The Little Antispeciesist Webinars August 2020
Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum
Abstract
Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum decided very early on to devote his life to the organisation of the greatest possible happiness in the world. Is Being Born in the Best Interest of the Child? published in 2011, is the fruit of several decades of research on the permanent conflict between ethics, which gives priority to the alleviation of suffering, and the ideology of reproduction.
For centuries, progressives have struggled to make political inroads against conservatives. Why is this? Because each one works in isolation, without a vast planetary gathering of those who give priority to the alleviation of suffering, in the face of those who give priority to reproduction. When will there be an international coalition of all the actors of the animal cause, from anti-speciesists to vegans to animalists, itself a member of the largest progressive alliance of all time, an alliance capable of replacing the speciesist Universal Declaration of Human Rights with a Universal Declaration of Rights expanded to include all sentient beings?
This conference is based on Is “Being Born” in the Best Interest of the Child?- Ideology of Reproduction versus Non-Suffering, Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum, 2011
Transcript
The question we are going to ask ourselves in the coming hour is not “how to succeed”, a question much discussed elsewhere, but “how to fail”, to get an idea of the pitfalls to be avoided.
How can we fail, whether it is anti-speciesism or any other social cause? Here is the answer given by the theory of evolution:
- A great lesson from Darwin is that anti-speciesism can only last if it reproduces itself. And in order to reproduce, one needs a reproductive apparatus.
- Richard Dawkins, by analogy with genes, invented the word meme to describe the reproduction of ideas from head to head, for which we speak rather of “memetic replication”.
- Question: Does anti-speciesism have a reproductive apparatus, a memetic replicator that will allow it to pass from head to head to last in the millennia to come? Not sure.
- And in order to grow rapidly and massively, has anti-speciesism made alliances with other major social causes? Not sure either.
Let’s go into the details of this Darwinism of social causes.
From the Darwinism of ideas to the ideology of reproduction
Have you ever wondered why some currents of thought are more powerful and enduring than others?
Ideas respond to the same Darwinian logic as organic species: to last, they must reproduce, replicate themselves from brain to brain. Unsurprisingly, the history of human thought shows that the oldest, most durable and robust ethics is the one that gives priority to… reproduction. It would have appeared 100,000 years ago in Neanderthal and Sapiens, in the wake of the cult of the spirits of the dead. For those who believe in the survival of the spirit after the death of the body, nothing is more important than having descendants who will take care of their spirit after the death of their own body. Over time, this ethic has unconsciously internalized itself into a true “ideology of reproduction”. Because the living is characterized by reproduction, we often speak of a “pro-life” ethic, opposed to abortion, contraception, homosexuality or suicide.
In support of culture, the mechanical modeling of the brain by synaptic pruning in the early years of life itself favors reproductive phenomena. Hence the strength of “traditions”, such as female or male circumcision, which are rites at the heart of the ideology of reproduction since they aim precisely at the control of reproduction. It is also because the power of reproduction is so desirable that men took it over with the establishment of patriarchy a few thousand years ago, with its institution of marriage which gives the husband ownership of the child born from a woman’s womb. Animal husbandry is not only a symbol of speciesism, it is first of all the invention that allows men to make the link between sexual relations and reproduction. This discovery that man plays an important part in the begetting of children opens the way to patriarchy, whose objective is that men take back the power of reproduction, which until now has been the monopoly of women alone. Mythical accounts place the agriculturists on the side of the goddesses, while the herders are on the side of male gods: Yahweh accepts the offerings of Abel the shepherd, and refuses those of Cain the cultivator. Over time, the goddesses disappeared, and after the invention of animal husbandry, the male gods replaced them. Feminism and anti-speciesism, same fight!
Algoprioritarian Ethics in the Darwinian Challenge: India Better than Greece
Let us now look at the fate of ethics that gives priority to the alleviation of suffering, which we will call algoprioritarism.
Appearing only 2500 years ago in India and Greece, algoprioritarism has always had difficulty opposing the ideology of reproduction. In this conflict between priorities, the “conservatism” that privileges reproduction tends to prevail over “progressivism”, because nothing reproduces better than reproduction.
