Fragments on Zoocide I

Yes we can extend our discussion of > forms totalitarianism > to imply an outlook on the ongoing zoocide and ecocide.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Gruppe Messel: Fragments on Zoocide I, PDF

Antispeciesism is not necessarily what speciesism isn’t

People who consider themselves to be antispeciesists mostly don’t see or don’t want to discuss the links between: ecocide, genocide and zoocide. The term and notion of a zoocide does not even exist for most in that correlation in their terminology. Many still hold the same assumptions about animality that base on ethical histories and theories within philosophy, religion, natural sciences that are the very cause of speciesism. Loving nonhuman animals at the same time as quoting biologist data for instance and instead of coining own liberated terms, antispeciesism today does not equal consistent antispeciesist thought so far. It helps with the symptoms but harms at the same time, by cementing nonhumans into a slippery slope concept of freedom and dignity.

Rights claimed only go as far as theories about nonhuman animals are compatible with it. Not breaking with the power of human definition, antispeciesism today misses to acknowledge that nonhuman animals are oppressed in the first place in their very own qualities of who they are, in their identities independent of humancentric frameworks. The denial of their independence happens parallel to them being bereft of their physical freedom and integrity, parallel to being tortured and murdered and physically, objectified to a human will to cause them the ultimate pain … .

Nonanthropocentric perceptions

Society acts as if animal degradation and zoocide were irrelevant, they separate these type of phenomena from questions about human existence and environmental ethics. Such blind spots form part of a lacking ability to speak about the fundamentality of the human-animal relation in constructive terms.

The only way humanity’s large collectives correlate to nonhumans is by assuming the own existential meaning could be placed on top of nonhumanity in arbitrary hierarchies, assuming that animal existence was of lesser meaningfulness in the universe, in the big scope.

However, animal history, past and present, can’t be relegated into these spaces humanity have created … for killing and torture, or equally into the communication structures of demeaning anthropocentrist propaganda, into any of the institutions of speciesism (ranging from zoological gardens to natural science museums), or into cultural murderous-rape habits of consumption:

Nonhuman cultural history is the life of this universe’s animal inhabitants, and not all human individuals would ever lie about this “crossroads truth” in human perception.

Being radical antispe …

A very rough expression of a feeling in regards to radical antispeciesism facing a conflict of being stuck in the middle of biologistic ‘animal lovers’ and nonhumanity-oblivious social justice clusters … :

If social justice work categorically excludes animal bodies, it’s questionable to my point of view. Saying this I don’t mean the type of implication that bases on “mild” speciesist, biologistic views of animality.

I come myself from a ‘mixed race’ background and I have grown up in a country where you would face exclusion if you did not fit into the right image of the virtual “false-ethicity-person” and the right cliché going along with that. It’s not like all foreigners or poc or mixed-race individuals were equally accepted or discriminated against. Much was and is dependent on the social function society ascribes you to take in the place you live.

Seeing a lot of people who come from socially comparable backgrounds such as mine working rightly for social justice, I wonder why the majority misses out on antispeciesist intersectionality though? To my point of view social justice can’t just evade questions of how concepts about animality and nature have been constructed in our societies. How can social justice turn an oblivious eye on zoocide and ecocide, when exactly those are facts that result from the very same foundations on which other oppressive systems thrived, and when those facts are taking place are all around us?

I believe that justice for humanity can hardly base on the oppressive constructs of animality and nature anymore, without being prolonged types of injustice.

We speak about the atrocities of the genocides, and meanwhile we speak about the ecocide, but when are we going to speak of the zoocide that is taking place?

What is it in people that makes zoocide and ecocide possible?

The assumption that only the “homo” is “sapient” (knowing) – as in the taxonomical classification of the Homo sapiens as the crown of creation by Carl von Linné / Carolus Linnaeus – expresses that nonhuman animal knowledge and the nonhuman living world is considered to be of lesser or no (relevant) type of knowledge (from a human perspective).

The human is assumed to be knowing, the nonhuman to be not knowing.

This type of thought enabled argumentations for massmurder on the biologistical basis.

Why speciesism is evil

Why speciesism is evil

palang, Gruppe Messel

We don’t need to discuss whether a person or group is evil in all aspects, when we want to evaluate if an act of speciesism (committed by a person or group) is evil and condemnable.

