Category: Uncategorised

“Natural Science” is intrinsically asocial. The only exception at the fuzzy borderline is anthropology (which includes ethnology and, according to some, linguistics). “Science” is also ambiguous; in some languages (e.g., French and Hungarian) it means, jointly, natural science, social science and humanities scholarship.

Natural scientists, whether theoreticians or experimentalists, think of their work as answerable only to objective “empirical” testing and logic — the so-called “scientific method.” As a consequence, many “natural scientists” have an implicit or overt scepticism about “social sciences” (or « sciences humaines » as the French call it, or “Geisteswissenschaften” as the Germans call it) as pseudoscience.

Sometimes the “natural scientists” are right. But far more often they don’t understand, or misunderstand. This has occasionally led to internecine squabbles and even enmity in the Academy. (See Mathematician André Weil vs. Sociologist Robert Bellah at the Institute for Advanced Study and Mathematician Serge Lang vs. Political Scientist Samuel Huntington at the National Academy of Sciences.)

That the valiant defenders of the sacrosanct frontiers of “science” are often mathematicians, whose purely formal discipline lacks one of the two pillars of the “scientific method” (which has sometimes cast doubt on the scientific status of their own discipline) is ironic, but perhaps instructive as to why Professor Lovász was so helpless in the face of Orban’s depredations. Not understanding the social sciences, he was hardly in the position to defend them.

Joseph Palinkás, in contrast, an atomic physicist and an Orban fellow-traveller, failed to defend the non-natural sciences in the “philosopher affair,” and has only lately discovered his conscience, now that it’s much too late.

There is an eery and unpleasant familiarity in the tepid defence (and even active derogation) of their non-natural foster-sister sciences by some “natural scientists,” such as neuroscientist Tamás Freund — playing into Orban’s hands while still feeling immune from his depredations. Social scientists and humanists would have a lesson to teach them, if they would listen.

My own vote (if I had not quit the Academy in 2016 in disgust over its passive submissiveness ) would be for the linguist in the demilitarized zone, Csaba Pléh.

the source of all love, 

kindness, empathy,

mercy

that, despite itself,

psychopathic DNA

was impelled to instill

in all species

that depend on begetter’s nurturance

to propagate their seed

An undeniable sense of emptiness in covid confinement

in the distancing and zooming

something is missing, we think

till we realize

that’s pretty much all it’s been all along

and always will be.

—

Vaguely like sex through a condom

Est-ce que tu as cessé de battre ton épous(e)?

OU

Est-ce que tu n’as pas cessé de battre ton épous(e)?

Comment répondre à une telle question quand on n’a jamais battu personne (et on n’est même pas marié)?

Est-ce que tu es abolitionniste?

OU

Est-ce que tu es welfariste?

Je suis abolitionniste et je suis welfariste.

L’un n’exclut pas l’autre: C’est une fausse dichotomie.

Un abolitionniste milite pour que tout ce qui est possible soit fait pour abolir tout ce qui cause souffrance à d’autres êtres sensibles (sauf légitime défense). Je suis abolitionniste.

Un welfariste milite pour que tout ce qui est possible soit fait pour réduire tout ce qui cause souffrance à d’autres êtres sensibles quand il il n’est pas encore à porter de main de l’abolir. Je suis welfariste.

Qu’est-ce qui a donné la fausse impression qu’il y a une opposition entre l’abolitionnisme et le welfarisme — qu’on ne peut pas être et abolitionniste et welfariste?

C’était une hypothèse théorique: l’hypothèse que de militer pour réduire la souffrance quand il n’y a pas encore moyen de l’abolir réduit la chance de l’abolir.

Le seul argument apporté en faveur de cette hypothèse est que les industries qui exploitent les êtres animaux profitent de toute réduction de leur souffrance pour justifier le fait de ne pas abolir leur exploitation, et pour ainsi l’enraciner encore plus fermement.

Mais les industries qui exploitent les êtres animaux n’ont aucune intention de s’abolir, et font tout pour s’enraciner plus fermement advienne que pourra.

Donc cette une hypothèse théorique qui est apportée comme preuve que les actions pratiques pour réduire la souffrance réelle réduiront la chance d’abolir la souffrance.

