🌱📗🐀 i read half of this book that my friend lent me: "expanding the critical animal studies imagination essays in solidarity and total liberation."
-
i read half of this book that my friend lent me: "expanding the critical animal studies imagination essays in solidarity and total liberation."this is my review of this book of essays by multiple authors: 8/10
i like how foreword is about intersectional revolutionary veganism, especially in these times of vegan-washing and queer-washing of the zionist nakba.
for the most part, the language is dense and academic. this is a university book. they write »I pursue this scrutiny by holding an anthropological lens to the quotidian components of metropolis life,« instead of »let's look at a day in the city«. that style of writing is hard for me to read.
the essay that confused me the most was "create meat though the world may perish: a vegan critique of in vitro meat and clean milk" by nathan poirier.
nathan argues strongly against cultured meat: »But for "the animal" [...] IVM represents the ultimate oppression: nonexistence.« in the book there are a few other essays critical of natalism and critical of breeding »monsters«, but here nathan is making a natalist argument that echoes a pig farmer saying that if he didn't breed the pigs into existence, then they wouldn't even be alive, and therefore he is liberating them from non-existence.
nathan also presents the argument of »cultured meat as violence« and that it ruins the »good relationships« that hunters have with the »moose, salmon, deer« who they kill. i would be extremely worried if such a person was seeking a »good relationship« with me!
then there is some talking bad about carol adams whose »uncritical support« of cultured meat is »an incompatability with veganism and total liberation.« nathan writes that carol »made [him] feel like it was inappropriate for [him] as a graduate student to question her,« and that she »brushed off critiques of her theory on the sexual politics of meat«.
the cover art on the book is very nice. it has a squirrel leaping up to smash a surveillance camera. there is a machine gun shooting flowers. syringes and lab mice. a fetus orbiting planet earth. it is by ren suchyta-korany.
there is also an essay about why you shouldn't fly. my friend wrote that. she is right: don't fly.
my review score: 10/10 for being intersectional vegan book with cool cover, -1 for natalism, -1 for being pro-hunting: 8/10
#bookreview #criticalanimalstudies #veganism #vegan #intersectionality #natalism #hunting #dontfly #universitybooks #intersectionalveganism
-
i read half of this book that my friend lent me: "expanding the critical animal studies imagination essays in solidarity and total liberation."
this is my review of this book of essays by multiple authors: 8/10
i like how foreword is about intersectional revolutionary veganism, especially in these times of vegan-washing and queer-washing of the zionist nakba.
for the most part, the language is dense and academic. this is a university book. they write »I pursue this scrutiny by holding an anthropological lens to the quotidian components of metropolis life,« instead of »let's look at a day in the city«. that style of writing is hard for me to read.
the essay that confused me the most was "create meat though the world may perish: a vegan critique of in vitro meat and clean milk" by nathan poirier.
nathan argues strongly against cultured meat: »But for "the animal" [...] IVM represents the ultimate oppression: nonexistence.« in the book there are a few other essays critical of natalism and critical of breeding »monsters«, but here nathan is making a natalist argument that echoes a pig farmer saying that if he didn't breed the pigs into existence, then they wouldn't even be alive, and therefore he is liberating them from non-existence.
nathan also presents the argument of »cultured meat as violence« and that it ruins the »good relationships« that hunters have with the »moose, salmon, deer« who they kill. i would be extremely worried if such a person was seeking a »good relationship« with me!
then there is some talking bad about carol adams whose »uncritical support« of cultured meat is »an incompatability with veganism and total liberation.« nathan writes that carol »made [him] feel like it was inappropriate for [him] as a graduate student to question her,« and that she »brushed off critiques of her theory on the sexual politics of meat«.
the cover art on the book is very nice. it has a squirrel leaping up to smash a surveillance camera. there is a machine gun shooting flowers. syringes and lab mice. a fetus orbiting planet earth. it is by ren suchyta-korany.
there is also an essay about why you shouldn't fly. my friend wrote that. she is right: don't fly.
my review score: 10/10 for being intersectional vegan book with cool cover, -1 for natalism, -1 for being pro-hunting: 8/10
#bookreview #criticalanimalstudies #veganism #vegan #intersectionality #natalism #hunting #dontfly #universitybooks #intersectionalveganism
@pelle thank you for sharing your review.
