Speciesism

[Kam]

Being quite new to vegansim, I had never heard of Speciesism until I got on this board. I think I have an understanding of what it means, but would be interested in having it discussed and explained more fully please, if possible, and to know your thoughts etc. Thanks. Kam.

[adam antichrist]

An author by the name of Joan Dunayer recently wrote a book called "Speciesism" (haven't read it). If you are interested, I would suggest you read it to see what she has to say.

The basics as I understand them is that all species should be afforded equall regard (not rights) and to rank sentient beings by their species etc is immoral. The justification is that all sentients, no matter how small or comparitively inconsiderate has an interest that it remains free from suffering. While using rats in experiments to treat cancers are in the interest of cancer sufferers, the suffering of an individual from cancer is not relevant to the rat in terms of it's own freedom from suffering, and it's preference will be for the cancerous individual to suffer instead.

While those of us in the AR movement stand for the liberation of animals many are still guilty of 'speciesism' in which we accord more or less rights to non-human species. The whole idea is being somewhat obscured with the highlighting of 'speciesist language' suggesting that we need to stop referring to animals as it or them, and rather he or she; as this perpetuates the status of animals as property etc.

Personally I don't agree, and think that language is fine the way it is however it does seem to have had an effect on the degree of racism in society since racial slurs were removed from daily use in Australian media. I remember a TV show when I was a nipper called 'kingswood country' in which 30% of the punchlines were "Bloody wog" (vilification against mediteranian migrants to australia). Now you can't say that on tele (unless you are of that ethnic background) and I think socitey is better off. So maybe they have a point...

Just as long as they don't start calling us 'humyns' etc

[The_Lincoln_Imp]

Speciesism tends to refer to humans favouring their own considerations above other species. Neo-speciesists favour consideration for certain additional species (eg The Great Apes), often because they show the greatest similarity to human behaviour. For example a neo-speciesist would campaign against a monkey being used for tests and happily have rats replace them. Non-speciesist is the refutation of any superiority ladder by species and constant attempt to offer all sentient animals consideration for their relative needs and inclinations.I think the logic is pretty sound.

[Kevster]

'Speciesism: A failure, in attitude or practice, to account any nonhuman being equal consideration and respect.'

According to the front cover of Joan Dunayers book that i'm about to start reading.

[Stormypagan]

Specisim is a great word .... I think more people should use it!! I remember quoting it many a time on my degree course hehehe!!

[Daniel]

spe·cies·ism noun

the belief that the human race is superior to other species, and that exploitation of animals for the advantage of humans is justified
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation.

the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals.
Dictionary © 2005 Apple Computers

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals
2 : the assumption of human superiority on which speciesism is based
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority.
Oxford English Dictionary

The discrimination against, and exploitation of, animals by humans in the belief that humans are superior to all other species of animals and can therefore justify putting them to their own use.
AllWords.com

Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, esp. in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.

the assumption of human superiority over other creatures, leading to the exploitation of animals.
Compact Oxford English Dictionary

[adam antichrist]

prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals

Ah, I love it. What else can you discriminate against...plants?

[tipsy]

ii got into a debate on tuesday...with some co-workers of mine who brought up a situation recently reported in new orleans...

apparantly a woman who refused to leave her house on the first round of evacuations got stranded on her roof with her dog because of the horrible flooding. when the rescuers came by again to pick her up she said that she would not leave without her dog... they told her the dog coud not come because they would be able to fit one less person on the lifeboat. she said she was not going to leave her dog, even if it killed her. and they fought with her about the value of her life over the dog's.

in the end she stayed on the roof with the dog. (and ended up in the nightly news...where im sure some animal lover heard her story and whent to save her and the dog)

when all my co-workers jeered at how stupid this woman must be to not save her own life by giving up her dog's....i of course said that i would not have left my dog either.... and they questioned me.....and laughed at me....

then i told them that i dont have a dog...but its just principal.

then i said that i would not leave my cats... at wich point i got some very incredulous looks and even, i think, someone said i was crazy.

this is an example of speciesism.

wich is something i try not to have.

