i decided to publish my first writings. The book is called fruitistica & is made of images & words. It is an e-book, for i don't want trees to be cut to be able to publish my images & words. Organic & fair trade cotton paper would be the solution, yet it is still hard to find, especially to publish a book. This book is about the cruelty toward humans, non humans, plants & the earth. The site i chose to host it seems ok & many unknown writers are hosted there. Hopefully, i won't remain unknown for too long i hope you find some interest in it. You can find it here.
Throughout the year many of us are approached by health charities asking us to make a donation - to help save the lives of terminally- ill children or people born with genetic disorders. What is often not made apparent however, is that your donations may be funding animal experiments.
The Leukaemia Foundation is currently conducting their door knock appeal, and this friday (3rd August) is "Genes 4 Jeans Day" - the major fundraiser for the Children's Medical Research Institute. Please be aware that both these organisations fund animal experiments.
A booklet on the Genes 4 Genes websites confirms that they have created a mouse model carrying a gene mutation that causes muscle disease and that they use mice and chicks as models for human brain development.
The Australian Association for Humane Research is NOT opposed to medical research. We are only opposed to the use of animals in research because it is not an ethical nor scientifically- valid method to achieve real medical progress. If you do not support the use of animals in research we urge you to donate only to those health charities that are listed on the humane charities list: www.humanecharities.org.au
Please contact AAHR if you would like a Humane Charities car sticker to help raise awareness. Regards, Emma Burgess Humane Charities Coordinator
Animal welfare is the viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer unnecessarily including where the animal is used for food, work, companionship, or research. This position usually focuses on the morality of human action, or inaction, as opposed to making deeper political or philosophical claims about the status of animals, as is the case for an animal rights viewpoint.
The history of animal welfare has been attributed by some to the time when a systematic concern for the well-being of other animals arose in the Indus Valley Civilization as the religious belief that ancestors return in animal form, and that animals must therefore be treated with the respect due to a human. This belief is exemplified in the existing religion of Jainism and in varieties of other Dharmic religions. Other religions, especially those with roots in the Abrahamic religions, have tended to treat animals as the property of their owners, codifying rules for their care and slaughter intended to limit the distress, pain and fear animals experience under human control.
From the time when in 1822 Richard Martin, a British Member of Parliament, shepherded a bill through Parliament offering protection from cruelty to cattle, horses and sheep, animal welfare has had human morality, and human behaviour, as its central concern. Martin was, in 1824, among the founders of what might be considered the world's first official animal welfare organisation, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA. In 1840, Queen Victoria gave the society her blessing following which it became the existing Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or RSPCA. When originally established, the society used members' donations to employ a growing network of inspectors, whose job was to identify those who abused animals, gather evidence, and report them to the authorities. Subsequently similar groups and societies sprang up elsewhere in Europe, North America and elsewhere in the world. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Fiji was established in 1953.
A number of religious denominations have added animal welfare to their list of concerns. Animal-related ethics courses, animal blessings, prayers for animals and animal ministries have increased in popularity. In 2007, the Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains was formed to assist clergy members concerned about animals and their welfare to network and share information. A number of Animal Chaplains' books and websites reference scriptural passages from the world's sacred texts supporting animal welfare.
In 1965 the UK government commissioned an investigation into the welfare of intensively farmed animals, partly in response to concerns raised in Ruth Harrison's 1964 book, Animal Machines. On the basis of this report, the government set up the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, later to become the Animal Welfare Council. The first guidelines recommended that farm animals require freedom to turn around, to groom themselves, to get up, to lie down, and to stretch their limbs'. These have since been elaborated to become known as the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare:
1. Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition;
2. Freedom from discomfort due to environment;
3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease;
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour for the species; and
5. Freedom from fear and distress.
A distinction can be made between animal welfare and animal rights. The former believes humans have a moral responsibility not to cause cruelty or unnecessary suffering to animals, and advocates for the betterment of the condition of animals, but not the elimination of all animal use. However, animal rights advocates campaign for the total abolition of any use of animals and argue that the animal welfare position is logically inconsistent and ethically unacceptable. Nevertheless, there are some animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which support animal welfare measures in the short term to alleviate animal suffering until all animal use is ended.
Some critics argue that, in practice, supporters of animal welfare sometimes demonstrate a form of speciesism' by showing a disproportionate concern for some species of animals over others without providing a rational or scientific justification for such preferences. In this regard they point to the tendency to be more concerned over the welfare of pets or companion animals over that of commercial animals; certain wild animals over domestic animals; or mammals over birds, reptiles or fishes.
