True Left
History => Ancient World => Topic started by: guest5 on July 26, 2020, 12:15:09 pm
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20animal%20testing,perform%20experiments%20on%20nonhuman%20animals.
The history of animal testing goes back to the writings of the Ancient Greeks in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, with Aristotle (384–322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304–258 BCE) one of the first documented to perform experiments on nonhuman animals.[1] Galen, a physician in 2nd-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and is known as the "Father of Vivisection."[2] Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.[3][4] Although the exact purpose of the procedure was unclear, a Neolithic surgeon performed trepanation on a cow in 3400-3000 BCE.[5] This is the earliest known surgery to have been performed on an animal, and it is possible that the procedure was done on a dead cow in order for the surgeon to practice their skills.
-
You English robotic clones make it hard for me to feel sorry for you for too long, you people got some nerve calling me a dumb animal with your t-rays. It's better to be an animal than a judeo christian golem-robot, animals live in closer relation to the truth than biological robots.
-
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/posts/13712/revisions
Has the West produced anything even remotely comparable in terms of philosophical output? And yet Westerners claim to want to end "speciecism" (despite inventing the concept of "species" itself!).
-
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/inspired-by-muhammad/
-
https://news.sky.com/story/pack-of-crocodiles-save-dog-stranded-in-river-instead-of-eating-it-12967211
Crocodiles save dog stranded in river instead of eating it - in possible case of 'emotional empathy'
The giant reptiles have a reputation for being "opportunistic predators" - but chose to nudge the dog to safety, in what scientists say may be "sentient behaviour suggestive of cross-species empathy".
A report published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa outlines how a young dog was observed being chased by a pack of feral dogs and entered the shallow waters of the Savitri River, in India's Maharashtra.
The dog had not spotted the three mugger crocodiles floating nearby, which began edging closer to what appeared to be certain prey.
The adult reptiles - described by the Wildlife Institute of India as "opportunistic predators" - instead pushed the dog to safety using their snouts.
They even guided him to an area of the riverbank that wasn't occupied by the feral pack, allowing the dog to make a safe escape on land.
It was an action the journal said may have been down to "sentient behaviour suggestive of cross-species empathy".
The "curious" incident was uncharacteristic of the crocodiles.
capacity of one species to experience the emotional feelings of another species merits recognition.
-
Crocodiles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/crocodiles-were-played-sound-human-090031238.html
Nile crocodiles were found to react to the cries of baby bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans — and they appear to be able to detect degrees of distress, research published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the Royal Society's main biological-research journal, found.
Researchers played the crocodiles audio recordings of infants crying and discovered they were drawn to those that seemed the most distressed.
...
The researchers compared the findings to another study in which researchers played the same cries for a group of humans. The study found that humans and crocodiles use different criteria to judge distress in other species and that humans' judgment tends to be less accurate.
While humans primarily responded to the pitch of the cries, crocodiles responded based on levels of "deterministic chaos, harmonicity, and spectral prominences."
The authors noted that crocodiles could recognize the distress levels of species very distantly related to them.
This is consistent with my theory that language use reduces empathy.
-
What Plants Are Saying About Us
Your brain is not the root of cognition.
...
“Who knew plants do stuff?” I marveled. Suddenly plants seemed more interesting. When the pandemic hit, I brought more of them home, just to add some life to the place, and then there were more, and more still, until the ratio of plants to household surfaces bordered on deranged. Bushwhacking through my apartment, I worried whether the plants were getting enough water, or too much water, or the right kind of light—or, in the case of a giant carnivorous pitcher plant hanging from the ceiling, whether I was leaving enough fish food in its traps. But what never occurred to me, not even once, was to wonder what the plants were thinking.
...
To understand how human minds work, he started with plants.
I was, according to Paco Calvo, guilty of “plant blindness.” Calvo, who runs the Minimal Intelligence Lab at the University of Murcia in Spain where he studies plant behavior, says that to be plant blind is to fail to see plants for what they really are: cognitive organisms endowed with memories, perceptions, and feelings, capable of learning from the past and anticipating the future, able to sense and experience the world.
It’s easy to dismiss such claims because they fly in the face of our leading theory of cognitive science. That theory goes by names like “cognitivism,” “computationalism,” or “representational theory of mind.” It says, in short, the mind is in the head. Cognition boils down to the firings of neurons in our brains.
And plants don’t have brains.
“When I open up a plant, where could intelligence reside?” Calvo says. “That’s framing the problem from the wrong perspective. Maybe that’s not how our intelligence works, either. Maybe it’s not in our heads. If the stuff that plants do deserves the label ‘cognitive,’ then so be it. Let’s rethink our whole theoretical framework.”
...
