Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
ironworks soundlabs

Why is O'ism against environmentalism?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A fundamental requirement to claiming rights is the ability to respect the rights of others. No animal is remotely capable of this. Imagine the aburdity if "animal rights" were granted. If they had rights, they would be have to be held responsible for violating the rights of others.

This is not what animal rights activists want. Animal rights are not human rights. They want animals to be free to live their lives according to their nature without human interference. For instance, for humans to stop using cows as a milk making machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not what animal rights activists want. Animal rights are not human rights. They want animals to be free to live their lives according to their nature without human interference. For instance, for humans to stop using cows as a milk making machines.

But milk is tasty! Seriously, though, you mean to tell me there is no way to raise a dairy cow that is more or less in accordance with their natures? I know many dairy farmers that would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not? Can you back up your answer? If you were not planning to do so, why did you even bother in answering to my question in the first place?

For the same reason any other arbitrary claim you may decide to make is false: there is no evidence to suggest it's true.

This is not what animal rights activists want. Animal rights are not human rights. They want animals to be free to live their lives according to their nature without human interference. For instance, for humans to stop using cows as a milk making machines.

Milk cows wouldn't exist without human interference. They exist according to their nature now.

And environmentalists aren't screaming at the chickens, urging them to start living according to their nature. They are screaming at humans, urging us to stop existing according to our nature, to sacrifice our own existence qua man for the sake of animals, nature, the Earth, the Universe, spirits, or any other ideal, except the right one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But milk is tasty! Seriously, though, you mean to tell me there is no way to raise a dairy cow that is more or less in accordance with their natures? I know many dairy farmers that would disagree.

They would argue cow's nature is not to have you drink their milk, that their milk is for their calves.

Milk is tasty but it harms the cow and the calf and you shouldn't want to cause harm to animals.

(Don't assume I agree with their philosphy, I'm just making it clear. My point is: know their arguments.)

Edit - Missed this reply:

They are screaming at humans, urging us to stop existing according to our nature, to sacrifice our own existence qua man for the sake of animals, nature, the Earth, the Universe, spirits, or any other ideal, except the right one.

It's not proper for man to be immoral. They think exploiting animals is immoral. It's a disagreement over what is proper for man. Although I understand what you mean and can agree that ultimately that is the consequence of their philosophy, it's not what they mean.

Edited by Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not proper for man to be immoral. They think exploiting animals is immoral. It's a disagreement over what is proper for man. Although I understand what you mean and can agree that ultimately that is the consequence of their philosophy, it's not what they mean.

They don't have the power to limit the scope of their contradictions. What they mean is not limited to what they say or write, but includes all of their premises and consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem in fighting environmentalists is to bear in mind at all times that they think they are entitled to use coercion (i.e. to initiate force and/or advocate the initiation of force) to achieve their ends, no matter how vague or unsupported-by-facts those ends may be. Rather than launch into complicated arguments with people about whether the planet is cooling, warming, expanding or contracting, perhaps next time it would be interesting to see what happens when you cut to the chase and advocate a cessation of the initiation of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean reference as in proof that animals are non violational. I take philosophy as evidence, but I would prefer seeing the studies that prove this.

What makes you think humans aren't the same as other animals, but we have been able to develop an ability to communicate?

We have certain innate abilities, just as other animals do. Like an infants startle reaction, or an infant holding breath under water, and these are minor reflex actions. Crows can instinctually build tools for digging. Humans spent thousands of years to develop societies, langauge, and all the characteristics of an animal we define to have a volitional consciouness.

Look at feral children, who display characteristics of the animals they coexisted with before they came into human contact. These children are conditioned by the wilderness, and learn animal like characteristics, such as lapping water, and having no emotional control in society.

Rats can distinguish between human languages, and other animals such as monkeys can learn rather complex tasks. Look at Kohler's work on animal insight, where chimpanzees used objects in their environment to reach food that was place out of their natural reach. Are you saying that this is an instinctual ability? These chimps were programmed to stack several boxes to reach bannanas hanging off the ceiling, right?

I do have TVOS on order, but I would appreciate a synopsis of the argument.

Lets not forget that the first living thing to enter space was none other than an ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not forget that the first living thing to enter space was none other than an ape.

Why are you excluding non-living things? That's not very open minded of you, maaaaaan.

The first thing to leave the Earth's atmosphere was a V2 rocket, and the first living thing was a fruit fly. Should that make all pieces of metal and all flies superior to all other things, or should we instead get a fucking grip on reality, and continue considering the people who sent them into space the only cause of all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...