FANDOM


Keep dreaming, you self-righteous vego.

Less vitriolic than the above, but...

This seems to be a "Utopia" of modern left-wing ideals. Not just the "world-wide vegetarianism" (which ignored the fact that many Native Americans were NOT vegetarians, yet somehow changed their culture without domination by Europe/Asia)...but the immediate and wide-spread acceptance of both Darwin and Marx, as well as the "decline" of religion or religious influence well before the 20th Century.

Not saying it couldn't happen, just that it seems to rely on the "invisible hand of history" acting in accordance with the author's political philosophy.----Gare

Reply to both above comments

I assume both of you have read the main "Vegetarian World" page, because you're both writing on its talk page. That should say it all, but just in case you don't get it, things are not left up to chance, but I change history to lead to its modern situation. This isn't a "What if..." and insert one change of history, followed by speculation. In my defence, most other althistories are like this, with the "Danish Empire" being large because the author wants it that way, for example. I'm not doing anything that anyone else isn't doing.

So, in short, this IS something like a "Utopia" of modern left-wing ideals. Anyone got a problem with that? Right-wingers have control of a large portion of THIS REAL world. Will you let me have a tiny corner of cyberspace for whatever I want to write? I find it hard to believe that people will criticize fiction that has no effect on their own lives, will never come true, and which they can stop reading at will.

Side note about history: Notice that the vegetarian rates in places like Africa, central Pemhakamik, and the Middle East are lower than elsewhere. To say that a culture cannot change over time if it is not militarily dominated by an outside force doesn't hold any weight. For centuries, people of some cultures have studied philosophy and other subjects in another country - sometimes its colonial master, but often just a stronger economy. The strongest economies in the world have historically been India and Cathar-dominated Western Europe. Then, this knowledge is disseminated within the culture. Often, less "modern" peoples often want to become "more modern" and so adapt the lifestyles of those peoples whom they deem more modern. Once something is deemed modern and the previous idea is seen as reprehensible by a large enough number of people in any society, the new idea has a good chance of taking over. For example, in the year 1790, it might have been an impossible thought that every country (or nearly every country) someday would have laws prohibiting slavery. It had existed for as long as the historical record went back, and was present in a major way in many societies throughout the world, from Arab to European to African and some Native American groups as well. Furthermore, it was on the rise and in no known threat of extinction anytime soon. However, over the next 100 years or so, nearly every society on earth prohibited slavery. This is not due to one single master ruler of the world deeming slavery to be a bad thing (although the British did their part on the open seas), but rather through the world's culture changing (partly through mechanization, but along with moral outrage - mechanization would only make slavery less often practiced, not outlawed). This would have been quite unexpected to someone in 1790, and if we still had slaves now, we would have looked back upon history and said to ourselves that it would have been impossible for people to ever give up that way of life. We're used to what we know, so it's hard to believe that any other situation could have arisen. But this is a mistake in thinking.

Important - If anyone else has a criticism not of spellings or country names and borders, but rather of my whole premise, I would advise you to just stop reading this althist instead of commenting.

