation of plants and the constriction of animals to a particular place, was a key turning point in the gradual replacement of nomadic lifestyles with the sedentary systems of states, classes, cities, work and private property. In this sense, Zerzan argues, ‘in domesticating animals and plants man necessarily domesticates himself’.
So even if you accept the logic in your contribution (Which I think has one or two holes anyway) had humans been entirely herbivorous the process of domestication of plants would have had more or less an identical impact on social relationships as that of animals and plants.
The obvious question to ask is therefore, what point are you trying to make about meat consumption that would not apply to consumption of a purely vegan diet. Are you trying to say that all of the ills of capitalism lie at the door of meat consumption?
I would say that the development of class society clearly did have it’s genesis in elements of the agricultural revolution and I don’t see that as a negative thing, neither do I hanker after the “joys” of life in a pre agricutural society.
Can’t imagine the police reaction had anything to do with this (spoiler alert, the previous statement was intended to be ironic)
It looks as if the protests have been hijacked by the ‘anti-fascist’ mob so that they can indulge in street scuffles with Tony Robinson’s mob this weekend. Fat lot of good that will do.
I think you’ll find that’s Tommy Robinson. I can’t imagine Baldrick is up to much in a ruck!
I’m a bit puzzled. We already have numerous predictions being made. But you suggest we will not make any mention of any proposals that will mitigate climate crisis, nor heed the advice of experts and science. Apparently the best scientific advice available right now cannot be accessed by ourselves, nor used in any campaign for socialist ideas.
Perhaps I haven’t explained myself properly. What I was trying to say is that the impact of our activities will always be systematic, in terms of the eco-system. An input here will result in an output there. The earth is by and large a closed system.
Unfortunately best scientific advice right now is usually non holistic, non systematically based. It often represents one sector of the economic machine, for example the green power production movement has been demonstrated to favour the economic interests of a sector of the capitalist class (I think Michael Moore’s film demonstrated that fairly effectively).
In order to deal with the environmental issues we have we need a Socialist Society which can look at all aspects of a particular choice, without the profit system biasing how this will work.
As things stand now scientific advice is usually biased and often partial in terms of generally looking at one small aspect of the ecosystem without seeing the bigger picture. Unfortunately as things stand at the moment, the Socialist movement has not got the resources, internally or externally, to examine in any meaningful way, how we could best attempt to resolve these issues on an ecosystemic basis. For now we must use very broad strokes. The danger of us stating things like:
“Socialism will be about a flexitarian diet for the overwhelming majority of people across the world. The meat element will for various reasons but primarily one of ecological sustainability be very much reduced and the types of meat available will be different, subject to local geography and culture.”
Is that we simply do not have enough information and knowledge to make even this level of statement, we should be very careful about getting into the business of predictions about future production and consumption measures, we are only making future weapons for our critics. For all we know the future development of something like non farting cows who live on sea water might completely change our outlook, or to satisfy Mutual Aid we might end up with a “restaurant at the End of the Universe” situation:
“A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox’s table, a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
“Good evening,” it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, “I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?”
It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
“Something off the shoulder perhaps?” suggested the animal, “braised in a white wine sauce?”
“Er, your shoulder?” said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
“But naturally my shoulder, sir,” mooed the animal contentedly, “nobody else’s is mine to offer.”
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal’s shoulder appreciatively.
“Or the rump is very good,” murmured the animal. “I’ve been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there’s a lot of good meat there.”
It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
“Or a casserole of me perhaps?” it added.
“You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?” whispered Trillian to Ford.
“Me?” said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, “I don’t mean anything.”
“That’s absolutely horrible,” exclaimed Arthur, “the most revolting thing I’ve ever heard.”
“What’s the problem Earthman?” said Zaphod, now transferring his attention to the animal’s enormous rump.
“I just don’t want to eat an animal that’s standing there inviting me to,” said Arthur, “It’s heartless.”
“Better than eating an animal that doesn’t want to be eaten,” said Zaphod.
“That’s not the point,” Arthur protested. Then he thought about it for a moment. “Alright,” he said, “maybe it is the point. I don’t care, I’m not going to think about it now. I’ll just… er […] I think I’ll just have a green salad,” he muttered.
“May I urge you to consider my liver?” asked the animal, “it must be very rich and tender by now, I’ve been force-feeding myself for months.”
