a blog against speciesism

non-binary. ey/em/eirs pronouns.

[thepuppyclub]

It is not the question “how do I access the same structures of power as my oppressor” that needs to be answered, on the contrary. The force that drives us is “how do I destroy these cruel and unjust structures?” Anything else seeks to obtain advantages that only exist because others suffer.

[makiruz]

Now that I released the anger at vegans, I only got questions:

Like, is it vegan to have pets? If the point is not using animals isn’t using animals for comfort not vegan? Are service animals vegans?

Also what is the future of domestic animals? I know the idea is that as the world goes vegan production of domestic animals would go down until there’s no domestication anymore; but does that mean that domestic animals go extinct or that they evolve into a form that can survive in the wild?

And what kind of world is it in which humans use no animal products? Okay so we get all plant based fabrics, and construction materials; I think the world population would have to go down (world population should probably go down anyway) so production of plant based food and other materials is small enough to be sustainable. Capitalism has to go obviously, there’s no way for humanity to exist with Capitalism anyway, so vegan world has to do away with that. Where are all the animals living? Is this a solarpunk world? I guess it should be, and there’s lots of wildlands, is human production hydroponic? I mean, we need to use as little space as possible (even without veganism production has to occupy little space). What about people who can’t go vegan for medical reasons? What’s gonna happen to them? What about medicines?

Actually, what about medicines? Medicines and other healthcare procedures that no longer use animals, but were created with animal experimentation vegan? Anything created from animal products are vegan, even if they don’t use animals anymore? Petroleum comes from dead animals, are petroleum-derived products vegan? If taking advantage of an animal corpse that died without human intervention can we use the leather of a cow that dies of natural causes?

What about carnivorous and omnivorous animals? They can eat other animals? If so, why humans can’t? Are our oversized brains too big to kill other animals anymore? Oh, right the modern human brain is the result of early humans discovering cooked meat; is it wrong that we inherited traits caused by meat-eating in vegan thinking? What about sheep? They can’t molt naturally anymore, should we shave them as a service and throw away the wool for natural compost?

Am I overthinking this? Heck yeah. Are these questions wrong? No, not really; I don’t think most people realize how alien a true vegan world would be. And I really want answers on medication derived from animal experimentation that doesn’t require animals anymore

[eeti-fy-addelty]

Now that I released the anger at vegans, I only got questions:

Like, is it vegan to have pets? If the point is not using animals isn’t using animals for comfort not vegan? Are service animals vegans? 

depends on whether they’re being exploited. it seems unethical to ‘breed’ anyone for the sake of companionship or service, or force them to be exactly who you want them to be. that doesn’t mean its wrong to live with someone or care for them.

the power dynamics can be concerning, but i’d argue that we need safeguards and a different approach towards our relationships with non-human animals. for example, i live with two lovebirds; i’ve seen people suggesting having a single lovebird to make them more dependent on you, and more social with you. that kind of deliberate alienation from their own species seems to be inherently unethical imo.

in my own experiences with interspecies relationships, i also recognise that i (usually) have the power, and i enable them to exercise autonomy as much as possible. i think respect for autonomy is essential to any relationship.

Also what is the future of domestic animals? I know the idea is that as the world goes vegan production of domestic animals would go down until there’s no domestication anymore; but does that mean that domestic animals go extinct or that they evolve into a form that can survive in the wild?

honestly, a lot of these species are unable to reproduce naturally (such as certain chickens), and others couldn’t live happy or healthy in the wild. people might take measures to preserve those species, but i don’t think i could give a perfect answer to this in the present context. certainly, existing individuals should be supported to live happy and healthy lives.

either way, this question is not relevant to whether or not we continue to exploit other species: keeping a species alive doesn’t justify exploitation, harm or murder.

