A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) France, Alternative Libertaire AL #270 - Aurélien Barrau (astrophysicist), on animal welfare: "Empathy is essential in our choices" (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]

Date Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:23:12 +0300

Ecological damage to livestock production, animal welfare, the issue of specism ... The debate on meat consumption has re-emerged strongly in recent years, and is also going through the revolutionary currents[1]. Interview with Aurélien Barrau , an astrophysicist committed to animal rights. ---- Alternative libertarian: "If we were to realize the happiness of all those who bear the human face and destined for death all our fellows who bear muzzles ... we certainly would not have realized our ideal. For my part, I also embrace animals in my affection for socialist solidarity, "wrote the anarchist geographer Elisée Reclus. What are the links between animal emancipation and the emancipation of humanity? ---- Aurélien Barrau: Magnificent Elisée Reclus, authentic citizen of the world! I think that excluding animals from the "socialist ideal" is difficult to justify.

This would require the creation of an insurmountable boundary between human beings and humans (ie one of the great apes) and other living beings, in the manner of creationists and right-wing think-tanks who support them . It is senseless from a scientific and arbitrary point of view from an ethical point of view. Once the idea that the human or human right to life can not be subjected to its social success or its ethnic origin (let's say its proximity to the one who values its value ) There is no reason to restrict the approach to living and living humans alone.

Empathy is essential in our choices. But the animals also suffer. They feel the tortures they have endured - especially those we inflict on them! - what every living person feels in a situation of extreme pain. They live it in their bodies, which is similar to ours. Even the existence of consciousness, in the strong sense, is now accepted in many species. It is now politically cowardly and intellectually incoherent to exclude animals from our desire for respect.

The human being is an omnivorous animal, so also carnivorous, without meat does not it go against the natural course of things?

There are endless debates about whether the physiological characteristics of the human being are carnivorous or vegetarian. I do not think it's important for the issue we're looking at. Nature has no finality. It is indisputable that the human being has the faculty of eating animals and plants. The problem is not what he can do but what he wants to do. Who would dare to justify rape or murder on grounds that we can rape or murder? There is, of course, an infinity of actions that are compatible with our biological abilities that we choose not to lead. I do not torture my children, although my body allows me to do it. The argument that we should eat animal carcasses because we have the ability to do so is a foolish thing to do. All the more so because it is possible to live without deficiency, in a healthier and often more savory way, by feeding without killing animals. Everything is here.

Opinions on this issue seem finally to evolve, why now?

Animal ethics often go by the wayside. Twenty years ago, when I was interested in this question, one smiled in society by finding it too marginal. Today, we smile while finding it too fashionable. All pretexts are good! I think we are beginning to understand Robert Badinter's argument against the death penalty. He looked at the jurors straight in the eye and asked them whether or not they wanted a living man to be cut into two pieces by their decision. Everything is there: do we want, yes or no, that 60 billion animals are unnecessarily cut into pieces every year? Knowing that, besides, they are not even blameable for any crime and that their agony will be much more painful than that of a guillotine. I think that the unsustainable images of the functioning of slaughterhouses also play. Almost no animal eater is coherent to the point of looking at them and assuming them.

Are the "religions of the book" also responsible for our relation to the living?

Yes, the monotheistic religions have their share of responsibility. But philosophy is no exception. With a few notable exceptions, the philosophers have completely missed this question. We still hear so many stereotyped and anguished speeches that cling to the "proper of man", incapable of thinking the immense challenge that opens today to us. It is a climax for a discipline whose full meaning is to bring us into questioning ...

Even for the simple survival of our species, would only a minimal vegetarian humanity have a chance of survival?

It is certain that the meat diet is not only a disaster for the tens of billions of animals that it decimates every year but also for humanity. The meat industry is more polluting than the transport industry. One kilogram of beef requires 10,000 liters of water. Concretely, eating meat is, in effect, a choice of an elitist mode of being, which, irrespective of the immense ethical problems, can not be generalized to all humans. So it's highly anti-social behavior. It is undeniable that an evolution towards vegetarianism and veganism is also a political gesture in the most "human" sense of the term, necessary for any thought claiming to be left-wing.

"I am sometimes really disappointed by the fact that many of us assume to be radical militants without thinking about the food we put into our bodies.[...]Usually, I do not mention that I am vegan.[...]This is the right time to talk about it because it is one of the components of the revolutionary perspective, "said Angela Davis. What do you think?

Beautiful Angela Davis! When I was a teenager, it was necessary to specify, when one declared himself a vegetarian, that it was "medical", under penalty of appearing like a madman. Those who defend the rights of Blacks and women were thus considered in the not so distant past. I am glad that this concern can finally be claimed without becoming marginalized. In some quarters the trend is reversed. At the CNRS canteen, where I have lunch, I sometimes feel a little embarrassment in those who feed on dead animals. I will never venture to blame them explicitly: there is no question of being moralizing or giving lessons (and for good reason, I am far from being exemplary), but this change of side of the Possibility of a "shame" is meaningful. It is essential to see that fighting for animals is never opposed to social struggles for humanity. To try to oppose them is another ruse of the repressive system that we are fighting.

Interview by Nico (AL Moselle)

[1]"Animal welfare is a pernicious notion", AL No. 268, January 2017.

A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center