Needless to say there will also be those who question why we, the human species, should concern ourselves about animal welfare when there is so much that needs to be done in various aspects of human welfare. Fortunately, when Noah found himself at the door of The Ark, and with the tide rising, he made the wise decision that it did not have to be either humans, or animals, and that it was important, and indeed possible, to take care of the welfare of both.
This article was based extensively on material derived from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, whose website is http//:en.wikipedia.org.
You will notice that in the National and Local sections of Arkangel I have included information about environmental organisations (Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc.) as well as the more usual animal rights/protection ones. I feel this is very important as, although these environmental groups do not operate from a strictly "animal rights" standpoint, their work has a very important part to play in the achievement of animal liberation.
Too often animal rights campaigners, heavily involved in their constant battle against vivisection, factory farming, the fur trade etc, ignore the extent to which animals are persecuted by the destruction of the environment. Vivisection labs and factory farms may well be the concentration camps of the human Reich, but they are, in a sense, only the tip of the iceberg of animal persecution and getting rid of them would only go part of the way to giving the animals back their freedom. More animal suffering and oppression probably arises from environmental destruction than from any other single cause.
It would do well for us to speak of human imperialism. Not content with just having its fair share of the planet, the human species has everywhere invaded and despoiled territories which rightfully belong to other creatures. Perhaps the worst words ever spoken (if, indeed, they were) were "Go forth and multiply". A call for a human occupation of the world similar to that of the Nazis for "Lebensraum". Thus the end of vivisection labs, of factory farms, will never be enough because it still leaves behind the injustice and oppression of the original "enemy" occupation. True animal liberation will not come merely through the destruction of the Dachaus and Buchenwalds that the occupiers have built for their victims, but demands nothing less than the driving back of the human species to pre-invasion boundaries.
So, in practical terms, what does this mean? It means the end of environmental pollution and the industrial society which causes it. The end of such things as the private car. The end of methods of agriculture relying on pesticides, artificial fertilizers and other poisons. The end of cities and vast urban conurbations, which are like deserts to most wild animal species. The end of large-scale farming which provides little habitat for them either. And perhaps above all, a drastic cut in the number of the human species. The radical American environmental group Earth First! has estimated that the right level of human population world wide should be about 50 million.Today more than that number live just in Britain.
Thus true animal liberation doesn't just require a tinkering with the worst excesses of human oppression but widespread and radical changes in the very way we live. The only form of human society conducive to the just treatment of other creatures is one which is decentralized with people living in small communities rather than towns or cities, de-industrialized, employing small scale organic (veganic), methods of farming and with a vast reductIon in human numbers (by humane methods of course).
Sadly this may all be too much for many "animal protectionists" who still want their jobs their cars their umpteen kids, their domestic appliances. But half a liberation is no liberation. Animal rights campaigning needs to extend itself to other areas which hitherto it has hardly touched on. To fighting against pollution, industrialization and habitat destruction.
Thus we have to work hand in hand with Green and environmental organisations, not just (as is their motive) to create a better world for "our children and our children's children", but to give freedom, Justice and life itself to other animals and theirs.
FREE LIBERATION FILM SERIES SCREENING (((((((((((((((( E A R T H L I N G S )))))))))))))))))) Thursday, June 21st, 2007 - 6.30pm
"Animals are my friends - and I don't eat my friends." - George Bernard Shaw, a Nobel Prize winner and a Socialist
REAL LIVE VEGANS - FREE VEGAN FOOD - FREE LIT AND STICKERS
AJ Muste Institute 339 Lafayette Street, 3rd Floor - New York City (Take #6 train to Bleecker St., F/V/B/D to Broadway/Lafayette, or N/R to Prince St.)
Join us for a free screening of the award-winning film EARTHLINGS (95 min.) and stay for the discussion. We'll address questions including: - Why are animal rights part of the Socialist Party Platform? - What does buying organic / local / "free range" / fair trade really mean? - How are worker's rights, environmentalism, world health and hunger related to animal rights? - Is capitalism a driving force behind animal exploitation? - Is veganism more than just a diet? - What is speciesism, and why are capitalists such big fans of it? - Can you go vegan without giving up the tastes and textures you love? - How are the consumption of eggs and milk feminist issues? - Is veganism really just a "personal choice"? - Should the fight for animal rights take a back seat to the fight for human rights? - Is veganism only for people who can afford to shop at pricey health food stores? - What's going on right now in the animal rights movement? - What's going on around these issues in NYC?