[tipsy]

Ah, I love it. What else can you discriminate against...plants?

why not...i dislike cacti

[Roxy]

when all my co-workers jeered at how stupid this woman must be to not save her own life by giving up her dog's....i of course said that i would not have left my dog either.... and they questioned me.....and laughed at me....

then i told them that i dont have a dog...but its just principal.

then i said that i would not leave my cats... at wich point i got some very incredulous looks and even, i think, someone said i was crazy.

this is an example of speciesism.

wich is something i try not to have.

I think there are a lot of people in this world who would think the same way as your co-workers. And it's really very sad.

I just can't imagine how anyone could think of abandoning their companion and basically leaving them for dead. Good on that woman for standing her ground! (or roof, as it was).

[DianeVegan]

It would be too horrible to even contemplate leaving King Tut behind. Sure, he can fly theoretically, just like some people believe dogs and cats will somehow hunt and survive theoretically during disasters. It's not just speciesism, it's also backing down on a responsibility to care for animals that humans use for their own purposes (even if the purpose is companionship).

[eve]

Kevster, I hope you make some comments on the book when you've read it. I did a review of the book for Vegan Voice a few issues back. To me, speciesism refers to the belief that some species are more 'important' than others. On the other hand, people who are not speciesists understand that every human and nonhuman prefer not to have their lives taken away, and would rather live without being tortured and/or slaughtered.

adam a, you are fine with speciesist language, but some of us are not - and in a way I expect vegans would avoid that language, this is the reason I feel disappointed to see posters on this forum consistently referring to their companion animals as "pets". It's just a question of getting used to using the right terms, it doesn't take long. Look how, in the US, practically overnight the terminology changed from 'blacks' to African-Americans. And there are people still referring to Native Americans as red indians! (of course down under we put up with being called poms, with good humour! ).

[Stormypagan]

I agree with Eve on the terminology we use, people don't think words matter but if we look into it, we can see that the way we think is shaped by the words we use. I hate the word 'pets' to as I think its derogative to animals. It's the same as other words, one that comes to mind is 'half cast' for people of mixed race, even mothers of mix raced children have used it from my experience but don't they see that it implies something derogative about their own children. Fortuantely it is a word that is dying out more!! And the words women get called like bird and bitch etc... all horrible words for women. I dont mind being compared to a non-human animal but because it is a world that sees animals as derogratory, these words are used as insults :0)

People say that we are getting all to PC but I think words are important, and how we use them can conciously and sub-conciously mould the way we think .. 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me' .... what complete rubbish!!!!

Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

[adam antichrist]

I guess the main point of objection with the language issue is the motivation for change. Rascist language causes offence to those who are victimised by it, therefore there is an implication that to avoid it's use spares the feelings of people who may find it offensive whether they are the intended target or not; regardless of whether the rascist changes their attitude.

The speciesist language is not offensive to it's targets, it is only about the concept of animals as property which makes it inapropropiate for some vegans. There is a 2 page deal on it in this issue of Vegan Voice, maybe you can shed some light on it Eve because I found it very confused and strange, as though it had been heavily edited and no longer made sense or the author assumed her audience understood her better than we (I) do

Anyway my fear is it will be the last straw for some in the mainstream to write us off... and this is my position because I backed feminism 100% until some feminist activists/spokespeople started to insist on calling themselves 'wymyn' which to me is just utterly ridiculous (apologies to anyone who believes it helps the feminist cause) because after all it is not spellings which hurt people it's words, sexist and rascist language isn't about the spelling.

It's inevitable that this concept will spread in the movement and I welcome it, I just won't adopt it myself for the foreseeable future.

[The_Lincoln_Imp]

Speciesist language obviously doesn't offend the target directly but it adds to a subliminal sense of superiority from those who speak it. Every animal going is used as insult for human characteristics "Fat cow", "greedy pig", "Ugly dog/bitch" when the animals named are blameless and unconnected with human actions.

There's also the disgusting "wouldn't treat a dog like that!", "we were treated like animals!" nonsense which suggests it's somehow expected to treat non-humans badly.