But Calvo wasn’t convinced. Computers are good at logic, at carrying out long, precise calculations—not exactly humanity’s shining skill. Humans are good at something else: noticing patterns, intuiting, functioning in the face of ambiguity, error, and noise. While a computer’s reasoning is only as good as the data you feed it, a human can intuit a lot from just a few vague hints—a skill that surely helped on the savannah when we had to recognize a tiger hiding in the bushes from just a few broken stripes. “My hunch was that there was something really wrong, something deeply distorted about the very idea that cognition had to do with manipulating symbols or following rules,” Calvo says.
...
Plants can distinguish self from non-self, stranger from kin.
Plants’ abilities to sense and respond to their surroundings lead to what seems like intelligent behavior. Their roots can avoid obstacles. They can distinguish self from non-self, stranger from kin. If a plant finds itself in a crowd, it will invest resources in vertical growth to remain in light; if nutrients are on the decline, it will opt for root expansion instead. Leaves munched on by insects send electrochemical signals to warn the rest of the foliage,2 and they’re quicker to react to threats if they’ve encountered them in the past. Plants chat among themselves and with other species. They release volatile organic compounds with a lexicon, Calvo says, of more than 1,700 “words”—allowing them to shout things that a human might translate as “caterpillar incoming” or “*$@#, lawn mower!”
Their behavior isn’t merely reactive—plants anticipate, too. They can turn their leaves in the direction of the sun before it rises, and accurately trace its location in the sky even when they’re kept in the dark. They can predict, based on prior experience, when pollinators are most likely to show up and time their pollen production accordingly. A plant’s form is a record of its history. Its cells—shaped by experience—remember.
Chat? Anticipate? Remember? It’s tempting to tame all those words with scare quotes, as if they can’t mean for plants what they mean for us. For plants, we say, it’s biochemistry, just physiology and brute mechanics—as if that’s not true for us, too.
Besides, Calvo says, plant behavior can’t be reduced to mere reflexes. Plants don’t react to stimuli in predetermined ways—they’d never have made it this far, evolutionarily speaking, if they did. Having to deal with a changing environment while being rooted to one spot means having to set priorities, strike compromises, change course on the fly...
Entire article: https://nautil.us/what-plants-are-saying-about-us-264593/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
-
Freeganism is just another term for scavenging
Predation is part of canine food procurement but dogs are mostly scavengers by nature. Long dead, rotting, putrefied and, of course, revolting carrion has always been the fast food of canine cuisine. An abundance of nutritious dog food in your home can't trump instinct.
https://www.abqjournal.com/789269/dogs-are-natural-scavengers-food-seekers.html
(https://communityimpact.com/uploads/images/2019/12/13/25102.png)
Good chance that if you enjoy Vodka 'nobility' is lost upon your essence for all of time and your true spirit is just Turanian! :) (Although, the same cannot be said for all potato consumers obviously!).
-
Consider the octopus
Octopuses are smart in ways humans are only beginning to understand – just as companies are about to farm ranching them for food on a much larger scale
Entire article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-octopus-eating-meat-ethics/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
The octopus has already challenged our theories on evolution, intelligence and consciousness. It has proven itself smarter, more playful, more feeling than we ever imagined. You can devote decades to studying how and where the octopus lives and, as Dr. Mather will attest, still be surprised by what you learn.
Here is a creature, marvellously cunning and elegant, living in a space so vast and deep, so foreign to human experience, that we still mostly peer into the dark and wonder. Surely, such a creature is worthy of careful consideration?
“Yes, yes!” Dr. Mather says. “A thousand times, yes.”
And yet, no. We have plowed ahead, trying to tame the wildness of the octopus for our own ends. In many countries, including the United States (though not Canada, thanks to a small, prescient committee, including Dr. Mather, who advocated early for its welfare), the octopus can be used in experiments without standards and procedures to ensure its care. A Spanish company is pushing forward with plans to open the first commercial octopus farm in the Canary Islands; research continues apace in places such as Japan and Mexico to raise and domesticate the animal for profit.
Never mind that a loud and angry chorus of scientists, environmentalists and philosophers say that octopus farming ranching can’t ethically – or humanely – be done. Last November, a London School of Economics study, funded by the British government, concluded that “high-welfare octopus farming is impossible.” A campaign to stop octopus farming continues in the European Union. Animal-welfare advocates in countries such as Britain and Canada are calling for a pre-emptive ban on the import of farmed octopus, to close the market doors before they open.
This was another example of us failing, yet again, to adopt the precautionary principle, to put the interests of an animal above our own, to avoid causing harm to a life we don’t fully understand.
The existence of the octopus makes you think differently, not just about eating and farming ranching animals, but our relationship to them, our assumptions about them, and what this all says about us, the humans, languishing so pridefully on our animal kingdom throne.
Much like Abbott and Costello, what we learn from the octopus, our resident earthly alien, is really a warning to change our ways.