"This is the single most powerful and informative movie about society's treatment of animals! A must-see film for anyone who cares enough to know." - Woody Harrelson
EARTHLINGS is a feature-length award-winning documentary about humans' exploitation of other animals. With an in-depth study into pet stores, puppy mills and animals shelters, as well as factory farms, the leather and fur trades, sports and entertainment industries, and finally the medical and scientific profession, EARTHLINGS uses hidden cameras and never before seen footage to chronicle the day-to-day practices of some of the largest industries in the world, all of which rely entirely on animals for profit. Powerful, informative and thought-provoking, EARTHLINGS is by far the most comprehensive documentary ever produced on the correlation between nature, animals, and human economic interests. Produced by Nation Earth. Music by Moby. Narrated by Joaquin Phoenix.
Co-sponsored by Socialist Party of New York City and Shirari Industries. About Socialist Party of New York City: http://spnyc.org/ About Shirari Industries: http://shirari.com
-- "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men." - Alice Walker Why vegan? http://tinyurl.com/2xkmc
Why is the history of animal welfare an incessant procession of incalculable defeats? Why, after hundreds of years of welfarism (the first welfare law was enacted in 1641, and welfarists have been trying to implement their ideology for the past couple of hundred years), is humans' hegemony over other animals still absolute? Why do we have gestation crates and battery cages; drug addiction and burn experiments? Why has animal welfare not negated institutionalized animal exploitation at all? In Animals, Property, and the Law and Rain Without Thunder, Gary Francione provides the answer. Francione identifies two major problems that as it were castrate animal welfare and render it pathetically impotent: (1) animals are property; and (2) humans have property rights in animals.
Within the framework of Anglo-American legal systems, animals are accorded the status of property -- which means that they are regarded exclusively as means to human ends. They have no intrinsic value; rather they have only extrinsic or conditional value – in other words, they have only that value which we, as animal property owners, choose to give them.
Animals are thus completely rightless beings (i.e. they are legally entitled to nothing) and (legally) have value only as means to our ends.
Humans, on the other hand, have rights in general and property rights in animals in particular.
A presupposition of Anglo-American legal systems is that rights have special normative force. Rights are (to use Ronald Dworkin’s metaphor) “trumps”: “they give [powerful] reasons to treat their holders in certain ways or permit them to act in certain ways, even if some social aim would be served by doing otherwise.” That is, rights invariably trump competing (non-right) considerations.
The implications of this legal framework -- a framework that characterizes humans as rightholders and animals as rightless property -- for a non-right consideration such as animal welfare are clear. Animals’ interests are (supposedly) protected by welfare laws. Exploiters’ property interests in animals are protected by rights (property rights). Thus we have a conflict between interests protected by right and interests protected by welfare laws -- between exploiters' property interests in animals and animals' interest in not being used as property. That is, we have a “conflict” between a right and a non-right consideration. The entailment here is obvious:
Exploiters’ property interests in animals always trump animals’ (welfare) interests.
Because exploiters’ property rights trump animals’ interests, it follows that any welfare law that sought to accord animals protection that impinges on exploiters’ property rights (i.e., that wasn’t also in the exploiters’ interest) would invariably be rejected by the framework of the system.
Thus the system of animal welfare is inherently incapable of doing anything other than ministering to exploiters’ property interests: If a welfare law is in the (economic) interest of the exploiters, then it may be accepted; but if the welfare measure is not in the interest of the exploiters, then it will necessarily be rejected. Ironically, then, animal welfare protects the interests exploiters have in animals rather then the interests of the animals -- in other words, animal welfare protects the exploiters and not the animals.
Within a legal framework that allocates property rights in animals, animal welfare cannot exist; thus animal welfare groups (RSPCA, HSUS, PeTA etc.) are inherently redundant. Welfare groups represent a non-right consideration that will invariably be “trumped” by the fact that exploiters have property rights in animals. Thus welfare groups will be able to secure for animals only that protection that exploiters take to be cost-justified -- which basically means that protection necessary to exploit animals efficiently. But as exploiters will accord animals this level of protection anyway (in order to protect their economic investment in their animal property), animal welfare groups in particular, and the animal welfare movement in general, may as well not exist.
The only function that welfare groups do perform is a wholly insidious one: they reinforce the legitimacy of a vicious speciesist framework (or “animal welfare”, as it's euphemistically known) that will sacrifice any animal interest for the sake of any human interest -- notwithstanding the gravity of the former and the triviality of the latter -- thereby prolonging the horrific exploitation of nonhumans animals.
