"The domestic extremist term was coined by police involved in tackling criminals involved in animal rights groups sometime between 2001 and 2004."

"The NPOIU database consists of entries indexed by descriptions of people, nicknames or pseudonyms. Originally it was confined to animal rights groups, but was expanded in 1999 to "include all forms of domestic extremism, criminality and public disorder associated with cause-led groups". It contains some information supplied by companies that hire private investigators to spy on protesters, sometimes by infiltration."

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-surveillance-protest-domestic-extremism

Not mentioned is that the NPOIU was previously the Animal Rights National Index (ARNI).

I don't get Mark Thomas being on there. 'Watch out for this man! He might make some sarcastic comments!' Maybe he paid them to be on there to promote his show ; )

PS I love Mark Thomas.

There is nothing special about animal rights activists. ALL activists have always been targeted. Animal rights activists apparently make a louder noise about it. Ask any miner who was blacklisted in the 1980s, or carworkers from the 1970's or students from the 1960s, or peace activist from the 1950's, or pacifist from the 1940's...

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/10/440628.html?c=on#comments

While people continue with lifestyle protests, serious opposition to serious oppression does not exist. If animal rights activists believe they are targeted more than any other group, the only genuinely effective tactic to adopt is to widen their protests to as many other issues as possible. Can you make an animal rights case for the postie's strike?

Being targeted used to be part of class consciousness. Now it is just a source of bitching. Break the law for animal rights and go to jail. This is what all serious activists have known will happen for decades and more.


Your call: serious politics or lifestyle politics.

And it wont just stop there, the government always finds new reasons to expand databases.

Is there perhaps a chance to challenge this database in court on human rights grounds?

Thomas Spence a schoolteacher from Newcastle-upon-Tyne arrived in London in December 1792. Soon after arriving he was arrested for selling Rights of Man by Tom Paine. For the next twenty years of his life Spence spent long periods in prison for selling Radical books, pamphlets, newspapers and broadsheets. Between 1793 and 1796 Spence also published a radical periodical, Pig's Meat and several pamphlets advocating universal suffrage and land nationalisation.

Spence owned a shop called the 'Hive of Liberty', in Little Turnstile, Holban but in 1801 he was arrested and imprisoned for selling seditious publications. At his trial Thomas Spence called himself the unpaid "advocate of the disinherited seed of Adam". After Spence's release he opened a shop in Oxford Street. The business was not a success and he eventually ended up selling broadsheets, handbills, newspapers and pamphlets from a barrow.

more  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRspencean.htm

I think you are missing the point here.

It's true that activists from many different areas have been spied on by the state for many years before the animal rights movement even existed in its current form, but in the context of the specific agency mentioned in this article, it did start by targeting animal rights activists. The point is for other activists to be aware of the repression aimed at animal rights because it is likely to hit them next. That is just at the moment, because animal rights is quite active and militant at the moment, maybe that will change in the future.

And why does everything have to be about "class consciousness" anyway? Should we also ignore things like racism and homophobia because they aren't directly related to social class?

Yes, social class is important, but so are other things. It isn't an choice of just one or the other.

And animal rights isn't about the "lifestyle" of the person being vegan any more than organising a union is just a lifestyle choice of the union member. It's about stopping the abuse of animals for their sake.

Did you even read the original article? The poster's main point is not that AR activists are targeted more than anyone else - i didn't see any "bitching is the post - rather, it's that this case is a very obvious illustration of the way in which government oppression expands and spreads.

At least, that's what i got out of it. sounds like you've got an axe to grind

There are a few illogical conclusions being made by the article and your comment.

1. That because the first protester database was for ARAs that spying didn't occur until ARAs were spyed upon. I.e. the title is inaccurate for the article: "Spying Began With"

2. That miners, carworkers, students, peace activists or pacifists needed to be on a database to be blacklisted. You simply don't need a database to be blacklisted. Yes I'm sure they had a list of people they had blacklisted, but this doesn't constitute a database of people who may or may not be blacklisted or may or may not be activists. Big difference.

3. That animal liberation is about lifestyle protests, in contrast to being about seious opposition to oppression, whether this is against non-human or human animals. Take a few minutes looking into the insurrectionary anarchist movement in Mexico and you'll realise that this is a liberation struggle for both humans and non-humans, regardless of lifestyle.

 http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9905
 http://www.counterpunch.org/ross10062009.html
 http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9810

4. Possibly my favourite one: That posties are not animals, despite evidence to prove otherwise. As with all humans who are fighting for workers rights, this is still animal rights. Animal rights or liberation is commonly confused with non-human rights or liberation, due to an unfortunate biological identity crisis that seems to be getting worse within our species.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

I also don't agree there is a choice between 'serious' politics and 'lifestyle' politics, I am opposed to politics in it's entirety. I am for social change not political change (reform).

these Universal rights activists help stop arms farms to undemocractic repressive regimes. We have support from many MPs in all the major parties, whilsts PMs get their arms twisted & minds bent by corrupt antidemocratic corporations,what kind of democracy is this??
This system allows the death of nearly 10million children a year,born as beasts of burden, they die slowly & unecessarily according to UNicef figures. The world gets guns & bombs instead of education & fair wages which have been shown to lower birth rates. Its a antihuman, antilife system & a minority of people across the political spectrum like Bob Watson need to stop coming out with Malthusian arguments, your helping fascists in the BNP.
Support Sea shepherd,climate camp,CAAT, be a anarchist& Vote for those who want direct democracy as well  http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk
This system does not compute, if I was a CEO or Chief con I'd be worried not about when if there is rebellion from the inside, but when, the only way out is more real democracy,
capitalism does not compute!, & its not natural either to throw away mountains of food whilst billions starve

"ALL activists have always been targeted. Animal rights activists apparently make a louder noise about it. Ask any miner who was blacklisted in the 1980s, or carworkers from the 1970's or students from the 1960s, or peace activist from the 1950's, or pacifist from the 1940's."

While it isn't true that AR folk were the first targetted, it is true that were disproportionally targetted far heavier than anyone except suspected Irish republicans during the 1970's and 1980's. I say that and I'm not an AR activist nor have I ever been. I remember my sisters flat in London was smashed and raided by armed police in the early eighties because an AR activist had been the previous resident. It is the reason AR activists developed the best internal security procedures before most other causes, and if you fail to recognise that fact then you will have failed to learn from them. Fair enough if you don't respect that issue, but to dismiss what they have been through is only damaging to the causes you do support.

@There are a few illogical conclusions being made by the article and your comment.

@1. That because the first protester database was for ARAs that spying didn't occur until ARAs were spyed upon. I.e. the title is inaccurate for the article: "Spying Began With"

That is incorrect: the fact is that the "Industrial Society" began a database for Protestors way back in the 1980s. My point was that the records kept on activists have always constituted an Activist Database: animal rights activists are not a special case. HOLMES/HOLMES2 and so many other pieces of technology have been misused for decades.


@2. That miners, carworkers, students, peace activists or pacifists needed to be on a database to be blacklisted. You simply don't need a database to be blacklisted. Yes I'm sure they had a list of people they had blacklisted, but this doesn't constitute a database of people who may or may not be blacklisted or may or may not be activists. Big difference.

The Data Protection Act was specifically changed to bring certain kinds of "paper based systems" into the meanings of the Act. No big difference in Law. No big difference in fact.

@3. That animal liberation is about lifestyle protests, in contrast to being about seious opposition to oppression, whether this is against non-human or human animals. Take a few minutes looking into the insurrectionary anarchist movement in Mexico and you'll realise that this is a liberation struggle for both humans and non-humans, regardless of lifestyle.