--Riction 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Riction, in counter-counter response, I'll simply say that there IS (in the minds of a great many people) a vast difference between human slavery and "enslavement" of animals for food. Plus, it should be remembered that famines were (and still are) quite prevalent throughout history, and it is doubtful that (with a herd of buffalo, wild cattle, or wild pigs abroad) folks starving to death would reject eating them....or abandon the eating of them, upon the cessessation of said famine.
Plus, you've left out several key aspects of a "Vegetarian World"....for instance...no leather. No leather means no product that could be used for boots (and therefore reduces the ability for foot travel), stirrups and saddles (if you even allow horses to be used for transport), industrial "bands" or straps (first needing leather, before rubber or other elastic materials were available) which would slow the rise of the Industrial Revolution. Or countless other animal products.
or the use of animals for drug testing. Whether or not you agree with it, in the past it WAS necessary and gave rise to many drugs used today that fight diseases.
or the fact that without dairy products, women would have no recourse but to breast-feed their young, thus allowing NO free time for them and a stunting of the rise of feminism, since there would be no "formula" (based on milk products) for them to use as a substitute for breast milk.----Gare
By the way, as for "if you don't like my premise, stop reading it and stop criticizing it"...is that the same standard YOU use? Will we not find criticisms by you of others' althists, simply on their premise or use of logic?
First, I'd like to reply to the last thing you wrote. You are free to check my edit history, and you'll find that most times, if not all times, I have supported the creator of the althist against outside criticism. This includes an althist where a meteor strikes the earth and reverses its rotation, causing the sun to rise in the West, and people somehow survive through it all. I was the only one (besides the author) to say that it's a worthy idea and that we shouldn't criticize someone's idea - only help to make that idea more plausible. Perhaps there are one or two instances where I criticized something, but that's because it went against the althist rules, namely creating future timelines (not just past ones) and other such things. There was a recent "Magic World" timeline where people use magic and there are dragons. I didn't comment on that one. There's another one about no problems in Iraq after an American invasion, and one that fully supports tobacco companies - the whole althist makes tobacco companies strong, with the whole world loving what they bring to humanity, and of course Nascar figuring in prominently. I didn't berate the premise of those, although I'm not one to write about such things, myself. I hope you commented on some of those sites, though, as they seem much more believeable than mine.
But feel free to check my user contributions page if you don't believe me. Wow...I just checked yours and it is an eye-opener. You created the "Habitable Mars" timeline? That's another one I read and felt was so silly it wan't worth my time - but I didn't negatively comment on it...that is, until now (after you've done so to me). It starts with "Mars is habitable." and ends with "It is colonized in the mid-1990s." And with the impossibility of your statements about Mars, it would take going back billions of years to establish a POD, thus changing the whole solar system in a myriad of ways...yet the U.S. and the Soviet Union still exist. OK, I really gotta check more often the background of the commenters to find out if they, themselves have any rational ideas before I argue at length that my very slight (in comparison) departure of history could come about.
To answer your other points, it is difficult to understand how you can still not get it through your head that not everyone in my world is a vegetarian. As is stated, 53% of people are vegetarians as of 2007. 100 years ago, vegetarians were a smaller percentage - a minority. Thus, these inventions that you note would most likely have come to exist. And you might not realize it, but from before the birth of Jesus, a substantial portion of Indians have been vegetarians. India's civilizations were some of the most advanced in the world before the colonial era. Your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, even in the west, people from some prominent ancient Greeks to Leonardo DaVinci, to 19th century philosophers have been vegetarians and somehow they survived on this planet. In my world, vegetarians did not make up the majority of humans until recently. And if we're talking about recently, then I should inform you that I wear fake leather shoes. Also, I should bring it to your attention that the majority of vegetarians even in my timeline drink milk. I don't know why you just chose to lump vegetarians and vegans together falsely completely for the sake of arguing with me.
As for slavery, there are differences. One difference is that slave exploitation rarely involved killing them purposefully, but with animals, the main purpose is to use them not for work (as draft animals are), but to kill them outright, just because veggie burgers are "yucky". However, a probable similarity is that abolitionists of the time were most likely thought of as "self-righteous left-wingers". "What? Do you think you're better than us, fighting for that sub-human's rights? So you hate white people, huh?" In the southern U.S., and elsewhere, one could probably not even write a book about a world with no slavery without being attacked from all directions for their "self-righteousness".
Finally, I should draw your attention to the "environmental vegetarianism" Wikipedia article which states, and I quote, "According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land" and "The World Health Organization calls malnutrition "the silent emergency", and says it is a factor in at least half of the 10.4 million child deaths which occur every year. Cornell scientists have advised that the U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat." This differentiates between livestock that is fed (thus requiring food grown specifically for them) and livestock that is free-range grazing on marginal land. Just the livestock that are fed crops on non-marginal land can account for that huge leap in food output, and thus feed all those extra people. Also note that the population in my world is lower, so there would be less starvation.
