You have travelled the path from worm to man, and you still have many worms within you. Once upon a time, you were monkeys, and even now man is more monkey than any monkey. Even the wisest among you is still only a hybrid and disparate being, half plant, half ghost. Did I tell you to become a ghost or a plant?
May those who watch the lion suffer in its cage rot in the lion's memory.
The one we do not see is the one we do not want to see.
Man is not the only animal that thinks. But he is the only one who thinks he is not an animal.
You cannot call yourself an environmentalist and continue to eat meat.
The compassion I feel for all animals is proportional to that which I feel for the human species. I am an anti-speciesist. That is to say, I believe there is no justification for discriminating against a being on the basis of the species to which it belongs. Let's be clear: anti-speciesism is not just a cry in defence of mistreated animals. It is a social struggle for equality, which goes beyond the simple case of humans. Anti-speciesism is therefore in reality a new humanism, which recognises our kinship with other animal species and draws conclusions from this.
Animal ethics, which studies our moral responsibilities towards animals as individuals, concludes that we are obliged to grant all sentient beings minimum guarantees. This does not mean decreeing that all animals are equal to humans; that would be meaningless. But our differences with other species cannot justify denying them all minimum rights. Which rights? The debate is open. In my opinion, four fundamental rights are essential: we must no longer eat animals, lock them up, torture them or trade in them.
Anti-speciesism is not a belief or a mythology: it is the ethical consequence of what we have recently learned from paleoanthropology, molecular biology, ethology and neuroscience. Anti-speciesism is closely linked to a more accurate understanding of life and the universe.
Speciesism refers to any attitude of discrimination towards an animal because it belongs to a particular species. It manifests itself in two ways: on the one hand, speciesists claim that the suffering of non-human animals is less important than the suffering of humans; on the other hand, they create unjustified categorisations among species, dividing them into pets, animals for slaughter, animals for leisure, wild animals, pests, protected species, species to be eradicated, and so on. In the name of these differences in status, speciesists allow themselves to treat species differently, even though they have the same cognitive abilities, the same physiological needs, and the same capacity to feel suffering and pleasure.
As long as people are willing to buy products from intensive farming, the usual forms of protest and political action will never lead to major reform; those who profit from the exploitation of large numbers of animals do not need our approval, they need our money. The purchase of the carcasses of the animals they raise is the main form of support that industrial farmers ask of the public (the other form being, in many countries, the substantial subsidies they receive from the government). They will use intensive methods as long as they can sell the products; they will have the resources to oppose reform at the political level and will be in a position to defend themselves against criticism by responding that they are only providing the public with what they ask for; As long as we do not boycott meat and all other products of industrial farming, each of us individually contributes to the perpetuation, prosperity and growth of industrial farming and all other cruel practices used to raise animals for food.
This is where the consequences of speciesism directly affect our lives, and where we are forced to personally demonstrate the sincerity of our concern for non-human animals. Here, we have an opportunity to do something rather than just talk and regret that politicians are not doing anything. It is easy to take a stand on an issue a thousand miles away from home, but speciesists, like racists, reveal their true colours when the problem hits closer to home. Protesting against bullfighting in Spain, against the consumption of dog meat in South Korea, or against the slaughter of baby seals in Canada, while continuing to eat eggs from hens that have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves that have been deprived of their mothers, a proper diet and the freedom to lie down and stretch their legs, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbour not to sell his house to black people.
Revolt is the act of the informed man.
Information is an essential pillar of democracy. A free man is, above all, a man who knows.
There is no such thing as happy meat; we must stop turning a blind eye.
Every year, we kill more animals than there have ever been modern humans on this planet. Scientists estimate that around 100 billion homo sapiens have lived on Earth over the last 50,000 years. Yet every year we kill 70 billion mammals and birds and 1 trillion marine animals for food, to which must be added some 150 million animals for their fur and more than 100 million animals for experiments (more than 10 million in Europe and more than 2 million in France). Illegal wildlife trafficking generates annual revenues of nearly $20 billion, making it the fourth largest illegal market after drugs, counterfeiting and human trafficking.
