Aliens Among Us

When I was a kid, my family used to have movie nights, most often at my Uncle’s house. He had turned his garage into a movie theatre, complete with gold eggshells lining the walls and a curtain in front of the screen. He had replicated the entire movie-going experience and I always looked forward to going there.

Uncle Bill was a classic movie buff so we saw all the old movies like ‘Gone with the Wind’ and ‘How the West was Won’, and all the Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin standards. Before the main movie he always screened ‘shorts’, half-an-hour to forty-five minute serial shows that he always showed before the main movie, and the one I remember best was ‘Star Trek’.

Star Trek was always a little more intelligent fare because the problems faced by the crew were invariably more than could be solved by sheer brute force or superior technology. Additionally, there were the ethical dilemmas demanding that choices were made, not purely to support the Federation, but to bring about elegant solutions that benefited everyone.

The Federation Moral Code, embodied in the Prime Directive, is as follows:

“The Directive states that members of Starfleet are not to interfere in the internal affairs of another species, especially the natural development of pre-warp civilizations, either by direct intervention, or technological revelation.”

Continue reading “Aliens Among Us”

Why I Don’t Eat Animals

I finally finished the first edition of my booklet, “Why I Don’t Eat Animals”. I started it in 2011, and due to new research, changes in my own thinking, and work demands, it has taken me four years to complete.

I wrote it because I noted that many people either did not know about or did not understand all of the facets of the animal consumption issue, and whenever I came across literature on the subject, it invariably focused on one aspect and not the others. So there were essays and books dealing with the ethical argument that did not engage with the environmental issue or the question of socio-economics.

This is my attempt at presenting a comprehensive explanation for why I believe there is a rational case for reducing or ceasing the consumption of animals. I also wanted to keep it concise because I recognised that many people have an aversion to reading lengthy tomes. At 24 pages, it is an hour’s investment and hopefully it will keep you engaged. One can always follow the many links, should there be a need to read more detail.

This is not a book for academics, who may find the philosophical presence incomplete. It’s a book for laymen and pragmatists, written in language that everyone can understand. It’s a book that can be read by those wishing to understand more about the place of non-human animals in our world, those who have some sense of environmental responsibility or conservation, or even by those who are opposed to consideration for animals.

Download it here: Why_I_Dont_Eat_Animals

My sincere hope is that those who read it will apply their minds to the arguments contained, consider the ramifications of their thinking and action, and, should they see the need, make the necessary changes.

Derek du Toit

Save

Save

Welfare vs Rights – A counterproductive false dichotomy

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the -fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (Wiki)

In 2008, while conducting an online campaign to stop the Onderstepoort Biological Products horses from going to slaughter after the organisation was finished with them, I founded an organisation called ARC (Animal Rights Coalition) with a view to having an official platform from which to direct the campaign.

I was immediately taken to task by various animal rights activists for using the term ‘animal rights’ and was told that the organisation was really a ‘welfarist’ organisation and that our approach was not consistent with the animal rights movement. It seemingly did not matter that we were campaigning for the right we believed these horses had to life, and none of these activists assisted in any manner to the campaign; it seemed that the use of the right term was more important. That we were also focused on companion animals and what we perceived to be fundamental rights they should have was also of less importance than that we conformed to their terms and ideology. Continue reading “Welfare vs Rights – A counterproductive false dichotomy”