Animal Rights frequently substitutes for serious opposition to oppression. While it might offend the sensibilities of any commited reader of Singer or Bentham to mention this, it is the case. Substituting "animal" liberation for a wider concern with autonomy and liberation and then following the classical liberal hypothesis that animals must "possess" rights simply distracts from the fundamental causes of systemic oppression and so sublimates a unified opposition into a "lifestyle choice" for many people. In short, Marx would have called it false consciousness. Gramsci would call it Hegemony. Laclau calls it part of the lie. Bakunin would have called it obedience. I call it "lifestyle".


@4. Possibly my favourite one: That posties are not animals, despite evidence to prove otherwise. As with all humans who are fighting for workers rights, this is still animal rights. Animal rights or liberation is commonly confused with non-human rights or liberation, due to an unfortunate biological identity crisis that seems to be getting worse within our species.

Reread the comment: is there an "animal rights" argument for supporting the posties? You seem to think that there is: yet you do not articulate that argument and do not point to an imperative for animal rights activists to actively, openly and effectively give support to the postal workers. Any comment about the sacred cows of animal rights are simply a source of self righteous indignation (for which someone now has opportunity to comment on my hideous speciest attitude rather than reflecting that this might be an injunction to critical examination). I understand Humans to be a single species. I understand the out of Africa Hypothesis and Mitochondria Eve. I understand that "animal rights" as a single isse political stance is not about being right but about being self righteous.

I also don't agree there is a choice between 'serious' politics and 'lifestyle' politics, I am opposed to politics in it's entirety. I am for social change not political change (reform).

I do not suppose that there is a choice between the 'serious' and the 'lifestyle'. The comment was made because, like other people, I am increasing put off any form of radical politics by the constant self centred, self absorbed attitudes that are prevalent among particular stances. There was an article posted reviewing this mainstream media article. Reposting, substantially the same article with the essential claim that it all starts with an "animal rights" database is, frankly, attention whoring of the least commendable form.

While people stand around making claims that can be parodied as "ooh the state hates me more than you - I'm an anarcho-vegan-animal-rights-lesbian..." which simpy ticks boxes and therfore "proves" radicalmess then they drive people away from radical politics. Even very radical people. The argument is not with animal rights but with the narrow claims of animal rights and the failure to articulate upon important questions.

For example. The average domesticated animal has a larger carbon (and ecological) Footprint than an SUV. That is a critical issue that animal rights activists never address. Yet, if climate activists are correct about the impending global climate shift (and there is no reason to suppose they are completely wrong) that issue is as important to examine as power stations. Yet, in the liberal rights based individualism that divides radical politics and pretends history has ended these questions are not even considered. Because it is easier to say: "surveillance began with X".

It potentially leads to the worst kind of divisive politics. As exemplified by the BNP who jump onto any bandwagon providing they get to look like victims. The original comments were made because some people suppose that mature political conversation is possible. That it is not all about saying "oh look at me".

It might have been your favourite comment because Humans are Animals. But that does not make Human Rights into Animal Rights. Rights are based on property and power relations. If you sincerely repudiate politics you also repudiate rights.

@



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>The Data Protection Act was specifically changed to bring certain kinds of "paper based systems" into the meanings of the Act. No big difference in Law. No big difference in fact.

Are you sure about this? It's welcome news to me but I'm not an expert so do you have links? I know a couple of blacklisting companies used to maintain exclusively paper records to avoid legal scrutiny. It was a 'legal loophole' at best since any database can be printed, but I am NRB so I'd love to know.

Here Generally


Specifically, the audit process shows which documents data subjects have access rights to

 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/data_protection_complete_audit_guide.pdf

if it is audited you have access.

Some specific situations in which Paper Records are "negotiated"

 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/child_support_agency_-_use_and_disclosure_of_maintenance_assessment_information.pdf

 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/subject_access_-_rights_of_access_to_local_authority_housing_records.pdf


Specifically, the ICO has investigated a blacklisting company. If you were involved they are likely to have contacted you. The Framework of that investigation was the European Framework:
 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/corporate/research_and_reports/lbrouni_piastudy_apph_eur_2910071.pdf
and resulted in the following information
 http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/enewsletter_and_alerts/previous_enewsletters/English/Edition13.aspx#story4

Specifically, one of the concerns in that investigation was that paper records were used to "avoid". The ICO decision was that they failed to do so.


The Government is likely to be interested in consultation in this matter
 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2009/construction_firms_040809_final.pdf

Ta, I'll read though your links tommorow when I'm more awake. I am specifically referring to Caprim though I've heard of other previously untouchable paper-based blacklisters.

I have great respect for the ICO and their intent but I've seen the ICO admit they don't have the resources or fufill their function properly. No one has contacted me for example. The only person who ever told me I was politically blacklisted was a recruitment consultant who was extremely bitter and angry towards me for failing to secure his fee, but my sawtooth CV convinces most people I know that I'm being honest, even if they've never heard of blacklisting before. I was always openly anarchist but in each new job I was promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted with security clearance, promoted, promoted with higher security clearance, promoted again- then suddenly unemployable after a chance visit to a peace camp in 2001.
Which is seemingly common although harder for most people to prove or even know for sure unless they had inside information. For instance, I met a gardener on the 'bru who was blacklisted for signing a CND petition after being given a job by his childhood friend tending the gardens at a naval college. He wouldn't have known that if his mate hadn't told him. No wonder British industry is in decline when it is controlled by politically motivated muppets.

Another Spectre said: "The average domesticated animal has a larger carbon Footprint than an SUV"

This was some bullshit book that just came out. I think it's nonsense and doesn't take into account the whole lifecycle:

 http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0321245/Save-the-Planet-Eat-Your-Dog
 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/2987821/Save-the-planet-eat-a-dog

It's a book out called: "Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living." and claims a German Shepherd consumes more resources than two Toyota SUVs. Cats are a little less than a Volkswagen Golf. Two hamsters are about the same as a plasma TV.

I guess the same argument could apply to human children too...

> Rights are based on property and power relations. If you sincerely repudiate politics you also repudiate rights.

What is animal abuse but a power relation between a human and an animal?

And many people in the "animal rights" movement do repudiate rights (human and animal). There is no such thing as a "natural" right to anything - all rights are constructed by us, so there is nothing stopping us giving a legal or moral right to anything we want - an animal or a severely disabled human infant, for example.

This is usually termed "animal liberation", although the term "animal rights" is often used as a general phrase just because it is well-known.

Is a book based on a large literature review. It considers the whole life cycle of the animal. It makes not of two pertinent things. The carbon footprint of pets. The ecological impact of pets. Pets do generate a larger carbon footprint than an SUV: the original Australian study of the book was replicated by considering data in the UK. The study replicated. Possibly not something Scientists would wish to be vocal about is the collection of this kind of data does count as an animal experiment.

The book suggests only keeping pets that you can eat. Which raises ethical questions for people who do not eat meat. Of course, it is possible to simply not have a domestic pet - which another alternative. Given that large carbon footprints are what contribute to global climate change, it is a book that opens up questions about which animals have the right to destroy the planet.

One of the major contributors to the large carbon footprint of domesticated animals was - unsuprisingly - their diet.

