Category Archives: the political animal

Can you think without your professor?

Posted on by admin

Can you think without your professor?

The academic discussion about animal concerns and where they meet human interests, is so detached from the reality of Animal Rights, that the discourse of these kind of animal ethicists seems in the core substance no more but a blast of sophist lapses branching out on a subject matter here only for secondary purposes but not because of Animal Rights themselves. What I think of are the heady discussions lead academically on the subjects of speciesism and anthropocentrism. Things may sound good, yet little way is given to nonhuman Animal Rights terms which would leave space for a nonhuman animal autonomy protecting against the human definition of “self” and “other”.

If we had a similar phenomenon in the academic discussion in regards to Human Rights, we would find ourselves in a futuristic soulless science fiction setting, where humans are no more but calculable sources to serve the interest of a hole.

The terms needed for and relevant to Animal Rights become politically practically useless when taken only to their abstract side and not to the side where a term is instilled with the aspects relating to the practical side of life – life’s daily political questions, that are concerned with environmental questions and the questions relating to Animal Rights concerns.

The worst form of an abstraction would be to go back to point zero and ask: what are Animal Rights again and which animals should have what exact rights. From an Animal Rights standpoint we take Animal Rights as a given ethical imperative and prerequisite. Similar to the understanding of RIGHT in Human Rights, my right is not dependent on any holy issue or on any group’s decision to grant me rights or even on the evolutionary side of being a humanoid. The sheer fact of existence grants the right that will take its own shape in the individual, and of course rights do conflict, and still we should try to live peacefully if we want to or if we can.

Political Animal Rights

So far we haven’t gained as much and enough political momentum as is needed in the inner national and supra-national political settings that constitute themselves with the political party systems, umbrella orgs, lobbyism driven by economical factors, NGOs, philanthropists and yes even grassroots work that we do in our communities directly or over the internet.

To rely on the possibility that academic discussion would take us any further with the needed political momentum for the Animal Rights movement, and how general society perceives the question of Animal Rights and how AR can go together with Human Rights, will be a long and disappointing wait.

Academia coins terms, but these terms become shallow after they go through the entire digestive system of the typical academic brain.

Which terms would we need, however?

We need to fill the space of the Animal Rights discussion basically with the same soul, with the same concern, idea, words, deeds …  such as we apply to our own concerns. Theories have their good, but the practice of life that in the end of the day makes up our political side of life, needs the individual strength of thought and deed.

We are able to talk about our own concerns, and we are also able to talk about the concerns of our fellow animal friends.

Never rebut an enlightened anthropos – how dare you!

Posted on by admin

Why it is amazing how Animal Rights sets ITSELF on the right fundament. No question that it does exactly that, Animal Rights is a story, dynamic in itself.

However some birthhelpers who are perhaps a couple of eons too late are fighting for their new inventions of the wheel notwithstanding. Ok, what I’m talking about is the question of the futile fight of humans against their own perpetually continued ANTHROPOCENTRISM.

A lot of focus is currently set by the AR community on just that impotant question, which is good and a thing to do overdue because it helps you see reality clearer. Reality about the political implications of Animal Rights for Human Rights and Earth Rights mostly, I believe.

But what exactly is anthropocentrism?

Also … Why is a term chosen that strictly seems to omit the animal nature connection as the KEY point and only focuses on the human towards animal relation in a critical way though. What about that, what completely stands out of the reach of us the anthropos??? Ok, so we see the question at stake here is the perspective, we want to avoid looking at the world from a strictly homocentric viewpoint. But how far do we have to go with that.

I was recently criticised for criticising an AR advocate who is against anthropocentrism and who claims that Animal Rights find a reasonable argument in the similarities between beings – humans and nonhuman animals that is. This is an old string of argumentation when animal acvocacy issues are being discussed. But: do we want to land at comparative studies where we check one brain against the other to find out how much rights you should be entitled to be granted? Well, the amount of speciesism in the enlightened field of AR advocates is just plain tiresome. I just stop this rant at this point and ask you to continue it on your own behalf if you will.