No need to pick over every word we use (as you suggest many don't matter that much) but why not strive as best we can to dump the language the system uses to keep animals down at the bottom?

[Roxy]

There's also the disgusting "wouldn't treat a dog like that!", "we were treated like animals!" nonsense which suggests it's somehow expected to treat non-humans badly.

Ew - agreed - that IS disgusting! I hope I never hear anyone use that terminology.

[DianeVegan]

Then don't ever move to the states, Roxy. (But we'd love to have you. )

[Kam]

Thank you for all of the responses so far, it is helping my understanding.

The basics as I understand them is that all species should be afforded equall regard (not rights) and to rank sentient beings by their species etc is immoral. The justification is that all sentients, no matter how small or comparitively inconsiderate has an interest that it remains free from suffering. While using rats in experiments to treat cancers are in the interest of cancer sufferers, the suffering of an individual from cancer is not relevant to the rat in terms of it's own freedom from suffering, and it's preference will be for the cancerous individual to suffer instead.

So if there is no reasonable alternative to using rats, what happens? We don't use them and let humans not get cured from cancer? I am sad at the suffering of the rat, but I would place more importance on the life of a human. Does this mean I am not vegan? Sorry if this offends anyone, I am just trying to work this out.

[Stormypagan]

Thank you for all of the responses so far, it is helping my understanding.
So if there is no reasonable alternative to using rats, what happens? We don't use them and let humans not get cured from cancer? I am sad at the suffering of the rat, but I would place more importance on the life of a human. Does this mean I am not vegan? Sorry if this offends anyone, I am just trying to work this out.

Hi Kam :0)

Well, firstly (if I repeat what anyone else says I appologise I haven't read all the thread) I have to say is that I am not having a go at you at all, as I know that your views, like so many people's views, are enforced by the media, the medical professions etc who all try to brainwash us into believing that vivisection is beneficial to human survival. All I have to say is please don't get taken in by this as VIVISECTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.

Firstly, we do not have the same immune systems as non-human animals, I think the closest is the pig. Therefore, aspirins kill cats and look at the results on flidamide on the unborn foetus, and this was a drug that was tested on animals. And also look at the list of side effects drugs have on humans, if vivisection was working why would there be side effects. These are just a few examples, there are many more. Maybe reading a book about vivisection from an anti-vivisectionist view, would help you understand.

Secondly, in all the years they have torture animals so called for the benefit of humans why haven't they found a cure for cancer. They play at it with the Chemo and drugs they do have but these actually often weaken the immune system which often results in the death of the patient anyway. The thing is they probably have found a cure in the rainforests but wont release it as it will mean that the pharmaceutical companies and the vivsectors won't make millions out of animal research and the selling of crap drugs.

Then there is the UK Cancer research charity. They are one of the most wealthy charities due to playing on the sympathies and guilt of people. I know they are as I am a professional fund raiser by profession, having worked for many ethical charities I hasten to add (currently on a career break to have a baby).

Then there is those people that abuse their bodies from diet, drink etc... and then expect the medical profession to pick up the pieces having tested on numerous animals. I know there are outside pollutants but in general peoples 21st century life styles have a lot to answer for. We should be looking at alternatives, and they are out there, there are quite a few humane research charities now, and lets look at prevention before cure.

The only likeness we really have to animals is that we are sentient beings that feel pain because of our nervous systems. Therefore, to do what we do to animals in the name of medicine among other things is criminal and barbaric.

All I have to say now is please, please don't get taken in by the fraud. In most cases, vivisection is the only way that the Governments can stopped being sued for yet another bad drug. It is their fail safe, so they use animals, and the use of animals does not achieve anything in my eyes.

Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

[Roxy]

[QUOTE=Stormypagan]Hi Kam :0)

The thing is they probably have found a cure in the rainforests but wont release it as it will mean that the pharmaceutical companies and the vivsectors won't make millions out of animal research and the selling of crap drugs.

Hi Stormy - could you tell me more about what this is?