A medium-sized dog consuming 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. Over a year, about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

It takes 43.3 square metres of land to generate 1 kilogram of chicken per year (the smallest farm animal carbon footprint) and 13.4 square metres to generate a kilogram of cereals. That gives him a footprint of 0.84 hectares. For a a German shepherd, the figure is 1.1 hectares.

A 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser used in the comparison - driven a modest 10,000 kilometres a year, uses 55.1 gigajoules, which includes the energy required both to fuel and to build it. One hectare of land can produce approximately 135 gigajoules of energy per year, so the Land Cruiser's eco-footprint is about 0.41 hectares.

This kind of analysis is used by car manufacturers to greenwash their products. To dismiss it as bullshit is basically cherry picking the science you like. "Should my planet be destroyed because you choose to keep a dog?" is not a question about the "innocence" of animals it is the same kind of question as "should my planet be destroyed by your corporation kicking choosing to kick out fossil fuel carbon dioxide?" It is a question you can ignore in the same way that corporations ignore "the global warming myth".

All very well for people to promote animal rights - but we all happen to be animals and we all happen to have a stake in the planet.

"This was some bullshit book that just came out. I think it's nonsense and doesn't take into account the whole lifecycle"

The book is very interesting and just provocatively titled to induce debate about climate change and the meat industry. Similar books came out in the '70's to address the injustice of humans starving in the third world while US pets got pedicures. It is mainly concerned with how to lower the environmental costs of pets, which is easy with dogs.

The AR guy who turned me onto veganism had a vegetarian dog. He also said if he could press a button that would painlessly kill every domesticated animal if he could. It is a huge issue, worth debating, like the fact some cultures who happily torture factory farmed creatures for junk food are appalled that other cultures eat dogs.

I fully agree with your 'Time to eat the kids' comment'. I'd be happy to donate my corpse to anyone who wants to eat it, but the real problem is people who have kids and/or pets simply because they think that is normal, in the same thoughtless way they buy plasma TVs because everyone else does.

Cats can't be fully vegetarian (to the best of my knowledge) but my parents who are cat lovers have a better solution. They feed every neighborhood cat that doesn't attack birds (it is a myth that all cats are killers) and they tend to have more cats than anyone of the neighbours. Their only moral qualm is when they see a sick cat whose 'owner' isn't paying for it's treatment, then they pay for it themselves giving the cat a fake name.

Well, sorry to disappoint you but this is just another argument for animal rights. Animal rights people are against breeding animals to be kept as “pets”. If animal rights is accepted now, the last generation of domestic animals would be this one.

If you're a scientist then you can';t be a very good one.

You write that it takes 43sq m of land to produce the grain to produce the chicken for a domesticated animal to eat, and equate that to the energy needed to run an SUV.

What happens to the energy that goes into both the chicken and the domesticated animal? Does it just disappear into thin air??? i think some 40% might be 'lost' as heat energy, but what about the remaining 60%? it goes back into the ecosystem as shit / piss / the chicken's carcuss.

AR types often totally misunderstand energy flows in ecosystems in order to propagate their ideology. Animals require a large land area of biomass to survive, it's true - but a lot of this energy goes back into the system. Otherwise how would ecosystems ever be able to support animals?

The real issue is the need to create systems where embodied energy (in the form of shit, piss, veg wastes, compostable manner) is not landfilled as "waste" but recycled through decomposition and organic processes.

I highly recommend reading the section on energy flows in ecosystems in Bill Mollison's book "Permaculture A Designer's Manual". The bottom line is, a sustainable diet is a low-meat one - but let's get the f**king science right rather than spreading misinformation... think food web not food pyramid.


The energy used by the SUV, however, is gone forever.

"The energy used by the SUV, however, is gone forever"

Energy is never lost except if it is turned into mass as E=mc2. Won't it just take a few million years before the oil gets regenerated again? ;-) Assuming there are still trees to die and eventually get made into oil, that is.

Entropy, on the other hand, will always get us in the end...

Muslims, the miners in the 80s and Irish people have been targeted worse.

No one from Animal Rights has been put in Guantanamo Bay for example.

Having said that AR fighters have been subjected to extremen unusual and unfair laws.

But...it's worse to be stuck in a lab.

Because that would immediately discredit me. Scientists being the lowest form of scum in the Animal Rights world. And yes, I have been on the recieving end. Because someone cannot tell the difference between Botany and Zoology. Because someone decided I had a Home Office Animal Licence and must therefore, AUTOMATICALLY, be an Animal Abuser. They never stopped to ask why I had such a licence. Had they done so I could have explained that I needed it to collect animal crap to carry out plant experiments. Because, as a Scientist rather than a non-Scientist I need to be licenced to ensure I do not harm animals. How many Animal Rights Activist argue that all people should be licenced to go near animals?

Animal Rights Activists do have a legitimate argument in proposing that no animal should suffer. That is, however, not science. Environmental degradation will kill us all if it fails - not just the scientists but the animal rights activists too. Animal rights activists frequently fail to engage with the larger consequences of their position - such as animals also contribute to climate change: it is an obvious part of their position in the ecological web.


Frankly, the "Food Pyramid" went out somewhere in the 1970's. The reason for the research promoted in this book is an increasing use of webs to connect both living things, the environment and human activities. It is because Economists (never really that good at being scientific) are being obliged to catch up with the last hundred years or so of science. They even have a name for it "Post-Autistic".


The major problem in the Animal Rights movement is, as has already been stated, that Animal Rights activists frequently (not always) present themselves as some special case. There is no special case. Animal Rights activists are painting themselves into a ghetto where they oppose science for the sake of opposition. They are, increasingly, turning themselves into a self immolating cult that is so "secure" that not even their central argument gets out. The truth is that there is no special case. Simply that the police have not got around to holding databases on, for example, Scientists whose Home Office Licence lapses because they cease collecting shit.

The truth is that domesticated animals are an energy, carbon and ecological indulgence. There are serious and radical questions that need to be asked about what contributes to sustainable or balanced or ecologically sound living. These are not questions that Animal Rights "Activism" address because "Activism" is a call to action not a reflection on ideas. There is a problem: too little science. Ask an animal rights activist to explain evolution and they might be able to. But like 60% of the general population they are unlikely to get it right. So yes, get the science right by all means: but that means domestic pets do have a greater carbon and energy footprint than an SUV. Sorry, move on. It does not mean that an SUV has an acceptable carbon and energy footprint at all - just that there are also important issues with animals to be considered.

"That is incorrect: the fact is that the "Industrial Society" began a database for Protestors way back in the 1980s."

Ok, fair enough, this was an inaccurate way of putting it. ARA's were the first to have a publicly database about them, whereas previous ones were never purposely exposed to the public. In retrospect, this is still a major issue as it shows that repression against ARAs made databases publicly acceptable.

"Animal Rights frequently substitutes for serious opposition to oppression."

I could say that anarchism frequently substitutes insurrection for outreach, as with every radical idea comes misrepresented liberal drivel. However, I wasn't defending animal rights as I oppose the idea, I was discussing animal liberation which does not imply reformism. Furthermore I infact agree that AR isn't a serious opposition to oppression, as it's the state that oppresses so reformist change only strengthens this oppression via more laws.

"Reread the comment: is there an "animal rights" argument for supporting the posties?"

I'm sorry if it wasn't obvious enough. The posties strike is for workers rights. Workers rights is human rights. Humans are animals. Therefore the posties strike IS animal rights.

"You seem to think that there is: yet you do not articulate that argument and do not point to an imperative for animal rights activists to actively, openly and effectively give support to the postal workers."

