http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm

What do you think?

The worst are criminials and rest are black/white thinkers with too much angst.

"The Last Twisted Molecule On Earth?
This meditation on the plight of our fellow species leads to one of the few precise, and potentially falsifiable, predictions to be hazarded here about the next couple of thousand years. At some momentous and exactly datable time, I would surmise well before the end of the fourth millennium and possibly even the third, the last unpleasant experience ever to occur on this planet will take place, possibly a (purely comparatively) minor pain in some (to us) obscure marine invertebrate.

For just as the smallpox virus was systematically hunted down to extinction, so the precise molecular signature(s) of aversive experience and its predisposing genes can predictably be hunted down and wiped out as well. The systematic application of nanotechnology, self-reproducing micro- miniaturised robots armed with supercomputer processing power, and ultra-sophisticated genetic engineering, perhaps using retro-viral vectors, will assure the eradication of the root of all evil in its naturalistic guise.

It might be supposed that pain and unhappiness take such myriad forms that an impossibly large hotchpotch of biochemical reactions will have to be eliminated before the emancipatory project can be complete. The difficulty, and more controversially the impossibility, of establishing non-trivial type-type identities between physical and higher mental states would seem only to make the problem worse. In one respect at least, however, the many faces of misery are deceptive. Like the various nominal sources of happiness, they foster a genetically adaptive illusion born of the way the basic neural processes which mediate emotion physically infiltrate and infuse the neo-cortex. Millions of years of DNA-driven encephalisation of emotion have obscured its primitive substrates. In striking at the ancient limbic motors of despair, neural re-engineering should induce their legion of cognitive hangers-on to dissipate too. First in humans and, progressing "down" the phylogenetic tree, eventually in every non-human metazoan as well, all of the incomprehensibly disparate modes of experience undergone should share the property of being, at the very least, generically delightful. And a uniquely vile era in the history of the world will have drawn to a close."

huh?

buh? guh? sneff.

Now that is a twisted piece of rhetoric. :)

Although I rarely have moral qualms with their actions, I think their tactics are at this point inappropriate (they amount, largely, to bad PR). Also, if they are biocentrist, I probably break with them philosophically, but that kind of disagreement is likely of little consequence.

ebola

http://www.hedweb.com/alffaq.htm

What do you think?

About ALF or the (AFAIK) transhumanist project of eliminating pain?

"The Last Twisted Molecule On Earth?
This meditation on the plight of our fellow species leads to one of the few precise, and potentially falsifiable, predictions to be hazarded here about the next couple of thousand years. At some momentous and exactly datable time, I would surmise well before the end of the fourth millennium and possibly even the third, the last unpleasant experience ever to occur on this planet will take place, possibly a (purely comparatively) minor pain in some (to us) obscure marine invertebrate.

For just as the smallpox virus was systematically hunted down to extinction, so the precise molecular signature(s) of aversive experience and its predisposing genes can predictably be hunted down and wiped out as well. The systematic application of nanotechnology, self-reproducing micro- miniaturised robots armed with supercomputer processing power, and ultra-sophisticated genetic engineering, perhaps using retro-viral vectors, will assure the eradication of the root of all evil in its naturalistic guise.

It might be supposed that pain and unhappiness take such myriad forms that an impossibly large hotchpotch of biochemical reactions will have to be eliminated before the emancipatory project can be complete. The difficulty, and more controversially the impossibility, of establishing non-trivial type-type identities between physical and higher mental states would seem only to make the problem worse. In one respect at least, however, the many faces of misery are deceptive. Like the various nominal sources of happiness, they foster a genetically adaptive illusion born of the way the basic neural processes which mediate emotion physically infiltrate and infuse the neo-cortex. Millions of years of DNA-driven encephalisation of emotion have obscured its primitive substrates. In striking at the ancient limbic motors of despair, neural re-engineering should induce their legion of cognitive hangers-on to dissipate too. First in humans and, progressing "down" the phylogenetic tree, eventually in every non-human metazoan as well, all of the incomprehensibly disparate modes of experience undergone should share the property of being, at the very least, generically delightful. And a uniquely vile era in the history of the world will have drawn to a close."

I don't know if I'm confused, or really turned on, and I don't care.

:D

The Rev

About ALF or the (AFAIK) transhumanist project of eliminating pain?

Both, I guess. And also, the support group.

ALF - No respect. They do nothing to bring poitive attention to the issue and to educate people about the problem. It builds bad PR and create a negative attitude towards other, more civil, animal rights groups that can actaully accomplish things.


That other thing...yeah i gave up reading that crazy wack job theory or whatever it is.

I haven't really formed an opinion of them yet. I don't know much about them, but I do know that violent/destructive behavior is not helpful in social change.

What I think of them changes nothing.

