Reverse definitions of Antispeciesism

Antispeciesism is at least a two-way road:

A critique of species-ism could mean to completely deconstruct the notion of “species” in favor of finding new approaches to address the groups of beings we now sum up as the group/s of “nonhuman animals”. It can also mean to cling to that idea, that beings can be separated into “species”, only that we position differently towards the beings we’d keep defining in hegemonic terms.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Ecocide summits

The format of having one big (failing) un climate conference where nations meet is not enough facing the ecocidal catastrophe. It needs a 365 days a year global action committee by all nations to face the situation adequately. It’s a global crisis.

But of course, we don’t face ecocide adequately, because we don’t want to face the angle of the zoocide taking place on all levels, which is inseparable.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

Animal Rights and subjective freedom

Subjects that see subjects can be nonhuman, can be human. Subjects interact, and this makes up a political space that touches their social and ecological integrity.

We, as humans, need to talk about the space we share in a constructive manner > as coexistent subjects, and not from a subject – object point of view. That’s antispeciesism.

Nonhuman Animal Sociology

Not every perspective is provable to everyone

Not every perspective is provable to everyone, attitudes are influenced by positions

People don’t see themselves under primarily biological terms, they say their culture and their social life is a proof of being more than just driven by instinctual biologically explainable factors. They say the have their mind, their spirit, their thinking.

A perspectival shift to not see nonhumanity under biological terms primarily, does not need a proof, it needs the will to take another stance towards our environment. Seeing nonhumanity non-biologically and as individuations of Life in its own merits, seems to be unwanted and is treated almost like a form of “blasphemy” against an almighty scientifical system of categorization in our current societies and their Zeitgeists. Stances, positions are however not a matter of proof so much, but much more of choosing a specific perhaps differing standpoint and a perhaps fundamentally different angle of perspective – and that might be one that can’t be proven to the other side, since their outlook is so much predetermined by their own interest.

In the case of evaluating the own interest and the interest of others, operating with proof to privilege one side while disadvantaging the other, forces us to think in one direction only. We assume that it is objectively proven or probable that for instance nonhumans lose less if they die compared to humans, or that it is objectively provable that the reasoning of nonhumans can be behaviouristically determined and would not be autonomous. Proof selects a supposedly objective framework of reference, if you chose another framework of reference you come to a different kind of conclusion: an example, the starkest one perhaps is the different perspective an ecocentric person choses versus a humancentric one at a given moment.

Collectivism, life, speciesism

How the process of life is being reflected

  • Regarding human life – some sequences are praised in extremes, while some sequences are faded out, being kept cloaked
  • Regarding nonhuman animal life – a taboo-zone within human collectivity , its continuously being suggested that their death is meaningless, compared to ours, considerations of justice are avoided
  • Ecology, discussed simply as something that has to sustain “us” humans

Gruppe Messel, Tierautonomie

Denial is part of the faunacide

Animal Rights keeps getting located too close to biology and the natural sciences, when it comes to explanations and definitions of nonhuman animal life.

Why aren’t Human Rights a matter of mostly natural sciences? Why do we see human actions as expressions of social interactional communicative meaningfulness in terms of culture?

The pure continued act of denying nonhuman animals their own cultures, in particular in context with their natural environments and habitats and the forceful separation of destruction of those respectfully … is part of the ideolgical faunacide.

Antispeciesist Animal Sociology

بسیاری از مردم
برای آرمان های جمعی آنها.
حیوانات و طبیعت به آنها ثانویه است.
من با چنین افرادی مخالف هستم
من حتی آن را رد می کنم.

Ecosocial nonhumanity (1)

When > animal rights is just about supposed “instinctual biological entities” a.k.a. “species”, then no wonder if people keep reacting in defiance, as soon as practical human and theoretical nonhuman rights conflict > where RIGHTS could instead be a notion of an ethical equilibrium – as soon as the importance of how humanity and nonhuman animality factually interact with their ecosystems is being discussed.
Antispeciesist Animal Sociology