Obviously as the strikes are for a species rights, those who support the rights of species (such as ARAs) would support such activity. I need not say how they would do this, as it would quite obviously be the same way that others would.

"I understand that "animal rights" as a single isse political stance is not about being right but about being self righteous."

Indeeed animal rights is single issue, as is human rights, as they are both about identity politics. If animal rights is self-righteous than so is human rights, along with women, race, gay, trans and disability rights. I personally consider being against speciesism, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and disability discrimination as opposition to oppressive hierarchies, rather than self righteous, but each to their own I guess.

"Reposting, substantially the same article with the essential claim that it all starts with an "animal rights" database is, frankly, attention whoring of the least commendable form."

That animal liberationists have been the most insurrectionary activists in the UK in recent decades (as the UK/US states agree the ALF/ELF are the largest domestic threat) and the most repressed, is something that others have to deal with, mainly by putting aside jealousy.

"It might have been your favourite comment because Humans are Animals. But that does not make Human Rights into Animal Rights."

So by the same logic women, race, gay, trans and disability rights is nothing to do with human rights, despite the fact that these social groups are infact human.

I do not know of any animal liberationist who thinks that domestic animals should not be spayed and nuetered out of existance. If every dog and cat were sterilised today, if all breeding of animals for the meat, dairy, fur, vivisection and entertainment industries was halted the human carbon footprint would plummet. We do not want domestic animals in any way, shape or form which renders your argument that dogs have a massive carbon footprint rather mute. Some of us do have rescued animals, that is true but if you want to make a point about animals and carbon footprint;
1. Make a fuss about the meat and dairy industry
2. Take to task those who breed dogs and cats and other animals as "pets", anyone who buys an animal.
3. Campaign for the abolition of all animal use by industrial societies, none of us need to eat meat, wear fur, go to the races etc.
I understand that the word "animal" comes from the ancient Greek meaning a being with a soul, hence we are all animals (if we believe in the concept of a "soul").

"Scientists being the lowest form of scum in the Animal Rights world."

That is nonsense, the "Animal Rights world" is just opposed to animal abuse. Science is a totally orthogonal issue.

It's true you get some anti-science hippy mystics in animal rights just as in any walk of life, but I think most of us believe in the general scientific method.

As for companion animals being more damaging to the environment than an SUV, well, the same would apply to kids. Are you saying that a greenie with one kid and no car is having a worse impact than an SUV owner with no kids?

What about the petrochemicals used to make and run the SUV? They aren't going to get renewed in a hurry, but the crops used to feed animals or kids are.

I haven't read the book but it seems very dubious to me.

The discussion here was quite illuminating:
 http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/26/0321245/Save-the-Planet-Eat-Your-Dog

You have just reiterated exactly the arguments that the Animal Rights Movement have put forward since day one. You are, like politicians in power, failing to recognise that the world has moved on. Science might not be something you favour but it is saying something important that you are brushing under the carpet.

To all of your points: not everybody on the planet is an animal rights activist. The average person on the street is the person with the dog or the cat. The dog or cat is not rescued. The dog or cat is not necessarily neutered. The dog or cat is on the recieving end of huge amounts of meat. The average domestic pet will go through its entire life without coming into contact with any kind of animal rights activist.

In a generation all species could all be dead from global climate change. You can equivocate about the details for as long as you want to by reiterating the same Animal Rights arguments as always. You are wrong to do so. You are wrong in the same way as the Oil Companies and Power Generation Companies are wrong to spend millions on advertising their wares as consumer goods.

Either address the fundamental facts and articulate how animal rights addresses this or accept that animal rights only have a place in a very limited liberal view of the world.

Go and rewatch Kermit the Frog singing 'It's not easy to be Green' since that is the level of your argument.

"Either address the fundamental facts and articulate how animal rights addresses this"
Ha! Same rules apply to you you muppet.

"In a generation all species could all be dead from global climate change"

Do you realise the chronological difference between the 'generation' of a fruit fly and the generation of a human? So which generation are you talking about? Let's be kind to you and assume you mean a human generation. Do you know even how long that unscientific statement is? It's less than 30 years - so even giving you the benefit of doubt you are claiming that every species alive could be dead in 30 years from climate change? Do you have one scientist that'll back that absurd statement? I don't know of any, but I suppose technically it is true. It is as true as saying in 30 years that every living thing +could+ die of hearbreak.

Bluegh.

So, you are rating climate change as more important than animal rights? But the biggest contributor to anthropologic climate change is the meat industry. And yet look at the 'climate change activists' like yourself. For the most part, in my experience, you eat meat shamelessly, you fly around the world while condeming 'short haul flights' by the poor, you schmooze politicians, you drive, you breed, and yet you constantly talk, talk, talk utter crap while criticising the people who really are making a difference.

Did you refuse to read books throughout your life 'to save trees'? That'd explain your ignorance for sure.

Now apologise to Lynn properly or print your own name here you patronising anonymous tosser. It is muppets like you who are doing the most damage to ecology.

Scientists who might support the hypothesis of a mass extinction within thirty to one hundred years as a consequence of global climate change - specifically warming:

Mayhew, Peter J.; Gareth B. Jenkins, Timothy G. Benton (January 07, 2008).

"A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record".
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275 (1630): 47–53.

Lets guess: none of these people are respectable enough. After all they are scientists and so "the enemy".

No habitat means no animals. You tell me exactly how current animal rights arguments actually address the importance of habitat and biome? Address the fundamentals of the argument: current animal rights thinking has nothing to do with that larger question. It is actually important that it does so or risk being sidelined as irrelevant.

I have nothing to apologise for. Having no knowledge of Lynne Sawyer as anything but a screen name I have no perception of anything other than the argument she puts forward. Be outraged and disgusted but, very simply, I am addressing arguments not individuals. For all I know Lynne could be you. For all you know Lynne Sawyer could be me. The comment was to the argument offered not the person offering it.

I have said is what I understand to be the truth: existing animal rights arguments do not address the fundamental question of the ecological situation. If the environment is rendered uninhabitable rights - of any kind - are rendered a liberal affectation. Protest all you want. Instruct me to apologise all you wish. Arguments have to join up or risk being used by those who want the status quo to persist.

As for other Scientists who might agree on the immediacy of the threat to all life: its a long list. They might equivocate on thirty years or one hundred years (there might even be some entomologists who opt for twenty three to eighty days). Science has been kept away from the masses for centuries. Because it is a way of thinking about the world that undermines masters and arguments from authority. Existing Animal Rights (and Climate Activists) persist in an essentially anti-science agenda. Unless that changes all that happens is that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.


Some support from scientists who do believe in mass extinction due to climate change.


