Nuance is better than extremism, no matter what topic

DuWayne posted this video over at his place as a follow-up to the raging nutbar we had foul up our respective blogs recently.

As requested by DuWayne privately, here’s my thoughts on the video, unaltered by any of the comments or his post. (As much as I can manage, as I’d read / skimmed most of it already.)

The first part that really jumped out at me was the assumption that everyone who’s okay with animal testing and/or eating meat does so because of the Bible. You know I’m an unabashed atheist, and that’s certainly not why I think testing, when performed humanely, is not a bad thing. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that as long as aliens were humane about my pain, I’d submit to testing to further their scientific knowledge if that knowledge was then passed back on to humankind. Likewise with more earthly doctors. Likewise if I was, somehow, a sentient non-human animal capable of understanding that distinction and given the choice. If there was a “volunteer for science” program around here, I’d strongly consider it. Testing itself has benefits that far outweigh the costs, especially when we do whatever we can to minimize the costs. For instance, a huge amount of animal testing would go by the wayside if embryonic stem cell research, done using embryos that were rejected from fertility clinics and due for incineration anyway, were used. But where we meet with resistance against animal testing from one side of the political spectrum, we meet resistance against stem cell research from the other. Science continues unabated, as long as rational people take office now and then.

And as for meat, if I was roaming around the savanna, I’d assume I’m fair game for any lions or whatnot that happen to catch and eat me. I’d try to avoid being eaten if at all possible, but I wouldn’t begrudge the lion for looking for a meal. Biomass is biomass, and if you have any moral compunction against eating chicken that’s been purpose-bred for consumption (as opposed to, say, hunting for consumption), then you should also have moral outrage against eating vegetables that have been proven to have rudimentary nervous systems that can allow plants to feel pain, suffer, get sickly and die. So eating any biomass at all must by necessity be a form of killing others to survive yourself. That’s one of the side effects of believing that all life comes from a single origin, you have an intimate connection with every form of biomass that you’re willing to consume. And just try to survive on water and minerals for fun, see how far you get. Why is one domain (plants) fair game but the other (animals) off-limits, when they both fall under life?

I honestly feel that anything that is done to us human animals that could cause pain, could cause pain in a non-human animal. Likewise, anything that could cause pain to an animal could probably cause pain to a plant, since they have those nervous systems. Therefore, any testing or preparation for consumption must be done humanely. Big agribusiness where animals aren’t properly slaughtered for consumption, where they aren’t properly fed or given adequate room, etc., is all deplorable. That’s not going to stop me from consuming biomass from one of the kingdoms that provides most of my protein and other essential nutrition. Nor will it stop me from continuing both testing on humans (e.g. volunteering for science), or testing on animals done humanely (e.g., with proper anesthetic, proper controls, etc.), since in the long run, you can’t avoid killing to survive, and animals purpose-bred live (most of the time) decent domesticated lives and, when they die, go on to feed other animals (humans).

It’s certainly better than going out and hunting animals that are otherwise free. And it’s better than vast swathes of them (and us) dying as a result of diseases we could cure but didn’t out of fear of hurting mice, cats, dogs, chimpanzees, or humans — YES, HUMANS GET RESEARCHED ON TOO — unnecessarily. Especially when testing takes (or should take) great care to avoid that “unnecessary” part. I agree that anyone that doesn’t take that same amount of great care is a monster.

The problem here is that “species-ism” has been elevated by the animal rights activists to a level above racism, sexism, politics or economics, which is the only difference between those other “radical” philosophies (all of which strive for egality between humans), and the animal rights movement (which strives for parity between humans and other non-human animals, when we are obviously not equivalent at all, being that we’re thus far the only species capable of science). Yes, it’s a human conceit to say that humans are above other animals, but I guarantee you that lion will give not a shit that I ate meat or that I ate nothing but plants all my life. Except, I guess, that I’ll be tastier to the lion as a meat-eater.