Ce n’est pas une hypothèse scientifique, avec des preuves objectives. C’est une prémisse subjective.

Comme tel, ce n’est pas une justification pour abandonner les êtres aux souffrances qui pourraient être prévenues.

C’est plutôt comme la fausse prémisse cachée derrière la question:

Est-ce que tu as cessé de battre ton épous(e)?

OU

Est-ce que tu n’as pas cessé de battre ton épous(e)?

Je dirais que ce n’est pas le fait d’être et abolitionniste et welfariste qui est auto-contradictoire mais le fait d’être abolitioniste et non welfariste.

“Have you stopped beating your spouse?“

OR

“Have you not stopped beating your spouse?“

How to answer such a question when you have never beaten anyone (and you are not even married)?

Are you an abolitionist?

OR

Are you a welfarist?

I am an abolitionist and I am a welfarist.

One does not exclude the other: This a false dichotomy.

An abolitionist militates to do everything possible to abolish all human-caused suffering to other sentient beings (except self-defense).– I am an abolitionist.

A welfarist militates to do everything possible to reduce all human-caused suffering to other sentient beings when it is not yet within reach to abolish it. — I am a welfarist.

What gave the false impression that there is an opposition between abolitionism and welfarism – that someone cannot be both abolitionist and welfarist?

It was a theoretical hypothesis: the hypothesis that to militate to reduce suffering when there is not yet a way to abolish it reduces the chance of abolishing it.

The only argument made in support of this hypothesis is that the industries which exploit animal beings profit from any reduction in their victims’ suffering to justify not abolishing their exploitation, and thus to entrench it even more firmly.

But the industries that exploit animals have no intention of abolishing themselves; they are doing everything they can to entrench themselves more firmly.

So this is a theoretical hypothesis which is cited as evidence that practical actions to reduce real suffering will reduce the chances of abolishing suffering.

This is not a scientific hypothesis, with objective evidence. It’s a subjective premise.

As such, it is not a justification for abandoning sentient beings to preventable suffering.

It’s more like the false premise behind the question:

Have you stopped beating your spouse?

OR

Have you not stopped beating your spouse?

I would say that it is not being both abolitionist and welfarist that is self-contradictory but being abolitionist and not being welfarist.

In the fight against animal suffering, if we really want to help animal beings it is essential to take into account a fundamental distinction between what is done optionally, without vital necessity, and what is done obligatorily, in an inescapable conflict of vital (life or death) interests like the one between an obligate carnivore and its prey.

Tigers cannot survive if they do not capture and eat their prey. It is a biological imperative for their survival and health. Humans are not obligate carnivores. They can survive in full health today without consuming animal beings; it is not a biological imperative for them.

I was present once at a public event for animal rights defenders. A young vegan asked a question timidly: “I am a vegan and an activist defender of animal beings. But I have a chronic condition that requires me to take a drug that contains an animal component. What should I do? “

Most of those present replied, almost unanimously, “Take your medicine. Animal beings as well as human defenders of animal beings need your help. You are not helping them by sacrificing your life. It is a vital necessity for you.”

According to all  current scientific knowledge, vaccination saves lives. It is, therefore, a vital necessity. We can hope that one day there will be vaccines that no longer require any animal component. But in the meantime what is urgent is to put an end to the gigantic majority of animal suffering which is unnecessary – hence already completely gratuitous today – before entering the complex and tragic domain of conflicts of vital necessity between sentient beings.

— French version —

Conflits d’intérêt vital

Dans la lutte contre la souffrance animale, si on veut vraiment aider les êtres animaux il est essentiel de tenir compte d’une distinction primordiale entre ce qui se fait facultativement, sans nécessite vitale, et ce qui se fait obligatoirement, dans un conflit de nécessités vitales comme celui entre un carnivore obligatoire et sa proie. 

Un tigre ne peut pas survivre s’il ne mange pas sa proie. S’est un impératif biologique pour sa survie et sa santé. Les humains ne sont pas des carnivores obligatoires. Ils peuvent survivre en pleine santé sans consommer les êtres animaux; ça ne leur est pas un impératif biologique.

