I've just watched an interview with Peter Singer (one of my heroes) on YouTube, which was originally broadcast on BBC1 some time ago. Whilst it was mainly focused around his (rightly) controversial view that infanticide should be a common practice, there was some conversation between him and the interviewer about his stance on animal rights. Peter Singer has been at the intellectual forefront of the animal liberation movement, starting with the publication of his book by the same name in 1975. I have often been thankful to him for providing an eloquent and well informed voice to animal rights activists, who normally suffer from quite a negative public image.
However, something Singer stated in the interview rather worried me. Whilst I was somewhat disturbed by his lack of passion or conviction throughout the conversation, it was his response when asked if he would still object to the practice of eating meat if it were done in a humane, painless way, that caused me some surprise. He simply stated that he would 'not have many objections' (this may be a misquote, I wasn't paying the most attention, but it was something to that effect).
It is odd how I have derived most of my beliefs concerning animals from his views and his writings, yet I would have had quite a different answer to that question. I do not understand how, as the leader of the speciesism revolution, he would not be vehemently against eating meat in all forms.
My personal beliefs entail me to see the eating of animal flesh as unnatural and immoral, whether done painlessly or not. The mere fact that we humans are consistently shown to live longer and be healthier when eating a meat-free, vegetarian diet, should point to the simple fact that eating meat is not a necessary practice. Unlike a feline, who needs meat to survive, we in fact prosper without it. The only benefit it gives us that (in some opinions) is difficult to replace is the nice taste we have in our mouths for just a few minutes. Therefore, there is no reason why we should ascribe ourselves the right to prematurely take the lives of unconsenting animals for our own shallow pleasures. Regardless of the levels of pain during slaughter (currently the slaughter process is disgusting and traumatising), we have no right to take the lives of other creatures that are of equal moral worth as us humans. We should not equate a kinship amongst our own species with a superiority over others. Yes, the slaughter process may feasibly be changed to kill animals in a way that diminishes all suffering (although this is probably never going to happen), but this does not endow us the right to murder.
Monday 26 January 2009
Adam Hart-Davies - A Curiously Narrow-Minded Scientist
This post is copied and pasted from an old blog I started that never got underway, so apologies if it seems out of date. The original date of writing was 8 Aug 2007:
Whilst plugging his latest programme to Richard and Judy on Channel 4 just last week, the respected scientist Adam Hart-Davis made a throwaway comment that left me quite literally scathing. He was discussing the search for life on other planets, during which he displayed his narrow-mindedness, claiming that 'humans are the only intelligent form of life on this planet...you don't see whales walking around with mobile phones.'
To imply that for a creature to be intelligent it must have technology is absolutely absurd, and is typical of the way in which we humans tend to ascribe superiority to ourselves, just because we are more 'advanced.' Intelligence comes not just from knowledge or gadgets, but from the way in which we relate to our environment and how we survive. A shark may be deemed more intelligent than a human for its ability to sense movement from miles and miles away; we have no such acute senses. The same could be said for various other species, that perform functions we could never dream of doing: flying, seeing ultraviolet light, and so on and so forth.
In fact, I believe that humans are perhaps some of the least intelligent creatures that have evolved on this planet. We regularly partake in prejudice of all kinds, be it due to race, gender, culture or, (most prevalently) species. We believe in 'Gods' and the word of Scripture, simply because such doctrines have been engrained into our brains since youth, and we use such beliefs to declare war, act violently, discriminate against others and generally destruct all around us. We act as though everything on Earth is here for our benefit, and we can use it at our whim, regardless of the implications.
No, a whale does not use a mobile phone, nor does it vote, nor does it use make-up. It does not need to (and neither, arguably, do we), and it would be unfairly anthropomorphic of us to judge another species' intelligence to our own paltry standards.
Whilst plugging his latest programme to Richard and Judy on Channel 4 just last week, the respected scientist Adam Hart-Davis made a throwaway comment that left me quite literally scathing. He was discussing the search for life on other planets, during which he displayed his narrow-mindedness, claiming that 'humans are the only intelligent form of life on this planet...you don't see whales walking around with mobile phones.'
