The Non-Aggression Principle, Ecology, and Animal Liberation

Most strands of Libertarian philosophy are dictated by the non aggression principle, or the NAP. The NAP dictates that the use of force cannot be initiated without a compelling aggression which requires it. Some libertarians such as myself believe that the NAP is the right of humans and of other sentients. Animals have rights which we often take for granted and disrespect. They lack our intelligence and aren't capable of the same reasoning, so we deem their liberation impossible. To some degree, these arguments are correct. Most animals are way behind us. We are so heavily overpowered as sapients, it becomes almost a logical necessity to place less value on other beings. Animals feel it when we hurt them or impede their lives. They don't want to die, clearly, and science reveals that they grew these faculties analogous to our own evolution. They are capable of happy lives, so why don't we give them that happiness?

One day we will master the technologies needed to bestow our fuller intelligence upon animals. Until this is done, domestication and preservation are musts. Every shred of the privilege we naturally take over other beings endows us to help them. Because the natural rights of every person and every being have to be respected, or we deny that they are natural rights. If a purely economic reason is needed to keep the diversity of life, we're finding cures every day in the Amazon and ecosystems around the world. The Center for Biological Diversity found that 74% of our medicines come from plants. We can likewise find the tools to greater efficiency in the genomes evolution has granted us across the natural world. But, as I have written before, we're losing the cures of the future every day due to human actions. Just think for a moment: Charlie Sheen once boasted during his drug-induced megalomania that he had tiger blood. So if tigers went extinct, we wouldn't have had that entertaining drama.

While I'm disgusted by the worst abuses of animal agriculture, and believe animals have rights and freedoms not unlike our own, the real elephant in the room is how animal agriculture destroys the environment. Christopher Hyner, an environmental law student at Georgetown University, writes that "[t]he growing demand for animal agriculture is expected to be a major contributor to a roughly 80% increase in global greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector". Currently, animal agriculture directly causes 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. This beats out transportation at 13%. Hyner goes further in stating that our current fishery capacity will be entirely depleted by 2048 if consumption continues as expected. Factory farming is git one of the biggest polluting industries. This is a surprisingly multi-faceted problem, as one learns.

Between these issues, and the rising antibiotic-resistance in bacteria, it looks like Malthusianism is gonna fuck us up real soon. We can yet accept that the best defense is readiness. Or we can ramp up the pollution train. But if we keep playing Russian Roulette with the facts of demography, it can't be good. In the first issue of the Lockerian Times, I said that while vegans are correct, it is probably a worthless move. I accept that I was wrong in that judgement. Even though it is hard for us to do so, we need to reduce our consumption of animal products. In saying this, I understand human psychology. Nobody can be expected to suddenly bring their meat-eating to a complete stop. We should work to incrementally reduce it. From my readings, nutritionists say that we should limit animal products to 10% of our protein intake. Perhaps we can take this down by tens every week, and set goals to supplement it by progressively-slighter amounts.

While I am looking to try veganism soon, I doubt myself. I'll probably end up being one of those perennial failures at a life of cruelty-free consumption habits. Being that I have little to no experience in consciously eating, I cannot give much guidance on it. In fact, people at Reader's Digest have looked into the go-vegan deal much more than I have. Just read the stuff I have attached, beloved readership. Thank you for reading. Let me kiss you goodnight.

John Lockers


Works Cited:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/Medicinal_Plants_042008_lores.pdf
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal-elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-ability-thrive-it
http://www.foodispower.org/pollution-water-air-chemicals/
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/cdc-amr-rpt2/
http://www.rd.com/health/healthy-eating/becoming-vegan-tips/
https://www.nutriliving.com/blog/why-should-we-limit-animal-proteins