PETITION, URGENT: Help End the Use of Cows and Pigs at the California State Fair Nursery Exhibit

Posted on by admin

Help End the Use of Cows and Pigs at the California State Fair Nursery Exhibit

In 2010, a pregnant Holstein cow escaped her pen during the California State Fair. State Fair police chased the frightened animal down in a large SUV. They shot her multiple times, killing her. The cow was part of the Nursery Exhibit, in which heavily pregnant cows, pigs, sheep, and goats give birth in front of an audience … READ MORE ABOUT THIS CASE AND PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION.

to impose a state of being “as if” parasitical

Posted on by admin

Human societies impose a state of being “as if” parasitical onto nonhuman animals, simply by claiming nature to be a resource ”exclusively usable” by humans. Nature is seen as a resource existent to serve human needs and desires, to be exploited. Nature is not regarded as an animal habitat with its animal inhabitants, etc.

By living out this attitude and worldview of: “subject the earth to your will and exploit it to your needs”, nonhuman animals are automatically put either into the position of being degradable and exploitable, subjectable, or they are seen as parasitical, just barely allowed to enter the human garden eden, so one could say.

This is a long subject and it came to my mind quite clearly today … ,so, well I wanted to quickly note it down. I am gonna write more about this angle of homocentrism later, of course.

Homocentrism makes blind to perspectives that don’t serve the “human interest”.

 

An end to philosophical validity can lie in what we perceive to be reality

Posted on by admin

The human continuum with its cultural values is not necessarily one, and can’t necessarily be unified with its diverseness.

Every individual has the right to hold her or his own views.

Thus I can be for Animal Rights INASMUCH as I can be for Human Rights, for example.

No philosophical school can propose me their argumentation as valid IF it asks me to see nonhuman animals other than I see them now as an Animal Rights person.

Philosophy should stay out of attributing different “life forms” with their labels of value or meaning.

Otherwise philosophy becomes as bad as how religions function – as doctrines based on belief. Homoncentrists believe that nonhuman animal life matters less than human life,  and they believe that the world relevant to nonhuman animals and the systems meaningful to nonhuman animals life must not be regarded as a complete world in its own rights in their own terms.

What about the cult of flesh

Posted on by admin

What about the cult of flesh

It seems to be enough today to eat veggies for a day or adopt the vegan or vegetarian lifestyle for a period of time and then go round pose as a post-vegan informer of a real truth about “meat”-eating or hunting or any other speciesist and non-vegan-compatible action.

When we think about the ideally vegan world, with a vegan society, and I really mean a society with society here, then we don’t think about the ideology of speciesism and how that is installed in our societies, most likely anywhere today on the globe.

Veganism is a moral education to some extent, but morals don’t create legally binding rules.

If human rights were dependent on the moral understanding of people alone, we’d still have torture and killing all around pretty much I think. We as ethical vegans should not overlook the dangers of speciesism. When we ask people to go vegan, we should bear in mind that the “habit” of “meat”-eating didn’t start just because the humans of the past just happened to be speciesist. The human past evolved from being speciesist to still being speciesist exactly on the grounds of held views, beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, philosophies.

Changing the lifestyle only does not go deep enough. One or more thousand years of deeply embedded ways of thinking within a society have to be changed, both on the individual and on the societal level. And the tragic thing with speciesism is, that humans built their understanding of what humanity means mainly on the basis of considering nonhuman animal life as a “lower” life form in a comparative measure to their own life form of being > HOMO SAPIENS.

What we as ethically driven vegans are asking for is a revolution. This encompasses a change in behaviour most of all firstly, but inasmuch it needs a change in thinking – well of course! And that’s where the question about what that cult of flesh is sets in.

I recently had this short exchange on diaspora that I want to close this blog entry with. It’s about just some examples of vegans-turned-animalkiller.

All included

Posted on by admin

the political ramifications of:

what I say, whereever I happen to be
what I do where I am
how i decide, and how I come to a decision
how I influence my environment posivitely

You say that only politcal parties are political?
I say:

whatever you do, and whatever I do
has political ramifications
on the grassroots level
no matter what

It depends on what you consider “political” to be.

The plane in life of deeds and words is a large and impactful one.

Academia Lost

Posted on by admin

Knowledge that circles round

Some take separate terms, and build a logic simply on these terms as pillars. But in reality nothing is so separate that it should become a carrying pillar. The building risks to stand on the wrong pillars.

To avoid being a bad constructor I want to acknowledge how each phenomenon becomes explicable only in the entireness of its “environment”!

Highlighting a few terms out as central “pillars” of my argumentation – around which all other relevant aspects have to settle themselves – lets me build a roof upon this construct, that seems logical in itself. But again, the fullness of life does not work itself in any fully contrivable logics.