And what kind of world is it in which humans use no animal products? Okay so we get all plant based fabrics, and construction materials; I think the world population would have to go down (world population should probably go down anyway) so production of plant based food and other materials is small enough to be sustainable. Capitalism has to go obviously, there’s no way for humanity to exist with Capitalism anyway, so vegan world has to do away with that. Where are all the animals living? Is this a solarpunk world? I guess it should be, and there’s lots of wildlands, is human production hydroponic? I mean, we need to use as little space as possible (even without veganism production has to occupy little space). What about people who can’t go vegan for medical reasons? What’s gonna happen to them? What about medicines?

firstly: we are not overpopulated. that is a myth, we have enough to feed everyone but it’s capitalism that causes shortages. flesh, eggs and milk are essentially second hand grain - we shouldn’t need more space inherently without that industry.

if we considered non-human species and their rights to land, food, freedom etc. then that would impact planning and how we approach natural spaces and the planet as a whole. i think a start would be making cities/towns not immediately hostile to other species; further than that, making the place actively hospitable to them.

a lot of barriers to plant based diets and lifestyles are not someone’s medical condition itself - often people with the financial resources can be plant based regardless of medical issues. if we agree the abolition of capitalism is necessary for a vegan society, then we have to consider the other effects of it: equal access to resources. further, development of more robust and moral options for such dietary requirements could be expanded without financial limitations. consider lab grown flesh, or fungus replicated dairy (i know that was an idea thrown around a few years back). 

Actually, what about medicines? Medicines and other healthcare procedures that no longer use animals, but were created with animal experimentation vegan? Anything created from animal products are vegan, even if they don’t use animals anymore? Petroleum comes from dead animals, are petroleum-derived products vegan? If taking advantage of an animal corpse that died without human intervention can we use the leather of a cow that dies of natural causes?

i’m disabled and trans, so there’s a bunch of medication i require daily. within capitalism, my stance is to avoid what i can, and take what i can’t.

i saw your other post about testing also. there are a lot of alternatives to animal testing now, and more still in development. the accuracy of testing on other species is also questionable as is, hence the continuing need for human trials. realistically, without the profit motive driving pharmaceutical companies, i’d expect great leaps and bounds in medicine that aren’t due to animal testing - just due to the sharing of information, for one.

What about carnivorous and omnivorous animals? They can eat other animals? If so, why humans can’t? Are our oversized brains too big to kill other animals anymore? Oh, right the modern human brain is the result of early humans discovering cooked meat; is it wrong that we inherited traits caused by meat-eating in vegan thinking? What about sheep? They can’t molt naturally anymore, should we shave them as a service and throw away the wool for natural compost?

we have the capacity to extend moral consideration to others, and so we should. we do not exist within ecosystems, but we instead build on top of them and wear away at them. there is a balance struck in the world between different species, but we aren’t a part of it.

i have no interest in why our brains developed as they did, since that doesn’t affect our morals now. once we were more similar to single celled organisms too - should we take our morals from that?

Am I overthinking this? Heck yeah. Are these questions wrong? No, not really; I don’t think most people realize how alien a true vegan world would be. And I really want answers on medication derived from animal experimentation that doesn’t require animals anymore

yeah, a vegan world would be pretty alien: the marginalisation of all other species is very much entrenched in most of human society, to the point that very little is not informed by it. i’d certainly like to see the world without that.

in addition, i’d say that most of your questions are more about hammering out the details of moving forward without exploitation. very few of these questions suggest that exploitation is okay, actually.

i did go back and have a look at your post angry at vegans, and i’d also add:

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism: we stand on stolen ground, and use roads that cut through the homes of non-human animals; we poison those who attempt to share our foods; we hunt to extinction any that threaten us. that said, i will not normalise the consumption or use of things that inherently require harm, death or exploitation to acquire. in a post-capitalist society, these things would still be harmful. veganism is less about what you do, than your approach to non-human animals as moral subjects. i approach veganism as anti-exploitation across species, and as such, inherently anti-capitalist.

with regards to eggs: birds aren’t supposed to lay ~365 eggs a year, and it’s hugely taxing on the body; nor are we entitled to be the beneficiaries of that labour. for their health, it’s more appropriate that they eat their own eggs to regain the lost nutrients, and reproduce often enough to have periods without egg laying.

as i’ve said above: we aren’t functionally ‘part of’ ecosystems. if you would argue that what goes for other species should therefore be acceptable for us, then is cannibalism and murder acceptable? if not, then you agree that human morals are important in guiding our behaviour - why wouldn’t that extend to everyone.

[the-overthinktank]

Moralist vegans be all like “save animal lives by not eating livestock” and I’m over here thinking about the quadrillions of insects and inverts that are killed during routine pest control on crops.... like alright fellas but have you considered that you an organism cannot exist without animal death? Does it not count if it’s got an exoskeleton?