Thanks
Roxy

[Stormypagan]

Hi Roxy :0)

I am no expert but I have read stuff about it over the years!! I did a quick search on the internet to find a few sites to give you more info ....

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/rainforest.htm

Among other reasons this is why we need to save these forests from destruction from the likes of cash crops and MucDonalds!!

Hope this helps, and you can always research deeper into this!!

Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

[adam antichrist]

Kam, of course you are a vegan for believing that and provided you don't give financial support to such organisations that fund or conduct this research you are living according to vegan principles.

By definition this belief makes you a speciesist but don't let anyone try and tell you that you aren't vegan for forming your own opinion on medical research.

[On the Coast]

Ah, I love it. What else can you discriminate against...plants?

Hey, whoa - come on adam - Flora Prejudice is a serious issue. I am battling with my own demons to not fling every damn zuchini I come across straight into the compost heap - I mean shees, some people actually suggest zuchini is as good as tomatos, or broccolli. You'll never convince me - and I do'nt care how un-P.C. it is.

[DianeVegan]

Hi Kam :0)

Well, firstly (if I repeat what anyone else says I appologise I haven't read all the thread) I have to say is that I am not having a go at you at all, as I know that your views, like so many people's views, are enforced by the media, the medical professions etc who all try to brainwash us into believing that vivisection is beneficial to human survival. All I have to say is please don't get taken in by this as VIVISECTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.

Firstly, we do not have the same immune systems as non-human animals, I think the closest is the pig. Therefore, aspirins kill cats and look at the results on flidamide on the unborn foetus, and this was a drug that was tested on animals. And also look at the list of side effects drugs have on humans, if vivisection was working why would there be side effects. These are just a few examples, there are many more. Maybe reading a book about vivisection from an anti-vivisectionist view, would help you understand.

Secondly, in all the years they have torture animals so called for the benefit of humans why haven't they found a cure for cancer. They play at it with the Chemo and drugs they do have but these actually often weaken the immune system which often results in the death of the patient anyway. The thing is they probably have found a cure in the rainforests but wont release it as it will mean that the pharmaceutical companies and the vivsectors won't make millions out of animal research and the selling of crap drugs.

Then there is the UK Cancer research charity. They are one of the most wealthy charities due to playing on the sympathies and guilt of people. I know they are as I am a professional fund raiser by profession, having worked for many ethical charities I hasten to add (currently on a career break to have a baby).

Then there is those people that abuse their bodies from diet, drink etc... and then expect the medical profession to pick up the pieces having tested on numerous animals. I know there are outside pollutants but in general peoples 21st century life styles have a lot to answer for. We should be looking at alternatives, and they are out there, there are quite a few humane research charities now, and lets look at prevention before cure.

The only likeness we really have to animals is that we are sentient beings that feel pain because of our nervous systems. Therefore, to do what we do to animals in the name of medicine among other things is criminal and barbaric.

All I have to say now is please, please don't get taken in by the fraud. In most cases, vivisection is the only way that the Governments can stopped being sued for yet another bad drug. It is their fail safe, so they use animals, and the use of animals does not achieve anything in my eyes.

Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

Great explanation, Stormy.

[The_Lincoln_Imp]

Thank you for all of the responses so far, it is helping my understanding.
So if there is no reasonable alternative to using rats, what happens? We don't use them and let humans not get cured from cancer? I am sad at the suffering of the rat, but I would place more importance on the life of a human. Does this mean I am not vegan? Sorry if this offends anyone, I am just trying to work this out.

A speciesist vegan yes. Any non-human animals in any amount should suffer in the name of human well being/advancement, or perhaps you would make exceptions for the great apes or dogs? Would you kill a wasp or mosquito because they might bite/sting you also? Assuming their attacks wouldn't be fatal then this again is a speciesist unequal payoff.

[Kam]

Thanks for this info, I guess it will take me some time to look into it all, and I will.

