Vegans Should Care About Overpopulation


Yesterday a commenter here suggested that vegans (animal rightsists) don’t care about the problem of overpopulation. That may seem true for some, but it’s certainly not my experience. Those animal-rightsists that I know who are adamantly opposed to human overpopulation are so in part because they have seen animals suffering from their overpopulation.

A friend who is unwaveringly against human overpopulation remarked, “I don’t understand why people want to have babies in this day and age.” I’ve often pondered that. I went to bed last night ruminating on the question. I don’t know that I found the answer, but ironically I read about that same subject in a book about a woman (Diane Downs) who loved having babies, but then paradoxically shot her three kids.

The book goes on to depict her motive for having kids—as she put it, she was “lonely.” Normally, I would advise someone who is lonely to get a dog or cat, but I would hate to see the animal be shot or otherwise mistreated. Oh, sure, there was more to it than just being lonely. In this case, she wanted someone to have control (authority) over.  These reasons only scratch the surface and of course don’t apply to everyone.

Here’s a list a vegan friend put together of why she chose not to have kids…

For me it was:

  • No different than animal overpopulation. If I don’t feel that I can ethically breed my cat, why is it any better for ME to contribute to an overburdened planet? I mean, come on…are my genes really that special?
  • If I want a child that badly, why wouldn’t I adopt one of the countless hurting children looking for a home?
  • Choosing not to be consumed for two decades by parenting allows me instead to be a productive activist, fully, my entire life.
  • I’ve spared my never-to-be-born child the horrors of a world that is quickly becoming uninhabitable (because of human overpopulation, warfare, environmental degradation, etc.).
  • Cost effective! [If a person can barely afford to feed themselves, what business do they have bringing another human into this world?]
  • Finally, there’s no guarantee that a child I raised would embrace my vegan pacifist values. How would I feel if my child became a school bully or butcher or political warmonger or turkey sandwich eater? Devastating

So, why would a male want to procreate in such an overcrowded world? Maybe it’s the desire to have a “mini me” to do your bidding or to go on after you’re gone, thus creating a sense of immortality. But a person would have to really have a lot of faith in the future in order to buy into that.

Take the Pledge Against Extinction

Take Extinction Off Your Plate

Pledge to Take Extinction Off Your Plate


Meat production is one of the planet’s largest causes of environmental degradation and most significant threats to wildlife.

And the problem is rapidly getting worse: Production of beef, poultry, pork and other meat products tripled between 1980 and 2010 and will likely double again by 2050. This increasing meat consumption in a world of more than 7 billion people is taking a staggering toll on wildlife, habitat, water resources, air quality and the climate. Meanwhile, Americans eat more meat per capita than almost any other country in the world.

By signing the pledge below to reduce meat consumption by one-third or more, we can start to take extinction off our plates. Join the Center’s Earth-friendly Diet Campaign today.

Already a vegetarian? Then you’re a valuable wildlife advocate who can help others join the movement. Spread the word by taking the pledge and asking your friends to sign.

Protect wildlife — pledge today to eat an Earth-friendly diet.

We, the undersigned, pledge to take extinction off our plates by reducing the amount of meat we consume and/or telling our friends to join the Earth-friendly Diet campaign.

By cutting just one-third of the meat from our diets, we can each save as much as 340,667 gallons of water, more than 4,000 square feet of land, and the greenhouse gas equivalent of driving 2,700 fewer miles a year.

Many of our current environmental crises are either directly caused by or worsened by our culture’s dependence on meat. By meating less, we give the world and wildlife a break.

Why Did the WHO Take So Long to Declare Meat Dangerous to Our Health?


When I read the news yesterday that an analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that red and processed meats increase the risk of cancer, my first thought was: The medical community has known this for some time.

Studies going as far back as the 1970s have shown an increased risk of colon and rectal cancers (colorectal cancers) with meat intake. In 2007, a joint international panel convened by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute of Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) evaluated hundred of studies. (1) This panel found that the evidence that red and processed meats cause colorectal cancer is “convincing,” the highest rank of association. This was damning evidence in 2007. The question isn’t whether or not the WHO is right. The question is why did it take more than eight years for the WHO to make its announcement?

In our current hyper-polarized atmosphere with a never ending stream of competing talking-heads, the reaction to WHO’s finding has, not surprisingly, been mixed. Many researchers have argued that the evidence is not conclusive and the risk of colorectal cancer from eating meat is not nearly as strong as the risk of lung cancer from smoking. These statements are correct to some degree.

But that argument misses a vital point: the evidence between meat and colorectal cancer might not be as strong in part because the wrong studies were evaluated in the first place.

It appears that the major category of studies that the WHO panel assessed mostly investigated the risk of cancer among people who ate more red meat compared with people who ate less red meat, but still consumed other animal products. The second group of studies they investigated were largely animal experiments. Here are the problems with these studies:

First, the human studies largely relied on the participants to report how much meat they consumed. People are notoriously poor at reporting this type of information. Participants in such studies either cannot accurately recall or quantify their consumption habits or they misreport due to an unconscious or conscious effort to make their diets appear healthier than they actually are.