“A green salad,” said Arthur emphatically.
“A green salad?” said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
“Are you going to tell me,” said Arthur, “that I shouldn’t have green salad?”
“Well,” said the animal, “I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually decided to cut through the whole tangled problem and breed an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.”
It managed a very slight bow.
“Glass of water please,” said Arthur.
“Look,” said Zaphod, “we want to eat, we don’t want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven’t eaten in five hundred and seventy-six thousand million years.”
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. “A very wise choice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,” it said, “I’ll just nip off and shoot myself.”
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. “Don’t worry, sir,” he said, “I’ll be very humane.”
It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.”
To be honest with you MA, I would quite happily tuck into you without too much of a qualm, I’d probably choose a non- Socialist first, but if you looked more appetising than the non Socialist, you might end up in the pot.
Socialism will be about a flexitarian diet for the overwhelming majority of people across the world.
The meat element will for various reasons but primarily one of ecological sustainability be very much reduced and the types of meat available will be different, subject to local geography and culture.
Change in production and consumption will also equally apply to non-livestock food such as grain, fruit and veg. Farming methods will be modified. Land-use will alter.
I am afraid I cannot go along with what you are saying Alan. How a future society would organise food production is something we cannot possibly predict as we do not have the resources within the Socialist movement and there are many factors which we cannot possibly predict.
The difficulty we have is that at the moment all food production is seen through the irrational prism of capitalism and if we do create a socialist society the view might be very different and it might be that issues we have not taken into consideration become far more relevant than they now appear.
I’ll give a couple of examples. I have a friend who works in the water industry and was part of a big project to look at how they managed the disposal of waste (essentially excrement) which was being dumped at sea off the Tyne. Mainly this was because the beach in Whitley Bay didn’t meet water quality standards set by the EU and the swimming community didn’t like having the odd Richard the Third floating past them as they braved the North Sea. All would be well when the waste was filtered sterilised, made into pellets and then used to fire power plants. However the result was that the prawn fisheries plummeted as the prawns thrived on eating the sewage, the fishing grounds that included fish that fed off the prawns slumped and there were a lot of angry fisherfolk. You see the problem is that nature needs shit.
In a similar way shit (and cows produce a lot of it) feeds a miriad of insects which feed a miriad of other animals, etc. etc. So when we as a species decide for example let’s get rid of animal husbandary and go to arable cropping there may well be many negative consequences, including the fact that insecticides and increased insecticide use in arable and other farming methods is decimating insect spiecies to the point of possible collapse.
It is reported that the population of honey bees in the US is less than half of what it was at the end of WW2, partly through the use of insecticides and partly through the increasing mono-culture that extensive agrarian development brings. The amount of methane produced by animals may be a factor in global warming, but the agrarian side of the food business is doing far more environmental damage through the destruction of insects and insect habitat. Einstien reckoned that without bees humanity and most life on the planet would last about four years.
So when the vegans are sitting with a smug expression on their face about how ethical their food is compared to the cruel nasty omnivores they perhaps need to think about the destruction to the environment that is done by the avocado plantations in Mexico and the criminal gangs who are now heavily involved in production there, the environmental impact of teh transport of their quinoa from South America and that rice production is heavily involved in the use of child labour (one report stated that 26% of children between the ages of 6-14 in Vietnam were involved in rice production.
In my view the only sane way forward is the socialist solution, which looks at food production without the encumberance of the profit system and looks at ways in which food can be produced in the quantities required, with the quality and choice that is desired in the most effective way taking into account issues such as the environment, sustainability, animal cruelty, mechanisation and local and global needs. This can only be done on a DEMOCRATIC and non heirarchical basis by the people it involves at the time with the aid of “the best scientific evidence” evidence that we currently do not have access to.
So to my mind glibly stating that this will happen or that will happen not only has the sniff of moralising and sanctimoniousness, it is highly undemocratic and does the cause of Socialism no good.
As to the next part
I take it you don’t recognise inter-species friendships?
It is perfectly possible to have what you call inter-species friendships (what I would call pets) and have no compunction about eating meat. My cat of 21 years passed away recently (I say my cat, I have no doubt he thought I was his human). We had an understanding of each other and a close bond, however if push came to shove I would have eaten him rather than starve and I’m perfectly sure he would have made the same choice.
