Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Vegetarian Option
Any restaurant owner that doesn't have at least one vegetarian entrée on their menu does not know how to run a restaurant. It's happened three times in the past months that I've left a restaurant because of this. Three different salads just don't cut it; neither does having a main dish with a vegetarian option, which is basically leave out the meat and replace it with nothing. Vegetarianism isn't a passing fancy; it's a movement that is gaining popularity. And a business that doesn't take this into consideration is out of touch with reality.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Direct and Indirect Consequences
From thetrigger.net/2009/06/direct-and-indirect-consequences/
There are direct and indirect consequences to actions. One can perform a well-intentioned action and still have an indirect negative consequence, just as one can do something bad and indirectly do something good. We are not always, if ever, aware of indirect consequences because we are not actively looking for them; indeed, sometimes they can't be seen unless pointed out. At these times it is easy to deny that we had any part in an indirect negative consequence, especially when we had good intentions. However, the success of our action is not determined by our intention, it is determined by the sum of its consequences.
For example, when the United States initially invaded Iraq, if you discount the more plausible explanation of middle east oil control and take the official statement at face value, their intentions were good. Liberate a nation where, as far as the United States could see, the citizens were oppressed, and help set up a form of government that would benefit them. Although narcissistically flawed, this could still be seen as a noble action. But if we look at the indirect consequences, we see that the Iraq war was an immense failure based on American casualties, Iraqi casualties, and other criteria. Iraq is no more liberated now than it was before the invasion began.
Another example of this relates to money. It is abundantly clear that economy is the dominating force of the majority of the world, and it is the developed nations that control the base of this economic system. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are the three main controls over the global economy. Their actions and policies impact every nation in the world - again, either directly or indirectly - and as I stated before, they may not even be aware of the negative consequences to these actions. The IMF will frequently give loans to undeveloped nations in order to stimulate economic growth; however, these loans contain stipulations that leave the country in a worse condition than it was beforehand, like Thailand and Indonesia during the Asian Crisis of 1997.
Speaking in absolute generality, people want to be good. Our beliefs and actions are easily justified this way. Even those people that are fully aware they are doing something wrong do so because it makes them feel good. When we think along these lines, we ignore anything bad that might happen because of what we've done. This is why it's impossible to objectively evaluate the sum of our actions as good or bad. To be axiomatic, when you feed the wildlife, they forget how to forage; so, whereas it may make you feel good, you've done nothing of the sort. Keep that in mind the next time you're going to invade a country or extend a ridiculously inflated loan to an impoverished country.
There are direct and indirect consequences to actions. One can perform a well-intentioned action and still have an indirect negative consequence, just as one can do something bad and indirectly do something good. We are not always, if ever, aware of indirect consequences because we are not actively looking for them; indeed, sometimes they can't be seen unless pointed out. At these times it is easy to deny that we had any part in an indirect negative consequence, especially when we had good intentions. However, the success of our action is not determined by our intention, it is determined by the sum of its consequences.
For example, when the United States initially invaded Iraq, if you discount the more plausible explanation of middle east oil control and take the official statement at face value, their intentions were good. Liberate a nation where, as far as the United States could see, the citizens were oppressed, and help set up a form of government that would benefit them. Although narcissistically flawed, this could still be seen as a noble action. But if we look at the indirect consequences, we see that the Iraq war was an immense failure based on American casualties, Iraqi casualties, and other criteria. Iraq is no more liberated now than it was before the invasion began.
Another example of this relates to money. It is abundantly clear that economy is the dominating force of the majority of the world, and it is the developed nations that control the base of this economic system. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are the three main controls over the global economy. Their actions and policies impact every nation in the world - again, either directly or indirectly - and as I stated before, they may not even be aware of the negative consequences to these actions. The IMF will frequently give loans to undeveloped nations in order to stimulate economic growth; however, these loans contain stipulations that leave the country in a worse condition than it was beforehand, like Thailand and Indonesia during the Asian Crisis of 1997.
