Animal Rights/Vegan Issues: Where's the Left? (Mickey Z.)

[Tace]

Mickey Z. -- World News Trust

March 17, 2010 -- In a recent article, I discussed how America’s top liberal (sic) eco-spokesperson, Al Gore, conveniently ignores the primary cause of climate change: factory farming and the industrial meat-based diet (and thanks to Hope Bohanec at In Defense of Animals, I’ve learned of a new report from World Watch that found animal byproducts are responsible for 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide human caused greenhouse gas).

A man of Gore’s reach and influence is squandering an immense opportunity to educate, inform, and to inspire serious change.

What about those far to the left of Gore? Where are the “real” progressives on dark green issues pertaining to animal rights, veganism, and the environment? Unfortunately, in most cases, the record is equally abysmal.

For example, there’s Z Magazine and Z Net founder Michael Albert. With nearly a half-century of lefty credibility and one of the largest liberal/progressive audiences around, how does Albert use this platform to address, say, fur farms or shark hunting? In his memoir, Remembering Tomorrow, Albert unabashedly clarifies his perspective: “I see no comparison in importance between seeking to eliminate the roots and branches of sexism, and seeking to eliminate the roots and branches of violence against animals. I see no comparison in importance between how chickens are treated and how women or any humans are treated. In fact, for me the animal rights agenda resonates barely at all, and the anti-sexism agenda is part of my life.”

more

http://worldnewstrust.com/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&cid=149:edited&id=8286:animal-rightsvegan-issues-wheres-the-left-mickey-z&Itemid=343

[flvegan]

1. This won't go well.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. Pass the popcorn. nt

[handmade34]

10. dear flvegan

...just had an applied ethics class and we discussed personhood for animals (per Singer) I used a link you posted awhile ago. part of my argument:


...We absolutely have a moral responsibility and obligation to our environment and all living things that we share our world with. Within that context we make very difficult decisions sometimes, including warring with other people (or any living thing or organism that could harm us without our provocation) killing to get nourishment and sometimes choosing one course of action over another knowing that the chosen act may possibly hurt someone in the process.
All this being said, as the question is presented to us for this argument; yes, I believe that animals have personhood. If not out of a sense of responsibility and kindness to the animals, then at least for our mere long term survival, we should not practice speciesism. We now have enough knowledge (both scientific and reasoning ability) to have a very real sense of eco-systems and how all living things in our world work together to make it function optimally. If we were to cut down all the trees in our world, we would suffer from their not utilizing carbon dioxide (A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs /year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm ) and if we were to threatened honeybees and other insects to the point of almost extinction, then we would have to learn how to pollinate all of our plants (including our food and crops) by hand....
I have seen too many factory farms (both in person and on film) to not have a clear understanding of the abuse that animals suffer at the hands of their supposed caretakers.
http://www.earthlings.com/earthlings/video-full.php
http://www.ecorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/paul_peta I understand the history of our diets and why we do what we do but I feel that it is time to seriously consider animals as our partners and not merely, as Descartes describes them, “…no better than biological robots…” I believe that there is still a place in our diets for meat but it must be on a lesser scale than what we consume and animals should be raised humanely and in keeping with sustainable agriculture. (Many studies have shown that “…the typical American diet adds significantly to pollution, water scarcity, land degradation and climate change and a recent authoritative report published by the World Watch institute… concluded that over 51% of greenhouse gases emissions come from Livestock”)
...Our textbook talks of the social contract theory as an “informal agreement among the members of our society and maintains that since animals cannot intentionally enter into this “contact” then we owe them nothing. I would rather call the social contract a system in which we enter into an agreement with each other to do what is in the best interests of the entire eco-system and all living things in it; in order that our children and grandchildren have an even better world than what we have at present....

[MineralMan]

2. Who says that all people on the left eschew meat?

Where did that idea come from? Politics and dietary choices aren't all that closely tied.

Some people on the left are vegetarians or vegans. Others are omnivores. That does not affect their politics.

I call this a bogus issue.

[Enthusiast]

4. The right would like nothing better

than for the Democrats to attack people for eating meat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i think this is an issue that would go far if either side would take a moderate stance

but neither will. so it wont go anywhere, beyond calling someone names of some kind.

[awoke_in_2003]

6. moderation...

is something this country doesn't do well. I have embraced it- I only eat meat 3 times a week, as opposed to 7 a few months ago.

[comtec]

9. how large are you servings of meat?

less over time - say one drum stick a day - can be better for you than say a 22oz steak 3x a week. (i know extreme, sorry)

But I agree, we need to work on reducing our usage of animals as a food source.

We can't ever completely do away with it, as we are omnivores, and need that shared amino acid that can only come from another living being. But we can greatly reduce how much we eat, and add more variety to what we eat.

I'd like to see more tofu and soy products used. I can drink soy milk (preferably chocolate).
I cook tofu, sometimes to supplement a smaller amount of meat (say 100g meat, 400g tofu).

We have to accept (this will have to start in the schools and universities) that meat, as we Americans eat it, can NOT be sustained indefinitely.

Mad cow should have been a warning.
Meat here in the Netherlands is bland and watery (start with a steak in a pan, and end up with a stew)... that too is a warning

[awoke_in_2003]

13. My portions have gotten smaller too...

including a lot more vegetables. About the only veggies I cannot stomach in any way, shape, or form is mushrooms and okra. The mere taste of shrooms make retch.

[ThomasQED]

11. Only throw a moderate amount of live baby chicks in the grinder

Only confine a moderate amount of pigs in stalls so small that they can't even turn around their entire lives

Only skin a moderate amount of cows while they are still alive

Only plunge a moderate amount of chickens into boiling water while still alive

Only chop off a moderate amount of tails, beaks, testicles etc. without anesthesia, all for the convenience of the farmer

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. I think humane killing is a moderate issue. What is not moderate is asking everyone to give up meat

but as i said, i doubt people who are animal rights activists or the other side (farmers, meat producers, beef lobby) would push it either

[flvegan]

7. ...and sadly, I was right.

Cheers, DU!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.