Joined
·
3,097 Posts
Richard Dawkins is one of my favorite writers, and is a renowned and respected biologist in most areas of the world that aren't the middle east or the bible belt of the USA. While he's known more for his evolutionary biology research and his criticisms of organized religion than his animal rights stance, in recent years he's been sliding more in that direction. While he's not a vegan or anything yet he did write <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/30/richard-dawkins-on-v.html" target="_blank">a very good criticism of vivisection</a> lately that will probably reach a significant audience outside of the one that would usually read such articles (since Dawkins is a polarizing figure, a lot of his critics tend to read his articles too. He's sort of like Hitchens in that regard. Even if it were just his fans, atheism is a bigger thing in most countries than veganism is right now. The average number of vegans is something like 3% in the US, at most, and nonreligious people account for over 16% of the population currently.)<br><br>
Here's my favorite bit:<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">sn't it plausible that a clever species such as our own might need less pain, precisely because we are capable of intelligently working out what is good for us, and what damaging events we should avoid? Isn't it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement? At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings.</div>
</div>
<br><br>
Again, while he doesn't overtly call for an end to all animal exploitation here, it's a very strong moral statement in favor of animals and their rights that will be read by a wider audience than most anti vivisection letters. I think that's note worthy and a sign of what he would call the shifting moral zeitgeist in society.
Here's my favorite bit:<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">sn't it plausible that a clever species such as our own might need less pain, precisely because we are capable of intelligently working out what is good for us, and what damaging events we should avoid? Isn't it plausible that an unintelligent species might need a massive wallop of pain, to drive home a lesson that we can learn with less powerful inducement? At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings.</div>
</div>
<br><br>
Again, while he doesn't overtly call for an end to all animal exploitation here, it's a very strong moral statement in favor of animals and their rights that will be read by a wider audience than most anti vivisection letters. I think that's note worthy and a sign of what he would call the shifting moral zeitgeist in society.
"><br><br>