A logic that lies within “something” is not mirrored in a logic contrived by my singling out some of its aspects and sticking them together so that they fit … .

When I want to prove how knowledgeable I am however, I can’t really leave my argumentation a lot of space to breathe. Everything has to be waterproof, for no leaks to let fallacies to become instantaneously visible. My opponent can rebut me.

No this circle of yay and nay just wastes a lot of time. And it is possible to differentiate within more or less fully integral settings.

Why Suckerberg is a speciesist? Cos there are too many of them

Posted on by admin

Why AR people in particular should not use Facebook and start using Diaspora

A person doesn’t even have to have a “typical” blemish on his track record in regards to human rights or environmental issues to be proven on the wrong side of morality.

Being a pronounced speciesist is a problem that should make us AR people take a decision on such a morally vain person, especially if the person even acts up upon his or her speciesist attitudes and actually engages in harming and/or killing nonhuman animals.

Facebook makes politics with the individual image of it’s founder Suckerberg. And exactly that’s why you should take his “personal activities” serious enough to leave the services of his company FB alone, if you were ever on there or freeze your usage of it down to a minimum.

Suckerberg stands for the individual that explicitly socially lives out our commonday societal collective egotism. And he is hiped exactly for this. Socially shared egotism is the “social” phenomenon that FB triggered most predominantly. (Someone rightly noted that FB tuned the term “to LIKE something” into a useless word, an interesting observation about the warped psychology of Facebook and its users.)

UPC’s Karen Davis has written about Suckerbergs speciesism and she sheds a light on the gruesomeness of his stance towards nonhuman animals life:

http://www.upc-online.org/thinking/110613only_connect.html

Both, our views on the world based on an abstract scientifically led philosophy of life-as-a-whole and otherwise also our religiously influenced views, they both fail to allow a non-homoncentric approach towards our co-species. If a person is set within either a biologically driven view or stands in a religious tradition of one of the abrahamic religions at least, we can probably not expect him or her to understand more of the world than that it should be subjugated to what we suppose to be the human concern. This is a gigantic problem.

(Also, a person being rich and enormously skilful in these our societies, does not prove for this person not to be a whackjob at the most important moral concerns.)

Well, and for the sake of it, let’s take a look at Suckerbergs human rights track anyway. In which way is FB involved in human rights violations “indirectly” …

This video by http://craig-antweiler.com gives you an overall idea

Diaspora* Next Online Revolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4mMSxWEnjU

To close this, see the Diaspora creators and join a pod or set a branch up yourself

the privacy aware, personally controlled, do-it-all distributed open source social network

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqxQgfQD24M

Speciesism isn’t …

Posted on by admin

Speciesism isn’t like something that has to be assumed like a “status quo” that we are just condemned to be living with for ever. Speciesism is always an almost inexplicable disaster for which we lack any real terms to fathom that what is happening.

It’s not an issue that’s less pressing than violations of human rights.

Even if Animal Rights are not legally pronounced anywhere in our homocentrist human societies now, the world consists of an autonomous natural world too (in a parallell form) of which nonhuman animals are the inhabitants and nonhuman animals are rights bearers in the vital positions they hold in the environment /nature.

Our manipulative and destructive mingling in their matters does not change anything about the animal-nature connection – which is far more fundamental than our conceptions of might and force are, which we have set against them.

My friend ‘Comet’ adds rightly: “The entire existence of humanity is not something that goes “way back” as far as the universe and its age is concerned. So all of humanity from the start until now – although “ages and ages” to humanity – is still a catastrophic event in the eyes of the universe, as much as Nazi Germany was a catastrophic event to humans. So one can look at the whole of humanity and say ‘that event went totally wrong, time to start over ‘”.

Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?!

Posted on by admin

Where do you draw the line, when asking others to act up – ethically?!

chatty <3

I often wonder myself about what i can ask of others and what i can ask of myself, as when it comes to: what’s ethically ok, what can we do, and what is asked too much for most people (and even understandably asked too much?).

I don’t want to imply in any way with what I am saying here, that the “do whatever you want to” approach would be a recommendable path to seek in our daily practiced ethics.

What I mainly find worth highlighting in the context is this:

How about letting others down who really need my help and I could help them? Ok many of us would think I am talking about things relating to friends and family. but that’s not what I mean. What I mean is – extend your circle: helping “strangers”.