Environmental change drove macroevolution in cupuladriid bryozoans.
A. O'Dea and J. Jackson (2009)
Proc R Soc B 276, 3629-3634

Evidence from ammonoids and conodonts for multiple Early Triassic mass extinctions.
S. M. Stanley (2009)
PNAS 106, 15264-15267

Palaeoenvironmental significance of carbon- and oxygen-isotope stratigraphy of marine Triassic-Jurassic boundary sections in SW Britain.
C. Korte, S. P. Hesselbo, H. C. Jenkyns, R. E.M. Rickaby, and C. Spotl (2009)
Journal of the Geological Society 166, 431-445

Erosional truncation of uppermost Permian shallow-marine carbonates and implications for Permian-Triassic boundary events: Reply.
J. L. Payne, D. J. Lehrmann, D. Follett, M. Seibel, L. R. Kump, A. Riccardi, D. Altiner, H. Sano, and J. Wei (2009)
Geological Society of America Bulletin 121, 957-959

Hypothesis for the role of toxin-producing algae in Phanerozoic mass extinctions based on evidence from the geologic record and modern environments.
J. W. Castle and J. H. Rodgers Jr. (2009)
Environmental Geosciences 16, 1-23

The double mass extinction revisited: reassessing the severity, selectivity, and causes of the end-Guadalupian biotic crisis (Late Permian).
M. E. Clapham, S. Shen, and D. J. Bottjer (2009)
Paleobiology 35, 32-50

Adjusting global extinction rates to account for taxonomic susceptibility.
S. C. Wang and A. M. Bush (2008)
Paleobiology 34, 434-455

Carbon isotope excursions and the oxidant budget of the Ediacaran atmosphere and ocean.
T. F. Bristow and M. J. Kennedy (2008)
Geology 36, 863-866

Biogeochemical controls on photic-zone euxinia during the end-Permian mass extinction.
K.M. Meyer, L.R. Kump, and A. Ridgwell (2008)
Geology 36, 747-750

Uranium depletion across the Permian-Triassic boundary in Middle East carbonates: Signature of oceanic anoxia.
S. N. Ehrenberg, T. A. Svana, and P. K. Swart (2008)
AAPG Bulletin 92, 691-707

Examining the Complexity of Environmental Change during the Late Paleozoic and Early Mesozoic.
J. L. Isbell, M. L. Fraiser, and L. C. Henry (2008)
Palaios 23, 267-269

Diversity and Distribution of Triassic Bryozoans in the Aftermath of the End-Permian Mass Extinction.
C. M. Powers and J. F. Pachut (2008)
Journal of Paleontology 82, 362-371

Taxon characteristics that promote survivorship through the Permian-Triassic interval: transition from the Paleozoic to the Mesozoic brachiopod fauna.
L. R. Leighton and C. L. Schneider (2008)
Paleobiology 34, 65-79

Morphologic and taxonomic history of Paleozoic ammonoids in time and morphospace.
W. B. Saunders, E. Greenfest-Allen, D. M. Work, and S. V. Nikolaeva (2008)
Paleobiology 34, 128-154

Bryozoan paleoecology indicates mid-Phanerozoic extinctions were the product of long-term environmental stress.
C. M. Powers and D. J. Bottjer (2007)
Geology 35, 995-998

Smithian-Spathian boundary event: Evidence for global climatic change in the wake of the end-Permian biotic crisis.
T. Galfetti, P. A. Hochuli, A. Brayard, H. Bucher, H. Weissert, and J. O. Vigran (2007)
Geology 35, 291-294

Evidence for anoxia at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary: the record of redox-sensitive trace elements and rare earth elements in Oman.
S. Schroder and J.P. Grotzinger (2007)
Journal of the Geological Society 164, 175-187

Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Structures, and Textures of the Late Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Cap Carbonate in South China.
G. Jiang, M. J. Kennedy, N. Christie-Blick, H. Wu, and S. Zhang (2006)
Journal of Sedimentary Research 76, 978-995

A Permian-Triassic boundary section at Quinn River Crossing, northwestern Nevada, and implications for the cause of the Early Triassic chert gap on the western Pangean margin.
E. A. Sperling and J. C. Ingle Jr. (2006)
Geological Society of America Bulletin 118, 733-746

Carbon isotopic evidence for terminal-Permian methane outbursts and their role in extinctions of animals, plants, coral reefs, and peat swamps.
G. J. Retallack and E. S. Krull (2006)
Geological Society of America Special Papers 399, 249-268

The magnetic polarity time scale across the Permian-Triassic boundary.
M. B. Steiner (2006)
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 265, 15-38

Phosphorus, nitrogen, and the redox evolution of the Paleozoic oceans.
M. R. Saltzman (2005)
Geology 33, 573-576

Earliest Triassic Claystone Breccias and Soil-Erosion Crisis.
G.J. Retallack (2005)
Journal of Sedimentary Research 75, 679-695

Massive release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere during intervals of oceanic anoxia.
L. R. Kump, A. Pavlov, and M. A. Arthur (2005)
Geology 33, 397-400

Hypoxia, Global Warming, and Terrestrial Late Permian Extinctions.
R. B. Huey and P. D. Ward (2005)
Science 308, 398-401

Photic Zone Euxinia During the Permian-Triassic Superanoxic Event.
K. Grice, C. Cao, G. D. Love, M. E. Bottcher, R. J. Twitchett, E. Grosjean, R. E. Summons, S. C. Turgeon, W. Dunning, and Y. Jin (2005)
Science 307, 706-709

Abrupt and Gradual Extinction Among Late Permian Land Vertebrates in the Karoo Basin, South Africa.
P. D. Ward, J. Botha, R. Buick, M. O. De Kock, D. H. Erwin, G. H. Garrison, J. L. Kirschvink, and R. Smith (2005)
Science 307, 709-714

Evidence for sulfidic deep water during the Late Permian in the East Greenland Basin.
J. K. Nielsen and Y. Shen (2004)
Geology 32, 1037-1040

Origination, extinction, and mass depletions of marine diversity.
(2004)
Paleobiology 30, 522-542

Large Perturbations of the Carbon Cycle During Recovery from the End-Permian Extinction.
J. L. Payne, D. J. Lehrmann, J. Wei, M. J. Orchard, D. P. Schrag, and A. H. Knoll (2004)
Science 305, 506-509

The Evolution of Modern Eukaryotic Phytoplankton.
P. G. Falkowski, M. E. Katz, A. H. Knoll, A. Quigg, J. A. Raven, O. Schofield, and F. J. R. Taylor (2004)
Science 305, 354-360

Marine carbon reservoir, Corg-Ccarb coupling, and the evolution of the Proterozoic carbon cycle.
J. K. Bartley and L. C. Kah (2004)
Geology 32, 129-132

Comment--Contrasting Deep-water Records from the Upper Permian and Lower Triassic of South Tibet and British Columbia: Evidence for a Diachronous Mass Extinction (Wignall and Newton, 2003).
(2004)
Palaios 19, 101-102

Energy budget of hepatocytes from Antarctic fish (Pachycara brachycephalum and Lepidonotothen kempi) as a function of ambient CO2: pH-dependent limitations of cellular protein biosynthesis?.
M. Langenbuch and H. O. Portner (2003)
J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3895-3903

Permian-Triassic boundary interval as a model for forcing marine ecosystem collapse by long-term atmospheric oxygen drop.
O. Weidlich, W. Kiessling, and E. Flugel (2003)
Geology 31, 961-964

Vertebrate extinction across Permian-Triassic boundary in Karoo Basin, South Africa.
G. J. Retallack, R. M.H. Smith, and P. D. Ward (2003)
Geological Society of America Bulletin 115, 1133-1152

Stratigraphic investigations of carbon isotope anomalies and Neoproterozoic ice ages in Death Valley, California.
F. A. Corsetti and A. J. Kaufman (2003)
Geological Society of America Bulletin 115, 916-932

Dynamics of the Neoproterozoic carbon cycle.
D. H. Rothman, J. M. Hayes, and R. E. Summons (2003)
PNAS 100, 8124-8129

Changes in organic matter production and accumulation as a mechanism for isotopic evolution in the Mesoproterozoic ocean.
T. D. Frank, T. D. FRANK, L. C. KAH, and T. W. LYONS (2003)
Geological Magazine 140, 397-420

