PPBe topic : Animal rights

Bonjour,

Je trouve que ce qui figure sur le pad est magnifique et je ne vois rien
à y ajouter pour le moment

Eugène Rappe

English (DeepL Translator)

Good morning. Hello,

I think what's on the pad is beautiful and I can't see anything.

to add for the moment

Eugene Rappe

De : Begonia Saavedra Ibarra (Loomio) [email protected]
À : [email protected]
Envoyé le : Jeudi 28 décembre 2017 18h44
Objet : [Pirates BE - Permanent Assembly] PPBe topic : Animal rights

Thank you for your feedback @bobrappe .

Wiki page on animal rights has been modified. Do not hesitate to amend if needed.

English below

En lisant vos échanges, et surtout en jetant un coup d'œil rapide au pad, j'ai l'impression que la question des droits des animaux se résume à la problématique de la consommation/production de viande. D'autres l'ont d'ailleurs fait remarqué dans ce thread.

Il va de soi que la question est beaucoup plus vaste. Par exemple, quid de la production laitière, des chevaux, des animaux de compagnie, des abeilles exploitées pour leur miel, etc. ? Quid de la faune et de la flore sauvage, qui est de plus en plus menacée ? Quid de la biodiversité (là je dépasse peut-être le cadre du débat, quoique) ? Je ne parle même pas des zoos, des cirques, etc. où les animaux sont utilisés pour notre divertissement, ni de la recherche scientifique, où les animaux sont sacrifiés pour améliorer notre santé.

Le problème est déjà plus délicat dans ces cas-là. Par exemple, j'avais visité une chèvrerie il y a quelques années, où les chèvres étaient bien traitées, disposaient de suffisamment d'espace, et disposaient d'un plan retraite qui m'avait l'air pas mal du tout ;) En gros, passé un certain âge, la chèvre pouvait vivre sa vie tranquille dans l'étable.

Même si j'entends les anti-spécistes lorsqu'ils soulèvent la question de la sélection artificielle (on crierait à l'eugénisme si on faisait ça avec des humains), par exemple, je serais déjà satisfait si les animaux étaient élevés dans de bonnes conditions. Il faut donc impérativement instaurer une certaine éthique animale dans un système qui en est dépourvu.

Néanmoins, l'éthique ne fait pas tout, car pour citer un conseiller chez MacDonald's (1):

« Des animaux en bonne santé, bien soignés, permettent à l’industrie de la viande de fonctionner efficacement, sans problème et avec un bon rendement. »

Et la réponse de M. Francione (1):

Pour faire évoluer le statut de l’animal dans nos sociétés, nous devons appliquer le principe d’« égalité de considération » (selon lequel il faut traiter de façon égale des cas semblables), une notion essentielle à toute théorie morale. Même s’il existe un grand nombre de différences entre les humains et les animaux, une chose fondamentale au moins nous rapproche : notre capacité à souffrir.

(1) Voir cet article du Monde diplomatique qui fait le tour de la question selon moi : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/08/A/13752 (je peux vous envoyer le pdf sur demande)

---

When I read the discussion, and especially when I take a quick look at the pad, I have the feeling that the question of animal rights is reduced to the issue of meat consumption/production. Others have pointed this out in this thread.

It goes without saying that the issue is much broader. For example, what about dairy production, horses, pets, honeybees, etc.? What about wildlife, which is increasingly threatened? What about biodiversity (this is perhaps beyond the scope of this debate, but maybe not)? I am not even talking about zoos, circuses, etc. where animals are used for our entertainment, or scientific research, where animals are sacrificed to improve our health.

The problem is already more delicate in these cases. For example, I had visited a goat farm a few years ago, where the goats were well treated, had enough space, and had a retirement plan that looked pretty nice to me ;) Basically, after a certain age, the goat could live a quiet life in the stable.

Even if I hear anti-specists when they raise the issue of artificial breeding (we would say this is eugensm if we were doing this with humans), for example, I would be satisfied if the animals were raised in good conditions. It is therefore imperative to establish a certain animal ethics in a system that lacks one.

However, ethics is not everything... To quote a MacDonald's counsellor (1):

"Healthy, well-cared animals enable the meat industry to function efficiently, smoothly and with good performances."

And Mr Francione's answer (1):

In order to advance the status of animals in our societies, we must apply the principle of "equality of consideration" (according to which similar cases must be treated equally), a notion essential to any moral theory. Although there are many differences between humans and animals, at least one fundamental thing brings us closer together: our ability to suffer.

(1) See this article from Le Monde diplomatique which I think provide a good overview on the issue: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2006/08/A/13752 (I can send you the pdf upon request)

The below points we defend are beyond animals rights in the context of consumption:

• Pirates are for the free movement of all living beings.

• Pirates advocate for a holistic vision that respects the ecological balance and earth's limited renewal capacity.

• Pirates are also for the dignified treatment of all forms of life, including those raised or cultivated for human consumption.