To imply that for a creature to be intelligent it must have technology is absolutely absurd, and is typical of the way in which we humans tend to ascribe superiority to ourselves, just because we are more 'advanced.' Intelligence comes not just from knowledge or gadgets, but from the way in which we relate to our environment and how we survive. A shark may be deemed more intelligent than a human for its ability to sense movement from miles and miles away; we have no such acute senses. The same could be said for various other species, that perform functions we could never dream of doing: flying, seeing ultraviolet light, and so on and so forth.
In fact, I believe that humans are perhaps some of the least intelligent creatures that have evolved on this planet. We regularly partake in prejudice of all kinds, be it due to race, gender, culture or, (most prevalently) species. We believe in 'Gods' and the word of Scripture, simply because such doctrines have been engrained into our brains since youth, and we use such beliefs to declare war, act violently, discriminate against others and generally destruct all around us. We act as though everything on Earth is here for our benefit, and we can use it at our whim, regardless of the implications.
No, a whale does not use a mobile phone, nor does it vote, nor does it use make-up. It does not need to (and neither, arguably, do we), and it would be unfairly anthropomorphic of us to judge another species' intelligence to our own paltry standards.
Two Great Displays of Intelligence
An impromptu yet brilliant speech by Douglas Adams:
'Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is 'Here is a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? -because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
'Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe...no, that's holy? ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.'
The comparison of God to a teapot, by Bertrand Russell:
'Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.'
'Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is 'Here is a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? -because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'.
'Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe...no, that's holy? ... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard (Dawkins) creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.'
The comparison of God to a teapot, by Bertrand Russell:
'Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.'
Sunday 25 January 2009
Meet Your Meat
For anybody who eats meat, or anybody who just fancies some education, please take a look at this link. Enough said.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJfY5CXTM0
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aeJfY5CXTM0
Celebrity Big Brother and the Lesser of Two Isms
I'm sure none of us have forgotten the infamous Goody - Shetty race row that reared its head on Celebrity Big Brother just a couple of years ago. Whatever you thought of the media furore that followed - I personally saw it as much ado about (almost) nothing - it was clear that the Big Brother team would never again take a soft stance on anything that may be construed as remotely racist. This was evident in this dismissal of Emily from the house just a year later, after she called a fellow housemate a 'nigger' (it was said, somewhat ignorantly, without cruel intention).
So, it would follow that, two years down the line, the Big Brother producers would be on their toes, checking for any signs of prejudice or unacceptable behaviour in the Big Brother house. However, as the recently completed run of Celebrity Big Brother 2009 has shown us, this was certainly not the case.
What I am referring to here are the unacceptable actions of Coolio, a self-professed 'male chauvinist pig'. He made a number of unacceptable comments, most notably stating that 'all women are stupid, you proved that by being secretary of state'. Another contentious issue was his constant use of the terms 'bitch' and 'ho'. Whether you agree with his actions or not, he was clearly being sexist.
What has aggravated me the most during this whole episode is not the lack of intervention on the side of Big Brother, although I do think more should have been done. The public reaction, or lack thereof, was the most resounding issue throughout the whole thing. A few murmurs were let out here and there, but it certainly did not make front-page news.
This seeming public acceptance was epitomised by the appearance of Coolio on spinoff show Big Brother's Big Mouth. Upon his admittance of his sexist ways, the majority of the females in the audience wildly cheered. I was astonished at such behaviour - the fact that women seem willing to accept sexism as a commonplace part of society, even as a desirable thing, is enough to make me feel physically sick.
I am aware that it can be a hindrance to compare forms of prejudice, namely sexism and racism. Both are equally wrong, yet are also equally complex, and very different. But it is helpful to compare the two here in order to fully make my point clear.
Let's assume that Coolio was, in fact, white. And, rather than him being sexist, he was racist. Imagine that, instead of calling himself a 'male, chauvinist pig' he had said 'I'm a white, racist bigot'. Rather than calling all women stupid, he said that 'all black people are stupid'. He would be immediately ejected from the house, his media image in tatters. Certainly, no black people would be cheering him on. Yet for some reason, we are rewinding back to the dark ages, with sexism almost universally accepted, amongst both men and women.