I hope you now understand my answers. Maybe we'll have a future chat on your "Habitable Mars" page later...or maybe I'll just not waste my time looking at pages I think have a stupid premise and make better use of my time than berating others' ideas. --Riction 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I DID notice that you had it be a "ova-lacto-vegetarianism"....but that still doesn't respond to the non-use of leather (for footwear or machine parts) or animal testing for vaccines....AND it creates a NEW problem. Religions throughout history have broken down in sectarianism over MINOR points of belief (Protestants vs Catholics over Papal authority....Sunnis vs Shiia....just two examples).
Do you not consider it likely that the Vegetarians and the Vegans would break down into similar violence? (I realize you base this althist on the premise that somehow a "non-carnivorous" world would be less violent.) Think about it?
Would people who believe that ANY exploitation of animals is wrong (Vegans) "put up" with people like the Vegetarians? And given the violence we've seen in THIS world by animal rights activists (non-lethal, but none the less destructive)...is it not plausible that such beliefs might lead to "drastic measures" being employed?
As for my "Habitable Mars" theory. I have YET to see any extrapolation that shows how a habitable Mars would effect Earth's history, given the two worlds are millions of miles apart and that indications are that free-flowing water and a thicker atmosphere might have existed on Mars as few as 500 million years ago and if it remained so, would have no effect on the Earth, its biosphere, or development of homo sapiens.
Umm, did my whole life is random comment have no effect on you at all. Ignoring the fact that Mars is too small to (a) hold onto a decent atmosphere and (b) have a molten interior to provide tectonic activity or a magnetosphere, any PoD that has a habitable Mars with anything even vaguely resembling OTL is going to be ASB.
This is due to the small thing called random chance, of which life is full of. The change in position of a single atom in a given molecule is going to change its chemistry and/or its angular momentum, leading to more and more changes (known as the Butterfly Effect). --Sikulu 10:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
But notice I didn't tell anybody "If you don't like it, don't comment on it", nor act in righteous indignation at receiving FIERCE criticism of it, much less the milder type. Of course, I don't wear my politics (or imagination) on my sleeve.---Gare
You don't wear your politics on your sleeve. You just put down any opinions that diverge from yours (as seen in this talk page) when the althist itself actually has nothing to do with you. Notice that I have never posted anything against meat eaters on their own webpages. I have never posted something against an althist that turned out in a way that I didn't like. I just create my own althist that is repeatedly attacked by somebody who says he doesn't wear his politics on his sleeve. You would literally have to be specifically looking for an opinion to argue with (the name "Vegetarian World" being a dead giveaway) to even run into my opinion, which I don't force on other authors of althists in any way, shape, or form. By the way, your posting against my whole premise is futile, especially seeing as I have well over 100 pages up already. When you get that far with your "Habitable Mars", let me know. And if you are a masochist who loves reading things that you don't agree with, but you don't mind being ignored from now on, please feel free to continue reading "Vegetarian World". --Riction 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a political althist, from its sweeping aside of the human history of carnivorism, to its "analogy" of "factory farms found in Germany after the Pan-Global War" to the Holocaust (an analogy that anybody but an extremist animal rights activist would find offensive).
As such, with an open Discussion page, it is open to CONTRARY political views of the statement it is trying to make. Though denied, this is a Utopian althist, with a world nearly free of war and meat-eating, no imperialism, the end of "consumerism" and religious extremism, and every left-wing ideal of the past 40 years made "reality". NO realism is employed, even in the basic premise, which allows for ova-lacto-vegetarianism, but gives NO thought to a "sectarianism" which would give rise between those who think it is "slavery" to "steal the children of chickens" or "steal the milk from our brothers the cows" and those who don't...and potential resulting violence (another aspect of human history well documented, but oddly ignored here).
The author's indignation and statement that "If you don't like it, don't read it and DON'T comment on it" is indictative of a political radical, one that is so self-righteous that he takes any criticism of his politics or even logic as a personal insult.---Gare
OK, I'm getting increasingly tired of this debate that will clearly not change the opinion of either of us, but here goes. Firstly, if you define "utopia" from its Greek etymology, I will readily admit that it is a utopia. "Utopia" merely means "place that does not exist". So, in addition, I would define all althists as utopias, assuming that "place" includes history. (In this case, "uchronie" is a better term.) This is the same as saying that every althist is fiction, which is something everybody understands. No need to reiterate that (although I must again and again for you). A utopia can also refer to "a society that is unrealistic and impossible to realize". Well, that is a little tougher. If you believe that history can branch out in an infinite number of ways, then even if my scenario has a one-out-of-a-trillion chance of happening, then it CAN happen. I guess you only suppose that every althist should show history as it "probably would have happened". Well, if you only want to read about what "probably would have happened", then a newspaper is better to read than my althist, as a newspaper shows what really IS happening, so it will save you time arguing against the feasibility of it. Finally, if you define a "utopia" as simply a "perfect world", then my althist is firmly NOT a utopia, as there is still sickness and death.