The day may come when the rest of the animal kingdom will be able to acquire those rights that could never have been denied them, except by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the colour of one's skin is no reason to abandon a human being to the whims of a tormentor without recourse. Perhaps one day it will be recognised that the number of legs, the hairiness of the skin or the shape of the sacrum are equally insufficient reasons to abandon a sentient being to the same fate.
It takes a certain amount of courage to face things head-on; do not look away. Feeling uncomfortable in the face of injustice is the first step towards fairness.
The barons of industrial farming know that their business model relies on consumers being unable to see or learn what they do.
We are what we eat.
No animal can leave a slaughterhouse alive once it has entered. That is the law. In theory, they are already dead.
Industrial farming will come to an end one day because of the absurdity of its economics; it is simply not viable. The earth will eventually get rid of industrial farming like a dog gets rid of fleas. The only question is whether it will get rid of us at the same time.
Our behaviour towards factory farming is, ultimately, a test of our behaviour towards those who are powerless, those who are far away, those who have no voice. It is a test of how we act when no one is forcing us to behave in any particular way.
Killing an animal is in itself a disturbing act. It has been said that if we had to kill ourselves to obtain our meat, we would all be vegetarians. What is certain is that very few people will ever visit a slaughterhouse and that television would not show films about the operations that take place there. Some people hope that the meat they buy comes from an animal that died painlessly; yes, but they don't really want to know. However, those who, through their purchases, require animals to be killed do not deserve to have this aspect, or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy, hidden from them.
When an attitude is so deeply rooted in our way of thinking that we take it for unquestionable truth, any serious and consistent questioning runs the risk of ridicule.
In two days, we kill more animals worldwide than humans have perished in all the wars in history.
Those who have the privilege of knowing have a duty to act.
To make the most of the life we have been given to improve the world, or to live in indifference, is a choice that is ours alone.
Although we are omnivores, scientific studies of the human digestive system show that it is similar to the digestive system of strictly plant-eating animals. The fruit-eating primates, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, to which we are most closely related, are essentially fruit eaters.
It is not what we put in our mouths that creates camaraderie or social bonds, but also, and above all, what comes out of them. It is entirely possible that a conversation about our respective beliefs could generate greater conviviality, even if our beliefs are different, than any dish that could be served to us.
Slavery has been a tradition for thousands of years, female genital mutilation is a tradition. Stoning is a tradition, forced marriage is a tradition. There are undoubtedly good traditions that should be preserved because they carry history and bring people together. But a barbaric practice cannot be safeguarded simply because it is an ancient custom. That leaves the final argument: I like meat. Here again, from a moral point of view, the argument does not hold water for a single moment. An action cannot be justified solely on the grounds of the pleasure felt by the person committing it: a serial killer takes pleasure in killing his victims, a rapist takes pleasure in raping. Yet in a court of law, none of these criminals would be found innocent. Our daily lives confront us with many situations that demonstrate that our personal enjoyment alone cannot justify behaviour.
All species have the best reasons in the world to believe themselves superior: they need only take as their criterion the area in which they excel.
We are so full of ourselves that if we were dogs, we would pontificate learnedly on the sense of smell, a superior ability that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. If we were cheetahs, we would deny any other species, which run less fast, the right to compare themselves to us. The same goes for size, if we were whales.
Once you have seen injustice and understood it – injustice in life, lies in science, suffering imposed by another – rebel against injustice, lies and unfairness. Fight! Struggle is life, and the more intense the struggle, the more intense life will be. And then you will have lived, and for a few hours of that life, you will not give years of vegetating in the rot of the swamp. Fight to enable everyone to live this rich and abundant life, and be sure that in this struggle you will find joys so great that you would not find their equal in any other activity. That is all that the science of morality can tell you: the choice is yours.
Vegetarianism and veganism are eminently political and revolutionary acts, which allow those who claim them to experience their power as responsible human beings.
Anti-speciesism is emerging, at least in the West, as the only significant form of disobedience, the only immediately achievable form of peaceful resistance that can shake the system.