The special normative force of property rights within Anglo-American legal systems thus leads to a system of animal welfare that is virulently anthropocentric and anti-animal: in order to protect exploiters’ property rights in animals, it will allow animals to be treated in the most horrendous ways imaginable (gestation crates, veal crates, battery-cages), as long as the treatment is economically efficient. Welfare laws merely preclude the gratuitous waste of animal property; because animal property is a very valuable species of property, and if it was gratuitously wasted, overall social wealth would be diminished.
Francione’s property analysis refutes one of the most ossified dogmas of new welfarism: that there is a causal relationship between animal welfare in the short and animal rights in the long term, such that successive welfare reforms will eventually lead to abolition. Animal welfare has no abolitionistic function whatsoever, because animals’ property status (and the corresponding property rights that exploiters have in animals) acts as an inherently limiting factor in the system: it keeps reform tied to the status of animals as commodities -- limiting the scope thereof to what exploiters take to be cost-justified in light of animals’ property status (anything that wasn't cost-justified would begin to infringe exploiters' property rights in animals); wefare reform cannot transcend this narrow point, and thus is inherently incapable of leading to abolition.
On the contrary, far from being capable of leading to abolition, the diametric opposite is the case: because the system pemits only those reforms that do not infringe exploiters' property rights in animals (i.e., that do not erode animals' property status), animal welfare is structurally incapable of challenging the framework of oppression and "can lead only to more and exacerbated animal exploitation." (Francione)
Accordingly, since there is no causal relationship between welfare in the short term and rights in the long term, and since welfare is capable of eliminating animal suffering only if exploiters' property rights aren't infringed thereby (which effectively means that only suffering that results from inefficient practices can be banned), it follows that animal welfare is of use only to the exploiters -- and welfarist ideologues.
The contradiction between the property rights that exploiters have in animals and the societal desire to afford animals some measure of protection is resolved by having welfare laws that protect only those animal interests -- institutional interests -- that need to be protected in order to exploit them efficiently -- which amounts to no protection at all. So, for example, there are welfare regulations requiring that animals in vivisection laboratories be given food and water; but this is only because, if they weren't given food and water, they would die and so wouldn't yield any data for vivisectors. Again, because animals are legally regarded exclusively as means to human ends, the welfare regulations protect the interests the vivisection industry has in the animals rather than the interets of the animals for their own sakes.
Thus welfare laws and regulations do not represent a partial negation of animals' property status or legal "thinghood", and a corresponding recognition that they have inherent value and morally significant interests. Rather, because welfare laws protect only those animal interests that relate to their use as property -- their use as means to human ends -- they merely represent a codification of their enslavement.
In short, animal welfare laws in particular are slave laws; and animal welfare in general conceals institutionalized animal slavery under a meretricious cloak of respectability, thereby sanitizing it and helping to maintain its legitimacy.
In sum: animal welfare is capable only of further codifying animals' property status; it is inherently incapable of recognizing that animals' have inherent value -- value independent of the economic value they have for exploiters -- and thus of eroding their property status and ultimately leading to abolition. Far from having any liberatory potential for nonhumans, then, animal welfare can only consolidate the animals-as-property paradigm.
Of course, this means that the new welfarist "radicals" are trying to achieve change for animals using a system of reform that is predicated on the legitimacy of the animal-commodity and that solicitously protects the despotic control that animal property owners are (legally) entitled to wield over their living, breathing commodities. To put the matter another way, the new welfarists are trying to qualitatively alter animals' property status using a system that structurally ensures that animals remain property -- and it is their property status that makes possible all of the suffering to which we so vehemently object.
Ironically, then, the new welfarists have become coopted by a system that is predicated on the legitimacy of that which they (puportedly at least) want to abolish. As such, the new welfarists prove themselves to be reactionaries who militate against radical change by reinforcing an anachronistic and viciously speciesist system that subserves the unbridled hegemony of humans over other animals -- and that is therefore a consitutive part of the speciesist oppression of nonhumans.
Thus as far as the abolitionist movement is concerned, animal welfare is unqualifiedly redundant. Far from being the method whereby we will incrementally abolish animal exploitation, or even a palliative for reducing animal suffering in the short term, animal welfare is -- in reality -- an institutionalized part of existing speciesist society -- a reactionary instrument that subserves the oppressive framework under which nonhumans are enslaved.
The abolitionists' rejection of animal welfare does not mean -- as welfarist ideologues would have you believe -- that abolitionists are anti-reformist. On the contrary and ironically, because they reinforce the legitimacy of a sclerotic and ossified system of animal welfare that inherently precludes change, it is the new welfarists who are "anti-reformist". The abolitionist approach is based partly on the insight that it is impossible to reform animal exploitation through animal welfare, for the simple reason that the system of welfare reform is a constitutive part of the framework of oppression that requires reformation. As such, the new welfarist "reformers" confuse the object of reform with the means thereof.