It shouldn’t be provocative to ask, my question is: is having ones “own” kids a form of letting “others” down by denying the “others” the support I could give them if I instead would chose to feel responsible just as much for them as I would for my own kids?

The other day I heard a fellow vegan talk about vegans who don’t care if exploitative “cheap” labor or any oppressive means were involved in the production process of vegan produce bought, that a vegan person’s care should ideally reach out to the questions of human rights inasmuch. This of course is an undeniably important critical point to bring up. Also this vegan person highlighted the need of a stronger awareness in the fields of veganism and environmentalism and how these two go together, and finally she briefly discussed the importance of making your kids aware of speciesism.

Thinking about vegan parenting made me think of the dilemma everybody of us faces when confronted with the decision: my life as how i would (possibly) want it for myself (having kids) or what about the kids that are born but who really don’t have much of a chance in the world for how we all are setting this world up anew every day.

I’ve taken the decision now. I don’t feel extravagant for having decided to put all my support into helping other’s kids,  nonhuman and human alike, primarily.


 

animal rights pornography – definition

Posted on by admin

animal rights porn – definition

A corporate advertisement that extols the company’s ethically motivated animal rights or animal protection measures taken, their record or policies – usually by a company known to rape and pillage nonhuman animal concerns as thoroughly as possible.

A: Have you seen those new campaign targets by the PETA, that show how easily “animal friendly” can become a swear word?

B: They are pure AR porn, man.

or rather

A: Have you seen PETAs recent campaign for animals?

B: Don’t fall for that! Check their policies on euthanasia.

ar-pornography animal rights pornography, considerate about nonhumanbeings interests washing

Ok maybe peta makes an animal rights porn site to try to ridiculously cover up that fact that they are animal rights porn.

You can’t call a lip service “help”, you can’t even call a an action “help”, when all the “help” you think you are giving is undone by the next steps you are taking. … And that even routinely in the case of peta and their active euthanasia of nonhuman animals. Also, their campaigns cater to an anti AR rethoric and only thus gain a lot of support from the people loyal to them, who helplessly “bark upon the wrong tree”. If people don’t see that being for or against animal rights is not a matter of belonging to a certain group, but that it’s actually actions and opinions that matter, then those people can rightly be called ethically short sighted.

Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy

Posted on by admin

Society is politics, but only as what regards their political philosophy

The private is a chaotic raw base (a necessary, “natural” base). It can be described with psychological terms in the singular and sociological terms in the plural of humanity.

The political sphere needs philosophy, ethics and concepts. It seeks a basis of reason upon which different single individuals can agree.

The sociological just takes people as “how they are”, no matter what their ethical ideals could turn them into on the longer run, whereas the political perspective on society gives society a reason.

The private finds its full potential only when it becomes aware of it’s own ability to create reason, embeds it in a frame of organization that is set as a potential ideal.

Then, even if a person never lives under politically reasonable conditions, the aspiration itself, phrased, thought or practiced on the small scale by the thinking individual, creates a political meaningfulness.

MEANINGFULNESS, that is: One in which the single individual steps out of it own concern onward to show responsibility towards its entire contextualities – regarding nonhuman animals, the natural environment and human beings.

 

The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”

Posted on by admin

The Parallel, fragment about the position humans take towards “nature”

The homocentrical human considers himself to be in a parallel position to the other natural phenomenons. Nature is felt as if merely producing itself out of an almost passive condition, nature is seen as a huge complex of causalities with interlocked phenomena.

The subsumation: “nature” stands in homocentrist terms for something passive, “nature” has been banned into a virtual state of a “meaningwise” non-existence, while the idea of “the human” is thought to exclusively represent a comprehensive awareness and meaningfulness.

There is an imaginary parallel condition, and on one hand you have the so called passive “natural world” and on the other hand you have the so called “aware” human state of being.

That means in other words that what is external to the human state of being, is localised and being put into the dimension of standing in opposition, in a specific type of way. This type of way is most easily to be compared with the parallel: THE PARALLEL STANDS IN RELATION BUT WITHOUT AN INTERCHANGING (DIRECT) CONNECTION.

