- Jun 2012
- Vilnius, Lithuania
Btw, where are fish right activists?
Maybe even centuries. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals precedes the creation of the British police. Also there was animal wealthare advocacy in the Ancient world. Several Platonists and the Neopythagorean Apollonius of Tyana wrote advocating abstaining from eating of flesh based also on animal suffering among other reasons, and the latter advocated replacing animal sacrifices by agricultural offerings instead. Pythagoreans were also said to dress in linen only and to walk barefoot so as not to have the skin of dead animals in contact with their body.To get back to OP, animal rights activist were not originally really environmentally motivated, and definitely not climate change orientated. The theory of global warming came decades after the animal rights movement.
It has been scientifically demonstrated that Cow's farts accelerate the Global Warming. So that, when you eat beans you should be aware that after some hours you will cause a little climatic disaster contributing to the Global Warming.The cute ones. Why do you think the Panda is *literally* the poster boy for the world wild life organisation?
To get back to OP, animal rights activist were not originally really environmentally motivated, and definitely not climate change orientated. The theory of global warming came decades after the animal rights movement. You can care about animal suffering while not even believing in man-made climate change, or that deforestation is a huge problem. They are all different things.
Even saying that the top priority should be doing good for the environment is vague to be meaningless. Do you mean good for maintaining the status quo, or good for some species? We can cut down on plastic in the ocean by using cotton bags, but that has a huge water cost, causing problems for other eco systems. Which one of those is the "good for the environment option"? How do you balance one species against another? Do you value the health of a species as a whole or the welfare (i.e., lack of suffering) of its individuals? If we killed all domesticated cattle we would be committing genocide but alleviating a lot of suffering.
Traditionally, animal rights activists would focus on the welfare of individual animals (especially large mammals) above all. That made some gains in the west but just not that many people care all that much about it. Now that a lot of people care a lot about global warming, there has been a partial change of tactics. Animal farming is branded as "bad" not just because it makes animals suffer, but because it produces lots of CO2/Methane. This is thus another argument used to curb meat production: the end goal is the same but the reason drastically different. In same cases they even clash: Battery farmed chickens surely suffer more than free ranged ones, but have a smaller carbon footprint.
Of course, trying to get activists, or even the general public to understand this is hopeless. Most of these issues are not decided rationally in terms of compromise. Rather, people who think of themselves as environmentalists jump on the bandwagon of whatever issue is currently in the press (Plastic bags are evil! Straws are evil! Eat less cheese!) and run with it, mentally isolating it from all the other issues. It's a gut emotional reaction, or virtue signalling, more than anything else.
It would have been a laughing matter a few decades ago and it is still a laughing matter today. Nobody except the Murdoch tabloids takes these actions seriously. PETA is good for animal welfare; its ridiculous behaviour makes the actions of more moderate groups seem reasonable in comparison. Every movement needs its radical fringe wingnuts for this reason.Few decades back this would all have been laughed at, but these days, no, no laughing matter at all, as people may be "harmed", and that is "bad".
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Do you think it’s been Animal Holocaust & Slavery?||Philosophy / Sociology|
|Was Ashoka the first king in history to issue edicts concerning animal welfare and rights?||General History|
|Animal rights in history||General History|
|Human 'rights' are not Animal 'Rights'?||Philosophy / Sociology|