You say that I sweep aside the human history of carnivorism, even though nearly half of the people in this althist ARE carnivores. That is like talking to an Indian living in the REAL world, and saying that his country has swept aside the human history of carnivorism, and that his country IN THE REAL WORLD is an impossibility. That's like a drunkard going to an Islamic country where alcohol is prohibited and saying that "the prohibition in the U.S. never worked, so your country having a prohibition in 2007 is an impossibility!" In short, there ARE societies that exhibit traits that you deem too trivial to ever appear on a large scale, but you fail to realize that they already have become mainstream in some OTHER societies. And even with many PODs in my althist, stemming from at least 1,000 years ago (when even the "Renaissance" would probably have seemed to be an impossibility to the people of the time), you fail to see how the world can in any way take the form I have shown. I'm afraid that your opinion is simply the result of your closed mind. I'm sorry that my premise disturbs you, but if it will make you feel better, you are free to create an althist with more meat-eating, more war, and more imperialism, just as you like.
Interestingly, I'd bet that people in OTL right before WWII would have thought of European direct imperialism as something that would always exist, or at least for hundreds of years more, yet within the next 30 years, almost every major colony in the world gained its independence. My timeline's divergence from this world started more than 1,000 years ago, yet you seem to deem that amount of time as still insufficient for any major changes in the world's cultural landscape - though 30 years was enough for imperialism's demise. Hmm...it looks as if my views might not be the extreme ones here...
Also, you say that comparing "factory farms" to the "Holocaust" is offensive. Quite the opposite. The horrid living conditions and even worse dying conditions present in a place that treats sentient beings not as worthy in and of themselves, but as completely worthless in life and only useful in death, is offensive. You make the all too familiar but false claim that goes a bit like this "If you really care about Jews then you will not care about beings that are inferior to Jews living and dying in similar conditions as the worst ever experienced by Jews." Then, your argument can take the form of "If 6,000,000 (million) Jews were cruelly killed over a 5-year period of history in Germany before moral people stopped it for good, then it would be offensive to Jews to care about the 9,000,000,000 (BILLION) chickens killed in a similar fashion EVERY YEAR just in the United States, with only an increase in sight." This, to me, is nonsense. My opinion, as also stated above, is much more simple. "It is offensive to abuse and kill any sentient being." If we take that as out motto, then we will have a much simpler time thinking about such genocides as take place in Darfur or Congo-Kinshasa. "Hmm...would Jews be offended that we were helping black people the same way we helped them back in the 1940s? OK, so Jew is below Christian and black is below Jew, and then there is the question of Black Jews...Hmmm...it's so difficult to decide who we should be morally outraged at the violent deaths of and whose deaths we should condone and argue for!" Does not my motto save time thinking about what sentient being is worth of respect and instead focus on stopping ALL violence?
Finally, I never said that there was no sectarianism in my world, but again you seem to think the worst of what humanity is capable of. If you think that I'm a downer and I think that humans are horrible beings, I would hate to see what's in your mind...where societies can never be stable and war is endemic to humanity. I have never taken that approach, and I believe that some lofty ideals can be turned into reality. Again, the "sweeping aside of the human history of carnivorism" sounds oddly like what a slavery advocate would say in the early 1800s, namely that these abolitionists are "sweeping aside the human history of slavery", or that feminists are "sweeping aside the human history of male domination". Thus, to further one's own selfish interests, you posit that humans can never have lofty ambitions for our species...that we can never improve or progress as a world society. Well, I must be an optimist, because I believe we can, thus lessening sectarianism. Sure, there will be fights between rival groups, but they don't need to turn out into full-scale wars. The Mormons of today live relatively free from persecution in places like Utah, and are even scattered around the U.S. and the world, usually without encountering death threats. Protestants and Catholics have struck a peace in most areas of the globe. Even the U.S. shows in its multi-racial, multi-ethnic character that although we don't get along completely well, it's a heck of a lot better than in Iraq, with major sectarian violence. Thus, your argument is like that of an Iraqi of the U.S. - that the U.S. has even more ethnic differences than Iraq (black, white, asian, latino, Catholic, Protestant, atheist, liberal, conservative) that is must be consumed in a civil war that dwarfs Iraq's problems. But if you look at REAL history, you will see that this is not so. Also, you might be surprised to learn that the Cathars were against the death penalty even back in the 13th century! Imagine that! Also, Hindus have just as many sects as any other major religion, but there is almost no fighting at all between Hindus of different sects. In fact, one Hindu temple I went to had statues of at least two founders of other religions, Buddha and Mahavira. These founders created religions (Buddhism and Jainism) that diverged pretty radically from Hinduism (much more than the Catholic/Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant splits, and more akin to the Jewish/Christian/Islam split), but yet these founders of other religions are admired so much at this Hindu temple that there are statues built by Hindus in their honor. Oh well, so much for violent sectarianism being a natural and unstoppable part of humanity. --Riction 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
See, here's the problem, endemic to the modern animal rights advocate- You see human-animal moral equivalency. To kill a million chickens is "the same thing" to you as the Germans killing a million PEOPLE. Most people do NOT agree with that sentiment, and in fact, many find it repulsive. Or worse, you see humans as INFERIOR to animals on a moral level.
Humans have a moral intellect. A baboon (or any carnivorous animal) would eat a infant human with no sense of immorality, nor would its "society" be outraged or organize to stop such action. As stated in your althist, humans could feel a sense of moral outrage and human society COULD organize around stopping humans from eating baby baboons and impose a societal sanction against it.
Therefore there IS no "moral equivalency" between animals and Man. You might argue that Man is has no moral superiority in certain, specific historical events. But in the ENTIRE history of animals, there is no evidence of a "moral outrage" over the killing or eating of humans by THEM (or against themselves...as the saying goes, "I'll stop eating animals...when they stop eating each other!")