Second, and more importantly, the human studies mostly assessed degrees of meat intake of all kinds. One of the main reasons why the evidence for the risk of lung cancer among smokers was so strong is that in so many studies, the comparison groups were non-smokers. So the contrast was more black and white: smokers versus non-smokers. And, study participants can much more accurately state whether they smoked or didn’t smoke, rather than attempt to quantify their degree of smoking.

Using comparison groups that starkly contrast in the one factor that is being investigated can help clarify the evidence and strengthen it (you want the groups to be as similar as possible in all other respects). Cancer is complicated and we know so little about how it develops. Foods that cause one type of cancer may play a role in promoting other types of cancers as well. Studies have routinely suggested that any animal product — red meat, processed meat, chicken, and dairyincreases the risk of certain forms of cancer.

Thus, comparing groups of people who all ate animal products complicates factors. If the WHO panel solely assessed the studies that compared people who ate red meat versus people who ate no animal products at all, the evidence for the risk of cancer among meat eaters would likely be much stronger.

Third, animal experimentation can give you any result you want. You want to prove meat causes cancer? Animal experiments can show you that. You want to prove that meat does not cause cancer? Well, animal experiments can show you that, too.

Animal experiments can easily be manipulated and, as I have mentioned in previous posts, animal experiments are extremely poor at predicting human findings. The WCRF/AICR report recognized this and stated that the limitations of the animal experiments are “their artificiality and the fact that no effect on rodents, however unequivocal, can be assumed to apply to humans.”

Cancers take a long time to develop, usually decades. While humans have been eating meat for centuries, we are now living longer and that allows more time for cancer to manifest. So the result of our meat-heavy diets is finally emerging: cancers. Diets largely based on plant foods are not only less risky in terms of cancer development, but they are actually protective. They protect us from developing cancer.

The WCRF/AICR report stated that the majority of cancers are not inherited, but are caused by changes and damage to our DNA. Plant foods not only help prevent damage to our DNA, they actually promote DNA repair. The report stated:

An integrated approach to the evidence shows that most diets that are protective against cancer are mainly made up from foods of plant origin.

Unsurprisingly, one of the WCRF/AICR report’s main recommendations is to consume a diet of mostly plant-based foods to reduce the risk of many forms of cancer. While every type of study conducted will have it’s limitations, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that plant-based diets are the healthiest overall.

Given all that we don’t know about cancer, we should pay close attention to what we do know: MEAT CAUSES CANCER


1. World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research.Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington DC: AICR, 2007

…and from the Onion:  Experts: Bacon, Hot Dogs Can Cause Cancer

According to the World Health Organization, there is sufficient evidence to link processed red meats to the development of colorectal cancer, which means foods such as hot dogs and bacon will be added to the WHO’s list of known carcinogens. What do you think?

Why beef is the new SUV

The word sickening just dropped out of my mouth, involuntarily…Then I puked!

CNN columnist John D. Sutter is reporting on a tiny number — 2 degrees — that may have a huge effect on the future. He’d like your help. Subscribe to the “2 degrees” newsletter or follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. He’s jdsutter on Snapchat.

Lexington, Texas (CNN)This is the story of a giant pile of beef.

Well, 1.27 pounds (0.58 kilos) of brisket, to be exact.

But before I get into the business of explaining where this meat came from, and why eating this stuff has a massive, unexpected effect on climate change, I feel the need to confess something: That huge slab of brisket, which came to me by way of Snow’s BBQ, a delightful shack of a place out here in the heart of Texas beef country, easily was one of the most food-orgasm-y things I’ve tasted.

The phrase “OHMYGOD” dropped out of my mouth, involuntarily.

And I don’t eat much meat.

A colleague of mine had a better line.

“I mean, f— Al Gore, right?”

I write about climate change for a living and appreciate what the former U.S. vice president has done (or has tried to do, in his own wooden way) to raise awareness about what I consider to be one of the most critical issues facing the planet and people. But, in that moment, I had to laugh and agree with my co-worker.

Forget the climate.

This stuff was too good

Daniel Vaughn, BBQ editor at Texas Monthly, and the No.1 carnivore I know — this is a man who has developed white bumps on his tongue, apparently from failing to eat nonmeat food groups — helped me dissect the meal. Note the salt-and-pepper “bark” at the edge of the meat, the red tree rings where the smoke that cooks the beef, slowly, overnight, has left its artistic mark. The cloudlike strips of beef were so tender locals insist you peel them apart with your fingers, not a fork and knife.

Knowing the beef’s backstory only adds to the experience.