High-Precision U-Pb Zircon Geochronology and the Stratigraphic Record.
S. A. Bowring, S. A. Bowring, and M. D. Schmitz (2003)
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 53, 305-326

Biomineralization and Evolutionary History.
A. H. Knoll and A. H. Knoll (2003)
Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 54, 329-356

Land-plant diversity and the end-Permian mass extinction.
P. M. Rees (2002)
Geology 30, 827-830

Anatomical and ecological constraints on Phanerozoic animal diversity in the marine realm.
R. K. Bambach, A. H. Knoll, and J. J. Sepkoski Jr. (2002)
PNAS 99, 6854-6859

Examination of hypotheses for the Permo-Triassic boundary extinction by carbon cycle modeling.
R. A. Berner (2002)
PNAS 99, 4172-4177

Carbon isotope anomaly and other geochemical changes at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary from a marine section in Hungary.
J. Palfy, A. Demeny, J. Haas, M. Hetenyi, M. J. Orchard, and I. Veto (2001)
Geology 29, 1047-1050

An Extraterrestrial Impact at the Permian-Triassic Boundary?.
K. A. Farley, S. Mukhopadhyay, Y. Isozaki, L. Becker, and R. J. Poreda (2001)
Science 293, 2343a-2343

Glacial incursion on a Neoproterozoic carbonate platform in the Kimberley region, Australia.
M. L. Corkeron and A. D. George (2001)
Geological Society of America Bulletin 113, 1121-1132

Impact Event at the Permian-Triassic Boundary: Evidence from Extraterrestrial Noble Gases in Fullerenes.
L. Becker, R. J. Poreda, A. G. Hunt, T. E. Bunch, and M. Rampino (2001)
Science 291, 1530-1533

Biotic Recovery from the End-Permian Mass Extinction: Behavior of the Inarticulate Brachiopod Lingula as a Disaster Taxon.
(2001)
Palaios 16, 95-101

Ocean stagnation and end-Permian anoxia.
R. M. Hotinski, K. L. Bice, L. R. Kump, R. G. Najjar, and M. A. Arthur (2001)
Geology 29, 7-10

Altered River Morphology in South Africa Related to the Permian-Triassic Extinction.
P. D. Ward, D. R. Montgomery, and R. Smith (2000)
Science 289, 1740-1743

Evaporitic Subtidal Stromatolites Produced by in situ Precipitation: Textures, Facies Associations, and Temporal Significance.
(2000)
Journal of Sedimentary Research 70, 1139-1151

Timing of mammal-like reptile extinctions across the Permian-Triassic boundary in South Africa.
K. G. MacLeod, R. M. H. Smith, P. L. Koch, and P. D. Ward (2000)
Geology 28, 227-230

The Source and Fate of Massive Carbon Input During the Latest Paleocene Thermal Maximum.
M. E. Katz, D. K. Pak, G. R. Dickens, and K. G. Miller (1999)
Science 286, 1531-1533

Evolution of Complexity in Paleozoic Ammonoid Sutures.
W. B. Saunders, D. M. Work, and S. V. Nikolaeva (1999)
Science 286, 760-763

The tempo of mass extinction and recovery: The end-Permian example.
S. A. Bowring, D. H. Erwin, and Y. Isozaki (1999)
PNAS 96, 8827-8828

A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth.
P. F. Hoffman, A. J. Kaufman, G. P. Halverson, and D. P. Schrag (1998)
Science 281, 1342-1346

Biogeochemical Controls and Feedbacks on Ocean Primary Production.
P. G. Falkowski, R. T. Barber, and V. Smetacek (1998)
Science 281, 200-206

U/Pb Zircon Geochronology and Tempo of the End-Permian Mass Extinction.
S. A. Bowring, D. H. Erwin, Y. G. Jin, M. W. Martin, K. Davidek, and W. Wang (1998)
Science 280, 1039-1045

Relics and antiquity revisited in the modern vent fauna.
A. G. McArthur and V. Tunnicliffe (1998)
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 148, 271-291

Isotopes, ice ages, and terminal Proterozoic earth history.
A. J. Kaufman, A. H. Knoll, and G. M. Narbonne (1997)
PNAS 94, 6600-6605

Permo-Triassic Boundary Superanoxia and Stratified Superocean: Records from Lost Deep Sea.
Y. Isozaki (1997)
Science 276, 235-238

Examination of hypotheses for the Permo-Triassic boundary extinction by carbon cycle modeling.
R. A. Berner (2002)
PNAS 99, 4172-4177

30 to 100 years isn't a generation. 25 to 30 years is a generation. No mass extinction has ever killed "all species". You are telling other people to be scientific but you aren't scientific yourself in the least, and you've just qualified your original statement from being hysterically silly to being slightly less silly.

The trouble with climate change campaigners making ridiculous claims are numerous. First, you harm your own argument and encourage scepticism by making outlandish claims that can be easily disproven in short periods of time. It is posts like yours that have reduced belief in climate change over the past few years..

Second, you mistake ecology with environment. To protect the ecology you have to protect the species, and if you solely try to protect the environment then you will lose both (Wilsons Law). So by attacking animal rights you are indirectly attacking the fight against global warming.

Third, methane is a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If the animal rights people had their way and no more domesticated animals were bred from the current generation then there would be no anthropologic global warming. So you are directly harming your own argument by attacking animal rights.

No scientist, not even any that you have listed, would think of you as worthy of lecturing anyone about science. Animal rights people have correctly identified and targetted the industry that contributes most greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide is a direct measure of a number of activities that contribute to global warming. This would certainly rank below methane in promoting global warming. Animals are the largest producers of methane and termites are the largest living producers of methane. More important again than both methane and carbon dioxide is water vapour. The truth is that you cannot take any one factor as being isolated. Just as in your red herring distinction between environment and ecology: the two are inseparable and the factors are inseparable. Using ecology in the way you do distracts from the fact that it is a science. Sometimes the facts are inconvenient and compromise all the ideological constructs that are created. Unfortunately for much of what is percieved as "animal rights" this has happened. It is no longer sufficient to quote Bentham and ask "do they suffer?" - animal rights needs to move on.

No mass extinction has ever left those in central nodes of any ecological web untouched. If a mass extinction resulted from climate change then the mammals that animal rights activists see as important will die: bigger living things die first as their niche is more specialised. Which might well leave the overwhelming number of small animals - microbes, zooplankton, insects - intact. But it will also ensure the death of million of different kinds of plants. I have no doubt that life will survive: life is very good at survival. I also have no illusions: life does not need to include mammals. It is not alarmist to suppose that this can all take place within the next thirty to one hundred years. It is called a scientific hypothesis.

Research cited supports a relationship between niche change and extinction - I would not need to lecture anybody on the science of it. It is called Evolution. Biological scientists accept the idea without being lectured. Other disciplines accept that biologists probably know what they are talking about. There is an antiscientific stance that suits the ruling classes. Just look at George Bush: proud of putting religion into the science class room. Yes, scientists benefit from learning ethics, but not necessarily from the big, middle class, white, old bloke in the sky ethics.

The point that you resist is the underlying point: there is no special case for animal rights. The State and related Corporations have used databases for quite some time to keep tabs on quite a variety of people. Scientists, mathematicians and engineers are also not required back. The State makes a special case for each: because it then becomes easier to manage.

"Just as in your red herring distinction between environment and ecology: the two are inseparable and the factors are inseparable."

It's not my red-herring ( surely the only type of herring that will survive indefinitely ).