I would guess that ALF hurts more animals than they help. Because of the impact on the general public, when they save one animal more people view "animal rights groups" as militant psychos. Thus, invoking broad changes becomes more difficult. To save the one animal they could reach through forcefull means, they will hurt animals on a much larger scale by not allowing others to imrpove their environment in a less drastic fassion.

My thing about the ALF is that I fully support them breaking into facilities and rescuing lab animals. I just wish they'd stop destroying property (more than necessary to break in, that is) because that is giving us all a bad name. I don't think destroying property makes up economically for the PR hit the AR movement gets for it.

My thing about the ALF is that I fully support them breaking into facilities and rescuing lab animals. I just wish they'd stop destroying property (more than necessary to break in, that is) because that is giving us all a bad name. I don't think destroying property makes up economically for the PR hit the AR movement gets for it.

I agree with you here. Breaking into a lab to rescue animals is fine IMHO, but destroying property and threatening people with bodily harm etc... is way over the top. They make A/R activists look like nutjobs.

I haven't really formed an opinion of them yet. I don't know much about them, but I do know that violent/destructive behavior is not helpful in social change.

I am not asking if it is "right", but has violent or destructive behavior never been helpful to social change? I find that hard to believe.

I am not asking if it is "right", but has violent or destructive behavior never been helpful to social change? I find that hard to believe.

Its funny how Americans celebrate the Boston Tea Party as an act of patriotism/rebellion while condemning ALF for essentially following the same tactics.

It's important to note that the ALF is not a hierarchical or even structured organisation. Each cell is more or less autonomous and act as they feel is right. One ALF cell may justify threatening vivisectors or exposing share holders addresses while other ALF cells would find this abhorent and stick to destroying vivisectionist equipment.

I've spent a lot of time with ALF folks in California and by and large, they are level headed, passionate people. They simply can't sit by and watch as thousands of animals are tortured in their area.

The analogy used is 'What would you do if you lived next door to Auschwitz in 1944? Sit back and watch as thousands of innocents were executed or attempt to strike a blow against the executioners or prehaps free a few from certain death'.

The ALF folks I knew acknowledged that there are many routes to victory and that a peaceful non-violent approach is best. However, that peaceful non-violent approach has garnered little, if any, progress in the US in the last 50 years of animal activism. In other words, the peaceful non-violent approach is not working.

However, by taking direct action against targetted labs and other installations, it has caused the vivisectors to expend money on increasing security and replacing wrecked equipment which would otherwise be spent on tortuting animals. It has also caused the insurance premiums to be raised in vivisection labs. In short, these actions cause the price of vivisection to be raised, in some cases so high that labs have been closed or not built at all. That is a real result.

The founding fathers of the USA did not achieve their goals by sitting crosslegged on a lawn holding a sign and singing kumbaya. They got results through direct, illegal action against their opponents. That's what ALF does.

Sing what?

Sing what?

http://www.peterpaulandmary.com/music/20-13.htm

Traditional song used in non-violent protests since the vietnam war era.

Its funny how Americans celebrate the Boston Tea Party as an act of patriotism/rebellion while condemning ALF for essentially following the same tactics.

It's important to note that the ALF is not a hierarchical or even structured organisation. Each cell is more or less autonomous and act as they feel is right. One ALF cell may justify threatening vivisectors or exposing share holders addresses while other ALF cells would find this abhorent and stick to destroying vivisectionist equipment.

I've spent a lot of time with ALF folks in California and by and large, they are level headed, passionate people. They simply can't sit by and watch as thousands of animals are tortured in their area.

The analogy used is 'What would you do if you lived next door to Auschwitz in 1944? Sit back and watch as thousands of innocents were executed or attempt to strike a blow against the executioners or prehaps free a few from certain death'.

The ALF folks I knew acknowledged that there are many routes to victory and that a peaceful non-violent approach is best. However, that peaceful non-violent approach has garnered little, if any, progress in the US in the last 50 years of animal activism. In other words, the peaceful non-violent approach is not working.

However, by taking direct action against targetted labs and other installations, it has caused the vivisectors to expend money on increasing security and replacing wrecked equipment which would otherwise be spent on tortuting animals. It has also caused the insurance premiums to be raised in vivisection labs. In short, these actions cause the price of vivisection to be raised, in some cases so high that labs have been closed or not built at all. That is a real result.

The founding fathers of the USA did not achieve their goals by sitting crosslegged on a lawn holding a sign and singing kumbaya. They got results through direct, illegal action against their opponents. That's what ALF does.
True. All good points. I suppose I overstated in saying that violent/destructive behavior is not helpful in social change when clearly it has been throughout history. I think the difference with AR is that ALF is destroying property and making violent threats all in the name of compassion, which as you can see appears hipocritical and that is what hurts the movement imo. I personally have nothing against the org. Like I said I don't know much about them, but anyone who not only fights for, but risks their own freedom to help/save animals is a badass in my book.

