The Humanity of Animal Rights

The Humanity of Animal Rights

The natural continuation of this series about meat eating is covering books such as Meathooked or Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, and we will get to the later after this post. But while working on Elias’s thesis, we have encountered a book called Animals & Society by Keith Tester which we felt we also had to address as part of this series.

The book’s main theme is that ‘animal rights’ is not a natural truth that have waited for someone to discover, but a social construct which was invented under specific historical circumstances, and for human purposes.
Subtitling his book The Humanity of Animal Rights, Tester is not only pointing at the fact that humans’ relation to animals is bound to be humane for the obvious circumstantial reason that animals can’t represent themselves, but also and especially because humans’ only interest in animals is as objects who serve to define humans’ humanity.

Covering several theorists from the fields of ethology, sociobiology, anthropology, social history, philosophy, sociology, and most importantly animal rights, tester’s arguments are much more challenging than they may sound on the face of it.
He is far from being the conventional critique of animals rights and therefore worth your attention. Ours was caught by some of the points he made during his historical and sociological examination of the concept of animal rights, as well as ones which he didn’t make but his analysis emphasizes. In this post we wish to discuss mainly one of them, but to do so, first, some background is needed. Continue reading

Meat: A Natural Symbol of Power

Meat A Natural Symbol of Power
After addressing the estimation of the sociologist Norbert Elias that as part of a general and gradual refinement in humans’ social behavior vegetarianism would probably be much more popular, for the second part of this series we wish to address a theory about meat by the anthropologist Nick Fiddes. In his book Meat: A Natural Symbol Fiddes suggests an anthropological explanation to why humans are so keen on meat, and what is according to him, the only condition which might alter them.
His thesis is extremely depressing but highly essential for understanding the motives behind meat eating. Though we disagree with his assertion that there is only one motive behind meat eating, we do agree that the motive he suggests is indeed extremely central, and it is extremely underrepresented in the animal rights community.

Basically, Fiddes’s argument starts by recognizing that meat is very highly valued by humans all along history, practically by every single culture. Meat’s value is incomparable to any other food, in no proportion to its nutritional significance (in other words to its actual practical importance to humans). Fiddes deduces that this special status of meat results from the fact that it embodies humans’ dominance over nature and the other animals. Animals symbolize power and nature, and so eating other animals is the ultimate symbol of humans’ power, of their superiority over other animals, and their triumph over nature.

Consuming the muscle flesh of other highly evolved animals is a potent statement of our supreme power.” (Page 2) Continue reading

Refined Exploitation


For the World Vegetarian Day, held yesterday, and for the World Farm Animals Day, held today, we wish to discuss The Civilizing Process theory by the famous sociologist Norbert Elias – in which he estimated that one of the next phases in the civilizing process could be mass vegetarianism.

The reason we are addressing this prediction despite that it is relatively old, is that it relates to a current and very popular notion in the animal rights movement. Elias’s theory, indirectly (and obviously independently) “refers” to McCartney’s famous quote that “if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. Elias’s work suggests that since humans are a product of their cultural and social circumstances, if slaughterhouses have never had walls, nobody would ever be a vegetarian. A very frightening thought, which contradicts a belief too many activists hold about humans’ natural compassion abilities which are supposedly being canceled out by the animal exploitation industry manipulations.
To understand where this idea comes from, it is necessary to elaborate a little bit about Elias’s theory first.

But even before that, a quick word of clarification. Obviously the term Civilization is highly and rightfully controversial, and from several different aspects, including speciesist ones. We use this problematic term here only in the way Elias used it and only for the sake of the argument about vegetarianism. Specific and direct reference to Civilization can be found in some posts in the series about violence. Continue reading

Facts Don’t Reach the Center of the Universe

Facts Don’t Reach the Center of the Universe

Every once in a while an article featuring an overview of nonhumans’ amazing abilities is published in the public media. These articles are about animals’ complex emotional world, their high social skills, their ability to empathize, their grief, their curiosity and need for play, and generally about how smart they actually are. This week another such report, headlined Animals are Smart. Are Humans Holding Them Back? was published in the Huffington post, reminding how little humans actually know about nonhumans.
This publish was in close proximity to two items the Animal Liberation community shared online – that goats skillfully read human facial expressions, and that possibly a species of fishes “passed” the mirror test.
Activists’ inclination to promote information about the depth of nonhuman cognition in hope it would generate a shift in human’s views and behaviors is extremely naïve, and morally problematic.