As for the changing daily habits thing — well, when you change from omnivory to veganism, that’s a big change. When you change from being for the oppression of any outgroup, to championing their egality, that’s a big change too. Preaching is one thing, but if you’re acting in a hypocritical manner (e.g. by eating chicken while claiming to be for all animal rights), you’re either just a rabble-rouser or an awareness-raiser — which has utility, but limited utility at best — and if anyone finds out that you’re a hypocrite, you damage the very cause you’re supporting.

As with all other aspects of life, both the extreme positions are ridiculous and untenable. Neither “all animals have equal rights to humans” nor “all animals should be plundered and vivisected (cut up alive) for sport and fun as well as science and food” are valid positions. So prove your sanity, and take a nuanced view of this issue as with all others. You’ll be called names by both camps, but strangely enough, fewer epithets will come from the folks you’re really against (e.g. people that torture kittens), than from the people that theoretically should support you in that (e.g. the people that think you’re equally evil for eating chicken).

On to the comments: DuWayne probably nailed it with regard to this being like a religion to them. There’s the spin and lies and twisted worldview and both ignorance and willful distortion of existing evidence that contradicts their doctrines, there’s the self-enclosed echo chambers they insulate themselves in, and there’s the dehumanizing element that is necessary to cast all apostates as inhuman and worthy of death. Oh, and the internal scandals and utter hypocrisy. Don’t forget those. It’s probably why many of the same debating tactics are so effective against people in that same mindset. Especially since many of them are atheists as well.

But, I mean, hey, we all have our inconsistencies. And I’m not an exception.

Sorry that this is unpolished, just trying to throw this out to the world on my lunch break.

{advertisement}
Nuance is better than extremism, no matter what topic
{advertisement}

5 thoughts on “Nuance is better than extremism, no matter what topic

  1. 3

    I don’t know: I think the craziest has already given up posting privileges.

    I was also puzzled by the idea that carnivores eat meat because the Bible gives them dominion over the earth. WTF? I’m an atheist. I eat meat. I enjoy eating meat. I’m okay with humane animal laboratory testing. Fuck the Bible. It’s fiction. Get over it.

    I know that there are people out there who lobby, demonstrate, and petition for animal rights while not being hate-filled terrorists. I fully support their right to do so. However, I think that the parallels between the extreme animal rights activists and religious extremists is very apt.

    The extremists that Jason has dealt with here this past week are somewhat akin, in my opinion, to Fred Phelps and his ilk. They are loud, obnoxious, hate-filled, and dangerous. I also support their right to protest legally. Those who actually perform acts of terrorism against laboratories and the people who work there (perhaps even against the people who sign petitions to support humane animal testing) are very much akin to people like Scott Roeder (alleged murderer of Dr. George Tiller) and Eric Robert Rudolph. I abhor their violence and support their prosecution by the state to the fullest extent of the law.

    No matter their political leanings, radical extremists are a dangerous factor. Their disregard for human life, no matter what their stated justification, is never justified. I guess our best hope is that the extremists can be marginalized to the extent that no one has a desire to be associated with them.

  2. 4

    You make a number of good points as usual. It’s worth noting though, that there’s a good deal of evidence suggesting Phelps and his clan are actually just baiting people to violate their rights in order to sue them and make money — it’s been a successful strategy in the past. They instigate fights to get people to get violent or do something illegal, then grind them to dust with their legal machines.

    It’s possible the crazies here are trying to do the same thing — baiting us by putting up our personal information that’s *easily* available and *public*, to get us to dig around and find information *illegally*. Then again, it’s also possible that they’re doing it as a service to the more extreme parts of their faction. As you said, the rhetoric will have a similar effect with the extremists to the effects caused by the assholes that called him “Tiller the Baby Killer”, dehumanizing us so someone else will come along and kill us. (Note they’ll never get their own hands dirty thus they can stick around to continue instigating.)

    They can protest legally. They don’t have any kind of innate right to go around harassing people though. Not that they apparently think we mere humans have rights, at least, not as much as non-human animals.

  3. 5

    I reread this, and I’ve noted there are a lot of stream-of-consciousness rants that get far off topic to the video proper. Chalk that up to my lack of time. Maybe I’ll revise someday… bah. Time is sparse enough as it is and Daniel and Zdenny have been more than patient.

Comments are closed.