Humans have a long-standing bias for “cuddlies,” to use Dr. Mather’s nomenclature. We see furry mammals as smarter and cuter than slimy sea creatures, feel more morally responsible for their care, and apply more rules to their welfare. This doesn’t stop us from eating the cuddlies, of course. Or ignoring the fact that the pork chops and chicken drumsticks we buy in the grocery store begin with animals raised in often terrible conditions – a self-serving myopia that psychologists call the “meat paradox.”
But pretending that juicy steak wasn’t once a doe-eyed cow is, for many of us, a tolerable mind game. You’d probably be horrified, however, to boil a rabbit alive on the kitchen stove, the way we do lobsters. Or turn a pig inside out to kill it, which is how fished octopuses are sometimes dispatched.
That’s because, despite growing evidence to the contrary, it’s been convenient to assume that aquatic invertebrates aren’t sentient – that they don’t feel. An animal that doesn’t feel can’t experience pain. It doesn’t care if you hang it in the air and let it suffocate – another way that octopuses are sometimes killed. To paraphrase Kristin Andrews, a philosophy professor at York University and York Research Chair in Animal Minds, feelings in animals make the moral world more complicated.
(https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/pTStt0deVGLMcK_JGjC-yEWdD24=/900x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/6VY2Q5C2CVCJVO65AU55WGXRDA.jpg)
-
Rittenhouse reasoning strikes again:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hunters-shoot-kill-grizzly-bear-173138614.html
Hunters shoot, kill grizzly bear. Idaho Fish and Game says it was in self-defense
...
Hunters in North Idaho shot and killed a grizzly bear earlier this month in self-defense, according to an Idaho Department of Fish and Game news release.
Fish and Game said the hunters were pursuing black bears in the Ruby Creek area southwest of Bonners Ferry on June 8. The hunters shot a black bear and were retrieving it when a grizzly came out of the brush nearby.
The hunters reportedly backed away from the bear and yelled at it, but it continued approaching them. One of the hunters then shot the bear at close range, killing it. Afterward, one of the hunters called Boundary County emergency dispatch to report the incident. An ensuing Fish and Game investigation found the hunters acted in self-defense.
-
What animals think of death
Having a concept of death, far from being a uniquely human feat, is a fairly common trait in the animal kingdom
https://aeon.co/essays/animals-wrestle-with-the-concept-of-death-and-mortality?utm_source=pocket-newtab
-
What Slime Knows
There is no hierarchy in the web of life
https://orionmagazine.org/article/what-slime-knows/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
(https://mk0orionorionmaykyx4.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Didymium-squamulosum-1.jpg)
-
Another Westerner obsessed with intelligence and "big brains". Go figure....
Smartest Fish on Earth, Mormyridae, Seem To Talk Just Like Us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI6hGYFiIk4
"Oh look, that fish is somewhat like us, it must be a little special then?".
-
Animals Count and Use Zero. How Far Does Their Number Sense Go?
Crows recently demonstrated an understanding of the concept of zero. It’s only the latest evidence of animals’ talents for numerical abstraction — which may still differ from our own grasp of numbers.
The intelligence of corvids like ravens and crows is well known. Recently, crows were even shown to have a numerical ability seen in few other species so far: a grasp of the concept of the empty set — the numerosity zero.
(https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2021/08/June-Hunter_Ravens_2560_Lede.jpg)
https://www.quantamagazine.org/animals-can-count-and-use-zero-how-far-does-their-number-sense-go-20210809/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
So, Crows do sit in trees watching humans saying among themselves: "Yip, see that one over there? Just another zero....". ;)
-
Plants Feel Pain and Might Even See
It’s time to retire the hierarchical classification of living things.
(https://trueleft.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.nautil.us%2F18603_47a0a618c0365cf757ff3021ee5ef976.png&hash=c7e435d53f9f6fe326ec89f6ca006b9f8ece72f6)
In 2018, a German newspaper asked me if I would be interested in having a conversation with the philosopher Emanuele Coccia, who had just written a book about plants, Die Wurzeln der Welt (published in English as The Life of Plants). I was happy to say yes.
The German title of Coccia’s book translates as “The Roots of the World,” and the book really does cover this. It upends our view of the living world, putting plants at the top of the hierarchy with humans down at the bottom. I had been giving a great deal of thought to this myself. Ranking the natural world and scoring species according to their importance or their superiority seemed to me outdated. It distorts our view of nature and makes all the other species around us seem more primitive and somehow unfinished. For some time now, I have not been comfortable with viewing humans as the crown of creation, separating animals into higher and lower life-forms, and treating plants as something on the side, definitively banished to a lower level.
Entire article: https://nautil.us/issue/104/harmony/plants-feel-pain-and-might-even-see?utm_source=pocket-newtab
See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
If human-beings have proven anything since hunter-gatherers perverted the Neolithic Revolution it is the fact that they belong at the bottom!