The question how smart animals are has no ethical relevancy. Sentience is the only relevant criterion determining who belongs to the moral community. You and we acknowledge that, but most humans believe otherwise and so nevertheless relate “smartness” with moral treatment. It is not accidental that humans consider the trait which they see as their relative advantage over other animals as the most important one, and use it when it comes to moral treatment. Continue reading

Ethical Climate Change

After a week of ongoing horrible news in relation to animals suffering from the current heat wave, coming from all over the world and especially from Australia, 2 days ago another related atrocity occurred.
New South Wales is experiencing the driest and most widespread drought conditions since 1965.
As a consequence, the state government had increased the number of kangaroos that farmers are allowed to murder, since according to human logic kangaroos are “competing” with cows and sheeps for food and water.

So like in plenty of other horrible examples, nonhumans are punished for humans’ mistakes. Humans are responsible for climate change, mostly since they refuse to give up eating meat, and these days humans’ meat obsession is broadening its victim scope, to include probably millions of kangaroos (already on any “regular” year more than a million kangaroos are murdered).
The kangaroos are caught in a cynical and vicious cycle. But this cycle is very familiar.
It is not new that animals are being shot at not to mention their habitat is being destroyed to satisfy humans desires. Nonhumans always pay the price for humans mistakes and irresponsibly.


Continue reading

Automatic Exploitation

A few days ago it was published that 4 more U.S. dairy farms would add fully automated robotic rotary parlor by the end of 2018.
Robotic milking, or automatic milking systems (AMS), have been around for 25 years and are now a mainstream technology in Europe (these systems account for more than half of the new installations in the UK). There are about 50,000 milking robots operating worldwide.
Rotary parlors are also helping humans to exploit cows for a while now. The combination of the two is quite new, and is said to “give dairy farmers the efficiency of rotary parlors with the consistency of robotic milking”.

The mechanization of the dairy industry is extremely worrying. Continue reading

Clear Facts, Dubious Morality

Last week the Washington Post published an article stating that fishes can feel pain. Though usually headlines are the result of new data, there is nothing new about this specific article, just another article pointing the obvious. What we find interesting and relevant is its existence half way through 2018 more than its scientific content, as well as a possible implication of this “finding” which is being discussed along the article. We’ll start with the later.

A Cynical Reaction to a Self-Evident “Revelation”

Instead of fishes’ sentience “revelation” leading humans to stop hurting them, the article speculates possible changes in the fishing industry, some of which may lead to humans hurting them even more.

Continue reading

Another Act in an Endless War

Today a “top-level” trade meeting between Chinese and American officials takes place. This meeting followed a month and a half long tit-for-tat trade tensions, which included policy acts as well as many threats between the world’s greatest super powers. Some of which were at the expense of the world’s most weakened – nonhumans animals.

The negotiations weren’t about animal legislation and for the most part not even about animals trade. In fact, the word ‘animals’ probably wasn’t even mentioned, not even once, during the meetings (except for the exploitative terms – ‘cattle’ and ‘pork’). The talks were an effort to stop an escalating trade war, yet millions of animals are to be effected by them, and that says a lot about the fate of animals in this world. Continue reading

When Environmentalism, Ingenuity and Selfishness Meet

When-Environmentalism-Ingenuity-and-Selfishness-MeetToday is Earth Day, a day which is not and never was about non-human animals. The only species that Earth Day is about is humans. The reason we do address this day is that the AR community tends to adopt some of the environmental rhetoric. This is of course not at all new, but it became more prominent in the last couple of years due to the relative rising awareness of climate change.
The motivation behind it is unquestionable, AR activists are recruiting ecological claims as a tactical move, trying to tap into a more consensual topic, for the sake of animals. What is questionable is whether animals are benefiting from this use.

The use of egocentric and anthropocentric arguments in veganism advocacy is notoriously popular in the Animal Liberation movement, and we have a multimedia article about that problematic issue called Even the Most Selfish Argument. This is not the main concern we discuss in this post. It is also not about the fundamental differences between Environmentalism and Animal Liberation, an issue we have broadly discussed in another multimedia article called The Anthropocentric View of the Environmentalists.