- In Greece, epicureanism was laminated by Stoicism and then by Christianity. Even today, the Vatican still considers suffering to be salvific. It was not until the 18th century that “happiness” returned in force in the West, at the highest level of law, thanks to the Declaration of the Human and Citizen’s Rights of 1789. But two centuries were enough to counter this ethical velleity. As early as 1948, during the Second World War, the Judeo-Christian hold-up on fundamental rights gave birth to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which put happiness to one side and replaced it with its pro-life ethics and its Kantian “dignity”, namely that the end in itself of man – image of God as everyone knows – consists in reproducing himself. This is why Kant was against non-reproductive sexual practices or suicide. To complete the picture, the UDHR establishes marriage, the institution at the foundation of patriarchy, as a fundamental right. One wonders what marriage, this discrimination against bachelors, has to do with fundamental rights!
On its side and from India, Buddhism resists better. If its flame is not extinguished during this long period, it is because it has made a revolutionary scientific discovery: the illusion of the ego. While self-consciousness exists, as everyone can experience, the Self of this consciousness is a mental illusion comparable to an optical illusion. The vision of water in the depths of the desert is very real, but the water of this vision is an optical illusion. While in the West altruism or compassion are always pure exhortations without a rational basis, unlike egoism, Buddhism demonstrates that it is irrational to be concerned exclusively with “one’s” suffering since the ego does not exist. How can a social movement like effective altruism claim rationality if its starting point, altruism, is not rational?
The discovery of the illusion of the ego at the heart of memetic replication
Why this difference in the replication of algoprioritarism between Greece, which fails, and India, which succeeds rather well?
Once Buddhism understands that “suffering exists and not the one who suffers”, this universal consciousness becomes a memetic replicator that allows algoprioritarism to reproduce itself in the long term, to face the millennia. Because of the understanding of the illusion of the ego, it is indeed irrational to be selfishly preoccupied with a single suffering, “one’s own”, that is, the suffering of an illusory Self, without being preoccupied with all the sufferings of the cosmos until the end of time. Why pay pension contributions for the one I will be in 20 years if he is not me, rather than the neighbor? Rationally, this lack of identity of the person over time, which stems from impermanence, would mean contributing for everyone. And also that everyone inherits from everyone else. The Bodhisattva, who is an emblematic figure of Buddhism, is condemned to concern himself with the suffering of future generations and all sentient beings as much as with “his own”.
In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls relied heavily on the veil of ignorance as a condition of justice. The idea is that lawmakers will pass laws that are all the more just when they have passed through a veil of ignorance that makes them unaware of who they are at the time of passing laws. Thus he will be obliged to think of himself as rich and poor, young and old, human and non-human: John Rawls dreamed of this, with the discovery of the illusion of the ego Buddhism has done it.
If we want tomorrow an artificial intelligence, such as a test-tube baby, to behave with the compassion of a bodhisattva, it would be better to teach it the illusion of the ego and universal consciousness…
Memetic Replication of Antispeciesism: Relying on Universal Consciousness
In all of this, are there lessons to be learned for the long-term memetic replication of anti-speciesism?
Yes, because the reasoning is the same as for algoprioritarism. Dispelling the illusion of the ego has the immediate consequence of abolishing the barriers between oneself and others, including the species barrier. A self-consciousness that reaches universal consciousness no longer has any reason to discriminate according to species, whereas the egoist has a rational interest in granting himself privileges on the backs of others, including other species.
If anti-speciesism wishes to replicate itself in the long term, it is therefore in its interest to bet on universal consciousness through a generalized teaching of the illusion of the ego, starting with those who are likely to gain access to the power of governance, but ultimately targeting all populations by including training in the illusion of the ego in school curricula.
Getting organized: what intersectionality of causes?
After the question of memetic replication, which is the basic organizational factor to last for a long time, let’s look at the other condition of a good organization, which is that the members of a collective must share the same ultimate priority. This is the whole question of the true intersectionality of causes.