Speaking in absolute generality, people want to be good. Our beliefs and actions are easily justified this way. Even those people that are fully aware they are doing something wrong do so because it makes them feel good. When we think along these lines, we ignore anything bad that might happen because of what we've done. This is why it's impossible to objectively evaluate the sum of our actions as good or bad. To be axiomatic, when you feed the wildlife, they forget how to forage; so, whereas it may make you feel good, you've done nothing of the sort. Keep that in mind the next time you're going to invade a country or extend a ridiculously inflated loan to an impoverished country.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Effective Advocacy
From the liner notes of Propagandhi's Supporting Caste.
Effective Advocacy 101 by Jesus H. Chris
Everyone knows that the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people. This rule is especially important in terms of advocating on behalf of animals, mostly due to the fact that meat-eaters tend to cry and whine like a bunch of fuckin’ shitty babies when you pull down the diapers of their revolting lifestyle. Haha, just kidding. Calm down babies.
No, for example though, you wouldn’t want to use terms like “moronic”, “self-absorbed”, “chickenshit” or “disgusting slob” when describing self-professed “radicals” who insist on killing defenseless animals for food while a perfectly good supply of pimps, stockbrokers, crooked cops, politicians and Habs fans–among other sociopathic sources of protein–range freely throughout our communities on a daily basis. No, you wouldn’t want to say something like that. That would be considered counter-productive.
You also wouldn’t want to walk up and down the back lanes of your Kentucky Fried City slicing the throats of your neighbors’ pets only to dismiss the community’s subsequent outrage as “childish sentimentality”, “infantile anthropomorphism” or “cultural imperialism”. That would be considered anti-social.
And you really, really, really, reeeaaaallllly wouldn’t want to set fire to a slaughterhouse or a fur store or a whaling-vessel or an under-construction hog-barn because ... well, I can’t actually think of a good reason why you shouldn’t do that (besides life in prison). But you get the point. It’s all about effective advocacy.
So here I am! At your service! Ready and willing to ensure that people who already know better aren’t made to feel guilty about their stupid, selfish, unimaginably cruel choices! Besides, haven’t you heard? Vegetarians are classist! At least that’s what all the white college kids are saying when they fly home for Thanksgiving dinner! Haha, asswipes. You’ll be the first ones I eat when I finally snap, you fuckin posers. Whoops! Where was I? Oh yeah, effective advocacy...
But seriously folks, every social movement has its peanut gallery. In fact, I believe every serious social movement needs its peanut gallery, and when it comes to the movement against the egomaniacal cruelty humans perpetually visit upon animals, you can sign me up for season tickets and a very big fuckin’ bag of the blessed arachis hypogaea to go along with my top-hat and monocle.
And while it may be true that I take great pleasure in ridiculingmorons rad dudes who eat animal corpses and their reproductive secretions, it’s important for me to be clear that veganism isn’t about purity or superiority. It’s simply about extending moral consideration to other inhabitants of a complex planet in a morally-ambivalent universe where, despite the statistical improbability of it all, we earthlings (human and non-human) appear to be the only instance of sentient life that is or ever has been.
That’s some heavy shit.
And seriously, if we as a society can’t even bother to treat a simple, unassuming, stunningly gentle and demonstrably sentient creature like a cow or a deer with a modicum of decency, how the fuck do we ever expect to be able treat each other–infinitely more complex, wildly divergent and often exasperating individual human beings–with anything even remotely resembling civility? It just ain’t gonna happen.
So with that in mind, and in the spirit of the first rule of effective advocacy, I leave you with this short list of potentially transformative resources, created by better and more effective advocates for animals than myself. And see? I didn’t even have to insult you to make my point after all.Fuck are you ugly.
Read:
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat by Howard Lyman
Dominion : The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully
Watch:
Earthlings (AUTHOR'S ADVISORY NOTICE! EXTREMELY DISTURBING)
Listen:
compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm
veganfreakradio.com
Effective Advocacy 101 by Jesus H. Chris
Everyone knows that the first rule of effective advocacy is to not insult people. This rule is especially important in terms of advocating on behalf of animals, mostly due to the fact that meat-eaters tend to cry and whine like a bunch of fuckin’ shitty babies when you pull down the diapers of their revolting lifestyle. Haha, just kidding. Calm down babies.