In this post we focus on the more immediate and practical effects of environmentalism and the environmental rhetoric on nonhuman animals, some of which are already happening, and others are expected in the coming years.
As you know humans excel at resisting any substantial changes in their beloved habits, and instead settle for half-baked, partial options, which are often no more than lip service. They usually recruit their ingenuity so they would have to change their ways as little as possible. When it comes to dealing with climate change and sustainability issues, some of those moves may even end up causing more animal suffering around the world. Continue reading

The World Day for the End of Fishing


Yesterday was World Day for the End of Fishing, a new initiative that asks for the abolition of fishing and fish farming.
The motivation behind this day, which is organized by the same groups who launched the World Day for the End of Speciesism in 2015, is the absolute indifference to the fate of fishes by the general public.
This day is an exception to the rule which, to a large extent, is a disregard of fishes’ suffering by the AR community. Most campaigns, organizations and activists rarely mention fishes and other aquatic animals despite that they are the vast majority of the victims of animal exploitation.
The marine animals industry is by far the largest exploitation industry in the world. Thousands of billions of individuals are caught in the world’s oceans, seas and lakes. Hundreds of billions of them are caught to feed the hundreds of billions of farmed fishes and crustaceans. Additional billions of individuals are caught unintentionally as bycatch.
But we don’t accuse activist of internalizing a speciesist view which prioritizes the suffering of land animals over that of marine animals. We are sure that the downplay of fishes’ suffering is mostly a tactical move, resulting from activists’ despair of humans’ apathy. Humans are much less likely to relate to fishes than to other industrially exploited animals, and especially mammals. That’s why, more than any other systematically exploited species, fishes are mentioned in many cases as part of a more ecological rhetoric of “empty oceans”, and not as sentient individuals.

The use of egocentric and anthropocentric arguments in vegan advocacy is notoriously popular in the Animal Liberation movement (an issue that should be and is broadly discussed separately). In the case of advocacy for fishes, it is not by chance that egocentric and anthropocentric reasons (mostly in disguise of ecological ones) take centre stage. Continue reading

The Threat of Nonviolence

The Threat of Nonviolence

There is an ongoing fuss in the past week over some press coverage of British farmers claiming they were threatened by vegan activists.
Obviously it’s a blown story made up by some farmers and used by some gutter press. There is no evidence of any of these accusations. No screenshots, no recordings, no letters or anything of that sort. If anything, activists were suggesting farmers to try and put themselves in the position of the animals, writing things  like “would you want to be treated that way” – hoping to make them feel more related, not frightened. Expectedly, these scumbags have turned what is meant to be some sort of a thought experiment to try and make them empathize with their victims – into made up death threats.

But even if it was true, the problem isn’t that activists sent violent threats to farmers and butchers, the problem is with the method and with the addressees. Farmers and butchers are not the reason why billions of animals are suffering from birth to murder – humanity is. Farmers and butchers are only the operating hands of a huge oppressing machine. The head is humanity. No point in threating the hands. It would be the wrong method aimed at the wrong target. It is the head which should be targeted and the means shouldn’t be death threats.

Many of the activists’ responses are defensive, arguing that they can’t be violent since they are advocators of non-violent approach. Activists should be defensive but not because of manipulative farmers and sensationalist media, but since the non-violent approach is actually violent. Continue reading

Eternal War


A few days ago a study about the effects of wars and armed conflicts on “wild” animal population, was published in Nature magazine.

The goal of the study was to examine to what extent do wars and armed conflicts reduce “wild” animal populations in comparison to other factors.
The research team analyzed 253 populations of 36 large herbivorous mammals (large mammals are considered “keystone species,” meaning they are indicators of their ecosystem’s condition), across 126 protected preserves in 19 African nations, between 1946 and 2010.
The results are that frequent armed conflicts are the most important factor explaining the trends in wildlife populations relative to all other factors they looked at, or in other words, as the number of conflicts increased, wildlife populations declined.

The researchers’ conclusion sounds totally obvious. What we find interesting is one of their work premises which is that it’s hard to conclude whether wars have positive or negative effects on “wild” animal population. The fact that there was even a need for this kind of research is what we found interesting and important. Continue reading

New Look, Hopefully for Fewest New Years Possible

We have done some serious updating and renovations of all of our materials. From the website appearance, through factual data in the articles, the arguments in the visual arguments, new and renewed answers in the FAQ, and most importantly – we updated our Manifesto.

This renovation as well as this blog, are part of our efforts to make our ambitious project more accessible and comprehensive.