If the teaching of the illusion of the ego has the mechanical consequence of anti-speciesism and allows algoprioritarism to take up the Darwinian challenge that arises for all ethics, progressives can go further in the face of conservatives: by organizing themselves. As long as each cause seeks to achieve its objectives alone in its own corner, without worrying about collaborating with other causes, conservatism will remain powerful. But to ally effectively, we must share the same purpose, the same goal, the same ultimate priority at the intersection of causes. Such a point of convergence will prevent insoluble conflicts of values from appearing one day or another and fracturing the collective. It is for this reason that each collective has an interest in questioning its ethical priority.
It so happens that in the little game of the Darwinism of ideas and ethics, the long history of human thought suggests that only 2 root values, 2 ethical priorities, have survived in the long term: the reproduction of life and nonsuffering. Why have these 2 ethics been socially dominant rather than others? Let us hypothesize that the ideology of reproduction results directly from the natural selection of ethics and that the suffering/pleasure tandem is a useful cybernetic regulator for all forms of mobile life. Sensitivity to suffering is not a reproductive advantage for weakly mobile forms: the sensitivity of mercury to heat is sufficient for its mobility in the thermometer, there is no need for the consciousness of suffering.
Therefore, for any collective that wonders what its ethical priority is, the answer is quite simple, it is either the alleviation of suffering or the reproduction of the living, i.e. Pro-Life ethics. Let us imagine an anti-speciesism that is Pro-Life, i.e., at the service of a society that gives priority to life, then such an anti-speciesism could aggravate the suffering of non-humans with the famous “right to life” often conveyed in animalist discourse, which would prohibit euthanasia for animals dying of disease in terrible suffering, without discrimination compared to the same prohibition for humans. The principle of justice says only that people should be treated equally, it does not say whether they should be treated from a conservative or progressive perspective. It is dangerous to claim justice and equality without first saying in the name of what ethical priority this justice will be given. I believe this problem will be developed by the next speaker, Jim Buhler.
The International Coalition for Animal Liberation, member of the Algosphere Alliance
After the question of the memetic replicator and the priority at the intersection of causes, what form a gathering of organizations could take to strengthen the anti-speciesist cause remains to be discussed.
As far as organization is concerned, there finally exists, in the 21st century, a worldwide progressive alliance where each cause is in synergy with the others, notably on the political level in the face of conservatism: it is the Algosphere Alliance.
We believe that it is time to launch an international coalition bringing together the actors of the animal cause, from anti-speciesists to vegans to animalists. Such an International Coalition for Animal Liberation would benefit from becoming itself a member of the Algosphere Alliance.
With such a political power, it would become possible to reach very ambitious objectives quickly. Typically, one of the most strategic objectives would be to replace the foundation of our societies, namely the very specist Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, by a Universal Declaration of Rights of Sentient Beings, as early as 2025.
Conclusion: how to fail?
In summary of my presentation, here are 2 good tips for anti-speciesism to fail:
Tip 1 – Aim only at the implementation phase of anti-speciesism, but don’t worry about long-term replication.
- experience shows that many causes put a lot of energy into preparing for victory, but little or no energy to make it last.
- in the case of anti-speciesism, there is however an excellent lever of memetic replication in the long term, namely the universal consciousness based on the illusion of the ego, that is to say the rational impossibility of discriminating between oneself and other consciousnesses, whatever the species carrying this consciousness
Tip #2 – Don’t ask yourself what your ethical priority is, so as to frustrate any attempt to form an alliance with other causes.
- what is the point of speaking of “convergence of struggles” if there is no “point of convergence”?
if we do not specify at the beginning what the “point of convergence” is, we are likely to end up with 2 “points of divergence”, one giving priority to Life, and the other to the alleviation of suffering. This is what we see in animal or environmental causes: some groups give priority to Life, while others are more concerned about suffering. But more often than not, because they have not taken the time to think about it carefully, many activists put forward both life and sensitivity to suffering: to win, not only is the slope steep, but the road forks!