J’étais présent une fois à un événement publique de défenseurs des êtres animaux. Une jeune végane a posé une question timidement: « Je suis végane et militante défenseure des êtres animaux. Mais j’ai une maladie chronique pour laquelle il faut que je prenne un médicament qui contient une composante d’origine animale. Que dois-je faire? » 

On lui a répondu, presque unanimement: « Prend ton médicament. Les êtres animaux ainsi que les défenseurs humains des êtres animaux ont besoin de ta protection. Tu ne les aides pas en sacrifiant ta vie. C’est une nécessité vitale pour toi. »

D’après toutes les connaissances scientifiques actuelles, la vaccination sauve les vies. Il s’agit, donc, de la nécessité vitale. Il est à espérer qu’un jour il y aura les vaccins qui ne nécessitent plus aucune composante d’origine animale. Mais entre temps l’urgence est de mettre fin à cette gigantesque majorité des souffrances animales qui sont inutiles — donc  déjà complètement gratuites aujourd’hui — avant de rentrer dans le domaine complexe et tragique des conflits de nécessités vitales entre les êtres sensibles. 

The clueless, mad-as-hell, red-capped rabble cheering Trump’s vile, brainless, heartless, shameless, mendacious malignity, come what may, are the Deplorables (just as HC said).

The corporations, lawyers, politicians, oligarchs and other opportunists who prop up Trump’s vile, brainless, heartless, shameless, mendacious malignity, come what may, are the Despicables.

The racists, jingoists, religionists, conspiratorialists and psychopaths who top up Trump’s vile, brainless, heartless, shameless, mendacious malignity, come what may, are the Dements

And the remainder of humanity, who reject and oppose vile, brainless, heartless, shameless, mendacious malignity are the Decents.

The Manichaean forces seem to be aligning themselves as this all begins to take the shape of a struggle between Good and Evil. When so much is at stake, shades-of-grey nuances become mere distractions or filibusters.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr-extinction-rebellion-listed-extremist-ideology-police-prevent-scheme-guidance?fbclid=IwAR308Cjmf72-XX3FNb30gNgiNSqiSY_t27wPj-YVh9gPgNlbd83yH9QqAmQ

A sentient being – unlike a chair or table – cannot have an “owner” in the usual sense.

The relationship must be more like that between a legal ward and her legal guardian (or caretaker or parent).

Guardians must be entitled to go to court in the interest of their ward.

If the animal being has no guardian, or if the guardian does not act in her interests, she must become the legal ward of the court, which must act in her interests.

Without this the notion of “well-being” is voided of meaning — and with it the notion of a sentient being with biological imperatives (= interests) that must not be violated.

This is why no one (including the “owner”) can do whatever they like to their dog, unlike to their chair.

Why? Because a dog, as a sentient being, has an interest in her own well-being (in not having her biological imperatives violated: deprived of food, water, shelter, space, freedom of movement, social imperatives, freedom from pain, freedom from fear, freedom from stress). That is what it is to be a sentient being. Chairs have no interest.

It is incoherent to enshrine this interest in law, formally recognizing animal sentience and its biological imperatives, yet not accord that interest legal standing in court.

It was explicitly in order to distinguish a sentient being from an insentient object without any interests that Quebec’s AWSA (BESA) law was adopted.

That is why the sentience law implies, both logically and practically, that the legal status of “owner” likewise needs to be updated to make it conform and cohere with the animal being’s status of sentient being.

That is why the status of guardian or parent is much more appropriate and natural than “owner” in the case of a sentient being as opposed to an insentient object.

A sentient being has biological imperatives and it thus has (like all sentient beings) a personal interest (even without needing to be declared a legal “person”) in not having its own biological imperatives violated. Being sentient means being capable of feeling pain and suffering if one’s biological imperatives are violated.

The only way to resolve, logically and fairly, the inconsistencies described above (owner, property, insentient object, sentient being, biological imperative, interest, guardian/caretaker/parent) will be to develop a new legal category of agent, other than “ordinary owner,” for those who have the care of a sentient being (human or non-human). If biological imperatives were not personal interests, the distinction between insentient objects and sentient beings would be empty and meaningless.