[the-overthinktank]

lol this attracted discourse while i wasn't watching

sorry for over-generalizing, I was in a mood because I never see pest control brought up with regards to the moralistic aspect of veganism-- and veganism is by and large a lower-impact way to live in the world ecologically, which is like, completely commendable, but that’s not what i was talking about there. Seeing people gloss over animal death because it’s not charismatic megafauna is very troubling to me, because it can lead to ignorance of human impact on invert populations.

And yeah animal Ag is more energy inefficient than plant Ag, especially when the animals are fed industrially grown crops, but like... that’s a bad way to farm animals the same way clear cutting rain forest is a bad way to farm palm oil. Both plant and animal Ag can be ecologically disastrous when encouraged on a mass scale by uncaring corporations, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t better options available for both. Large animal Ag at its finest can provide ecosystem services to rangeland that mowing and controlled burning can’t, and can fertilize crops and rangeland to the benefit of both. For humans, large animal Ag can transform unarable land and inedible scraps into high value food and byproducts.

Which isn’t to say Americans and a lot of other wealthy countries don't eat way too much large vertebrate meat... a shift to more sustainable animal Ag would focus more on smaller animals, like rabbits, chickens, pigeons, and especially bugs, which can all be farmed in very little space (and no i’m not talking about cages slightly larger than the animal. i’m talking about backyard runs, hutches, and tower cabinet mealworm farms).

veganism is one of many ways to reduce your ecological footprint in the world, but human morality on the ethics of animal death generally assigns more moral cost to individual large endothermic animals than large numbers of small invertebrates. I feel like the impacts of pest control-- which can be more extreme on human food cropping than animal food cropping, because pests effect the appearance of produce-- are not often considered, or at the very least I never see anyone talking about it. morality veganism is definitely something that’s never going to click with me. I feel ecologically sustainable methods of raising and killing animals for food are not immoral, because no matter how I eat, animal death is going to be part of the food i put in my body.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

being vegan/anti-speciesist, for me, has to involve boycotting those things which are inherently exploitative where possible. there is no way to kill and eat animals (or their ‘products’) without objectification, exploitation and harm, but there are ways to do that with plants, so challenging our view of non-human animals’ bodies as just another thing to consume is important. capitalism itself is also inherently exploitative (to humans, non-humans and the environment alike), therefore i’d argue anti-capitalism is essential to any vegan/anti-speciesist movement, or any anti-oppression movement in general. but that doesn’t mean ‘remove yourself from capitalism'.

to an extent, i also consider veganism to be prefigurative. if we are able to abolish capitalism and create something else, it’s going to be a lot harder to incorporate the interests of non-human animals where we all still actively consume their bodies and objectify them. i don’t think individual actions as a consumer will eliminate exploitation - i’m certain they won’t - but i do think a general shift to plant based foods does lead to more options being created also. meaning yet more alternatives and possibilities.

i think your view is informed by an understanding of veganism as a diet/lifestyle, rather than an anti-oppression movement. if you look at it as the latter, you see how “you can’t personally remove yourself from all ways in which non-human animals are exploited” doesn’t in any way go against veganism. even trying to remove yourself from all exploitation also removes you from a society within which you can impact oppressive systems.

[vanishingpals]

vegans literally need to stop acting like each individual person who eats meat is the enemy and an asshole, and grow the fuck up and recognize that some people literally, physically and financially, cannot handle that lifestyle. on top of that, some people just don’t fucking want to and you should stop trying to force people to change their entire lifestyle to fit yours. instead, start attacking the fucking agricultural industry that inhumanley treats animals and call big industries the asshole. capitalism makes us attack each other and blame us when we should be blaming the 1% (which i thought every “woke” person already knew). fuck you for ever trying to make people who eat meat feel bad.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

this is the problem with seeing veganism as a ‘lifestyle’ rather than a radical anti-oppression stance. not eating animals is not ‘veganism’ but a natural consequence of being vegan. so, if you can’t avoid all animal products? well, neither can anyone thanks to how deep the exploitation of marginalised animals runs in most/many societies. so it’s a good thing veganism isn’t just a list of actions, then.

so, why not be vegan? challenge your perception of non-human animals as lesser and respect and defend their autonomy. it’s then that doing what you can to avoid participating in their oppression will become an obvious course of action. it’s easy to do to the greatest extent possible when you recognise the moral imperative to do so. if you don’t see it as a moral necessity, then your problem is not (and never has been) with barriers to performing the actions associated with veganism - it’s with not recognising the moral status of non-human animals.

capitalism is a problem, but if we can’t respect non-human animals now, how will any other society do anything about their position? we don’t opt out of considering our complicity in other types of oppression in favour of an exclusively class based analysis. you don’t get to be bigoted in other ways and deflect any criticism just because the real enemies are the capitalists. anti-capitalism is essential to any anti-oppression movement and analysis, but doesn’t replace them.

