Category Archives: generally

all in all

The Animal Rights Environmental Rights Link

by

The relation between animal rights and environmental protection / protection of the co-world is not an illusionary niche realm, but rather the most conflict-prone place in which you can politically move as a ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. In their closed collective majority, “humans” are, as effective hostile Ignoramuses, currently opposed to the subjects of > animal rights and environmental rights > in their combination and their mutual relevance.

non-biological animal sociology, Gruppe Messel

—

From our Visual Opinions Workshop > https://tierrechtsethik.de/the-animal-rights-environmental-rights-link/

Ecocide is foremostly and ethical issue

by

The moral and the ethical aspects of environmental destruction need to be addressed for the sake of “nature”/nonhuman spaces/communities/life themselves.

The form of thinking that “nature” and nonhuman spaces exist for societal gains – in either direction constructive or destructive – poses a problem.

Our dependence on “nature” doesn’t legitimate our fundamentally hegemonial-anthropocenic attitudes towards “nature”.

The notion that nature and nonhuman spaces ought to serve human interests implies that we assume

a.) nature as a “resource”

and that b.) nature was void of autonomous meaning and ecosocial completeness.

Both notions are presumably the core ones that lead to destructive behaviour towards “nature”/nonhuman spaces.

Harming and polluting “nature” and nonhuman spaces are actions of anthropogenic ethical disregard for “nature” itself.

florae obscurae by Farangis G. Yegane

Antibiologistic Animal Sociology

( > repost from our Visual Opinions Workshop @ tierechtsethik.de > https://tierrechtsethik.de/ecocide-is-foremostly-and-ethical-issue/ )

Ecocide – Faunacide – Genocide, ongoing (1)

by

Ecocide – Faunacide – Genocide, ongoing (1)

Climate change consists of a compound of consequences of different ways in which the environment is being damaged and destroyed.

All those single aspects of destruction are problems in themselves.

Environmental destructivity overall needs to be focused and addressed in regards to damages on all scales – that includes the microscales.

Simultaneously the human dimensions of how mindsets function, that enable and drive environmental harms in the name of “necessity” and “economic growth” need to be a point of societal criticism.

Antibiologistic Animal Sociology

( > repost from our Visual Opinions Workshop @ tierechtsethik.de > https://tierrechtsethik.de/ecocide-faunacide-genocide-ongoing-1/ )

Animal Sociology means Animal Sociology

by


Nonhumans are a case for their own sociology, and not one for our biology.

Probably only 1 percent of people in the Animal Rights movement understand the necessity of anti-biologism in antispeciesism. They understand the problematic key role biologism has played in racism, in sexism … and as we see finally too: in the derogation of nonhuman animality.

antibiologistic antispeciesist animal sociology – build/develop/evolve liberated terms
1% … and even if it’s just you … don’t let the others act as if humans like you wouldn’t exist!

Fruit without Seeds!

by

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-inclusive

by

farangis_yegane_0599_2c

Nonhuman-inslusive

The term ‘veganism’ describes the ethical and practical exclusion of any animal- and animal derived product or animal-involving procedures/exploitation utilized to serve human interests. It does not say or indicate yet how nonhuman animals should be implied actively into any framework that implies humans/human societies, as a solution to the existent predominant catastrophic human-animal relation. How nonhumans can and should be included and reached out for, be addressed, implied constructively in a way that confronts the ‘animal question’ with due justice, in n toher words: the state of positively dwelling together is not so much and only indirectly put forward.*

Similalry ther term ‘speciesism’ describes the condition of ethical exclusion, now on a basically sociological level. It describes foremostly the biological categorisation yet inasmuch also other forms of categorization – such as religion, philosophical, scientific, etc. – of arbitrary derogative barriers set up by humans/’human cultures and civilization’ towards nonhuman animals.

We thought now to express the direct inclusionary level by a simple term which can be used practically and applied as a scheme to test any settings, condition … to check any given situative constellation for its nonhuman-inclusiveness!

This is about expressing an idea:

For checking anything for its nonhuman-inclusiveness you logically have to open up perspectivcs of how your view of nonhumans can be reasonable and ethically complete, appreciative and open-minded.

You can thus explicitly create, observe, discuss, design, conceptualize each and every aspect of human life in a nonhuman-inclusive approach.

Sounds perhaps too practical and maybe this seems to short a description of our idea, but we find it a helpful angle in our activities.

It should be added that our nonhuman-inclusive approach can be extended into a nonhuman-considerate direction where a seeming absence of nonhumans can be affirmative of nonhuman interests also indirectly, by a decided avoidance of promoting human concepts which openly or subtly suppress nonhumanity and nonhuman animals, but this will be discussed in a seperate, later post.

* This becomes clear e.g. in veganic projects, which 100 percent represent the vegan idea, yet exclude the question of animal life in a proactive form. Veganic projects don’t imply space for nonhuman animals to be involved in a just yet existentially directly present way.

People like this: Camas Davis

by

People like this: https://twitter.com/CamasD prove that speciesism can indeed be compared to racism, sexism … as far as the fact is concerned that the problem lies 100% in the deranged psyche of the perpetrator. It’s a given pretext that is employed to make things look as if the targeted subject had features, characteristics or otherwise such an ‘essence of being’ that the very obvious injustice inflicted by the oppressor against a chosen victim would be thus justified (yeah really usually the gravest forms of injustice are brought about by some rational argument – rational in the view of the oppressor).

The reasons of course why a victim is chosen by a sadistic human group has political implications, each in own complex forms.

Nonhuman animals are picked as victims, in the case of a speciesist agenda, to seek dominance via the complete physical annihilation in order to make the own species “manifest” as the winner species, as the super-ordinate god-like form of existence, as an all knowing, an all controlling species, that can even declare “the other” to be “just a piece of meat” – which is but something digestible and palatable. (see for that: Eating, crushing, as a form of wielding power over other living beings … Elias Canetti in ‘Crowds and Power’ pp. 210-211.

This female person works for http://wusthofedge.com/ and she runs her own “meat collective” in the state of Oregon where she seeks to intellectually make speciesism look like a necessity for the human condition.

Instead of accepting human cultural (and thus ethical) re- and evolution, this person puts all her fantasy and physical eager into trying to get us where nobody except the sadist even came from: she literally takes carnism to a wannabe intellectualized level.

A sad horizon for anyone

She goes to “humane” farms, dares to put her sadist hand onto the nonhumans to “stroke” them, to later involve their tortured bodies into her group-driven-ritualistic abstractions of what is one of the most extreme forms of speceisism that I’ve seen to date.

The severity of speciesism in her case bases on an idea of promulgating flesh-handling in connection with the ideologization of objectifying nonhuman animals as a form of a supposed overall human ethical enlightenment. She is one of those speciesist ideologists that wish so hard to undermine the very ethics and morals that base on the pure and undeflected commonsense human form of reasoning.