AND if you want to argue that Man, due to vegetarianism, DOES have a moral superiority over animals (given we can stop eating them for moral reasons, while they, by their nature or instinct, cannot stop eating meat themselves)...then you further erode your case, since you've granted a HIERARCHY of morality, with Man at the top and animals below....which means that all determination of cruelty is made by US, and not a universal standard of how "other living beings" need to be treated. Which means that the destruction of 6 million HUMANS (in the Holocaust)...humans which have moral intellects that animals do NOT possess....IS more heinous than "9 billion chickens killed".
So, either way, either Man has no superiority (ergo, we can be just as carnivorous as the animals with no moral distinction or "blemish" against us)....or Man DOES have moral superiority over animals (ergo, the loss of a million chickens is NOT "equal" to the loss of a million (or even one) human)....your logic is flawed.
But then again, it never IS about logic...it's about emotions.
See, here's the problem, endemic to conservatives who argue for moral values but disregard morals not only when it comes to animals but people (with war-mongering, etc). You incorrectly think that a being's worth is determined by its ability to do high level brain calculations (which you seem to be lacking in your posts). Now, if you want to rank all of the planet's organisms by how well they can do algebra, that's up to you, but as for me, all I care about is if they have NERVE ENDINGS - that is, if they can feel pain. I'm sure that even you would not treat babies and the mentally handicapped (or your pet, if you have one) in they way in which you are so eager to condone with animals. Animals, see, have nerve endings. They can also feel scared. But (depending on the species), their ability to make high moral judgements is limited. The same can be said for babies. There is no vegetarian baby human who has chosen that way of life. Why? Well, at that age, it's hard to comprehend such a complicated topic. There are many animals that have much more developed senses than babies. And embryos...forget about it. Almost any animal in the world can beat an embryo in all respects. So if we can only be kind to beings that can think at a high level like humans, then it would be morally permissible to abuse and kill babies, and mentally handicapped people (who will never even grow out of their condition). Do they need to think the same exact way as us to be saved from a horrible life and a horrible death? (This is where you will have to throw away your logic (that which you say I'm lacking) and open up your Bible to further argue with me, and so displaying what I knew all along...that you are not logical at all.)
And I guess bringing your attention to various studies where animals were shown to have some ideas of morality won't change your mind, either. Or that a pig is generally more intelligent than a dog in many ways. But oh well... Your baboon argument says that carnivorous animals would kill a baby human without any regret. Ironically, nearly all the species humans eat would not kill a baby human. Certainly not a cow or chicken.
At any rate, you put words in my mouth, disregarding whether I actually believe it or not. About the Pan-Global War, I merely write that "factory farming" was one of the German and Japanese atrocities that the Allies were able to stop. Thus, my statement was not exactly that "one animal is exactly one Jew", but rather that the things I described were thought of as atrocities in my world. Perhaps a human holocaust was simply unthinkable for the people in Vegetarian World, so it was an atrocity. Over in Iraq, there was recently an orphanage where children were chained to their beds and starved. OK, so admittedly, that was probably a better situation than going into a German death camp in WWII, but if it doesn't meet or exceed the brutality of the holocaust, then must we refrain from calling it an atrocity? To you, must inhumanity exceed that of the WWII conditions to warrent your official stamp of "atrocity" to you? Yes, I compared "factory farms" to "the Holocaust". It's called an analogy. Now, some may say that killing 9 billion chickens every year just in a single country for decades or centuries or millennia is worse than killing 6 million Jews (and some few million other "undesireables") over a 5-year period in German-controlled areas. Others will say that the Holocaust is a bigger atrocity. Notice that I didn't say at all HOW BIG an atrocity "factory farms" were...only that the people in my althist considered factory farms to be atrocities. I find it offensive that someone would put down others who simply call mass-torture and mass-killing an atrocity. "How dare you! You are calling the Darfur situation an atrocity?! Do you know how many Jews would be offended by the comparison that Darfur is like the Holocaust?" Hmm... I'd rather talk about a mass-killing as an atrocity, and not have to worry about comparing atrocities to see whose is larger. You seem to lack a basic understanding of analogies - namely, that they are related but not synonyms.
Anyway, let's get back to your other argument. That basic argument seems to say, "Humans are a special breed. We are the only ones that can empathize with others. So let's just act like animals and NOT empathize with others." I'll write this in more detail below.
  1. We are able to empathize with other species.
  2. Animals are not able to empathize with other species.
  3. That makes us superior, and superior species don't empathize with other species.
  4. If we don't empathize with other species, then this cancels out the first sentence, thus not making us superior.
Sounds a little strange. It sounds like you're trying not to use that which you were born with...a special sense of morality. The beauty of humans is that yes, we're able to better consider consequences and understand the feelings of others. But if I'm the only one of us that can consider the feelings of animals that are slaughtered by the billions, then just according to your reasoning, I AM SUPERIOR TO YOU.
Hmm... It's so strange why some people argue at length only FOR the slaughter or other sentient beings. You would have thought that these people would just be content being able to eat meat, themselves, and leave others alone. To me, it's kind of like being of a religion that preaches to others that we should kill MORE. "Sure, killing is fun, but if there are those out there who personally don't think that killing is fun, we must try to change their minds or we can never be satisfied." Now THAT'S perversity. --Riction 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(to prevent scroll loss, starting anew)