[breadtubetv]

Why I’m No Longer Vegan™

[champawattigress]

What always confuses me about the demand that animals should have “rights” is that the people making that demand never specify what rights. Like do you mean the right to life? To not be eaten or killed? If so, how is that supposed to work in a world in which not everyone can be vegan, and in which the most popular pet in the world (excluding freshwater fish) is an obligate carnivore? How does that apply to wild animals? Are there going to be penalties when pet animals kill wild animals? How does it apply to population control?

And speaking of population control, surely if animals have the right to life, than they should also be entitled to the right to bodily autonomy, yes? But this would retroactively make most veterinary professionals complicit in one of the greatest systematic violations of basic rights ever committed. We routinely remove the ability of animals to make their own reproductive decisions for the sake of population control and mitigation of unwanted behaviours. We routinely violate their bodies, without their consent, for the sake of placating their owners. There has never been a single veterinary procedure ever that has had the consent of the animal involved. By the standards of human rights, we are monsters.

And the right to freedom! Dogs and cats don’t choose to be taken from their parents and kept by humans in houses. How exactly would we implement a human-level right to freedom of choice when domestic animals are incapable of appreciating that the choice exists? Are feral cats and nervous stray dogs exercising their right to continue living in the streets? Do we have any right to take them into custody against their will? How do we determine whether or not they actually want to live with us? Do they really enjoy living with people, or are they suffering animal equivalent of stockholm syndrome? 

Under animal welfare legislation domestic and captive animals already have the right to live comfortably, to be given ample food, water and shelter, to be given veterinary care when needed, and to be permitted (as much as is feasible) to express their natural behaviours. These rights are based on what animals NEED, and what people can do to ensure that they are kept content. Meanwhile demands for animal rights do nothing but waste money with idiocy like the “Monkey selfie” nonsense from the last few years.  

[eeti-fy-addelty]

rights determine what we, as humans, owe to others. saying that non-human animals should have rights, is just saying that we should have certain obligations in how we act towards them. there laws that operate like this already - usually in preventing cruelty and suffering, particularly regarding domesticated animals (as you admit). it’s not so simple to list off specific rights, but saying ‘animals should have rights’ is saying that ‘animals’ interests/needs should be protected’. what rights they specifically need (and what they mean in terms of us protecting them) is a secondary conversation to that one.

with regards to capacity and consent - that's already something we have to address with humans. the fact that that's also a consideration here doesn't make the idea of extending similar rights to non-human animals any more ridiculous than giving them to humans is. we already vaccinate and treat children - sometimes even surgically - without the ability to gain their consent. similarly, there are people who are legally considered to lack capacity, and therefore people have to make best interest decisions for them. it's complex, and there are definitely issues that should be raised regarding how capacity is assessed, and how such people are treated, but they are things we have to deal with. we can't just avoid it by saying 'nope, too complicated, better have no rights'.

on the topic of pets and domesticated animals, my answer to that is fairly simple - we should not keep breeding and using non-human animals to serve our purposes. it’s likely best interest decisions would have to be made for them where necessary, and autonomy should be maintained as far as possible, even within captivity.

you make the point yourself that companion animals already have rights - what argument could you make that they deserve those rights whereas others (not kept as companions) do not? should they not have the right to life and autonomy too? if not, why not?

if we collectively agreed that all non-human animals had a right to life, then how our whole societies are structured would have to change, being so based on their exploitation and indifferent to other types of harm. people cannot all be plant-based currently, but we would be obligated to change that/find alternatives to protect those rights. we would also have to talk about the issue of carnivores currently dependent on human care.

something being complicated and taking work does not mean we shouldn't do it, it just means we need to do the work.

[acti-veg]

Are Wild Animals Killed During the Process of Grain Harvesting?

https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Vegan-Mythbusting-1-Are-wild-animals-killed-when-grain-is-harvested-for-vegans I still can’t believe I only now stumbled across this article. A must read for all of those, who are confused with the “animals die when crops for vegans are harvested” argument.