I think the difference with AR is that ALF is destroying property and making violent threats all in the name of compassion, which as you can see appears hipocritical and that is what hurts the movement imo.

What is there about destruction of property that appears hypocritical? I understand why arson is opposed but what about e.g. destruction of lab equipment?

Economically speaking, I'm not sure if there is any fundamental difference between stealing "property" (rescuing animals) and destroying property (lab equipment). So even if the motivations are somewhat different, they cause the same kind of economical harm.

Its funny how Americans celebrate the Boston Tea Party as an act of patriotism/rebellion while condemning ALF for essentially following the same tactics.

I don't know the specifics of the Boston Tea Party, but yes I can agree that we pick and choose what is patriotism and what is terrorism. The FBI recently announced that the ALF and other extreme AR and environmental organizations are the #1 domestic terrorist threat to the US today! Yet, no one has ever been killed by any of them....their logic is baffling. An agenda is obviously at work here.

It's important to note that the ALF is not a hierarchical or even structured organisation. Each cell is more or less autonomous and act as they feel is right. One ALF cell may justify threatening vivisectors or exposing share holders addresses while other ALF cells would find this abhorent and stick to destroying vivisectionist equipment.

Good point.

I've spent a lot of time with ALF folks in California and by and large, they are level headed, passionate people. They simply can't sit by and watch as thousands of animals are tortured in their area.

That's quite understandable.

The analogy used is 'What would you do if you lived next door to Auschwitz in 1944? Sit back and watch as thousands of innocents were executed or attempt to strike a blow against the executioners or prehaps free a few from certain death'.

Aye, but it stops there. The destruction of property is not an equivalent to freeing potential victims, however.

The ALF folks I knew acknowledged that there are many routes to victory and that a peaceful non-violent approach is best. However, that peaceful non-violent approach has garnered little, if any, progress in the US in the last 50 years of animal activism. In other words, the peaceful non-violent approach is not working.

I disagree. Quite a bit of progress has been made in the last 20 years alone. Many companies no longer test on animals. You RARELY see anyone wearing fur in the US. People actually know what a vegan is. Many restaurants have veg*n options and there are restaurants with all veg*n menus. I'm sure the percentage of veg*ns in the US has gone up significantly (but I don't have numbers, sorry...it's just obvious).

No, all the animals aren't free from tyranny yet. However, quite a bit has happened. Is it enough? *shrug* It's progress. It takes time. No civil rights movement happened overnight. This one will be harder because animals are further removed from humans than other types of humans. Patience.

However, by taking direct action against targetted labs and other installations, it has caused the vivisectors to expend money on increasing security and replacing wrecked equipment which would otherwise be spent on tortuting animals. It has also caused the insurance premiums to be raised in vivisection labs. In short, these actions cause the price of vivisection to be raised, in some cases so high that labs have been closed or not built at all. That is a real result.

How can you be sure of this? How many labs have been closed due to ALF activities? How many have not come to be because of the ALF? I disagree that the money used for security or for equipment is taken out of the funds allotted for animal testing. I used to prepare medical research grants and funding was always determined by category. The amount granted for animal procurement, supplies, equipment, personnel, etc. were all seperately determined. Perhaps the insurance companies make some more money at the expense of the grant benefactors, but is that really a step forward?

The founding fathers of the USA did not achieve their goals by sitting crosslegged on a lawn holding a sign and singing kumbaya. They got results through direct, illegal action against their opponents. That's what ALF does.

It's not that illegal actions are always wrong. The liberation of animals is a very worthy cause. It's the destruction of property and scare tactics I have issues with. Just think of how different the PR for AR would be if we simply broke into labs with minimal property damage and freed the animals and took any necessary evidence (video tapes, etc). and left the rest alone? People can sympathize the freeing tortured animals. It's very hard to win anyone over by burning down buildings and smashing up equipment.

What is there about destruction of property that appears hypocritical? I understand why arson is opposed but what about e.g. destruction of lab equipment?

Surely, the hyprocrisy of showing compassion toward animals and threatening harm to humans hasn't been lost on you. When it comes to the destruction of property - it may not be a violent act, but it's not exactly an act of compassion, either.

Economically speaking, I'm not sure if there is any fundamental difference between stealing "property" (rescuing animals) and destroying property (lab equipment). So even if the motivations are somewhat different, they cause the same kind of economical harm.

But it's not about economics. It's about saving lives. It's hard to encourage others to think of animals as living creatures if you're going to use their status as "property" to justify anyone's actions. You can't have it both ways. If you want others to stop thinking of them as property, don't equate them to it when arguing for your cause.