 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327224.600-e-o-wilson-we-must-save-the-living-environment.html
It sounds immodest but I call it Wilson's law. It says that if you save the living environment, you will automatically save the physical environment. But if you only try to save the physical environment, you will lose them both. That is a defensible law.

"I have no doubt that life will survive: life is very good at survival."

So why did you contradict that by first claiming "In a generation all species could all be dead from global climate change" - and why did your definition of a generation change so quickly? Sure, I could guess what you meant, but in a post critical of someone elses science it would help if you were accurate and didn't resort to damaging exaggeration.

"It is not alarmist to suppose that this can all take place within the next thirty to one hundred years".

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece
Environmental lobbyists, politicians, researchers and journalists who distort climate science to support an agenda erode public understanding and play into the hands of sceptics,

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8329612.stm
The author of the 2006 Stern Review into the cost of climate change attacked the "enormous pressure" meat production puts on the world's resources and said people were becoming increasingly aware about "low carbon consumption".

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6895907.ece
Methane’s impact on global temperatures is about a third higher than generally thought because previous estimates have not accounted for its interaction with airborne particles called aerosols, Nasa scientists found. When this indirect effect of the potent greenhouse gas is included one tonne of methane has about 33 times as much effect on the climate over 100 years as a tonne of carbon dioxide, rather than 25 times as in standard estimates.

"This would certainly rank below methane in promoting global warming."
More so today. That's the funny thing about science, it generally has to admit when it was wrong. I think the scientific term is 'the learning process'.

"The point that you resist is the underlying point: there is no special case for animal rights."

Was that your (deeply buried) underlying point? Why go on about them being anti-science then? Your unscientific criticism of their science is like criticising another posters spelling or grammar while employing poor spelling and grammar. A bit embarrassing, no?
Sure, the original article was a bit hyperbolic, but far less so than your subsequent post. The truth is among activists who post on Indymedia, the highest level of police oppression over the past decades was targetted at AR folk.

Apart from all your other scientific inaccuracies, can't you see it is just plainly insulting to all our intelligence to imply that AR folk can't or don't care about other issues such as global warming when it's obvious they have been by default at the forefront of that particluar issue since it's inception? Wouldn't a smart person like yourself instead be better finding common-cause across different issues, such as suggesting joint actions against the meat industry?

EO Wilson is regarded as being about as far right as you get in ecology. He remarked that Marx had communism right but the species wrong. "Wilsons Law" - that if you protect the living things then you protect the non living things - is an adaptionist counterfactual with little supporting evidence.

As to alarmism: if there was a good deal more respect given to the practice of science, then scientists would not be turned into the bearers of moral panic every time they speak. Lets face facts: the mainstream media turn everything into a catastrophe. The truth of the fragility of life on this planet is this: "two miles down and you burn to death, two miles up and your freeze to death". I call this Pratchetts Law. The sun could have exploded eight minutes ago and we would not know for another thirty seconds. I see scientific facts such as that as not being something to get in a lather about. The media does because it pushes units.

As to calling for unified action: first thing to accept is that there is no special case for animal rights. Same can be said of climate change protest. The fact is the original article claims that there is. Repeatedly animal rights activists assert some special case. There is no special case. There never was. There never will be. It is a liberal affectation. The cherry picking of arguments for rhetorical affect (yes: affect not effect). In the same way that you claim it is "my science" and put forward an ad hominem that because I am arrogant that the science must be wrong you put forward arguments about carbon dioxide and methane and ignore water vapour (the other name for the aerosols in the atmosphere).

There is no special case to be made for animal rights because the issues fall under and inside a much larger issue. Choose to ignore it because it does not suit your ecofascism (which is, broadly and possibly wrongly what one might, rhetrorically, conclude from the support for EO Wilson) and treat it as something that can be argued out of existence. it can not. Animal rights activists need to concede that, quite simply, their cause is better served by devoting their energies elsewhere to other more embracing causes. To actually having what used to be called class consciousness before the liberals managed to uninvent the working classes and sold the lie that the personal is political is all you need to consider.

Basically, there is no special case for animal rights. It is becoming a managed political and cultural ghetto that gives any organisation with the resources practice in control and oppression. Exactly the opposite of what animal rights activists claim to support. By resisting solidarity with others that might argue (heaven forbid) animal rights activists are basic model useful idiots because the state is using their mistakes to repress others. In basic evolutionary terms: the survival of any cause might cause the exinction of other causes. Currently, animal rights is promoting the extinction of the mildly radicalised.

You will not like the analysis that starts emerging in the next few years as Scientists start getting fed up with the utter drivel that non-scientists peddle. Things such as a small amount of meat in the diet might actually reduce the carbon footprint far more significantly than a vegan diet. A vegan diet has a lower carbon impact when practiced by the privileged few. But when practiced by the entire planet? Well, the indications are that it replaces the "meat industry" with the "human meat industry". Scientists can, do and increasingly will say things that are not popular.

>"EO Wilson is regarded as being about as far right as you get in ecology. He remarked that Marx had communism right but the species wrong."

What a wonderfully absurd assertion, no offence intended. How far-right can you go in ecology? We should probably keep an eye on Wilsons work to check that he isn't responsible for the swarms of man-eating ants in Africa. Do we even have any proof any Africans were ever eaten by ants before he started started training them to do his evil bidding?

>"Wilsons Law" - that if you protect the living things then you protect the non living things - is an adaptionist counterfactual with little supporting evidence.

He goes further than that, he states that if you only try to protect the cardboard box without caring about the kittens inside the box then you'll not only lose the kittens then the box will be ruined too. That's an experiment you can try at home, but don't tell the AR folk.

>"As to alarmism: if there was a good deal more respect given to the practice of science, then scientists would not be turned into the bearers of moral panic every time they speak."

Especially when people who don't know how long a generation is say things like 'all species will be dead in a generation.

>"Lets face facts: the mainstream media turn everything into a catastrophe. The truth of the fragility of life on this planet is this: "two miles down and you burn to death, two miles up and your freeze to death".

I doubt I would know about it even in those thirty seconds, even if I was awake. Sure, the sky is on fire and my skin is melting, but scientifically speaking that could be any number of nuclear related things, I wouldn't want to jump to false conclusions without any supporting evidence. NASA don't have me on speed-dial.

>"I call this Pratchetts Law. The sun could have exploded eight minutes ago and we would not know for another thirty seconds."

You call that Pratchets law do you though? You are such an established scientist that you feel free to claim established facts and rename those established facts 'laws'? And you chose to name that one after a nuclear press officer? That's very ecological of you. Nothing wrong with man-made nuclear radiation after all. The ants love it.

>"I see scientific facts such as that as not being something to get in a lather about."

It is an established scientific fact that if you torture me, I'll get in a lather about that. That may just apply to animals being tortured too. There is a theory that some of them can feel pain.

>"The media does because it pushes units."
So the journalists are to blame, not the AR folk?

>"As to calling for unified action: first thing to accept is that there is no special case for animal rights. Same can be said of climate change protest. The fact is the original article claims that there is".

The fact I see is police treated AR folk differently for decades, and the original article was correct to point that out.

"Repeatedly animal rights activists assert some special case. There is no special case. There never was. There never will be."

As do any activists in any cause when they get excited so you still seem like a nit-picker when you are able to understand the gist of what was being said.

>"It is a liberal affectation."

Careful now, you are exposing yourself unintentionally. 'Liberal' is a bad word since when? If I was controlling your food or water or oxygen supply, you would object if I was too 'liberal' with it? You'd prefer if I was 'conservative'?