A parallel, which represents an ideal circumstance for measuring the one side to the other, seen from the perspective of denying the existence of the others by classifying everything except the “self-concept” as being relatively narrow in function. That what is other, is not simple enough to be fit into the simplicity of the system of homocentricity. The reality of Animals and the Nature is too complex – obviously.

This also means, a highly complex form is subjugated to being translated into the simplifying procedure of scientific proof, to then be considered as a bit more important on its side of the parallel. The complexity remains on its side of the parallel, and cannot jump the line, but can increase in meaning alone by its being existent in the same dimension as the human being is.

The separation, that the parallel creates, stands in dependence of the understanding of “self” (the self-concept), since nothing else would be able as effectively to banish the one immediate reality, that could threaten to run into the acts of definition, human inductions and deductions.
THE REAL could end up dissolving the homocentrical tendency for creating determinisms … .

Could be a u-turn

Posted on by admin

Could be a u-turn (back to a more meaningful future)

RIOTS on the streets are just one visible tip of an iceberg that “the establishment” is gonna hit … . Riots within society in peoples thinking and actions and in their feelings are really what we get aware of now – again, after years of a yuppie-style annihilation of a democratic culture, and this annihilation was brought about by a full commercialisation of any cultural once fruitful soil.

First a problem is being created, then the problem escalates, but who are you gonna blame?

- Does the fault lie with people who follow the one-way type of system, where you only find meaning in life if you can consume? The politicised glorification of the buying power of people is going so far that now something like the ethical consumer is being praised as a civilisatory ideal even.

- Or does the fault lie with the sections of society who think up and manage the production and the merchandizing processes, (the elite workforces, the investors, the banks, the advisors, the advertisement companies)?

Which role does the media play as the huge digestive system between opportunity seeking businessmen and -women, manipulators and the receiving end made up of willing spenders?

Can political institutions and their long arms change something within a menace created by the self-strangling economical system that makes our societies clash from within its own innards?

The people finally won’t have much of a choice when they aren’t left with any place to breathe amongst a type of culture that only gives you space to make sense out of your life if you can afford to have it.

The profiteers have started a cold civil-war against the assumed losers of the societies. The real question will be however if we will be able to create new and different ways of thinking and acting up that will break the chains of the old establishments (our hierarchical human systems) in whichever disguises we even might face them?

NOTE: Things have gotten out of balance when the intent became the real problem.

Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

Posted on by admin

Feminism and Animal Rights, the one way or the other …

“Meat” is not porn and it’s not sexist – “meat” is flesh, and it’s the result of a human/humans killing a nonhuman animal/animals. We should not stick our own sociological issues to such a major own concern such as Animal Rights in an analogy that sets itself so close to the subject of comparison, that the story gets one-sided and a new and important perspective gets neglected.

All Animal Rights issues need an own valid terminology and frame of reference, otherwise we blur the lines … .

The analogy of sexism and speciesism

Two main points why Animal Rights issues can’t be tied to a “purely” feminist viewpoint ( – if feminism is used as excusing women from the responsibilities in society ethically towards their nonhuman environment)

It’s wrong to presuppose that speciesism is something that is more prevalent in men compared to women.

Also, male nonhuman animals are inasmuch sexually abused in the farm industry (their reproductive system) such as female nonhuman animals are.

Both points should be expanded upon in detail of course. (I do hope I can do that to a later date.)

Close analogies … also of genocides and speciecides

These types of close analogies in the field of -isms and abuse work in a valid way when we look at the psychology of the “perpetrator” who seeks to create a victim: the aspect of exerted violence share many similarities, whereas however on the side of the victimized we have to see the contexts: political, enviro-political, historical, sociological, … a group or an individual gets picked as a victim for reasons, and those exact reasons need to be analyzed under own terms, and not be conflated.

WHAT ARE “RIGHTS”?

Posted on by admin

What makes up a „right“?

Image: Farangis Yegane http://moosh-o-gorbeh.farangis.de

Is it you yourself who decides about what you consider to be your “right”? It’s an inner process, isn’t it, that you believe you ought to have a right to breathe, a right to walk wherever you want to, a right to say whatever you feel like saying.

There is another layer of the term “right” that is not an inner process but that marks instead that what the society, or the whole human world considers to be a “right” or your “right” respectively. This form of a “legal right” – lets ground it upon the basis of a generalized form of all legal human rights taken together as, so to speak, a “generic” type of a right the humans actually “grant” you, themselves as a group, or a group within the human group – this generic type of an exclusively human right (our current “legal right”) can be detached and even really be something different than the type of right you give yourself.