• the understanding that a due share of wealth is to be allocated to non-human living beings and the environment.

• opposition to any threat or activity that leads directly or indirectly to suffering and which hinders the access to or fulfillment of a decent life for humans or prevents a decent living to non-human lifeforms, e.g. deforestation, industrial farming.

@hgo , on the comment:

_ Il va de soi que la question est beaucoup plus vaste. Par exemple, quid de la production laitière, des chevaux, des animaux de compagnie, des abeilles exploitées pour leur miel, _

__ "direct or indirect, human consumption" __ was initially added with the intent to cover more scenarios, because if we cause deforestation or if we plant GMO soya, it is to feed more cattle or plant palm trees for an ultimate human consumption.

En français plus bas

Indeed, but you can't deny there is a strong emphasis on the food aspect. And actually, the third point also talks about meat in a sense.

In short, this part seems too much for me :

Pirates accept that human beings are just part of the food chain and acknowledge human dietary needs are those of omnivorous creatures.
Also, Pirates understand that as part of a food chain, a part of our purpose is to consume other living beings, in order to keep alive and keep the equilibrium of the food chain.

• the sentence on cannibalism that was still present when I wrote my answer.

By saying we are "omnivorous creatures", it is as if we find an excuse to kill animals for our own consumption. I'm not a vegetarian, but they proved that we can live without eating meat, so this excuse is not even true somehow.

Moreover, I'm not sure my purpose is to consume other living beings. I hope this is more a need than a purpose, otherwise this would be a bit sad ^{^} I understand your point by saying we need to keep the food chain, but I don't think this should become a goal for us.

---

En effet, mais tu ne peux pas nier qu'on insiste beaucoup sur l'aspect alimentaire dans le pad. Et en fait, ton troisième point concerne également la viande, en un sens.

Bref, cette partie me semble de trop:

Les pirates acceptent que les êtres humains ne sont qu'une partie de la chaîne alimentaire et reconnaissent que les besoins alimentaires de l'homme sont ceux de créatures omnivores.
En outre, les Pirates comprennent qu'en tant que maillon d'une chaîne alimentaire, une partie de notre but est de consommer d'autres êtres vivants, afin de rester en vie et de maintenir l'équilibre de la chaîne alimentaire.

• la phrase sur le cannibalisme qui était encore présente quand j'ai écrit ma réponse.

En disant que nous sommes des "créatures omnivores", c'est comme si nous trouvions une excuse pour tuer des animaux pour notre propre consommation. Je ne suis pas végétarien, mais ces derniers ont prouvé qu'on peut vivre sans manger de viande, donc cette excuse ne tient pas.

De plus, je ne suis pas sûr que mon but soit de consommer d'autres êtres vivants. J'espère que c'est plus un besoin qu'un but, sinon ce serait un peu triste ^{^} Je comprends ce que tu veux dire quand tu parles de préserver la chaîne alimentaire, mais je ne pense pas que cela devrait être un but en soi.

It is sensible to keep factual and scientific.

I appreciate if someone can share a scientific source where is it mentioned that humans are not omnivorous.

It is best to call a spade a spade, it should not be about feelings.

Extract from wikipedia:
_ Omnivore is a consumption classification for animals that have the capability to obtain chemical energy and nutrients from materials originating from plant and animal origin. Often, omnivores also have the ability to incorporate food sources such as algae, fungi, and bacteria into their diet as well. _

Is it a point where we can agree: it is factual that humans have the capacity to obtain nutrients from plants and animals, as well as other sources such as algae and fungi?

This does not mean that everyone has to eat meat, it means that this is an animal capacity which humans have. Factual, no feelings.

Dietary choices are stated to be a human right.

Good point, according to these arguments, humans are omnivores (so you were right, my bad) : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Are_humans_omnivores_or_herbivores%3F

However, my point was that vegans showed that it is now (technologically) possible to avoid eating meat, and therefore the fact of being omnivorous is not a good reason to keep eating meat.

---

Bon point, selon ces arguments, les humains sont omnivores (donc tu avais raison, pardon) : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Are_humans_omnivores_or_herbivores%3F

Cependant, ce que je voulais dire était que les végétaliens ont montré qu'il est maintenant (technologiquement) possible d'éviter de manger de la viande, et donc le fait d'être omnivore n'est pas une bonne raison pour continuer à manger de la viande.

Vegetables can be living beings too... so if I eat something I have no respect to that living being?

So if one eats vegetables, we have no respect for plants?

I have to highlight it is not a great way of looking at things thinking you can eat it because it is not worth respecting.

I feel as much respect for the carrot as for the lamb I shall have to eat to survive. Eating is not a choice, one must eat or die.

I go back to calling a spade a spade.

Having said that, it does not mean to take all lifeforms for granted, it is the contrary. It is of the most importance to appreciate the weigh of each life which contributes for ours to continue. Which is why each form of life should be entitled to a good life until it ends.

All will, including ours one day. We will give our share when that day comes.