Philosophical Vegan Forum

How many cows are in the field? Just 1 in 180,000 according to genetics!

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive.

Quote:

"Chad Dechow – an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics – and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species.

“It's pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking."

(2021) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... extinction

Selective breeding is a form of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding, which is known to cause fatal problems.

I've been philosophically questioning the nature of GMO for decades and my first consideration was that GMO would be a form if incest that results in a situation by which humanity figuratively speaking would stick its head into its anus.

Summarized view: “An attempt to stand above life, as being life, logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.”

The fact that today cows are critically endangered due to eugenics confirms this view.

With eugenics, one is moving 'towards an ultimate state' as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That is opposite of what is considered healthy in nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

utopia

-Imp

The topic animal-eugenics seems to receive fairly little attention from animal rights activists, while the impact of GMO on animal welfare is extreme.

What is your opinion on animal eugenics or GMO on animals? Did you give its effects on animals serious consideration? If so, since when and by what motivations?

Thanks in advance for your insights!

Silence... on a philosophy forum where likely many animal rights advocates are active.

What could it mean?

Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein ended his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus with the proposition "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" which means that there are limits to what can be expressed through language, and that 'some aspects' are beyond the scope of language.

Wittgenstein: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.". It describes the root of the problem of anthropocentrism ('a human-centric view of the universe').

To facilitate a due respect for animals and plants when it concerns a practice such as GMO, the boundary of language needs to be broken. This is a great challenge and may explain why there has been silence in my topic about animal eugenics on this forum, despite hundreds of views.

The book ☯ Tao Te Ching by Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) was written as a poem to unlock philosophical insights into a concept that cannot be spoken of. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that language would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin and purpose of existence itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Science is fundamentally neglecting the moral good and eugenics is therefore theoretically based on the mistaken idea that the scientific truth is separate from the moral good, while, as philosopher William James (the father of psychology) mentioned, truth is a facet of the moral good.

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.

Therefore it can be concluded that animal well-being is neglected when it concerns animal eugenics and that animals urgently need intellectual protection that is currently missing!

In 2021, the scientific establishment in the form of organizations such as American Council on Science and Health, Alliance for Science and Genetic Literacy Project stated that "the GMO debate is over" and that anti-GMO activism was fading away.

"While the GMO debate has been percolating for nearly three decades, data indicate it's now over. The anti-GMO movement used to be a cultural juggernaut. But as time goes on, the activist groups that once held so much sway seem increasingly irrelevant. Though we still hear some moaning and groaning it primarily comes from a small group. Most people simply aren't concerned about GMOs."
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/05/18/3- ... -out-15523

With the idea that the intellectual debate about GMO is over, the GMO industry will consider itself to have carte blanche to do whatever it wants with animals.

Pending questions for animal rights and well-being advocates and defenders:

What is your opinion on animal eugenics or GMO on animals? Did you give its effects on animals serious consideration? If so, since when and by what motivations?

A philosopher on an other philosophy forum once shared an insight that may help to understand what 'the boundary of language' is about.

User @thrasymachus in topics Philosophy of Love and Should Schopenhauer's Will have been named Energy?.

Respect [for animals] is metaphysically demanded in the face of the Other. Levinas is telling us, and he certainly helped me understand with real clarity, that this world is a metaphysical "place" and that our relations with Others is "first philosophy."

I think Jean luc Marion is right regarding what is "there" that defies assimilation into the representative "totality" (Levinas borrows this from Heidegger) that holds a grip on our existence implicitly, with every spontaneous thought of engagement. Marion asks, what is there, then, that is there, that "overflows"--there is a thesis here, constructed by Sartre, see his Nausea and the Chestnut tree, that tries to illustrate this "radical contingency" of existence-- representation? Wittgenstein calls for silence. So does Heidegger. Marion writes:

... in passing from Wittgenstein to Heidegger, in speaking from the starting point of philosophy (or almost) and not from that of logic (or almost): “Someone who has experienced theology in his own roots, both the theology of the Christian faith and that of philosophy, would today rather remain silent about God [von Gott zu schweigen] when he is speaking in the realm of thinking.”

This is a major argument in this French theological turn, so called. It plays off of Husserl's epoche, which reduces the world to it pure presence(s). The "realm of thinking" does not permit this. The question is, what does this Wittgenstienian "silence" (Heidegger called it the Nothing and the anxiety of taking thought to its death, its terminal point of meaningful application) actually "say"? What is intimated at this precipice of "authenticity" in which one has ascended, in the reduction (epoche) to a great height where all that is average and familiar has fallen away?

How would one be able to protect animals from eugenics and GMO when aspects of relevance cannot be 'written down'?

It has been some time ago that this topic was started. It has since been used as evidence for what is called the "Wittgenstinian Silence" problem of the defence of animals against GMO and eugenics.

This topic was viewed over 10,000 times but received zero replies. It seems valid to ask: why? This topic provides an opportunity to address philosophical considerations when it concerns animals and GMO.

Here's an excerpt:

Did you know that animal rights defenders are silent when it concerns the modification of animals through GMO and eugenics, and that that is a fundamental intellectual problem?

A topic on the Philosophical Vegan forum, where many animal protectors are active, was met with silence, despite being viewed by over 10,000 people.

The GMO industry declared in 2021 that the GMO debate is officially "over" and that GMO activism faded away (based on their "evidence"), which implies that the GMO industry considered itself to have carte blanche to do anything it wants with animals.

Why is animal protection failing to protect animals from GMO and eugenics?

Let's delve into this question using philosophy!

...

The "Wittgenstinian Silence" problem is likely the cause that intellectual people who might defend animals, naturally feel inclined to take an intellectual back seat, despite their intuition that eugenics is morally wrong.

Silence is the most appropiate response when one is confronted with a fundamental intellectual inability, combined with the intuition that intellectual strength might be vital for the animals that they care about. From that sense, Wittgenstein was simply right.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Earlier this month I read the following in Henri Bergson's Time and Free Will - An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, which exemplifies the idea. Bergson makes an attempt to speak on behalf of Nature when asked about its fundamental 'raison d'etre'.

"If a man were to inquire of Nature the reason of her creative activity, and if she were willing to give ear and answer, she would say—'Ask me not, but understand in silence, even as I am silent and am not wont to speak."

So animal protectors are Silent, 'while loving animals', and the GMO industry takes that as 'real evidence' that GMO activism has faded away. Hence: a severe problem for animal protection that truly affects trillions of animals on earth.

Conclusion: Animal Protection Fails when it concerns modification through GMO and eugenics.

Secondly: establishment science is right: emotional and ideological 'attempts' to defend animals against GMO don't stand the test of time. In 10 years, most anti-GMO activism did fade away, while the industry continued to grow increasingly more rapidly, which 'doesn't add up' when that emotionally driven activism had ever been authentic!

Why did all those anti-GMO activism projects abandon their efforts? The Wittgenstinian Silence problem might be the fundamental answer to that question, paired with the situation of a multi-billion dollar interest of scare mongering propaganda by the organic food industry, which by doing that, re-enforced the fundamental arguments of the GMO industry (food security and human health). On the outlook, scare mongering propaganda might appear to serve the interest of protecting animals, but when looking a bit closer on that strategy with the use of philosophy, it might show that it is not a wise strategy when it concerns longer term securing of animal well-being.

Hopefully my article helps to motivate a new intellectually strong type of anti-GMO activism, or at least a level of oversight and care for animals when it concerns their genetic and authentic integrity.

https://gmodebate.org/animals/

p.s. Donations are welcome. It would be used to fund philosophy for animal protection. Not intending to ask for money here, but it seems valid to mention this because it could help animals!