We realize that the idea itself is not at all new to most activists but on the contrary, many activists wish for this world to be destroyed. Many activists say they would press the button when asked the hypothetical question. But unfortunately very few are willing to stop focusing on their tiny spot of influence, to stop looking for ways to make a few more vegans and start looking for ways to stop all of the oppressors from causing all of the suffering.
Though we’ve risen from the animal liberation community, in this site we offer various arguments to debunk several key notions in the activism circles. For example, the thought that global veganism is the moral idle to pursue, or that advocacy efforts of any kind – in the face of continual mass violence – is the nonviolent course of action. Also, our materials elaborate on why the reliance on human liberation struggles is mostly false and always extremely naïve and optimistic.

Our goal in establishing the End All Suffering movement is to turn this hypothetical abstract wish into an actual ideology and goal. Our vision is to form a conceptual, philosophical and substantial practical activist agenda which doesn’t passively long for a “doomsday” event, but looks for ways to actively bring it.

We formed the suffering abolition initiative in order to call on activists to cease the futile and compromised attempt of making this world slightly less horrific by trying to change humans, and start looking for a deep-rooted, comprehensive approach for the world suffering.

We realize that the fact that the problem is so immensely huge that it’s almost impossible to really grasp, leads many activists to passively think big but actively work small. We want to change that so activists would think huge and act huge. Think global and act global.

We know how big, complicated and ambitious this aspiration is, and that the chances may be small. But we also know that if no one tries, it will never happen. That’s why we are addressing other activists, trying to convince them to join the suffering abolition movement. We are calling activists to put the advocacy leaflets down and pick up a leaflet of a relevant science faculty. The so desirable button won’t fall out of the sky, we must to create it.

May we have the fewest new years possible.

It Is Not Humans That We Hate

Today is Human Rights Day, a good opportunity to point out that despite the understandable intuition about our project, we are not human haters.
We don’t hate humans, we hate suffering. Humans are the ones who are responsible for most of the suffering in the world so they have a significant representation in our materials. But they are not presented as suffering causers only. Humans’ suffering is not absent at all, being represented in 8 articles (More Than Ever Before In History, Poor Priorities, Compassion Spin, Pepsi or Coca Cola?, One Child Is More Than Enough, The “Wrong” Gender, To Their Own Flesh And Blood, Mutilate to Dominate), as well as several Visual Arguments such as World Peace, Not A Human Hate Parade, All Babies and They Will. So, human hatred is definitely not our motivation. We are not promoting the annihilation idea out of hate. We don’t want anything bad to happen to anyone. On the contrary, we want that all bad things never happen to anyone.

Humans have a tremendous capability to close their minds to all reasoning and shield themselves from moral arguments. We understand it is so, but mustn’t accept it morally. We are not directly accusing humans for what they are. We are not into accusations, we are into solutions.
One doesn’t need to hate humans in order to think they must be annihilated. Thinking that humans are not more valuable than nonhumans is sufficient.

Currently activists are giving humans unlimited opportunity to change while keeping their abusive routine, and by that they are actually considering humans as more important than all of their victims. And given the average consumption figures of humans each one is worth thousands of animals. An average American meat eater is responsible for the life of suffering of about 55,000 animals within his/her lifetime, including about 10,000 crustaceans, 1,860 chickens, 950 fishes, 55 turkeys, 30 pigs and sheeps, 8 cows and between 35,000 and 50,000 of non-directly consumed fishes and crustaceans who are either “by catch” or animals captured and killed to feed the directly consumed animals. And of course that is without counting the chickens suffering in the egg industry and cows in the milk industry. Also, this is without counting all the animals harmed by each human in the many other daily means of consumption (including plant based ones). Morally opposing to stopping them, by all means necessary, including killing them, means that each is worth more than the pain and suffering of all of these animals.
We don’t need to hate humans to conclude that, we only need to non-biasedly and non-speciesistly observe the world.

Unthankful Taking


Hundreds of millions of turkeys were tortured from birth to murder, to be consumed tonight at the thanksgiving feast. The violent feast of ostentation and hypocrisy.
The corpse of a turkey is what symbolizes more than anything, a holyday that is supposed to symbolize humans’ thankfulness to god for all the wealth he supposedly gave them.
It seems to be absurd that even the day that symbolizes humans’ gratitude to god, nature and everything around them, they celebrate by ignorance, violence and contempt to everything around them.
Unfortunately it is not surprising at all.
A critical examination of humanity’s history on this planet, makes it quite fitting.
What is really absurd is activists keep pointing at humans’ absurdity instead of looking for ways to really end their tyranny.


World Compromise Day

Today is World Vegan Day.
Veganism is often considered as the solution to the world suffering. That’s one of the main reasons why it is so important to emphasis how veganism is part of the problem. Not only since it involves so much suffering, but also since being perceived as the solution, better options are not even seriously considered.