-
The Human Neocortex Isn’t as Special as We Thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxPQ9bFfEP0
9Tensai9
2 days ago (edited)
Humans: Ah yes, our neocortex. THIS, this is what makes humans so great and unique!!
*Humans discover that the neocortex isn't special at all*
Ah yes, the crebellum. So filled with neurons. THIS, this is what makes us humans so great and unique!!
-
Anthropocentrism also corrupts Gnosticism:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tiny-minority-iraqis-follows-ancient-121827458.html
the Mandaeans. Also called Sabians, they are followers of the last Gnostic religion to survive continuously from ancient times down to the present day.
Gnostic religions view the material world as the product of a mistake in the heavenly realm, the creation of one or more inferior divine beings rather than the supreme God. Gnosticism also emphasizes that human beings can become aware of this and prepare their souls to escape from under the influence of the malevolent spiritual forces that created and rule this realm, so that when they die they can ascend to the good realm that lies beyond them.
If you truly believe the material world is evil, how can you exclude non-humans from escaping? If you believe the Demiurge created the material world in order to allow humans to enjoy oppressing non-humans, either you accept the Demiurge's plan and hence do not seek to escape at all, or reject the Demiurge's plan and hence understand that non-humans also need to escape. These are the only two intellectually consistent positions (though only the latter is ethical). But to want to escape yet then think that escaping is for humans only doesn't even make sense.
-
Thiruvalluvar day: Chennai Corporation announces ban on meat sale on Jan 15
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/thiruvalluvar-day-chennai-corporation-announces-ban-on-meat-sale-on-jan-15/articleshow/56480641.cms
CHENNAI: The Greater Chennai Corporation has announced a ban on sale of meat, including processed meat, on January 15, on account of Thiruvalluvar day.
In a statement on Wednesday, the local body said slaughterhouses operated by the corporation's health department at Pulianthope, Villivakam and Saidapet would not function on Sunday.
The corporation added that the ban on meat sale would extend to supermarkets and commercial complexes retailing processed meat.
Background on Thiruvalluvar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiruvalluvar#Religion
Valluvar is generally thought to have belonged to either Jainism or Hinduism.[54][55][56] Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism were the three religions that flourished in the Indian subcontinent during the time of Valluvar.[57] Early 19th-century writers proposed that Valluvar may have been a Jain. The 1819 translation by Francis Whyte Ellis mentions that the Tamil community debates whether Valluvar was a Jain or Hindu.[58] If Valluvar was indeed a Jain, it raises questions about the source of the traditional Valluvar legends and the mainstream colonial debate about his birth.[58]
Kamil Zvelebil believes that the ethics of the Tirukkuṟaḷ reflects the Jain moral code, particularly moral vegetarianism (couplets 251–260), and ahimsa, that is, "abstention from killing" (couplets 321–333). Zvelebil states that the text contains epithets for God that reflect Jain ideology:[59]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#Historical_background
According to the famous Tamil classic, Tirukkuṛaḷ, which is also considered a Jain work by some scholars:
If the world did not purchase and consume meat, no one would slaughter and offer meat for sale. (Kural 256)[68]
(The line in bold is a good rebuttal to the "Buddhist" mentioned in the previous post)
But unfortunately, the very next year:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/chennai-corporation-seizes-431-meat-on-thiruvalluvar-day/articleshow/62524600.cms
Chennai Corporation seizes 431 meat on Thiruvalluvar Day
CHENNAI: The Greater Chennai Corporation on Monday seized meat from vendors who had illegally sold the item despite a prohibitory order issued by the civic body. The city corporation prohibited sale and processing of meat on Monday, January 15, on account of Thiruvalluvar Day.
Sigh....
As they say, you can lead a non-Aryan to the water...:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/uneducable-gentiles/msg6550/#msg6550
(Also the meat sellers don't have an excuse of "not letting the food go to waste" as they were already made aware of the restriction the previous year. Therefore the onus is on them to adjust their supply accordingly. What do you think?)
Speaking of which, I have seen many secular-humanist types in the Dravidian-speaking states who purport to be anti-casteist (rightfully) herald Thiruvalluvar as an anti-Vedic poet and as an icon for Dravidian peoples. But when it comes to actually following his teachings, particularly in regards to meat-eating, these people go silent, instead advocating eating beef to "oppose" Brahmanism. If they really were intent on fighting Brahmanism for its double standard on beef-eating, why not embrace the anti-Brahmanic vegetarianism of the Jain Thiruvalluvar? Goes to show that these non-Aryans are probably not even intent on fighting Brahmanism in the first place.
These are the same degenerates who probably would have sided with the Vedics back in the day! All they would have had to do was give up beef-eating (while still eating other meats), and they could ascend in the Vedic hierarchy. It would have fit perfectly with their prior lifestyle, and indeed would have been an improvement to them insofar as they would have found the Aryan Suryavanshi worldview too restrictive.