No, for example though, you wouldn’t want to use terms like “moronic”, “self-absorbed”, “chickenshit” or “disgusting slob” when describing self-professed “radicals” who insist on killing defenseless animals for food while a perfectly good supply of pimps, stockbrokers, crooked cops, politicians and Habs fans–among other sociopathic sources of protein–range freely throughout our communities on a daily basis. No, you wouldn’t want to say something like that. That would be considered counter-productive.
You also wouldn’t want to walk up and down the back lanes of your Kentucky Fried City slicing the throats of your neighbors’ pets only to dismiss the community’s subsequent outrage as “childish sentimentality”, “infantile anthropomorphism” or “cultural imperialism”. That would be considered anti-social.
And you really, really, really, reeeaaaallllly wouldn’t want to set fire to a slaughterhouse or a fur store or a whaling-vessel or an under-construction hog-barn because ... well, I can’t actually think of a good reason why you shouldn’t do that (besides life in prison). But you get the point. It’s all about effective advocacy.
So here I am! At your service! Ready and willing to ensure that people who already know better aren’t made to feel guilty about their stupid, selfish, unimaginably cruel choices! Besides, haven’t you heard? Vegetarians are classist! At least that’s what all the white college kids are saying when they fly home for Thanksgiving dinner! Haha, asswipes. You’ll be the first ones I eat when I finally snap, you fuckin posers. Whoops! Where was I? Oh yeah, effective advocacy...
But seriously folks, every social movement has its peanut gallery. In fact, I believe every serious social movement needs its peanut gallery, and when it comes to the movement against the egomaniacal cruelty humans perpetually visit upon animals, you can sign me up for season tickets and a very big fuckin’ bag of the blessed arachis hypogaea to go along with my top-hat and monocle.
And while it may be true that I take great pleasure in ridiculing
That’s some heavy shit.
And seriously, if we as a society can’t even bother to treat a simple, unassuming, stunningly gentle and demonstrably sentient creature like a cow or a deer with a modicum of decency, how the fuck do we ever expect to be able treat each other–infinitely more complex, wildly divergent and often exasperating individual human beings–with anything even remotely resembling civility? It just ain’t gonna happen.
So with that in mind, and in the spirit of the first rule of effective advocacy, I leave you with this short list of potentially transformative resources, created by better and more effective advocates for animals than myself. And see? I didn’t even have to insult you to make my point after all.
Read:
Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights by Bob Torres
The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Mad Cowboy: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat by Howard Lyman
Dominion : The Power of Men, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy by Matthew Scully
Watch:
Earthlings (AUTHOR'S ADVISORY NOTICE! EXTREMELY DISTURBING)
Listen:
compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm
veganfreakradio.com
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Like Society
Have you noticed the word like making its irritating permanence in our vocabulary? It is almost completely synonymous with said. Everybody sounds like a valley girl when they talk. And this bugs the hell out of me.
Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.
In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.
This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.
Among other uses, like can be used informally to indicate dialogue as reported speech, which indicates uncertainty. In this sense, we don't really know what we're quoting, just that something similar was said. Another use of the word is for comparison, and in contrast to the word is, also indicates uncertainty. At best, what we're saying resembles our true intentions.
In our culture's ongoing war over the human mind, we are continually losing. Information comes from everywhere and there is so much to filter out that we often don't. We remember what we must and store the rest as vague memory. It's a stretch to imply that a simple misuse of a single word is the source of all our society's crises, so naturally I'm not implying this at all. I'm identifying a symptom of an overall problem: spreading the resemblance of information is not the same as spreading information.
This minor subconscious gaffe is not a source; it is an indicator. One of many. And it seeps into our society only to soften our foundation of knowledge. So please, watch what you say.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Money
The culture we know is centered around money. Our labour is exchanged for currency, which is in turn exchanged for food, clothes, and shelter. Since we always need these things, our labour is implied as a condition for living. It is what keeps the economy going. Economy is not necessary for individual survival, nor is it necessary for group survival.
The modern world is phasing out actual currency and replacing it with theoretical currency in digital form. This theoretical money only exists as an idea; the idea of debt. Either you owe the bank or the bank owes you.
Banks have the ability to create money based on our implied present labour and expected future labour. The idea of money, then, is the ultimate control. It guarantees submission for everyone that uses it and control for everyone that creates it.