Without the outer form of a right that is given to you as a person or that is in contrast NOT given to any other living sentient being, you or any sentient being still has their inner sense of what I would call a right. It’s not so that a sense of right (which has something to do with rights and wrongs, as strange as we may think this would be) is something that only exists if you are told what is wrong and what is right. A sense of what you personally may consider a right is something dependent on the beings socialization, on its social contexts. And yes, I do call the behaviour of nonhuman animals amongst other nonhuman animals too a form of social behaviour.

Now if people say “rights” are nothing natural in the case of “animal rights”, and Animal Rights can only be granted on a more or less arbitrary basis, they are wrong insofar in which one can easily realize that all rights in the purest form are something that has to be dealt with on a subjective and a socio-ethical plane.

Rights are natural, because rights stem from self-experience and social interaction. Legal rights on the contrast are quite arbitrary.

Palang Latif, Animal Rights and Politics, I had previously posted this specific fragment on our visual opinions workshop blog http://www.farangis.de/blog/what-are-rights

Animal Rights and Human Rights, your rights, as interconnected

Posted on by admin

Image: Farangis Yegane http://crownofthecreation.farangis.de

This is from my short fragment series: neo-vegan perspectives

Animal Rights and Human Rights, your rights, as interconnected
Palang Latif

How can Animal Rights and Human Rights be interlocked politically in a constructive way, instead of using Human Rights against Animal Rights.

We often tend to think that Animal Rights and Human Rights would exclude each other, and the stereotypical AR vs. HR question, about whom you would save first if you had to: your dog or your child, is being asked as if one had to pass a witch-test which is going to decide your fate as a proper Human- or Animal Rights advocate. A more reasonable view would let us come to the conclusion that narrowing things down to the extremes isn’t really a good approach upon which a rights debate can be lead.

The focus in such a question that seeks to radically separate two instances (two situative phenomena occurring in a wider context) from each other, is almost suggestive, if not ignorant, in its view towards the facets of reality that make up the complexity of life as the living beings experience it.

Put in a situation where we had to decide between rescuing one living being and another, it is likely that we would not want to decide for one and against the other. We should consider the perspectival option that we’d want to save every being that’s in despair or in a desperate situation. We could think: in any situation where a being needs help, a being needs a helper!

As Animal Rights advocates

As Animal Rights people we clearly want both: a full consideration of human interests and rights and a full consideration of what we can understand to be the rights other animals are natural holders of – by virtue of their self-autonomous existence in this world.

And to take this a step further: we probably want to interlock Animal and Human Rights, so that both reaffirm and solidify each other. How can this be reached? And how can this, even more so, be reached in our current human societies, where Animal Rights is not regarded as positively relevant for the “’own’ – collective human concern”.

One aspect that builds an euphemistically put “automatic” way to bind Animal- and Human Rights together, is, as simple as it may sound: the environment. Whereby ‘the environment’ can be a term for what the German poet-thinker Goethe more comprisingly called “das All-Leben”, the all-live – a term that hints at the interconnectedness of all life forms on earth and beyond.

The environment, nature, is the habitat of nonhuman animals and humans alike. It’s the sphere of living existence where both humans and nonhuman animals meet in their natural state of being, and it’s the very political ground ( that is: a sphere of life and thus of interests) that needs to be re-captured for the ethical side that is to it in regards to Animal Liberation and Animal Rights.

There are three core aspects that bind humans and animals together in their enviromentalistic and nature bound context:

A.) Existentially we got the shared ‘outer world’ on which life depends in its individual and collective existential value.

B.) The conflict between the (major) life forms is produced by ‘the culture’ in which life finds its contextualization, ranging from predominantly destructive in homocentric human societies and, environmentally seen, constructive in animal cultures and their form of relating to the natural.

C.) The solution, the bridge, lays in the will for re-establishing a natural balance, that encompasses its participants, the living beings, as co-creatant, co-existential “agents of an self-created contextualizing existence” – that can be understood as something that we emotionally would induce with “dignity”.

Dignity is the felt and the realizable foundation of Rights. Being co-existent in this world and acknowledging the agency of nonhuman animals in the environmental context is a basis that should tie Human- and Animal Rights constructively.

http://veganswines.com/andishe/on_homocentrism.htm