This is a really informative piece, I’ve referred people to it a few times but I don’t think I’ve posted it here, so thank you for the submission.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

interesting article, but i wonder if it’s missing something. if 50% of the rodents were killed by predation, were they made more vulnerable by providing a food rich area with plenty of cover, and then removing it?

further to that, it’s pretty obvious that the creation of food for profit in general (including both animal and plant agriculture) is killing animals, habitats and ecosystems. it’s all very well to discuss the fate of the mice who can live in the environment created by farming, but what about the fate of those who could have lived in the natural habitat before the farm existed, and those who would’ve depended on them? further to that, what about all those beings killed by pesticides too?

i think the argument for what actions should be taken within veganism stems from the inherent harm and exploitation in a thing, not the harm as it currently exists. but that means we really need to take stock of what avoidable harm exists, and how that could (and should) be negated. making the argument about current levels of actual harm versus the meat industry may serve as a way of one-upping the people who defend the farming of animals, but it’s also framing the debate in their terms. it prevents us from looking at all the ways we could have of avoiding harm, in all contexts.

[try-chout]

we were watching “the conjuring”, and we heard this duck quacking up a storm up a tree

[eeti-fy-addelty]

is the strange duck yelling at the flowers?

[eeti-fy-addelty]

skepticalspectacles

  I know for a fact I’ve told this story on here...

It’s specifically a Costco thing

huh. well, no costco in the uk so that makes sense of why i’ve never encountered it. here seems to be pretty lapse on leaving a store, even if the alarm goes off, more often than not people are just mildly annoyed

[gluten-free-pussy]

I know for a fact I’ve told this story on here before but I’ll never get over the time when I was working retail and I was cashing out some lady so I asked “cash, debit or credit how are you paying, ma’am?” And she said “that’s none of your business.” And demanded to speak to my manager about my invasive question

[spark-of-jenius]

Oh, I’ve got one in this vein: a lady called our company wanting us to come steam clean her tile floors, but refused to give her address, instead demanding that we do it at our location. And hung up when I tried to explain that her floors were attached to her house.

Let that sink in for a second. 

[try-chout]

at costco, a customer walking out of the store didn’t want to show their reciept to the person working the outgoing door, and started screaming that it was an invasion of privacy. i get it, but like all of your purchases are literally archived in the system attached to your membership, and they also check receipts at the door to make sure you didn’t forget small things like stamps and movie tickets and got your cash back and shit.

my manager got called over, asked to see their membership card, and cut it up right there. apparently not the first time they were becoming violent at our location.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

wait, you have people just checking receipts as standard at the exits? i’ve never seen that in my life here, and would probably assume i was being accused of stealing if it happened to me. weird. does that happen in a lot of places?

[closet-keys]

I wanna start a genuine discussion with other vegans– 

there is the ongoing conversation on whether or not to keep cats indoors at all times, and the common consensus by most vegans I’ve spoken to is that it’s better to keep them indoors because they are an invasive species and kill local wildlife. that makes complete sense to me, and I agree

there is also an ongoing conversation on whether or not to feed cats in your care with factory farmed meat products as processed cat food, and the common consensus by most vegans I’ve spoken to is that it’s better to feed them the meat products because cats are carnivores and their nutrition is better achieved through natural diet than via supplements. that makes complete sense to me, and I agree. 

but at the same time I can’t help but feel like my holding these two views is dissonant or contradictory– in the former we are arguing that we must prioritize safety of all the hundreds of animals the cat would interact with over the natural means of healthful living of that one cat, but in the latter we are arguing that we must prioritize the natural means of healthful living of that one cat over the safety of all the hundreds of animals the cat would interact with. 

how do others account for holding these views simultaneously? should we? I’m genuinely interested in a discussion on this because I readily admit that while I’ve done lots of research and have strong opinions on some areas of veganism, I have not fully explored this in a way that feels ideologically sound, practical, and materially compassionate. 

(please don’t interact with this post if you’re not practicing veganism)

[closet-keys]

Thank you all so much for your thoughts.

One of the common themes I’d like to follow up on is the idea that being an indoor cat is safer, healthier, and that their being domesticated means that they aren’t able to be safe and healthy outside.

I definitely understand this part- I loved an outdoor cat very dearly whose life was cut short by getting hit by a car. There was also the discussion of disease, predators, etc.