-
"2) The teachings are real, but they were just grifters who themselves didn't believe what they taught. (Then why not teach something easier to follow?)"
Exactly! If he was simply trying to lead people astray, and was bashing Brahmanism out of envious spite, wouldn't it have been easier for him to just teach his followers to accept the beef-eating, cow-sacrificing, Vedics as the rightful rulers? What reason would he have to oppose them? He was a Kshatriya after all, so he would have had high status in the hierarchy. And his followers could have still retained their non-Aryan habits and be accepted among them.
-
"Freeganism is just another term for scavenging"
Unfortunately, this is what illiterate modern-day "Buddhists" think constitutes "scavenging":
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-arent-all-buddhists-v_b_9812362#:~:text=As%20I%20explained%20in%20the,and%20his%20monks%20ate%20meat.&text=Buddhism%20is%20widely%20known%20for,%2Dviolence%2C%20even%20towards%20animals.
I remember one Theravada monk explain this to me using a pretty good example. Suppose a tiger was to kill a deer, and then ate part of it and left. Then, a vulture flies by and eats the remainder of the deer. Is the vulture responsible for the deer’s death?
Long story short, there is no bad karma in being the scavenger in Buddhism, but there is in being the hunter. The act of eating meat is separate from the act of killing, and you don’t necessarily have to kill to eat meat. In the Amagandha Sutta, the Buddha recalls his predecessor making this very point about these two acts being separate, and whether or not you’re a vegetarian will have no effect on bringing you closer to achieving Nirvana.
This is the basis of why it is okay to eat meat in Buddhism. Buying meat at the market constitutes being a scavenger, and it’s better to make use of the meat rather than having the animal die just to have its flesh thrown away.
As for those who say not buying meat reduces the killing of animals, this is a good point to make, but not an all-encompassing point. There is a famous story in the Buddha’s life where he was at a festival as a child. During the festival, the young prince caught a glimpse of a farmer plowing his field to plant crops. The observant prince noticed that as the farmer plowed the field, it exposed and killed numerous worms and insects in the ground, causing the prince to feel great compassion for the small creatures.
So creating demand for meat by consuming it is ok, because the animal was killed anyway and shouldn't be "wasted"? WTF? You are directly not only incentivizing the butcher to kill more animals but are also indirectly lining his pockets! The butcher would have no incentive to produce meat if you did not buy it in the first place! FYI, the production of meat also includes the violence involved with the production of crops, as the livestock would have to be fed crops before being butchered.
Continuing:
While the supply and demand effects of buying less meat would shift killing away from livestock, the consumption of crops also leads to the loss of life, even if accidental or indirectly. Not to mention, in today’s world many farmers use pesticides to protect their crops, a deliberate act of killing. Horrible as it may be, this is just the world we live in, and it’s best not to focus too much on things out of our control. Being a vegetarian doesn’t make you good, and not being one doesn’t make you bad.
Maybe, being a vegetarian doesn't make you good, but not being one certainly makes you bad (unless you are a scavenger/vegan). As for pesticides and the killing of insects, see the previous paragraph. Also, and I can't believe I need to say this, two wrongs don't make a right!
BTW, seeing that the Buddha condemned even the killing of insects, I agree that he was probably a freegan. What other reason would there be for him to do this if he did not actually believe what he was teaching? It would have just made him look like a contradictory buffoon and he would have had no followers! Of course, if some "Buddhists" misinterpret his teachings and use it to justify their non-Aryan dietary habits, that's on them.
-
"are you saying that meat obtained through freeganism is more ethical than vegan food obtained through a food system that will end up benefiting the meat-eaters and other violence doers indirectly (economically or otherwise)?"
Yes. Freeganism is just another term for scavenging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scavenger
Scavengers are animals that consume dead organisms that have died from causes other than predation.[1] While scavenging generally refers to carnivores feeding on carrion, it is also a herbivorous feeding behavior.[2] Scavengers play an important role in the ecosystem by consuming dead animal and plant material. Decomposers and detritivores complete this process, by consuming the remains left by scavengers.
Scavengers aid in overcoming fluctuations of food resources in the environment.[3]
...
Ecological function
Scavengers play a fundamental role in the environment through the removal of decaying organisms, serving as a natural sanitation service.[8] While microscopic and invertebrate decomposers break down dead organisms into simple organic matter which are used by nearby autotrophs, scavengers help conserve energy and nutrients obtained from carrion within the upper trophic levels, and are able to disperse the energy and nutrients farther away from the site of the carrion than decomposers.[9]
Scavenging unites animals which normally would not come into contact,[10] and results in the formation of highly structured and complex communities which engage in nonrandom interactions.[11] Scavenging communities function in the redistribution of energy obtained from carcasses and reducing diseases associated with decomposition. Oftentimes, scavenger communities differ in consistency due to carcass size and carcass types, as well as by seasonal effects as consequence of differing invertebrate and microbial activity.[4]
"are you saying that Siddhartha and Mohammed were both freegans"
It is impossible to prove either way, but any other interpretation to achieve consistency would open even larger cans of worms. Basically, the choices we have are:
1) All their teachings against violence towards non-humans are fabrications. (And if so, what else has been fabricated?)