How we view money and the values that we attribute to it only exist in our mind. If one could detach the idea that we need it to survive from our actual instinct to survive, we would take a great weight off our collective conscience.
The modern world is phasing out actual currency and replacing it with theoretical currency in digital form. This theoretical money only exists as an idea; the idea of debt. Either you owe the bank or the bank owes you.
Banks have the ability to create money based on our implied present labour and expected future labour. The idea of money, then, is the ultimate control. It guarantees submission for everyone that uses it and control for everyone that creates it.
How we view money and the values that we attribute to it only exist in our mind. If one could detach the idea that we need it to survive from our actual instinct to survive, we would take a great weight off our collective conscience.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Conspiracy Theories
The problem that conspiracy theories have isn't their substance, it's their context. That's what people find ridiculous.
First, you have to agree with a few general statements: human beings have freedom of thought, freedom of action, and instinct to survive. This means that although you don't think a certain way, that although you wouldn't personally do something, you acknowledge that someone else might in order to survive.
Throughout history, there have been trillions of people that have all tried to survive. But the thing is, surviving is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people don't want to have to focus on all of this at once, which is why we so easily submit to control. Since society began, we have gone through transitions of people having less to focus on. The first forms of government made it easier for people to live. They had food, laws, and protection in exchange for taxes and labour. Next came the tools that made our labour easier, and we didn't have to do as much. Last came the process of not thinking, which is achieved through control over what we do think. In this, we lose that which holds our humanity.
Everybody learns from their surroundings. How we are raised is a large part of how we think until we can think for ourselves. Ideologies, knowledge, and culture are all learned before we even begin formal education. These things are so nested into us that something opposing our understanding seems absurd. However, just seeming absurd doesn't make it impossible; something can be possible despite what you know and understand to be true.
What we understand to be true isn't necessarily what actually is true; it is only what we have learned. Since human beings don't know anything that we haven't learned, knowledge is systemic and subjective. It is passed down through culture and education, a mass of whatever is most commonly agreed upon. This means that whatever is repeated most becomes fact. This has direct and indirect consequences, meaning that history can be adjusted through misinformation or exclusion and by accident or intent. It is therefore upon the individual to evaluate what is presented and decide what is logical.
Consider the following rational arguments:
- Wealth exists as expected labour of the population.
- A small group of people control all the world's wealth.
- Those in power don't want to lose power.
- In order to maintain power, some atrocities can be justified.
This is the substance of conspiracy theories. None of these arguments are ridiculous. However, when we give them context, it is based upon what we have learned, which isn't necessarily correct. So when someone denounces a realistic, rational, and plausible argument, fundamentally, it isn't the argument itself that is the problem, it is the person and their perception of it. And perception is - like knowledge - subjective. This doesn't make the argument true inasmuch as it doesn't make it false; listening to the argument and evaluating its logicality for yourself is what defines truth. Question them, research them, and draw your own conclusions. Exercise your freedom of thought.
The following videos should be evaluated with an open mind:
- John Harris: It's An Illusion
- Kymatica
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Why We Fight
First, you have to agree with a few general statements: human beings have freedom of thought, freedom of action, and instinct to survive. This means that although you don't think a certain way, that although you wouldn't personally do something, you acknowledge that someone else might in order to survive.
Throughout history, there have been trillions of people that have all tried to survive. But the thing is, surviving is hard. Thinking is hard. Most people don't want to have to focus on all of this at once, which is why we so easily submit to control. Since society began, we have gone through transitions of people having less to focus on. The first forms of government made it easier for people to live. They had food, laws, and protection in exchange for taxes and labour. Next came the tools that made our labour easier, and we didn't have to do as much. Last came the process of not thinking, which is achieved through control over what we do think. In this, we lose that which holds our humanity.
Everybody learns from their surroundings. How we are raised is a large part of how we think until we can think for ourselves. Ideologies, knowledge, and culture are all learned before we even begin formal education. These things are so nested into us that something opposing our understanding seems absurd. However, just seeming absurd doesn't make it impossible; something can be possible despite what you know and understand to be true.