If women do not stand up against the sexism that seems rife in our society, it will perpetuate and grow, untill all that has been accomplished will become obsolete. Discrimination against women is not acceptable, and it should be fought by all. If we cheer when men call us 'bitches' or 'hos', coyly accept any perverted sexual advances, then we will simply aid a popular culture that sees women as sex objects. Only by making it clear that we are strong, and by raising our voices against any wrongdoings, can we rise up and achieve the true equality that we so deserve.
So, it would follow that, two years down the line, the Big Brother producers would be on their toes, checking for any signs of prejudice or unacceptable behaviour in the Big Brother house. However, as the recently completed run of Celebrity Big Brother 2009 has shown us, this was certainly not the case.
What I am referring to here are the unacceptable actions of Coolio, a self-professed 'male chauvinist pig'. He made a number of unacceptable comments, most notably stating that 'all women are stupid, you proved that by being secretary of state'. Another contentious issue was his constant use of the terms 'bitch' and 'ho'. Whether you agree with his actions or not, he was clearly being sexist.
What has aggravated me the most during this whole episode is not the lack of intervention on the side of Big Brother, although I do think more should have been done. The public reaction, or lack thereof, was the most resounding issue throughout the whole thing. A few murmurs were let out here and there, but it certainly did not make front-page news.
This seeming public acceptance was epitomised by the appearance of Coolio on spinoff show Big Brother's Big Mouth. Upon his admittance of his sexist ways, the majority of the females in the audience wildly cheered. I was astonished at such behaviour - the fact that women seem willing to accept sexism as a commonplace part of society, even as a desirable thing, is enough to make me feel physically sick.
I am aware that it can be a hindrance to compare forms of prejudice, namely sexism and racism. Both are equally wrong, yet are also equally complex, and very different. But it is helpful to compare the two here in order to fully make my point clear.
Let's assume that Coolio was, in fact, white. And, rather than him being sexist, he was racist. Imagine that, instead of calling himself a 'male, chauvinist pig' he had said 'I'm a white, racist bigot'. Rather than calling all women stupid, he said that 'all black people are stupid'. He would be immediately ejected from the house, his media image in tatters. Certainly, no black people would be cheering him on. Yet for some reason, we are rewinding back to the dark ages, with sexism almost universally accepted, amongst both men and women.
If women do not stand up against the sexism that seems rife in our society, it will perpetuate and grow, untill all that has been accomplished will become obsolete. Discrimination against women is not acceptable, and it should be fought by all. If we cheer when men call us 'bitches' or 'hos', coyly accept any perverted sexual advances, then we will simply aid a popular culture that sees women as sex objects. Only by making it clear that we are strong, and by raising our voices against any wrongdoings, can we rise up and achieve the true equality that we so deserve.
Welcome to my new blog...
This is my first post, so I doubt it'll get anything more than a limited readership. But this is simply an introduction to who I am, and what this blog will be about.
I am a 19 year old politics student, and, as the title of this blog implies (cliched as it may be), young, female and angry. I am a strict vegetarian, atheist, feminist, and so on. At the moment I am choosing not to put my political views into any particular category, as none are very fitting.
This blog will focus on anything that takes my fancy. It will probably be a place for me to air my views and vent my frustrations, on a wide variety of topics. Please comment, whether you agree with what I say or not.
I hope this blog will be enjoyable for at least one reader.
I am a 19 year old politics student, and, as the title of this blog implies (cliched as it may be), young, female and angry. I am a strict vegetarian, atheist, feminist, and so on. At the moment I am choosing not to put my political views into any particular category, as none are very fitting.
This blog will focus on anything that takes my fancy. It will probably be a place for me to air my views and vent my frustrations, on a wide variety of topics. Please comment, whether you agree with what I say or not.
I hope this blog will be enjoyable for at least one reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