Just a question though, all the ANTI-vivisectors, all the AR activists, why haven't they found a cure for all the diseases? If they did, I think more people would be open to agreeing that animal experimentation is unnecessary.

as for the mosquito question, they can spread killer diseases, so I would probably swat it rather than risk getting a deadly virus. It would be my natural reaction. I also have a serious wasp sting allergy, if I get stung I swell up like a balloon. If I got stung on the tongue or lips, this could be fatal for me.

I have to say, and I am just being honest here, so sorry if it upsets you, please don't read on if you are over-sensitive, but seriously, though it would pain me afterwards, if I was being attacked by a savage mad dog, then yes, I would kill that too. We have had a recent spate of incidents in the news of pet dogs attacking their owners, for no apparent reason, one even went for the jugular of a sleeping child. This to me is just about survival, and ANY animal would fight to live, so therefore I am equal to any animal and will defend my right to survive. Is that wrong? If so, maybe I don't belong on here. I don't eat meat or dairy, avoid honey, and don't wear or buy any animal products either, I am new to all this and it is hard enough as it is.

[Stormypagan]

Well, Kam for a start I don't think most AR and anti-vivisectionist would have the funding to carry out the alternatives. But many financially support those who do through donations, and others by promoting their work through campaigning. Also, if they were to do it themselves, then they would also have to go through some sort of scientific training to be able to carry out the research, and be crediable to the rest of society. I guess to many this would feel impossible, maybe because they wouldn't feel they were clever/able enough to do it ???? But there will be those out there doing what they can hence there are alternative research methods.

There are a few non-animal research chairites etc and they are carrying out work that doesn't involve animals, like the Dr Hadwin Trust in Britain. What really needs to be done, is to put more funding into alternative research, that does not use animals. Many AR and Anti-vivisectionists are supporting this from campaigning to donating money, as I have already said. But (why does there always have to be a but!!) the thing is animals are the cheap and a plentiful alternative to investing money into non-animal research, and many people have the speciest idea that rather animals than humans.

Mind you look at the cosmetic industry, AR and anti-vivisectionists have been able to turn that around through campaigning etc... and now many companies do not test their cosmetics. This is a start but I feel the medical industry will be a lot harder to crack but not impossible, as people do have speciest beliefs. It might take you time to see what anti-vivisections believe, and see that it is wrong to use animals in research, just try to keep an open mind and as I said before try reading some literature about it.

Also, when you talk about basic survivial, and killing something in self defence, I suppose no one can guarentee that they wouldn't do the same, when in that position, as yes it may be a gut reaction. I would love to think I would never kill another sentient being in self defence, and of course that wouldn't be my first choice for sure. Hopefully, I will never find myself in that situation, but no one can truely say they wouldn't unless they have been in that position, and found a way out. I expect we would all look for the alternative to taking such steps. But women (and men) in domestic violence situations have resorted to killing violent partners in self defence, but I hope we never have to be in that position where we would have to take such drastic steps, but you just don't know (especialy having worked in DV charities for a few years, I know the many awful stories).

Anyway, sermon over <grin> Just giving you food for thought!!!
Love and light
Xxxx Stormy xxxX

[Kam]

Well, Kam for a start I don't think most AR and anti-vivisectionist would have the funding to carry out the alternatives. But many financially support those who do through donations, and others by promoting their work through campaigning. Also, if they were to do it themselves, then they would also have to go through some sort of scientific training to be able to carry out the research, and be crediable to the rest of society. I guess to many this would feel impossible, maybe because they wouldn't feel they were clever/able enough to do it ???? But there will be those out there doing what they can hence there are alternative research methods.

Yeah, I meant people who WERE trained etc, I don't expect Joe bloggs to be able to just find a cure!!! I just meant, surely if there were alternatives, we would use them. I can't believe all scientisits WANT to test on animals, but in an effort to save human lives, maybe it's the quickest way.

I too hope I never have to kill any animal in self-defence either, but I do think your instincts to survive will take over if you ever do find yourself in such a situation.

I didn't really want this to turn into a vivisection issue, as I am still looking into this doing research, and I am sure there are enough threads on it already, I just wanted some clarity about speciesism. More comments on speciesism would still be appreciated.