2) The teachings are real, but they were just grifters who themselves didn't believe what they taught. (Then why not teach something easier to follow?)
3) They were freegan.
-
"http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/support-zakia-belkhiri/comment-page-1/#comment-170868"
@gloom
“However, on the same website we read:”
On Wikipedia it also says the ‘Holocaust’ happened. Does this imply that every piece of information on Wikipedia is false?
As a matter of fact, there are also records of Siddhartha eating meat; he advocated freeganism among his original sangha:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism
Nevertheless this has not prevented Buddhism from increasingly aligning with veganism after Buddhism became established within the economy (freeganism only works economically when the rest of society is non-freegan, whereas veganism can work economically for an entire society, therefore veganism is not a deviation from Buddhism, but the correct application of Buddhist ethics in conjunction with the instruction to spread Buddhism). This is the path that we are in the process of encouraging Mohammedanism to take also. We treat the article you linked to with the same contempt that we treat articles that argue that Siddhartha’s meat-eating makes meat-eating in general acceptable for Buddhists.
On our own main site we explicitly include the quote:
“An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Fuehrer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat eating is wrong. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also.” – Joseph Goebbels
http://aryanism.net/culture/veganism/
Like Hitler, Mohammed was preparing for and then fighting a war until the end of his life, therefore the same practical considerations would have applied. War is hell. This does not mean that veganism should not be rigorously pursued as soon as this can be done without jeopardizing strategic objectives.
Besides, I suggest taking the Bukhari hadiths with a grain of salt:
The Shi’a consider many Sunni transmitters of hadith to be unreliable because many of them took the side of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman in preference to Ali (and the rest of Prophet Muhammad’s family) and the majority of them were narrated through certain personalities that waged war against Ahlul Bayt or sided with their enemies such as Aisha that fought Ali at Jamal, or Muawiya who did so at Tiffin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Books
The sooner we end Islamophobia as a whole, the sooner we can start selectively criticizing corruptions existing within present-day and historical Islam, such as:
“Eid-ul-Adha”
It honors the willingness of Ibrahim (Abraham) to sacrifice his son
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_al-Adha
We of all people can be trusted to de-Judaize Islam, as we have repeatedly promised to do. If you truly cared about animal welfare, you would be helping us instead of attacking us.
“here we can gaze at the promotion of veganism/aryan values at the Nuremberg rally”
“I know that somebody must come forth to meet our situation. I have sought him. I have found him nowhere. And therefore I have taken upon myself to do the preparatory work, only the most urgent preparatory work. For that much I know: I am not He. And I know also what is lacking in me.” – Adolf Hitler
Thank you for demonstrating who is trying to build on National Socialist Germany by championing its ideals and who is trying to drag it down by zooming in on its imperfections.
I agree that it is impractical to overhaul the food system without winning the war first. But shouldn't the leaders at least possess the ethical judgement to individually avoid meat themselves? Or are you saying that meat obtained through freeganism is more ethical than vegan food obtained through a food system that will end up benefiting the meat-eaters and other violence doers indirectly (economically or otherwise)?
If the latter, I kind of do agree with you. Pacifist Jains, for example, who refrain from wearing silk but end up working at silk textile factories indirectly perpetuate violence as their labor benefits the violence doers. The same could be said of pacifist False Leftist "White" vegans (to say nothing of "Jewish Vegans").*
But since I would assume this only applies to freegans, are you saying that Siddhartha and Mohammed were both freegans, as opposed to being regular meat eaters? I would object to following a regular meat-eater as a "religious" leader, whatever the case is.
*Although the last two are oxymoronic, and therefore not even vegan
-
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/support-zakia-belkhiri/comment-page-1/#comment-170868
-
Continuing from this post:
"I believe that Aryans who would be so appalled at animal slaughter might think that non-Aryans can defeat them because they possess more lightning than Aryans, i.e. the non-Aryans can bring themselves to kill humans because they have no compunction in killing innocent animals, but Aryans cannot bring themselves to kill humans since they do have such compunction."
Precisely because I am so appalled at animal slaughter, I have no problem bringing myself to kill humans who have no compunction in killing innocent animals. Did Cain think Abel could defeat him because Abel had no compunction sacrificing lambs to Yahweh? Cain is our rolemodel.
Ok, but then why did Siddhartha and Mohammed (allegedly) eat meat? Or is that simply a rumor?
-
Apparently, Dolphins know how to puff-puff-pass too, who would have thunk it? (Poor pufferfish!!)