See, that's the basic premise of your belief system (and inspiration of this althist)...that humans and animals are "equally sentient beings" with "equal rights" (under some generic Man-created morality...unless you, who threw out religion in your althist, are arguing for a God-created morality).

The basic fact exists that while "a chicken is smarter than an human embryo"...a baby human is still smarter than a CHICKEN EMBRYO (boy, talk about convoluted logic there).

And a tiger, great white shark, or baboon would show NO compunction about eating US....you want to treat them as "equals", despite the fact they have NO moral or ethical nature by which THEY would treat us as amicably.

Like most extreme animal rights advocates (beyond the HUMAN morality of not treating animals cruelly or making them suffer needlessly, but still finding it necessary in some cases)....you want equality of Man and Animal...but demand NOTHING of the animals (because obviously you can't...they DON'T have sentience enough...or, if you like, WE don't have the ability to communicate with them).

So...all you've done is REINFORCE the "stewardship of Man" argument...you simply want that stewardship benevolent and not "exploitive".

But that means that YOU consider Man superior to animals, since we have the moral and INTELLECTUAL capacity to act benevolently towards animals....while you cannot make the same claim about them towards us, since they are instinctually driven and a tiger, shark, or any carnivore would NOT show us the same benevolence.

So....if we agree that Man is superior and has "dominion" over the animals....then they DON'T have "rights" or an equivalent status to us in the world. QED

(BTW, I'm no "conservative". I consider myself a libertarian and humanist. I'm an agnostic, pro-gay rights, anti-Drug War, for the fullest possible extension of human rights and ...pro-choice. See, I don't feel that embryoes are "babies" or that the Gov't has a right to tell a woman if she wishes to terminate a pregnancy. I also, obviously, do not feel that chickens are our "sentient brothers". Are you pro-life? If not, why not? Why do you favor the ability of a woman to "kill a baby" but not kill a mouse?)