If you are aware of the problems with veganism, feel free to directly go to our suggested option specified in our manifesto.
If you are not aware of the harms and issues involving veganism, please start with our answer to the question why not work hard to make a vegan world and then please read the post Vegan Violence and the article Vegan Suffering.
Please read it open-mindedly. We are aware that despite everything detailed in it, veganism is still the best option possible. That’s why we are vegans ourselves. However, acknowledging that veganism – with all its major flaws and inherent cruelties – is the best option, is why we are not vegan advocators. The realization that the best option is so horrible is one of the major reasons why we are calling you to stop focusing on making a vegan world and start trying to make a sufferingless world.


World Day for Selective Abusers


For the 40th World Vegetarian Day we wish to discuss the continual existence, and all the more so the popularity of vegetarianism, in an age of abundantly available information about the violent industries vegetarians participate in.
Vegetarianism is a famous source of frustration among activists who intuitively expect vegetarians to be an easier audience for veganism, but in reality many vegetarians strongly cling to their violent habits, shielding themselves from any criticism. We find this dynamic very indicative of humans, and of their common relation to ethical problems which they are directly responsible for.
Don’t get this post wrong. It is not a vent for vegetarians mudslinging, and it is not even about vegetarianism, it is about humans in general and how they always look for the easier option no matter how unreasonable it is.

There are many more vegetarians than vegans and in many cases vegans were once vegetarians, so their quantitative predominance is considered logical and reasonable. But it shouldn’t be so at all. Continue reading

“A Deal Fit for the 21st Century”

A Deal Fit for the 21st Century

Two days from now is the implementation date of CETA – the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. As the name implies, it’s an extensive deal which basically drops barriers between the EU and Canada.
Like in the previous horrific trade deals (NAFTA and the China-US agreement), along with the automobile industry, minerals, and communication technologies, animal exploitation has a significant share in this agreement. Continue reading

Truly the Worst Deal Ever in History

Truly the Worst Deal Ever in History

US president Donald Trump famously argued that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) is the worst trade deal ever in history, and probably for the first time in his life, he is right. Not for the right reasons obviously (some of which are utterly racist), still NAFTA is truly one of the worst trade deals ever, considering its horrific effect on nonhuman animals.

A couple of days ago the first round of NAFTA re-negotiations, initiated by the Trump administration, has ended. The re-negotiations between the US, Mexico and Canada, comprise of several major issues, among them is animal exploitation, which unfortunately has a major share in the 23 years old deal.

Basically, the trade agreement gradually eliminated nearly all tariffs, and increased “economic integration” between the 3 countries. The result is detrimental to animals. NAFTA virtually made the entire North American continent a giant integrated exploitation zone, promoting intensification of animal exploitation, advancing live animals trade, and animals’ body parts exportation, and eventually amplifying animals’ consumption by making their exploitation more worthwhile for the producers and cheaper for the consumers.

In this post we’ll shortly discuss NAFTA’s effects on the major animal exploitation industries since it was signed. We find it important, because unlike the coverage of NAFTA’s harms to the environment, wild animals and workers’ rights, the most severe suffering intensification element of the trade deal has been mainly neglected so far (with very few exceptions, for example, the extraordinary work of a group called Global Justice for Animals and the Environment).

This deterioration in the state of animals must not be overlooked considering that between 1993 and 2013, trade amongst the three countries in animal products increased more than three-fold, from $4.6 billion a year to $15.5 billion a year.

And now, the US statements regarding their demands in the re-negations can lead to an even worsening of the state of animals in North America. Continue reading

Wishful Headlines

Wishful Headlines

In our last post we discussed how the new China-US trade agreement is expected to further increase China’s already enormous flesh consumption, as well as strengthening the already enormous US flesh industry. One of the readers commented that if China’s plans to reduce its flesh consumption by half in the following years would succeed, the trade agreement is not expected to have such a terrible effect.

But China doesn’t have plans to cut flesh consumption by half, it merely recommends its citizens to do so, and mainly for healthful reasons. The deceiving headlines referred to the publication of dietary guidelines, which didn’t even add new significant information. China’s health ministry has already recommended reducing flesh consumption to between 40g to 75g of flesh per person per day, a decade ago. But the Chinese have responded with a massive increase in their flesh consumption per capita which right now stands at about 170 grams a day. Almost 3 times more than the decade old recommendation.

China's per capita meat consumption Continue reading