I’m wondering though, what your opinions are on supervised outdoor time.

For an example with the treatment of another domesticated animal— I feel uncomfortable with situations where someone has an entirely outdoor or indoor dog. A dog never allowed inside is exposed to the elements, neglected, and often end up with shorter lives, but also a dog never allowed outside will often start to self harm from boredom and will lack proper enrichment that comes from walks and getting to run and jump and smell the world around them.

I’m wondering what your thoughts are with regard to cats. I wouldn’t want to leave a domestic cat unsupervised where they might be in danger of cars, predators, disease, etc. But I also have a hard time feeling right about never allowing a cat the simple pleasures of lying in the sun, smelling around the edges of a garden, scratching their claws on tree bark, smelling the fresh air, etc.

What are your thoughts on harness training the cat so they can walk outside and explore and allowing for supervised time in safe outdoor environments?

[hamajang]

my partner ( @veganemelda ) and i have been talking about this, and i’ve also had many conversations with friends around this topic in the past. there’s so much nuance to it, and shouldn’t be taken as a strict black and white issue. humans are the invasive species, and cats came along for the ride. they’re in our care, and it’s ultimately our responsibility to use our best judgement on how we provide for them and protect the environment around them. pets/companion animals all require care in their own ways, and being aware of their wiring is a part of that.

having an outdoor enclosure can be a possibility for some ppl. “catios” and stuff like that. our cat has the patio to himself. he enjoys lying in the sunbeams and hasn’t tried jumping over the fence in the time that he’s been here. it’s his space. we also take him out on walks with a harness when he gives a lot of attention to the front door. not everyone has that kind of ability whether it’s space, time, or the actual capacity to be able to provide those things.

i think the main points that inform my thought process would be:

- their right to live as an autonomous being

- other animals’ rights to live as autonomous beings

- as vegans, we should be also working towards a world where pets/companion animals aren’t just a given. other animals shouldn’t exist *for* us in any capacity.

- we’re so far down the road in our history with domesticated animals, and the situation is fucked. we gotta do to the best of our ability. there isn’t one right answer.

it’s been a while since i’ve had proper discussions about animal rights/speciesism stuff. maybe @socialjusticevegan , @eeti-fy-addelty , @card-bored-castle might be interested in adding thoughts.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

i think it's honestly a complicated situation. but in terms of prioritising one life over many (in feeding them cat food), i think the thing to do is consider; if a human being today has to consume meat to survive (therefore prioritising one life over many), what is your opinion? if one is wrong, so is the other.

when it comes to letting cats live freely and feed themselves, they will have an impact on the ecosystem as a predator with significant advantages. by introducing them to an area with populations that have not evolved alongside cats, they are at an advantage and things will be unbalanced. even when vulnerable, they can be sheltered within our houses and free from risk of becoming food. if they get ill to the point of death, they will receive treatment and live longer, and their young are given the same advantages. they not only kill those they eat, but they also outcompete other predators with their advantages, who would then have less food. not to mention playing with other 'prey' animals just for fun. realistically if free roaming is the best for cats, then perhaps leaving them entirely to their own devices, vulnerability included, makes more sense ecologically?

alternatively, the system we have now is shit, but stopping buying cat food will not do anything to end the meat industry. cat food is primarily by-products of the meat industry, so all that does is reduce waste from an already established exploitative industry as of now. in fact, it could perhaps be reasoned that cat food would be a more ethical food source in this current system for people who need meat to survive, and otherwise are anti-speciesist. realistically if plant based cat food is viable to help cats thrive, then obviously that is the ideal food solution currently. with regards to outdoor time, it's a different situation here in britain. outdoor cats are the standard, and it's uncommon to hear about indoor cats other than those with health problems such as fiv. so you less talking about letting a bored indoor cat outdoors, as you are keeping an outdoor cat indoors, a different kind of proposition. i think some people will keep cats in from before dusk til after dawn - the time when most hunting occurs. catios are a great idea too. i feel like really it's on a cat by cat basis, though in any case you should do what you can to remove danger to anyone else the cat encounters (bells, restricted outdoor access). for an outdoor cat who needs the outdoors, keeping them in is going to cause far more stress than the same for one who's never had that freedom. obviously adequate stimulation is a must for all cats, and how that need is met will vary by necessity.

[urbanfarmzine-deactivated201807]

[languagebender]

why divide people by unrational things when you COULD divide them by whether their word for cotton candy is valid or not ?