Wow...it's just like you haven't heard anything I've said. Yes, I am for a "stewardship" of animals. (Generally, at least in my mind, "stewarship" doesn't mean "killing at will".) I'm not advocating that animals get the right to vote or anything. Still, it basically comes down to what you define as "the HUMAN morality of not treating animals cruelly or making them suffer needlessly, but still finding it necessary in some cases". Is getting a Big Mac instead of a veggie burger mandatory? Even though there is a lot of evidence that vegetarianism is at least as healthy as its alternative (though you'll probably undoubtedly bring up some one-off example of a vegan who didn't get enough protein), eating the Big Mac is "mandatory" for you? That's all I'm wondering about. We're not trapped on a deserted island with nothing but a knife, so we don't need to have the "us versus them" mentality. We live in a world where we can easily get by without meat. We can argue until "the cows come home", but in the end, isn't it just our differing perspectives?...that I merely see as a "want" whereas you see a "need"? (And obviously, millions of people in this world are getting by well without your so-called "need".)
Again, you misunderstand my idea of "superiority". OK, so say humans are superior to animals. In many facets, humans are. But then, normal humans are also "superior" to those born with an extra chromosome, who will never be able to care for themselves. Does this superiority of intellect translate into our ability to kill all those "inferior" beings at will? Not even because of need, but because of want?
Again, you say that a tiger or shark would not hesitate to eat a human, but you fail to see that 1) You, yourself, do not hesitate to eat other species (thus making yourself into the same kind of dastardly, unthinking beast that you call them) and 2) as I said, nearly all of the species that humans DO eat have no interest in eating us, and would leave us alone were we in their company.
It seems that I can make an argument, just from your argument that goes like this.
  1. Tigers, sharks, baboons, and many other animals kill other species without guilt.
  2. This makes them inferior, so we can kill them as we see fit.
  3. Gare kills other species without guilt.
  4. This makes him inferior, so we can kill him as we see fit.
I do not believe in this argument. I would never say that somebody can kill you, for meat or otherwise. Yet just by looking at YOUR argument, this is the frightening realization that seems to pop out at me.
You take the leap from "equally sentient beings" to "having equal rights". If you mean by "equally sentient" that the animals we eat feel pain just like humans, then "equally sentient" is not just an opinion - it's a fact. But nowhere do I say that animals should have equal rights. You confuse "equal rights" with "not being tortured and killed for only the flimsiest of justifications". Do I think that animals can be humanely used for work without their being able to form a labor union and being able to go to college to select a better profession? Well, yes. Do I believe the same for humans? No. Do I believe that a cow should be able to be held in a tiny pen that prevents it from moving for its entire short life so that I can have veal? No. Do I think that it's OK to make veal from humans? No. Would I let a severely mentally handicapped person fly my airplane? No. Would I want that severely mentally handicapped person to be turned into a hamburger? No. Humans are "superior" in some ways - that is, sheer intellect. So if something involves intellect, I have no problem about a human being placed above an animal. In fact, I have no problem about one smarter human being placed above a dumber human. However, if something involves pain and death - something humans by no way have a monopoly on - then in that sense, animals should be treated equally.
Still, just according to my althist, where well over 40% of people DO eat meat, it would seem that I'm giving meat-eaters a lot of leeway, although I'm feeling a bit like toughening my stance on them. I hope that you as a reader don't feel insulted by something that's not happening in this world, except as impulses in my brain and digital words on a webpage.
As for your "human embryo is smarter than a chicken embryo", that doesn't mean a thing, because we're not killing chicken embryos for KFC, we're killing chickens. These chickens can feel pain and be frightened. Thus, they are very different from embryos of both species. Am I pro-choice? Yes, except with late-term abortions (during which a human's state, though still probably well below that of any cow or chicken or fish, is developed enough to sense its surroundings, and if you're gonna make a decision to abort, you should make it while the life is least-developed). Eating meat and having an abortion, again, can be compared through analogy, but are very different. Firstly, having an abortion is a hugely personal matter that will likely weigh heavily on one's mind. Women don't have an abortion a day because they like meat sauce more than mushroom sauce. It's something that people lose sleep over. Having a baby is one of the most important decisions of one's life, and terminating a pregnancy is an equally important decision. Thus, an abortion can be much more "necessary" to a person than your "necessary" eating of animals each day with not so much as a thought. Finally, I must also state that just according to my althist, only 2 countries (but I'll make it a round 3 for now) even in my world have laws prohibiting meat. As I said, 47% (but I'll make it 42%) of people in the "Vegetarian World" eat meat...probably at least once per week. When 47% of humans in this world have abortions at least once per week, let me know. So if you merely looked at my work, you would probably come to the conclusion that most countries are "pro-choice" concerning eating meat.
So now if we're done discussing my personal beliefs, maybe we could get back to the subject at hand - that is, how exactly I don't have the right to make any althist I want. Or better yet, we can stop this waste of time for both of us. Even before I started typing, it said, "WARNING: This page is 33 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." So maybe you can move onto your brilliant "Habitable Mars" discussion page to get to the real issue of what's worthy and what's not worthy to be written on this Althistory Wiki. --Riction 12:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"maybe we could get back to the subject at hand - that is, how exactly I don't have the right to make any althist I want. Or better yet, we can stop this waste of time for both of us"....where did I say that, Riction?
And let's look at this---"These chickens can feel pain and be frightened. Thus, they are very different from embryos of both species. Am I pro-choice? Yes, except with late-term abortions (during which a human's state, though still probably well below that of any cow or chicken or fish, is developed enough to sense its surroundings, and if you're gonna make a decision to abort, you should make it while the life is least-developed)."