Advocates for non-human animals, once they step outside the strict confines of abandoned dog and cat associations, are considered enemies of the system because they challenge its entire logic. Animal exploitation is one of the pillars on which the world we live in is built. Putting an end to this tyranny would require changing a number of industrial practices and abandoning all jobs that cause animal deaths. Can we imagine a more audacious idea? The oligarchy is united in preventing this possibility, which would threaten its domination, since the interests of some are linked to those of others who, at one time or another, exclusively support animal exploitation. Antispeciesists have chosen to rebel against the prevailing mindset. There is no cause today more revolutionary than that of antispeciesism.
We must make the connection between violence imposed on humans and violence imposed on animals. Both are part of the same exploitation of weakness. Since its inception, capitalism has based its power, its ideology, its means of production and its profits on exploitation. It has always exploited the weakest and most vulnerable. It has always exploited those who could not afford the means of production. It has always exploited animals as an intrinsic part of the most fragile and weakest living capital.
If all slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian.
As long as we do not boycott meat and all other products of factory farming, EACH OF US, individually, contributes to the perpetuation, prosperity and growth of factory farming and all other cruel practices used to raise animals for food.
Animals that eat meat do not destroy nature, unlike humans. The impact in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem destruction is zero. On the contrary, the natural regulations resulting from the preservation of the predator pyramid have positive effects on biodiversity and biotope conservation. No predator has endangered a species for the simple reason that predator/prey regulations are natural and essential to the predator's survival. There are many examples of natural limitations on litter sizes linked to the amount of food available in terms of prey and biotopes. No animal species will endanger its own survival unless humans eradicate the predators necessary for natural regulation.
In 2015, the WHO classified red meat as a probable carcinogen and processed meat (cold cuts, ham, sausage) as a proven carcinogen. It is responsible for colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer. Vegans have a lower risk of prostate cancer and possibly all cancers combined. They are less prone to high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.
But overall, can't we do something to prevent all this killing? The death of an animal in a slaughterhouse is the result of a social demand for meat consumption. To feed 6 billion human beings, more than 50 billion animals must be killed each year. Can't we save lives by eating plant proteins instead of animal proteins? In any case, it makes no sense to produce plant proteins to feed animals that will provide animal proteins when we could eat plant proteins directly. Many people do not eat horse meat, but what have cows, pigs and poultry done to deserve less compassion? Is it because we no longer see cows and pigs in wide open spaces and they are locked up in buildings out of sight that we become indifferent to their fate? Humanitarian efforts save dolphins, stranded whales, baby seals from various massacres, and elephants and monkeys from poaching. So why do we allow so many animals to be killed in slaughterhouses? Let's ask ourselves: is it really necessary to kill so many harmless and innocent animals? What harm have they done? By consuming meat, we all share responsibility for this slaughter. Killing is a violent act that poses an ethical problem.
Humans have domesticated animals for their own needs. But I believe that if it does not go against the natural needs of animals, their place is with us, to live in a loving relationship. This may be shocking, but I am talking about love for one's neighbour, whether human or animal; this is a universal law. Under no circumstances should animals be there for our needs, especially not to make them work and even less to eat them.
However, consumers are always ready to lament the plight of so-called slaughter animals, but they seem incapable of truly wanting to alleviate it, since they continue to eat the product of this misery, which is meat. On the other hand, they probably ease their conscience by joining one animal protection association or another. We are responsible for the fate of animals through our food choices and purchases.
The goal remains to abolish the commercial exploitation of animals. As long as people want to eat sentient creatures, or their eggs or milk, and there is a competitive market to supply animal products at the lowest possible price, the production system will reward those who meet this demand. Most of the time, this means mistreating animals, and it will always mean perpetuating the idea that animals are nothing more than products that we can use as we please.
The day may come when the rest of the animal kingdom will acquire rights that could never have been denied to these members except by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the darkness of the skin is no reason for a human being to be abandoned without recourse to the whim of an executioner. Perhaps one day it will be recognised that the number of legs, the hairiness of the skin, or the shape of the sacrum are equally insufficient reasons to abandon a sentient being to the same fate. And what other criterion should mark the uncrossable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps that of speech? But adult horses and dogs are incomparably more rational animals, and also more talkative than a child of one day, or one week, or even one month old. But even if they were not, what difference would it make? The question is not: can they reason? Nor can they speak? But can they suffer?