What we understand to be true isn't necessarily what actually is true; it is only what we have learned. Since human beings don't know anything that we haven't learned, knowledge is systemic and subjective. It is passed down through culture and education, a mass of whatever is most commonly agreed upon. This means that whatever is repeated most becomes fact. This has direct and indirect consequences, meaning that history can be adjusted through misinformation or exclusion and by accident or intent. It is therefore upon the individual to evaluate what is presented and decide what is logical.
Consider the following rational arguments:
- Wealth exists as expected labour of the population.
- A small group of people control all the world's wealth.
- Those in power don't want to lose power.
- In order to maintain power, some atrocities can be justified.
This is the substance of conspiracy theories. None of these arguments are ridiculous. However, when we give them context, it is based upon what we have learned, which isn't necessarily correct. So when someone denounces a realistic, rational, and plausible argument, fundamentally, it isn't the argument itself that is the problem, it is the person and their perception of it. And perception is - like knowledge - subjective. This doesn't make the argument true inasmuch as it doesn't make it false; listening to the argument and evaluating its logicality for yourself is what defines truth. Question them, research them, and draw your own conclusions. Exercise your freedom of thought.
The following videos should be evaluated with an open mind:
- John Harris: It's An Illusion
- Kymatica
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Why We Fight
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Hatred
I went for drinks tonight with a friend that was raised largely in Africa by Israeli parents. We experienced a discussion where I argued that the basis for hatred was a learned behaviour. She argued the counterpoint, that humans are
predicated towards hatred, that it is our instinct to judge based on differences. What struck me most in this contrast of opinion wasn't so much our perspectives, but the background of those perspectives.
My childhood was much more normal than hers; and by normal I note the subjectivity involved in its use and comment more on the shock of abnormality. Through her life, she's seen far more hatred first-hand. She's witnessed pure, ignorant, bare-brained conviction. I have witnessed theoretical, emotional hatred, where she has seen it much more physical and real.
Because my life has been so soft, is that why I have more hopefulness for humanity? Is it naive to think that our systemic disposition towards hatred can be unlearned?
No, it's not naive. I don't think that human beings are wired to hate other human beings of different skin tone. I don't think our genes are nearly that competitive. People aren't that willingly ignorant without encouragement through education and culture. My friend is from the Middle-East, I'm from North America. Culture here is a fusion of everything, so in a sense we don't have our own culture at all. If we do, it's vague, fuzzy. The culture she's used to is specific and focused, where people have much firmer beliefs.
Culture is in no way a genetic predisposition; it is a concept created by man. It is a social consciousness, not an individual one, so it has been learned in one way or another. And if something has been learned, it can be unlearned; and if it can't be unlearned, it can not be instructed.
Love is a more rational human predisposition. Love is lazy; hatred takes legitimate effort. Eventually, people are going to stop wasting so much energy needlessly and we'll finally break out of this second-hand shell of division.
predicated towards hatred, that it is our instinct to judge based on differences. What struck me most in this contrast of opinion wasn't so much our perspectives, but the background of those perspectives.
My childhood was much more normal than hers; and by normal I note the subjectivity involved in its use and comment more on the shock of abnormality. Through her life, she's seen far more hatred first-hand. She's witnessed pure, ignorant, bare-brained conviction. I have witnessed theoretical, emotional hatred, where she has seen it much more physical and real.
Because my life has been so soft, is that why I have more hopefulness for humanity? Is it naive to think that our systemic disposition towards hatred can be unlearned?
No, it's not naive. I don't think that human beings are wired to hate other human beings of different skin tone. I don't think our genes are nearly that competitive. People aren't that willingly ignorant without encouragement through education and culture. My friend is from the Middle-East, I'm from North America. Culture here is a fusion of everything, so in a sense we don't have our own culture at all. If we do, it's vague, fuzzy. The culture she's used to is specific and focused, where people have much firmer beliefs.
Culture is in no way a genetic predisposition; it is a concept created by man. It is a social consciousness, not an individual one, so it has been learned in one way or another. And if something has been learned, it can be unlearned; and if it can't be unlearned, it can not be instructed.
Love is a more rational human predisposition. Love is lazy; hatred takes legitimate effort. Eventually, people are going to stop wasting so much energy needlessly and we'll finally break out of this second-hand shell of division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