In general often people who commit any type of evil, do not seem to their social environment like they would hold an “evil” potential, meaning, that a person can have different aspects about them, or also purposely mask their not-so-good sides. Another thing to keep in mind is that every chapter of human history taught us, that what some might have felt as beneficial to them, was plain evil to others who were negatively affected by a “gain” of someone else.

Speciesism is a (specific) form of oppression – and as such it is evil:

A.) Assuming that speciesism was merely a historical accidence, would mean to deny that nonhuman animals could have ever been perceived as something else than “objects”, and with that as “objects of speciesism”. Acts of speciesism are conscious acts of violating other (animal) individuals. Nonhuman animals are not automatically only viewable as objects.

My position is, that our degrading views of nonhuman animals today and in our shared history (i.e. the arguments with which we mark the nonhuman animal world as less- or non-relevant), are kinds of attitudes based on a totalitarian layer that society continuously enacts and that is functioning by society’s willingness to accept this form of a system; we compel and force members of our society to adopt speciesist attitudes, however we can step out of such a system and resist, like we can equally resist to take part in other forms of oppressive structures.

B.) To assume that speciesist acts could be done without any conscious form of evil will and behaviour, means that we rule out the quality of evil which we face in the given oppressive context that speciesism marks. Every “procedure” done, that violates the physical and mental integrity of a nonhuman animal individual (directly or indirectly), is a conscious act and an act of will – even when the human individual who commits this act, finds and is offered and taught excuses to rationalize his or her deeds as necessary or non-evil.

Speciesism is evil because it masks as being an acceptable form of viewing nonhuman animal others as: ownable, definable, edible, usable, ignorable … as passive objects or “eternal victims”, the list seems endless.

I do think that as an Animal Liberationist one is accountable to tell the facts about the forms of conscious human evil that we face in speciesist oppression.

Revised version of

I set myself a happy task

I have set myself the happy task to sift these fragments from my NiceSwine blog through and assemble a reasonable reader from them. This list excludes my “preliminary fragmental list on Speciesism and Animal Hatred” and my fragments from by civilized objects blog. My E-Readers so far are to be found here: Animal Autonomy, not to be conflated with our Tierautonomie-Journal.

  1. A not so clear relation: Animal Agency and Morality,
  2. What is Animality, and what it isn’t,
  3. When speciesism feeds speciesism, and why AR activists should not fall for unproductive rhetorical twists,
  4. A vegan economy? Where to start,
  5. Seeing Big Birds,
  6. Why speciesism is evil,
  7. A fragment on insect mythologies and insect representations, and why symbolism is not sufficient to explain the relation,
  8. “Joy” and “pain” are reductionary concepts about the rainbow shadedness of animal sentience,
  9. The problems we cause for animals and for each other, and the fine distinction,
  10. The Violence Question: Taking a jump to altruism …,
  11. Veganic plus Animal Sanctuaries plus Ethics,
  12. Vegan Politics and Animal Politics,
  13. From individual to individual,
  14. Female-identified human individuals and species-derogation,
  15. Aspects in the deconstruction of speciesism,
  16. Just thoughts, 17th Oct 2012,
  17. Three questions I would like to ask any true animal advocate,
  18. Vegan speciesism,
  19. Common sense as a basis for morality in Animal Rights,
  20. Vegan for justice,
  21. the “personal choice” debate and homocentrism,
  22. An e-memorial and about people who simply deny that their harboring speciesist attitudes when you confront them,
  23. Fragment … thoughts on what we think are “atrocities”,
  24. thoughts ( 23 – 05 – 2012 ),
  25. Can you think without your professor?
  26. Never rebut an enlightened anthropos – how dare you!
  27. I know about Human Rights and I know about Animal Rights,
  28. to impose a state of being “as if” parasitical,
  29. An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality,
  30. What about the cult of flesh,
  31. the ethics of food : eating : what’s wrong with vegan convenience foods?
  32. universities – ‘institutionalized’ thinking,
  33. but compassion,
  34. All included,
  35. Why Suckerberg is a speciesist? Cos there are too many of them,
  36. Envy,
  37. Three snippets … moving beyond the horizon of homocentrism,
  38. Speciesism isn’t … ,
  39. Animal Rights: why there is a similar concern for establishing them alongside human rights,
  40. Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?!
  41. Does life have to be tragic?
  42. on the multiplicity of meaningfulness,
  43. to pretend not to understand anything at all,
  44. animal rights pornography – definition,
  45. Taste,
  46. a human who truly understands, won’t seek dominance beyond the human realm,
  47. revolución requiere la inocencia,
  48. Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy,
  49. The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”,
  50. Could be a u-turn,
  51. From hell to hell,
  53. Sidetracks and main tracks,
  54. Food ethics,
  55. Perspectives on priorities,
  56. “After all we are all human” – yes, but we are all so different,
  57. The Buddhist paradox,
  58. Not in my ethics,
  59. Slivers, fragments,