Dolphins Seem to Use Toxic Pufferfish to Get High
Humans aren't the only creatures that suffer from substance abuse problems. Horses eat hallucinogenic weeds, elephants get drunk on overripe fruit and big horn sheep love narcotic lichen. Monkeys' attraction to sugar-rich and ethanol-containing fruit, in fact, may explain our own attraction to alcohol, some researchers think.
Now, dolphins may join that list. Footage from a new BBC documentary series, "Spy in the Pod," reveals what appears to be dolphins getting high off of pufferfish. Pufferfish produce a potent defensive chemical, which they eject when threatened. In small enough doses, however, the toxin seems to induce "a trance-like state" in dolphins that come into contact with it, the Daily News reports:
The dolphins were filmed gently playing with the puffer, passing it between each other for 20 to 30 minutes at a time, unlike the fish they had caught as prey which were swiftly torn apart.
Zoologist and series producer Rob Pilley said that it was the first time dolphins had been filmed behaving this way.
At one point the dolphins are seen floating just underneath the water's surface, apparently mesmerised by their own reflections.
The dolphins' expert, deliberate handling of the terrorized puffer fish, Pilley told the Daily News, implies that this is not their first time at the hallucinogenic rodeo.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dolphins-seem-to-use-toxic-pufferfish-to-get-high-180948219/
I suppose in regard to this topic we should be thankful Westerners still believe they are better than all other animals or else the "war on drugs" may have cost countless Dolphin lives as well by now....
-
The joy of being animal
Human exceptionalism is dead: for the sake of our own happiness and the planet we should embrace our true animal nature
Today, our thinking has shifted along with scientific evidence, incorporating the genetic insights of the past century. We now know we’re animals, related to all other life on our planet. We’ve also learned much about cognition, including the uneasy separation between instinct and intention, and the investment of the whole body in thought and action. As such, we might expect attitudes to have changed. But that isn’t the case. We still live with the belief that humans, in some essential way, aren’t really animals. We still cling to the possibility that there’s something extrabiological that delivers us from the troubling state of being an organism trapped by flesh and death. In the words of the philosopher Derek Parfit, ‘the body below the neck is not an essential part of us.’ Many of us still deny that human actions are the result of our animal being, instead maintaining that they’re the manifestation of reason. We think our world into being. And that’s sometimes true. The trouble comes when we think our thoughts are our being.
There are real-world consequences to these ideas. Having a humanlike mind has become a moral dividing line. In our courts, we determine what we can and can’t do to other sentient beings on the basis of the absence of a mind with features like ours. Those things that look too disturbingly body-centred, like impulse or agency, regardless of their outcomes or role in flourishing, are viewed as lower down on the moral scale. Meanwhile, the view that physical, animal properties (many of which we share with other species) have little significance has left us with the absurd idea that we can live without our bodies. So it is that we pursue biological enhancement in search of the true essence of our humanity. Some of the world’s largest biotech companies are developing not only artificial forms of intelligence but brain-machine interfaces in the hope that we might one day achieve super-intelligence or even mental immortality by downloading our minds into a synthetic form. It follows that our bodies, our flesh and our feelings – from laughing with our friends to listening to music to cuddling our children – can be seen as a threat to this paradigm.
Entire article: https://aeon.co/essays/to-be-fully-human-we-must-also-be-fully-embodied-animal?utm_source=pocket-newtab
The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality. — Abraham Isaac Kook, founder of the yeshiva and the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile
Jews and Judeo-Christians\Western culture are all proud humans.
-
Empathy, Morality, Community, Culture—Apes Have It All
Primatologist Frans de Waal takes exception with human exceptionalism.
The title of his previous book offers a keen summary of his outlook: Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
“Let me start off with a radical proposal: emotions are like organs,” he writes. “They are all needed, and we share them with all with other mammals.”
De Waal’s body of work adds up to a sustained argument against human exceptionalism. His 2013 book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, takes aim at critics and dissenters—anthropologists, behaviorists, Christian fundamentalists—and at the “strident atheism” of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. De Waal, a non-believer himself, sees religion as an offshoot of our biological drive to do good. The interview below was conducted on the heels of the release of The Bonobo and the Atheist. De Waal was an amiable conversationalist with a sly sense of humor. He was a fast talker, bursting with ideas, displaying the self-assurance of a prominent scientist who’s fought his share of intellectual battles.
There is no part of the human brain that is not present in a monkey’s brain.
Why are so many people wedded to the idea that humans are special?