[languagebender]

examples: 

american english: cotton candy ✅ good

british english: fairy floss ❌ not valid

spanish, german: sugar cotton ✅ good

french: daddy’s beard ❌ NOT VALID

[danasn0wc4t]

I’m sorry the French call it what

[catsandmadteaparties-deactivate]

Australians call it fairy floss and you can fight me.

[eeti-fy-addelty]

where and when in britain did fairy floss come from? it’s definitely candy floss around here

[eeti-fy-addelty]

Warning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers

Three-quarters of flying insects in nature reserves across Germany have vanished in 25 years, with serious implications for all life on Earth, scientists say

after anecdotally noticing a decline in insects for years (as many have) even on a year to year basis, i have found some research confirming that to a huge degree. according to the study cited in this article, there has been a 72-80% decline in insects over the past 27 years, or 6% per year.

unfortunately, as usual, the method of study involved killing the insects through the use of malaise traps. a practice i highly doubt would be considered appropriate for vetebrate populations. but that said on ethics, the results of the study are startling, and should force us to do something to turn this situation around.

some suggested causes of the decline are the intensification of agriculture, along with pesticide use. but honestly i don’t know what we need to do to change this. it’d be all too easy to answer with a boycott of non-organic products, but likely that can’t bring the systemic change we’d need, and really would be limited to those with money. obviously on an individual level, nurturing those spaces we have access to in order to provide natural and healthy habitats for invertebrates, along with not using pesticides ourselves will do something, but how much?

as it is now, pesticides are a most likely cause, but no studies have been done to prove a link, and big cooperations, as you’d expect, contest that there is any correlation. as of now, i don’t know of any organisations working on any specific plans of action.

it seems that switzerland is going to be voting on a total ban of pesticides in 3 years, and it would be great to see similar happening everywhere.

does anyone know of organisations or movements currently working for the protection of insect and invertebrate populations, or other actions that can help?

[wildlifewednesdays]

The dangers and troubles of being a panda zookeeper.

[bace-jeleren]

LET! THEM! IN! THE! BASKET!!!!!

[tsix-xist]

This poor woman is just trying to clean the leaves. #allpandas.

[queen-mayhem]

if you’re having a rough night, watch this. trust me.

[ishtar0110]

@slightlyannoyedpanda 😆😆🤣🤣🐼🐼💖💖

[slightlyannoyedpanda]

My dream job!

[eeti-fy-addelty]

this is adorable and all, but i feel like these pandas just don’t have enough toys/stimulation, and that’s why they’re acting like this? the pen looks pretty bare honestly. idk if they remove toys to do this as an act or something (since i can hear people, possibly guests, in the background), not that that’d be ideal, but i’d hope they have more enrichment than that generally at least. i’m not a panda expert, but that set up just doesn’t seem great for them to me.

[cloudsinsummertime]

hot take: hrt, gender therapy and trans surgeries should be free

[cloudsinsummertime]

if cis people don’t have to pay to have a body that doesn’t make them dysphoric, neither should trans people

[eeti-fy-addelty]

and this is actually possible. via the nhs: hrt, therapy, and trans surgeries are free here in the uk. things’re slow as all heck at times and not perfect (not an inherent consequence of the nature of the nhs though tbh), but all free.

i just see people in the comments saying how healthcare/surgeries/whatever just can’t be free. but really - it can. i mean, the whole system is screwed, but at least this is achievable even under capitalism. i am continuously shocked and appalled by private healthcare systems, and how much it is ignored that yes, this other thing is actually possible and already being done.

honestly, all medical procedures, therapy, tests, mobility aids, necessary adaptations etc. should be free. and realistically can be, even now.

[cutespoonie]

the two bad fatigue moods:

gets super emotional, cries over the smallest things, empathetic™, can’t handle anything, irritable, overstimulated™, anxious

can’t feel anything, barely able to think, apathic™, can’t relate to anything, emptiness™, can’t cry, slow™, dissociating

[cutespoonie]

this post is abt chronic illness and chronic fatigue and I hope ppl who rb this knows that

[eeti-fy-addelty]

the second one is almost always me these days. this is actually ‘a thing’ then? kinda feel less alone now. huh. mostly been a very sensitive and emotional person before, and been finding it weird having my morals feel more like conscious opinions and decisions than emotional drives these past few years.