>"The cherry picking of arguments for rhetorical affect (yes: affect not effect)."
Wow, thanks for indicating you know the difference between two commonly mispelled words. That certainly raises you above the level of the sort of moron who doesn't even know how long the term 'generation' means when criticising othe peoples science.

>"In the same way that you claim it is "my science" and put forward an ad hominem that because I am arrogant that the science must be wrong you put forward arguments about carbon dioxide and methane and ignore water vapour (the other name for the aerosols in the atmosphere)".

Yup, water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, even unworthy idiots like me know that. I even know most water vapour comes from the seas. Therefore King Canute was a visionary by declaring war on the seas.

>"There is no special case to be made for animal rights because the issues fall under and inside a much larger issue. Choose to ignore it because it does not suit your ecofascism (which is, broadly and possibly wrongly what one might, rhetrorically, conclude from the support for EO Wilson) and treat it as something that can be argued out of existence.

Possibly wrongly - or obviously wrongly? I agree with and 'support' Wilsons law, not Wilson or your interpretation of him. My rotting kittens have already ruined my cardboard box.
Despite me stating from the start that I'm not an AR activist, you know have labelled me a possible eco-fascist yet I don't even know what that means. Do they paint Zebras black stripes white? Are they happy to eat and torture animals that aren't indigineous to Northern Europe?


>" it can not. Animal rights activists need to concede that, quite simply, their cause is better served by devoting their energies elsewhere to other more embracing causes. To actually having what used to be called class consciousness before the liberals managed to uninvent the working classes and sold the lie that the personal is political is all you need to consider."

All right, you are going to have to correct that statement so that I can mock it, because it makes no sense. You seem to be claiming that the liberals invented the working class but you know better because you already had 'class-consciousness' before that. Is that also from a Terry Pratchett comedy?

>"Basically, there is no special case for animal rights. It is becoming a managed political and cultural ghetto that gives any organisation with the resources practice in control and oppression. Exactly the opposite of what animal rights activists claim to support. "

Basically, that is all you have said that isn't ridiculous, and you so you need to repeat it to help cover all the more idiotic things you are saying. Given it is a lie and a strawman though, since I've never heard of many AR folk seriously claiming exclusivity of that issue at the exclusion of other.

>"By resisting solidarity with others that might argue (heaven forbid) animal rights activists are basic model useful idiots because the state is using their mistakes to repress others. In basic evolutionary terms: the survival of any cause might cause the exinction of other causes".

Yeah I can dig that. Sort of like when self-proclaimed 'Greens' betrayed anti-war actions to the detriment of everyone?

>"Currently, animal rights is promoting the extinction of the mildly radicalised".

Save the mildy radicalised - great campaign slogan. That is true too, but to claim that sort of absolutism is exclusive to animal rights is utter nonsense in my experience.

>"You will not like the analysis that starts emerging in the next few years as Scientists start getting fed up with the utter drivel that non-scientists peddle".

So it will be a war between capital S Scientists against the rest of life? Business as usual then.

>"Things such as a small amount of meat in the diet might actually reduce the carbon footprint far more significantly than a vegan diet.

To use a possibly appropriate speciesest term, bullshit.

>"A vegan diet has a lower carbon impact when practiced by the privileged few".

Sure, lot's of people reducing meat consumption has a higher carbon impact than one person abstaining, but that is yet another strawman argument. Most poor people have very little access to meat. For instance the sort of Indian takeways we eat in the UK are still unheard of for the mass of the indian population where meat is a rare accompiament to a meal, not the main part of it like here. Historically and currently it is the rich elite who eat most meat, not the reverse. Your bias is showing again.

>"But when practiced by the entire planet? Well, the indications are that it replaces the "meat industry" with the "human meat industry".

Wow again. You are now suggesting that there are signs that the less people eat animal meat the more they eat human flesh? Do you suppose Paul Macartney ate the fifth Beetle - maybe even Linda and Heathers leg? That new vegetarians start picturing every human as a walking cooked chicken like in cartoons?

>"Scientists can, do and increasingly will say things that are not popular".

No, that is just you, and you are no scientist. You are 100% correct science is a good thing, so please try to learn the basics, starting with basic logic.

Realistically, that is the most unscientific claim you can make. You know. Not hypothesise or suppose. You know. Sounds a bit like faith to me. But then, I am not permitted to publically hold opinions contrary to the received opinions of "Scientist bad, not scientist good".

I shall hand back my doctorate and we can say no more about it. Better still, I should also unlearn what science (obviously very little because you have decided so) and cease doing anything useful with it. After all science and technology is not important when one has a political axe to grind - as your repeated claims of my utter wickedness prove.

You might want to look up the pedigree of liberalism before you start handing out political labels. Just a hunch, Machiavelli, Evola, Locke, Hayek and Burke and a whole host of others - including a lot of people committed to free trade and private property - all espoused liberalism. In fact, Margaret Thatcher was proud of her liberal roots. Maybe you confused liberal with radical just as you confuse rhetoric with science.

I made a point that was defensible: there is no special case for animal rights activists. You chose to conflate that with whatever else you thought of: that I must be picking personal fights or that I must obviously be a police troll or whatever else you suppose retains your convictions while ensuring others are wrong. Each time you were wrong. Each time you were obviously wrong you changed tack. Just because you need to be right. I have no such need.

Lovely job of editing the previous post. Makes it look as though you are actually sustaining an argument. Lovely point of supposing that "Wilsons Law" is anything like a law. It is nothing but a counterfactual (a logical term meaning "if this is true then I claim that is true" - but now, under your instruction I have to forget things like that) just as Pratchetts Law (Professor Stewart the mathematician seems to have used the term jokingly some years ago. I simply said that is what I call it not that I originated it).

As I pointed out: I have no need to be right. If I win an argument on the internet it is much the same as winning at the special olympics: the winner is still retarded. I have no need to be right I can acknowledge I am retarded right this minute.

I would thank you for the lesson in liberal toleration except I find liberal accommodation of totalitarianism repulsive. Liberalism is an object lesson in obstructing change and promoting obedience. It is the same kind of object lesson that single issue groups give to reactionaries everywhere: protest loudly where you will be least effective. Keep up the good work with your liberal affectations of the personal is political so the state - in all its guises - can keep us all safe from actual thought.

(ps Your last response was fucking hilarious. I know that you have a vested interest in others views being taken seriously. But I really do not need them to be: I am not asking for any special case to be made for them.)

Sorry what exactly was your point? Was it that the pet industry has a huge carbon footprint? Was it that we should not have a pet industry? If so I agree with you there and strongly suspect that the entire animal rights movement will as well.The only "pets" I know of in the animal rights movements are rescues and often dumped on us.

WTF has the fact that most "pet owners" buy animals, feed them other animals and don't care about their impact on the environment got to do with anything? We know thanks very much.

If you were trying to make some point saying that animal rights activists approve of the pet industry then you are a fool. We want all domestic animals to be phased out to enable wild creatures to flourish, to enable millions of people to be fed, to lower humankinds carbon, water and everything else footprint and to stop the hoffific cruelty which animal abuse industries indulge in.

Another Specture you make alot of posts about what you don't like but what do you think should be done? Afterall criticising something is all well and good but it certainly does get tiring when you don't appear to be proposing anything positive in return. I'm not asking for a political manifesto, just some basic positive pointers.

Btw to the poster under the name of 'Danny', your posts have been of very good quality, its good to see atleast one brain cell floating around Indymedia :-p