One ironic fact about our society, especially in the US, is how much more important Property, Wealth, and Cheap Products are than life, INCLUDING human life. Sweatshop labor is ethically equivalent to slavery, yet is involved in much of our food, clothing, and Walmart products. We wage war and kill thousands of innocent people to guarantee our cheap oil. Billions of animals are killed annually for various reasons in the US alone, but if relatively little Property is damaged – OMG! – those terrorists! If every animal’s life was ethically worth even $1, we would lose billions annually and people would be outraged at the loss of Money. Our society’s priorities are Property/Wealth and then the lowly environment. Nonhuman animals are not even on the radar screen.

That said, as people who want change, I agree that we lose moral authority and become hypocritical the more violent we get. At this point we need more public support and moral authority is important to gain it. So, while I don’t have an issue with smashing lab equipment and especially saving lab animals, I think bombing and burning, while it may close down a few companies, might diminish moral authority and cause backlash in public opinion enough not to be worth the companies it closes down. PR campaigns, education, and outreach will make change without damage to the AR movement’s credibility, especially at this early stage.

When bombing and burning and threats do occur though, and they will regardless of how much it is condemned, ARAs should write letters focusing on the plight of animals so that the media making animal abusers out as poor victims of “terrorism” will not be the only voice heard.

I don't know the specifics of the Boston Tea Party, but yes I can agree that we pick and choose what is patriotism and what is terrorism. The FBI recently announced that the ALF and other extreme AR and environmental organizations are the #1 domestic terrorist threat to the US today! Yet, no one has ever been killed by any of them....their logic is baffling. An agenda is obviously at work here.



Good point.



That's quite understandable.



Aye, but it stops there. The destruction of property is not an equivalent to freeing potential victims, however.



I disagree. Quite a bit of progress has been made in the last 20 years alone. Many companies no longer test on animals. You RARELY see anyone wearing fur in the US. People actually know what a vegan is. Many restaurants have veg*n options and there are restaurants with all veg*n menus. I'm sure the percentage of veg*ns in the US has gone up significantly (but I don't have numbers, sorry...it's just obvious).

No, all the animals aren't free from tyranny yet. However, quite a bit has happened. Is it enough? *shrug* It's progress. It takes time. No civil rights movement happened overnight. This one will be harder because animals are further removed from humans than other types of humans. Patience.



How can you be sure of this? How many labs have been closed due to ALF activities? How many have not come to be because of the ALF? I disagree that the money used for security or for equipment is taken out of the funds allotted for animal testing. I used to prepare medical research grants and funding was always determined by category. The amount granted for animal procurement, supplies, equipment, personnel, etc. were all seperately determined. Perhaps the insurance companies make some more money at the expense of the grant benefactors, but is that really a step forward?



It's not that illegal actions are always wrong. The liberation of animals is a very worthy cause. It's the destruction of property and scare tactics I have issues with. Just think of how different the PR for AR would be if we simply broke into labs with minimal property damage and freed the animals and took any necessary evidence (video tapes, etc). and left the rest alone? People can sympathize the freeing tortured animals. It's very hard to win anyone over by burning down buildings and smashing up equipment.


Any progress over the last 20 years can be attributed to any number of factors that have nothing to do with peaceful animal activism. The fact of the matter is the ALF was born out of the failure of the non-violent protest methods of the last 50 years. If they were working then there'd be no ALF.

Patience? I guess it's easy to be patient when you are sitting comfortably at home with a nice cup of tea. It might be more a challange to be patient if a loved one or someone you knew or yourself was being subjected to a Draize test.

And as for winning hearts and minds of the people: who cares? If I sat on the lawn of City Hall wearing a 'Meat is Murder' t-shirt somebody would be offended. If I wrote a sound letter to my local newspaper as to why vivisection is wrong, somebody would be offended. If I smash a fur shop window, somebody would be offended, If I burned down a vivisectionist lab, somebody would be offended. ALF folks don't care who's offended. The ALF is all about the here and now doing whatever it takes to save lives and end torture. One could argue that non-violent activists don't really care about vivisection as if they did, they'd do something that makes a real difference rather than send of a strongly worded letter to someone who doesn't care.

Look, pharmaceuticals exist for one reason and one reason only: to make a profit. If an AR person can affect that profit as a way of protest about a pharmas actions then that is the most persuasive argument. Consumer boycotts are only marginally effective (as witnessed by the Nestle protest of the last couple of dozen years). However, in recent years, labs have not been built or expanded because of the added cost of security. Here's an example but there are many more. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3561-1185350,00.html

This drain on profits is forcing the pharmas to re-think their use of animal testing. They can now see a 'cost benefit' of using non-animal testing techniques. This is the road to AR victory and it was caused by smashing and burning and threats. It really is a shame the non-violent protest techniques didn't work and we had to resort to this. But at least its making a difference now.