I am happy to be your friend.I would like to share here Nathan's replies on the two first critiques because I think it's fair to share what he was meaning to say:
"As for nonexistence being the ultimate oppression, it's sort of the "if we don't farm animals they won't exist" argument, but not the typical way. That's not what I'm supporting, at least. What I'm saying is that animal farmers and IVM producers only view farmed animals as captive animals. They can't really entertain the idea of them existing in the wild. So the line is meant to convey their perspective: if they don't breed animals, they would have farmed animals go extinct. This is also the IVM "imaginary," which I view as rather genocidal. Personally, I would want farmed animals to go to sanctuaries, or rewilded, or returned to the wild if possible, not go extinct. And I do think that being put out of existence is an ultimate form of oppression.
There are also more reasons to be anti-natalist than believing existence is inherently negative. There's environmental reasons, consent of the child problems, negative experiences (not necessarily all of them), etc. But my statement here did not have to do with antinatalism. I'm also not antinatalist towards nonhumans, only humans."
As for the argument related to culture meat being violence, what he is trying to say is:
"On to the second quote you pointed out. Your interpretation is correct. The quoted indigenous person indeed meant they would rather kill moose than eat cultured meat. I disagree with that stance. What might be the only reason I could support cultured meat is in the last paragraph of that chapter--for indigenous people stop hunting wild animals. That itself would be very controversial for many. But the point of using that quote was to highlight the fact that the whole cultured meat industry ignores indigenous voices, which is problematic in general and a usual problem of big industry. This can serve as an example of how untrustworthy that whole industry is.
That said, a critique of such indigenous view as in that quote would also be warranted."
-
@pelle thank you for sharing your review.
I am happy to be your friend.I would like to share here Nathan's replies on the two first critiques because I think it's fair to share what he was meaning to say:
"As for nonexistence being the ultimate oppression, it's sort of the "if we don't farm animals they won't exist" argument, but not the typical way. That's not what I'm supporting, at least. What I'm saying is that animal farmers and IVM producers only view farmed animals as captive animals. They can't really entertain the idea of them existing in the wild. So the line is meant to convey their perspective: if they don't breed animals, they would have farmed animals go extinct. This is also the IVM "imaginary," which I view as rather genocidal. Personally, I would want farmed animals to go to sanctuaries, or rewilded, or returned to the wild if possible, not go extinct. And I do think that being put out of existence is an ultimate form of oppression.
There are also more reasons to be anti-natalist than believing existence is inherently negative. There's environmental reasons, consent of the child problems, negative experiences (not necessarily all of them), etc. But my statement here did not have to do with antinatalism. I'm also not antinatalist towards nonhumans, only humans."
As for the argument related to culture meat being violence, what he is trying to say is:
"On to the second quote you pointed out. Your interpretation is correct. The quoted indigenous person indeed meant they would rather kill moose than eat cultured meat. I disagree with that stance. What might be the only reason I could support cultured meat is in the last paragraph of that chapter--for indigenous people stop hunting wild animals. That itself would be very controversial for many. But the point of using that quote was to highlight the fact that the whole cultured meat industry ignores indigenous voices, which is problematic in general and a usual problem of big industry. This can serve as an example of how untrustworthy that whole industry is.
That said, a critique of such indigenous view as in that quote would also be warranted."
@climatemigrant
i will let you know why i find that reply puzzling, even though i know you did not write it and don't necessarily agree with it. from nathan's reply:> And I do think that being put out of existence is an ultimate form of oppression.
what he says there is that •killing• others is oppression. however, in the book he is very specifically writing about the oppression of hypothetical •future• individuals, because he discusses the effect of IVM on •currently• farmed animals in contrast to those who are •to be•:
»For currently farmed animals, IVM may represent an improvement. But for "the animal"—what is to be (a nonhuman) animal—IVM represents the ultimate oporession: nonexistence.«
i take issue with nathan's argument that it is oppressive to end the breeding animals for farming. he is then replying that killing is oppressive — as if i had any disagreement with him about that! but he's responding as if i made an argument in favour of killing by deceptively using the word "nonexistence" for both.
that is what academic discourse is, i guess.
