In my opinion realizing that speciesism is wrong directly leads to veganism. I do think that it's import that point out that veganism is a mere side-product of anti-speciesism.
I think there is a large transitional zone between veganism and, well, non-veganism. I don't see anything wrong with my neighbour's hobby chicken farm (of 4) for example. It's the industrialized setting, designed to be opaque to its consumers, that one should be opposed to.
I think the world would be a hugely better place if everyone would only eat animals from neighbours' hobby farms. That said, it's a slippery slope in practise. Usually people who argue using these special circumstances then continue to argue that "local farms" are magically ethical, because they're non-factory farms. Then in real life these people actually eat non-local meat and factory farmed meat.
The point of non-speciesism is that it's not automatically ethical to eat animals even if they're not in horrendous factory farms. You're still treating non-humans in a separate ethical category.
An additional point to make is that even if something appears ethical, it often is not. Usually hobby farm chickens are sourced from unethical places, for example. Of course there's no point in talking about this particular hobby chicken farm because nobody else knows anything about it.
It's speciesist to treat them in a callous and reckless way, because they are considered less worthy of respect and care than humans.
Primitive hunters seem to have respected their prey... just because they killed and ate them didn't mean they considered themselves above them. And from such hybris results shameful behaviour.
According to Wikipedia: "Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership."
A non-speciesist who kills other animals to eat them would be a priori okay with killing humans to eating them.
In what way is Speciesism connected with canibalism by any species?
But regardless, eating humans is unhealthy and thus contrary to evolution. Its the same reason why animals that live for a long time (~100) rarely have many enemies, especially if they are omnivores. Evolutionary, it is better to eat meat that do not had years to build up on heavy metals and toxins.
So to put it to a simple point, regardless of the morality with cannibalism, humans would still not eat other humans. There is no -ism needed to explain why we do not eat sulfur, or drink mercury.
I reject the very idea that omnivorous diet is in any way or form connected with speciesism.
As humans, we have the ability (through not uniquely) to consider the acts we do in a third-party perspective. We can think about the consequences of our actions, and how our actions will effect nature. We can think rational about fishing, hunting, and even keeping a healthy sized population of farm animals. One can respect animals while at the same time making sure that a population of fast breeding animals are kept to a size which is healthy.
I reject the very idea that omnivorous diet is in any way or form connected with speciesism.
It can be. If a person assigns different values depending on the species, that person is speciesist. And obviously that person's diet is affected by speciesism or lack of it.
Wikipedia: "Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership."
Comments
In my opinion realizing that speciesism is wrong directly leads to veganism. I do think that it's import that point out that veganism is a mere side-product of anti-speciesism.
I think there is a large transitional zone between veganism and, well, non-veganism. I don't see anything wrong with my neighbour's hobby chicken farm (of 4) for example. It's the industrialized setting, designed to be opaque to its consumers, that one should be opposed to.
I think the world would be a hugely better place if everyone would only eat animals from neighbours' hobby farms. That said, it's a slippery slope in practise. Usually people who argue using these special circumstances then continue to argue that "local farms" are magically ethical, because they're non-factory farms. Then in real life these people actually eat non-local meat and factory farmed meat.
The point of non-speciesism is that it's not automatically ethical to eat animals even if they're not in horrendous factory farms. You're still treating non-humans in a separate ethical category.
An additional point to make is that even if something appears ethical, it often is not. Usually hobby farm chickens are sourced from unethical places, for example. Of course there's no point in talking about this particular hobby chicken farm because nobody else knows anything about it.
How is it specisist to eat things that an omnivore naturally eats in Nature?
It's speciesist to treat them in a callous and reckless way, because they are considered less worthy of respect and care than humans.
Primitive hunters seem to have respected their prey... just because they killed and ate them didn't mean they considered themselves above them. And from such hybris results shameful behaviour.
Any source for the claim that "primitive hunters didn't considered themselves above animals"?
It's hard to prove that about times before written history, isn't it.. but there is animal worship, for one?
As for written history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_status_of_animals_in_the_... might be a start
Please, feel free to point where in that link people doesn't consider themselves above animals.
In the sense of being able to do whatever with them? You can read, right?
That was not the sense of the OP.
You can read and understand, right?
According to Wikipedia: "Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership."
A non-speciesist who kills other animals to eat them would be a priori okay with killing humans to eating them.
In what way is Speciesism connected with canibalism by any species?
But regardless, eating humans is unhealthy and thus contrary to evolution. Its the same reason why animals that live for a long time (~100) rarely have many enemies, especially if they are omnivores. Evolutionary, it is better to eat meat that do not had years to build up on heavy metals and toxins.
So to put it to a simple point, regardless of the morality with cannibalism, humans would still not eat other humans. There is no -ism needed to explain why we do not eat sulfur, or drink mercury.
So a non-speciesist also considers every act of animal-on-animal violence in the natural world to be tantamount to murder and cannibalism?
I reject the very idea that omnivorous diet is in any way or form connected with speciesism.
As humans, we have the ability (through not uniquely) to consider the acts we do in a third-party perspective. We can think about the consequences of our actions, and how our actions will effect nature. We can think rational about fishing, hunting, and even keeping a healthy sized population of farm animals. One can respect animals while at the same time making sure that a population of fast breeding animals are kept to a size which is healthy.
It can be. If a person assigns different values depending on the species, that person is speciesist. And obviously that person's diet is affected by speciesism or lack of it.
Wikipedia: "Speciesism involves the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership."
Really, being omnivorous has nothing to do with speciesism, being omnivorous is just a biological threat