Intermittent experiences vs. reductionary perspectives

[…] Sociology does not question the social interaction between humans and nonhuman animals. They don’t scrutinize that relation from their viewpoint, because the view held on the human relation towards animals is already set in its core by the natural sciences.

The hierarchical empire built by the natural sciences though […] rules out every need for any further examination and consideration of this relationship. We do not see the direct relation between humans and nonhuman animals.

A most typical exemplification of that inability to relate on a basic and fundamental level of ‘common sense’ can be pinpointed in the difference between relating to nonhuman animals in terms of “joy” versus “love”: as in “animals equally feel joy” or “we can both love”, and “pain” versus “violence”: as in: “animals can equally feel pain” or “we can both experience violence”. Love is an intermittent sentiment, violence also bases on social interactivity (though in that negative sense), whereas “joy” is located only in the subject we attribute the feeling to, and the same goes for “pain”. We – nonhuman animals and humans – understand the questions of LOVE and VIOLENCE. Whereby “joy” and “pain” are reductionary names for the “same” thing. […]

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

From: Edition Farangis: Animal Autonomy E-Reader 1

Fruit without Seeds!

Fruit without Seeds!
A poem by Manuchehr Jamali, translation Gita Yegane Arani

This text as a PDF

Man knows that truth is a fruit without seeds,
Truth, he knows, must pacify and satisfy your palate,

Hadn’t it been paradises fruit that he’d eaten,
And of which he’d spat out its seeds in disgust,
And said why God would have to place in fruit with sweetness,
teeth breaking rocks,

The devil though knew, that ripe fruit would bear heavy stones.
And seeds of “visionary fruits” would break the “questions” of the teeth!

The devil planted the seeds, that man spat with anger,
And over time grew another plant and he’d create another paradise;
one that would produce fruit without seeds, and sights without questions!

And man, thrown out of paradise for eating God’s fruit,
Was thus put back into God’s paradise,

And went with Satan’s paradisical insights,
Offering taste and comfort,

And: the fruit, within him, would contain no seeds of questions!

Tired from painfully planting the seeds and cultivation,
And from the burden of growing and work,
The needed task became a bane.
Since then the devil would be in heaven,
That “knowledge without doubts” was achieved,
And a truth of “fruit without seeds” known,
And the truth without question be swallowed.

And man did not know that truth is the Creator,
Whose seeds become questions,
And that the knowledge that these questions developed, he would not find,
and thus not have the truth.

So he named the devil’s paradise, God’s paradise,
And God’s paradise would be named: a lie that’s past!

Art > by Farangis G. Yegane

Re-edited Nov. 2018.

Nonhuman morality relevancy

Altruism is often self-serving. Also caring for one another is like caring for oneself – unless someone is egotistical. The lines drawn in altruism just seem too sharp … Nonhumans morally act more altruistic than we humans do, one seriously has to admit. We believe such factors should be highlighted in the Animal Rights discourse, since making this invisible means making agency and social architectures invisible.
Gruppe Messel, Tierautonomie / Animal Autonomy

AR/AL is plural – either way

What I will never be ready to understand is why a lot of valuable and crucial contributions and own directions in animalrights and animallib are boycotted by huge chapters of mainstream activism …
I don’t even want to guess why it is as it is. At least it shows that approaches differ relatively fundamentally. AR/AL is plural – either way.

Image: sketch from the series spanish dogs by Farangis G. Yegane.

Speciesist narcissism

In context with my fragment: Many forms of speciesism.

Speciesist narcissism

A question of identity (human vs. animal) –
in which a human hides his/her factual individuality (i.e. human collectivism as a shield)
beneath the psychological and/or physical violence against animal dignity.

Fragments on species-derogation, previous list: Speciesism an animal hatred.