First can you offer any scientific evidence that chickens "can be frightened"? No. You can offer INTERPRETATIONS of their clucking that can be JUDGED (by us humans) to be "fear", but no proof. Why? Because they can't communicate any such feelings. A dog or cat, maybe. But the tiny 2-amp brain of a chicken (the size of a Skittle) barely applies enough brain power to let the chicken find food, mate, and run from approaching creatures (attacking or otherwise).
Second, as I said I'm pro-choice. But evidence does show that fetuses BEFORE the third trimester do have some brain function. Brain function that is significantly HIGHER than an adult chicken's. Ergo, you are concerned about a creature you CLAIM can feel fear...but are un-concerned about an "entity" that has a higher brain function, and therefore is MORE likely to "feel fear"...a 2nd trimester fetus.
Thirdly, your denial that you want to offer "equal rights" to animals isn't true. As noted in your "factory farms Holocaust", in your althist the same outrage that WE in OTL offered about the Jewish Holocaust is offered in your althist over chickens and cattle. Ergo, you established an equivalency of "moral outrage"....ergo, in your mind, the slaughter of chickens is (or should be in your world-view) considered equally heinous as the slaughter of humans.
The only logical conclusion from that is that you grant a chicken's life EQUAL importance as a human's (you also did above in your last response). And if two beings have equal importance and equal RIGHT to be free of death or "slavery" at the hands of humans....they have equal rights.
Finally, on your "you eat meat, the tiger eats meat, therefore you are inferior to me the vegetarian human". Sorry, no. I, unlike the tiger, can CHOOSE to stop eating meat...at any time. I have that moral sense, that the tiger does not. Therefore, I can assume an equal moral stance to you the Veggie at any time, while the tiger never can. Ergo, I and you (as humans) ARE morally superior to a creature that has no free will. Ergo, ergo, as beings of free will there is no "external morality" (except that which we choose...existentialism) by which to judge whether carnivorism by us is "wrong". If you wish to go religious, again, that contradicts your althist in which you say that religions have faded and people have come to embrace Darwinism....WHICH, by the way, takes an AMORAL view of carnivorism, since, if it can be shown that we evolved from carnivores (via our canine teeth...and relation to great apes who are omnivores)....there is nothing inherently immoral about eating meat from an evolutionary stand-point.
Firstly, using "ergo" multiple times doesn't make you smart. Secondly, there is scientific evidence that chickens can be frightened. But you're not interested in it. Thirdly, if there was wholesale mechanical slaughter of humans during the Pan-Global War, then maybe it would have made the headlines instead of the animal killings. As it was, in my generally less-violent world, factory farms are enough. (People fainted when they watched the 1931 film "Frankenstein". People rarely if ever faint when they watch movies much more scary these days. Something small to you can be shocking to others.)
It is indeed strange that you're basically saying to me, "I can choose anytime to stop eating meat." Well, you can, but you can't choose anytime to find respect for other species' lives. Thus, even if you don't eat meat, your mindset won't change. So in that way, you're no different than a tiger...well, except that if a tiger doesn't eat meat, it dies, and if you don't eat meat, you merely have to put up with veggie hotdogs. I actually do have a sense of empathy for other species (which you lack). And your argument says, "I am superior to a tiger because people like you exist." Forgive me if that's not convincing to me.
It's hard to express how off topic you are with this discussion if you are, indeed, telling me that this is not trying to disprove my althist. You're just arguing against vegetarianism in general. To me, that's like going to the Pure Arabica althist, where Muslims conquered much of the world and saying, "I don't believe in Islam." OK, that's fine and dandy, but as long as there is no reason why the situation in "Pure Arabica" could not exist, it would be less annoying if you would just shut your trap and move on to some althist that you do like. Same with here. This discussion page is not for arguing your specific viewpoint on how the world works. I'm afraid that I have to tell you the awful truth, even if it will make you sad. The truth is, I am not concerned with hearing about your morals or lack thereof. This is a discussion page about an althist. What part of "constructive criticism" don't you understand?
In conclusion, you started with an attack on the logic of my althist, and you eventually turned it into an attack on me in general. But this discussion page is not about attacking me in general, nor my principles, and I have already answered too much of your nonsense already. Final Conclusion: I do have the right to make any althist I want (as you, yourself admit), so I'll make it. You are free to read it or not. If you have any further comments, I'd rather you make your own althist discussion page a junkyard of ideas instead of mine. --Riction 11:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whew! I'm glad that's over :P. Net Gain in Harmony or Net Gain in Truth? Sometimes they just can't coexist!;)--TEAKAY 13:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... You said it. --219.197.64.26 06:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very Nice

Very nice timeline, with over a 100 pages wow!!! It seems like a utopia of free thinking and progress. Even though I'm not a vegetarian I can definately see how you made this and it seems silly but at the same time semi-realistic. A lot more realistic then some of the timelines on this site anyways....

I would so give up all animal based products to live in this world.....less over population...more free thinking..and surviving Bzyantines! I mean who doesn't like Bzyantines ATLs? --Animelover 07:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You probably won't see this, Animelover, but thanks for the support!...and sorry for the year and a half lag in replying! --Riction 13:27, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why the Europe is split to many pieces? Is it about the rise of Orient? also why China is split to many countries? Jordan Chang 09:00, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be a lack of Buddhists in the world. The Malays here are Hindu, but in OTL, they were Buddhist. What could have caused such a shift in religion. Also, there should be more Buddhism in India itself. Islam replaced Buddhism in India, but without much Islam in India, there should be a lot more Buddhists. In addition, how can there be a "Republic of India" if India was never colonized. Perhaps an Empire of India would exist. The religious demographics are all wrong, but otherwise great timeline. Fjihr (talk) 18:01, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.