Send Me Used Lab Mice

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna

Singer’s case for a level of moral equality between humans and non-humans, rather than a mere moral considerability, draws directly on our ways of thinking about moral equality between humans. Our acceptance of the latter does not depend on humans having exactly the same physiological characteristics, abilities, or level of intelligence. If that were the case, humans would simply not enjoy moral equality with one another. Clever and slow-witted people would not count as highly as the other. Yet, our presupposition [*] is that they do. The former are not given priority access to organs for transplant, and the latter are not prevented from casting the single vote that each of us is entitled to. To uphold moral, and indeed political, equality among humans, we need to abandon any appeal to identical talents, skills, wisdom or insight. We need to abandon even the appeal to the possession of a special kind of rationality which humans simply do not all have to the same extent.
But once we suspend the idea that moral equality among humans can be underpinned by appeal to some uniform feature, there will be no reason to restrict the scope of equality to humans alone. Indeed, doing so could only involve an appeal to the one thing that all humans do share, i.e. our humanity. And any appeal to this, for Singer, seems perilously close to a form of prejudice, a bias which is based on the ethically irrelevant characteristic of belonging to my group.

– Tony Milligan, Animal Ethics

Every social justice movement holds this equality of moral considerability as its central premise. You can’t deny one without denying them all. Veganism is essential to intersectional leftism.

* I disagree that this is a presupposition. PhilTube explains Simplican better than I can.

Pinned Post vegan this book is frustrating cuz he keeps giving credit to appeals to incredulity but it's great to see corners of this discussion I don't usually get to see and of course find the best counterarguments - intellectual honesty is the main aim
greathoughtsphilosopy
deluxetrashqueen

So, there's apparently research coming out now about microplastics being found in people's bloodstreams and the possible negative effects of that and I feel the need to get out ahead of the wave of corporate sponsored "be sure to recycle your bottles!" or "ban glitter!" campaigns and remind everyone:

It's fishing nets. It's fishing nets. It is overwhelming fishing nets It always has been fishing nets. Unless regulations are changed, it will continue to be fishing nets.

The plastic in the ocean in largely discarded nets from industrial fishing. The microplastics are the result of these nets breaking down. The "trash islands" are also, you guessed it. Mostly fishing nets and other discarded fishing industry equipment.

Do not allow them to continue to twist the story. Do not come after disabled people who require single use plastics. Do not come after people using glitter in art projects and makeup. These things make up a negligible amount of the issue compared to corporate waste, specifically in the fishing industry. Do not let them shift the blame to the individual so they can continue to destroy the planet and our bodies without regulation.

elodieunderglass

Industries are incredibly resistant to taking responsibility for their own waste, to the point where “consumers are responsible for industrial waste” is somehow considered a sensible, ethical, worthy sentence.

It is actually perfectly reasonable to say that “industries are responsible for industrial waste” and “the effects of industry can, should and must be fixed by industry” and “Industry can, should and must be held responsible for its impacts on the commons, such as air, water, oceans and land.”

prismatic-bell

Do you know how much ocean plastic waste is straws?


Something like 0.0007%.


IT’S NOT EVEN ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT.


But they want you to hate the disabled people who need safe and bendable and sanitary plastic straws in order to be able to drink. So you won’t notice the 70+% that’s fishing nets.

apas-95
apas-95

also if we're on the topic, any sort of non-suicidal economic system will mean that people in the global north won't be able to continue eating meat for (or with) every single meal. the level of meat consumption in the global north isn't only a global abberation, but a historical one even within its own borders. in the absence of land- and water-intensive industrial farming practices, propped up by livestock feed monocoltures, animal meat consumption would likely need to be scaled back to historical norms - but, given modern technology with regards to processed plant protein, there's no reason people would necessarily need to see much difference in the feel or taste of the meals they're accustomed to. given that the point of socialist practice isn't to attempt to return to past conditions, but rather forge ahead, we can both have animal meat once again be an occasional, sustainable treat for the vast majority of people, still without depriving the USAmericans of their hamburgers. win-win

and we can do animal liberation while we're at it
apas-95
txttletale

image
image

posting this exchange because i disagree with the first replier but i also think the second replier is a really bad and incorrect reply to what they're saying. it is of course true that the current supply chain for electronics is founded upon tremendous and horrific exploitation at basically every level of production. but i think 'red' here is making an assumption--that this sort of exploitation is inextricable from the very concept of building electronic devices--that doesn't hold up at all.

for a start, there are lots of obvious and simple ways to vastly vastly reduce the production requirements of computers and cellphones in the absence of a profit motive. build phones and computers that last, that can be repaired by anybody, instead of junk with planned obsolescence and proprietary firmware. without apple or samsung trying to make a profit, there's no reason for anyone to be replacing their cellphone every two years.

and secondly, i think that unlike 24/7 year-round global Banana Access, there is a very obvious and very compelling case for the production of cellphones and computers to continue in the absence of a profit motive, which is that access to them immeasurably benefits society by providing new networks of communication, new tools for administration and organization, and other tremendous advantages for quality of life. socialists throughout history obviously understood this -- that's why OGAS and CyberSyn were attempted! there is nothing about the object of a portable computer and communications device that necessitates it being built in inhumane conditions by exploited workers. everything about it could be built, like anything else under socialism, by workers with democratic control over their workplace and production. the marxist critique of capitalist and imperialist production does not lead to 'and therefore nothing should ever be made' !

there are some industries which are inherently exploitative e.g. the killing and torture industry hashtag vegan hashtag veganism