We’re raised with those ideas. It’s an old [JUDEO-GRECO] Christian idea that humans have souls and animals don’t. I sometimes think it’s because our religions arose in a desert environment in which there were no primates, so you have people who lived with camels, goats, snakes, and scorpions. Of course, you then conclude that we are totally different from the rest of the animal kingdom because we don’t have primates with whom to compare ourselves. When the first great apes arrived in Western Europe—to the zoos in London and Paris—people were absolutely flabbergasted. Queen Victoria even expressed her disgust at seeing these animals. Why would an ape be disgusting unless you feel a threat from it? You would never call a giraffe disgusting, but she was disgusted by chimpanzees and orangutans because people had no concept that there could be animals so similar to us in every possible way. We come from a religion that’s not used to that kind of comparison.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/empathy-morality-community-culture-apes-have-it-all?utm_source=pocket-newtab
-
Anthropocentrism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
Anthropocentrism, philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants, mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of humankind.
Many ethicists find the roots of anthropocentrism in the Creation story told in the book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible, in which humans are created in the image of God and are instructed to “subdue” Earth and to “have dominion” over all other living creatures. This passage has been interpreted as an indication of humanity’s superiority to nature and as condoning an instrumental view of nature, where the natural world has value only as it benefits humankind. This line of thought is not limited to Jewish and Christian theology and can be found in Aristotle’s Politics and in Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy.
Some anthropocentric philosophers support a so-called cornucopian point of view, which rejects claims that Earth’s resources are limited or that unchecked human population growth will exceed the carrying capacity of Earth and result in wars and famines as resources become scarce. Cornucopian philosophers argue that either the projections of resource limitations and population growth are exaggerated or that technology will be developed as necessary to solve future problems of scarcity. In either case, they see no moral or practical need for legal controls to protect the natural environment or limit its exploitation.
Other environmental ethicists have suggested that it is possible to value the environment without discarding anthropocentrism. Sometimes called prudential or enlightened anthropocentrism, this view holds that humans do have ethical obligations toward the environment, but they can be justified in terms of obligations toward other humans. For instance, environmental pollution can be seen as immoral because it negatively affects the lives of other people, such as those sickened by the air pollution from a factory. Similarly, the wasteful use of natural resources is viewed as immoral because it deprives future generations of those resources. In the 1970s, theologian and philosopher Holmes Rolston III added a religious clause to this viewpoint and argued that humans have a moral duty to protect biodiversity because failure to do so would show disrespect to God’s creation.
SIMILAR TOPICS
Renaissance man
Prior to the emergence of environmental ethics as an academic field, conservationists such as John Muir and Aldo Leopold argued that the natural world has an intrinsic value, an approach informed by aesthetic appreciation of nature’s beauty, as well as an ethical rejection of a purely exploitative valuation of the natural world. In the 1970s, scholars working in the emerging academic field of environmental ethics issued two fundamental challenges to anthropocentrism: they questioned whether humans should be considered superior to other living creatures, and they also suggested that the natural environment might possess intrinsic value independent of its usefulness to humankind. The resulting philosophy of biocentrism regards humans as one species among many in a given ecosystem and holds that the natural environment is intrinsically valuable independent of its ability to be exploited by humans.
Although the anthro in anthropocentrism refers to all humans rather than exclusively to men, some feminist philosophers argue that the anthropocentric worldview is in fact a male, or patriarchal, point of view. They claim that to view nature as inferior to humanity is analogous to viewing other people (women, colonial subjects, nonwhite populations) as inferior to white Western men and, as with nature, provides moral justification for their exploitation. The term ecofeminism (coined in 1974 by the French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne) refers to a philosophy that looks not only at the relationship between environmental degradation and human oppression but may also posit that women have a particularly close relationship with the natural world because of their history of oppression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYpjoEPwiUA&t=3s
Notice how the narrator in the above video makes the correct argument that anthropocentricism can easily lead to a racist and supremacist worldview and then mistakenly lumps Hitler into that category, when in truth Hitler waged war against anthropocentric western civilization. Furthermore, should we be all that surprised that Aristotle was also racist? And, of course Judaism is patriarchal:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling#/media/File:Creaci%C3%B3n_de_Ad%C3%A1n.jpg)
(https://trueleft.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Faryanism.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fanthro.png&hash=a38adbff0141890dfbea39fdde9fadecf06d8c5d)
Eileen Crist: Confronting Anthropocentrism
Eileen received her Bachelor’s from Haverford College in sociology in 1982 and her doctoral degree from Boston University in 1994, also in sociology, with a specialization in life sciences and society. She has been teaching at Virginia Tech in the Department of Science and Technology in Society since 1997. She is author of Images of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind. She is also coeditor of Gaia in Turmoil: Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis, Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation, and most recently Keeping the Wild: Against the Domestication of Earth. Eileen is author of numerous papers and contributor to the late journal Wild Earth. More about her work can be found on her website, eileencrist.com.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZkFj9uPKXo&t=2s
Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-BX-jN_Ac
————
Compare the Anthropocentric worldview of Jews and Judaism to the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed:
Why hunt ye these creatures of God, which are more noble than you? By the cruelties of many generations they were made the enemies of man who should have been his friends. — Jesus
There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you. — Mohammed