Animal Law

Can we reject the master species role? Could a transformed human identity release us, and every other community still evolving on Earth, from this spiral of ever-worsening emergencies? The time we live in cries out for a paradigm shift. I'd love to find out what #veganism can do.

Thanks for the poll responses with escape plans.💙 Looks like we’ll be skipping Spoutible, heading to Bluesky. I’ll be looking for you, friends, at leehall.bsky.social. I’m also at Mastodon: @[email protected]. And conferences, progressive media, journals, and the streets!

Veganism is a principle and we don't water it down. We try to avoid harming and manipulating all conscious beings. We do our best to work for an Earth where living beings are enabled to thrive in their ways. We didn't say it was easy. And if we did, maybe we need to rethink that.

Where next?

`This research reveals that our rivers and waterways are plagued by a cocktail of neonicotinoid pesticides, despite these chemicals being banned since 2018.'

As it all unravels, ecological realities make it ever clearer that animal agribusiness is unsustainable, full stop. Why wait for the most extreme loss and ruin before we get a grip on ourselves, stop being so hedonistic and selfish, and change our lives for the better?

Animal law is no substitute for #veganism. Human laws define nonhuman beings as natural resources, lab models, food, tools, guards, pets; as therapeutic, as entertaining...all for us. Blocking our perception of them as beings who could've had their own interests, their own lives.

Industrial, lab-based, backyard, `regenerative'...All animal ag needs to stop. For the sake of the climate, for human health and dignity and food security, in respect for untamed lands, for the freedom of others not to be purpose-bred, not to be deprived of their own evolution.

Sharing for those who feel the way I do when it's time to comment to the National Park Service. Don't be daunted or think your thoughts don't matter. Your thoughts matter, and the Service needs to hear from ethical people as much as possible.

What is the fallacy name for pointing to a fallacy and thinking your argument's over? A quick search shows it's a named thing, and it's called the fallacy fallacy.

Animal husbandry compromises are not welfare. Long ago, I stopped calling them welfare or welfarism, because if it's done by a company that profits off animals' lives, it's just a husbandry adjustment, likely to be turned into a selling point. Not welfare. Sanctuaries do welfare.

By refusing to co-operate with the system that commodifies other animals, we personally exercise direct power to spare animals from being brought into that commodified existence.

Humane.Natural.Regenerative...As if the new edition of animal agribusiness is better than the last. Ten-thousand-plus years of forcing other animals, whose ancestors were free beings, to submit to us. What'll you have? The human primates' war on others—or conscientious objection?

Veganism is not strategic analysis. It is a commitment to fairness, to a new way of being human. By sticking to our commitment (`as far as possible and practicable'), our lives demonstrate the potential for our ethical ideas to become plausible.

As vegans we oppose turning wolves, wildcats, ferrets, fish, horses, rabbits...into selectively bred beings who are born for our use or amusement. We avoid harming and manipulating conscious life, and do our best to ensure other living beings can evolve and thrive on their terms.

Vegans harm animals too! Yes, we get that. Vegans say no to deliberate exploitation, and most vegans I know are serious about limiting our environmental impacts as diligently as we can. We've got a vested interest in the Earth's bio-community because we're part of (not above) it.

Stop cruel __________ is an ambiguous cliché. (Do you want us to stop doing something, or to keep doing it, but less cruelly?)