A first principle of the abolitionist movement, then, must be the rejection of animal welfare and the recognition that, to effect a paradigm shift in attitudes toward the human-nonhuman relationship, we must use qualitatively different means from those utilized by the welfare movement (and what has passed for the "animal rights" movement hitherto). We must recognize that radicalism mediated through reactionary institutions is a contradiction in terms; the former is necessarily nullified by the latter. We must rejectinstitutional exploiters.reject welfare reform and the institutions and industries that seek to neutralize radicalism with meretricious and illusory offers of progress. We must reject hypocrisy and inconsistency -- we must eschew animal welfare and make our means consistent with our ends.
Instead, we must make veganism a nonnegotiable baseline and engage directly with the real locus of abolition -- people themselves -- since abolition means abolishing exploitation in our own lives.
We want to welcome the creation of an academic centre for the furthering of the case of rights for nonhuman animals worldwide.
The Ferrater Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics has been created with the aim of putting nonhuman animals on the intellectual agenda.
As its website explains, the Centre is the world’s first academy dedicated to the enhancement of the ethical status of animals through academic publication, teaching and research. It will act as an international, independent think tank for the advancement of progressive thought about animals.
The Director of the Centre, Oxford theologian, the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, said when the centre was presented: “There is a strong rational case for animals, which has been recognised over the centuries by academics and philosophers. What is needed is for this rational case to be much better known.” He added: “We must strive to ensure animal issues are highlighted and rationally discussed throughout society - we cannot change the world for animals without changing our ideas about them. The Centre will promote ethical attitudes and contribute to informed public debate.”
The Associate Director of the Centre Professor Priscilla Cohn, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University, said: “It seems to us that academics should take the lead in helping to foster a new kind of debate about animals – one that goes beyond slogans and stereotypes.”
The Centre is named after the distinguished Spanish Philosopher, José Ferrater Mora, who courageously spoke out against bull-fighting in Spain.
More than 100 academics from 10 countries have supported the Centre.
1. The philosophy of animal rights is rational Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational.
"To describe an animal as a physico-chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal."
-- E.F. Schumacher
2. The philosophy of animal rights is scientific Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science.
"There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties"
-- Charles Darwin
3. The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced Explanation: Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences. The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less predjudiced than racists or sexists.
"If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one."
-- Dick Gregory
4. The philosophy of animal rights is just Explanation: Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.
"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals"
- John Stuart Mill
5. The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate Explanation: A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's workds, "the way of a whole human being."
"Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ..."
-- Victoria Moran
6. The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.
"We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central."
-- Iris Murdoch
7. The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling Explanation: All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.
"Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment."
-- Henry Salt
8. The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive. Explanation: The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true interests of their citizens.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise. Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.
"Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves."
-- Jon Wynne-Tyson
10. The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving. Explanation: The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.
"If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will save humankind."
The sun in the North is a
temporary guestWho brings
with him much warmth and
light when he comesFor a
few precious months every
year he keepsUs company
through night and day He
makes the trees green, he
makes flowers bloomHe
makes the birds sing, and
The largest genocide in
human history happened
where? Most people would
answer Germany, and the
Actually though, the
largest genocide happened
in the USA, with the
native American Indians,
with estimates of 19
million to 100 millio...
Radiation Study; Tokyo
Hayno, R.S., et al
of Adults and Children 7
to 20 Months After the
Fukushima NPP Accident as
Measured by Extensive
Surveys, Proc. Jpn....
accumulates in water
supplies after nuclear
bioconcentrates in fish
that live in fresh water
and salt water. Runoff of
fresh water from land
which has been
contaminated ends up
contaminating oceans, and
66 Atomic Bombs were
exploded on the Bikini
Island Atolls. Hundreds
of islanders were removed
from the islands, but not
from harms way. One
hydrogen bomb exploded
near the islands, and the
children played with the
dust from the bomb, as it
"Under our current law,
a suspected terrorist on
the FBI's No-Fly List
can't board an airplane
-- but they can still
legally purchase guns and
This loophole, known
Germany added more
solar panels in one
month, than the US did in
ONE YEAR. Nearly 1/3 of
Germany power output is
handled by bottoms up
solar energy during the
middle of the day. The
transition to a 100%
renewable energy nation
is in process. T...
According to the Old
Testament, which defines
all of the 'rules' of
traditional marriage, the
above examples are all of
the ways that couples can