The barbecue “pitmaster” at Snow’s is 80-year-old Norma Frances Tomanetz. White hair, red apron. Everyone calls her “Tootsie.” Tootsie’s shift starts at 9 p.m. and ends the next day after about 600 pounds of beef have been served. Her recipe is simple: salt and pepper. And, in addition to working here — again, at age 80 — she also serves as a middle-school custodian, helps manage a cattle ranch and takes care of two sick family members. (They could use your prayers, by the way.)

Texas beef people are lovably tough.

You want to root for them.

But there’s “an inconvenient truth” about beef consumption, too, as I would discover on a trip through the supply chain of that meal: Beef is awful for the climate.

Don’t blame me alone for bearing the bad news. In a Facebook poll, thousands of you overwhelmingly voted for me to report on meat’s contribution to climate change as part of CNN’s Two° series. You commissioned this highly personal topic over more widely feared climate change bad guys such as coal, deforestation and car pollution.

Cattle and climate?

They’re not often used in the same sentence.

But eating beef, as I’ll explain, has come to be seen, rightly, in certain enviro circles, as the new SUV — a hopelessly selfish, American indulgence; a middle finger to the planet. It’s not the main driver of global warming — that’s burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation — but it does contribute significantly.

Globally, 14.5% of all greenhouse gas pollution can be attributed to livestock, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the most reputable authority on this topic. And a huge hunk of the livestock industry’s role — 65% — comes from raising beef and dairy cattle.

Take a look at how beef compares with other foods.

The world is faced with the herculean task of trying to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, measured as an increase of global temperature since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning fossil fuels. That’s the point at which climate change is expected to get especially dangerous, leading to megadroughts, mass extinctions and a sea-level rise that could wipe low-lying countries off the map. That one little number — 2 degrees — is the subject of international negotiations in December in Paris, which are critical if we’re to avert catastrophe.

We’ve already warmed the atmosphere 0.8 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution; and the World Bank says we’re locked in to at least 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming based on the pollution we’ve already put into the atmosphere.

It will be hard to meet the 2-degree goal no matter what; it will be impossible if livestock pollution isn’t part of the mix, said Doug Boucher, a PhD ecologist and evolutionary biologist who is director of climate research and analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“We can’t hit that goal without it,” he told me.

In Texas, as in most places, however, no one seems too worried.

“Everybody here in Central Texas goes for beef,” Tomanetz told me. “People are gonna eat what they wanna eat — what their appetites call for.”

Any vegetarians around?

None she’s knows, personally.

“They won’t eat their beef,” she said with a grin, “so somebody else will.”

70-mile meal

It wasn’t long before I wished somebody else had.

The night after I ate at Snow’s, it felt like a grapefruit was trying to climb out of my esophagus. I ate 0.61 pounds of the beef I was served, leaving 0.66 pounds of the stuff on my tray. I gave the leftovers to a guy at the hotel desk because I couldn’t stand to look at it anymore. I felt so crazy-uncomfortable, so full.

The next morning, over a decidedly small, vegetarian breakfast, I calculated the climate change pollution associated with my massive meal. I did so with the help of data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and from Anne Mottet, livestock policy officer at the FAO.

Result: Nearly 29 kilograms of CO2-equivalent gases.

O'Brien Meats in Taylor, Texas, supplies high-quality beef to Snow's BBQ.

<img alt=”O'Brien Meats in Taylor, Texas, supplies high-quality beef to Snow's BBQ.” class=”media__image” src=””>

From the atmosphere’s perspective, that’s about the same as burning enough fuel to drive an average American car 70 miles, or 113 kilometers.

A 70-mile meal.*

That’s San Antonio to Austin, Texas.

Granted, this is a beyond-ridiculously-oversized portion of meat. And, depending on how you calculate beef’s climate footprint (Mottet, from the FAO, provided me with her organization’s estimate for beef cattle raised in feedlots in North America), you could arrive at very different results.

Regardless of the exact mileage, however, this is illustrative of an indisputable fact: Beef contributes to climate change in a substantial and outsize way.



Smoke from Indonesia fires puts Singapore’s air at ‘hazardous’ level

Pollution hits worst level this year as Indonesia land-clearing fires pump smoke into other parts of Southeast Asia

Air quality deteriorated to officially “hazardous” levels Thursday in Singapore — a key Southeast Asian business and transit hub — as choking smog blew in from Indonesia’s neighboring island of Sumatra, where forests and brush are being illegally burned to clear land for oil palm plantations and other farming.

The Singapore government’s three-hour Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) hit 319, its highest level so far this year, around midnight local time. The country’s National Environment Agency lists a level of 201-300 as “very unhealthy,” and above 300 as “hazardous.” Thick gray smoke shrouded the island city-state’s gleaming skyscrapers and crept into homes, even as many residents were staying indoors in attempt to escape the pollution.

Singapore, which prides itself on its clean environment, has been cloaked by the haze in varying degrees this year for about three weeks, the worst such episode since mid-2013.

“The hazy conditions in Singapore have further deteriorated since last night, as denser haze from Sumatra has been blown in by the prevailing southerly winds,” Singapore’s National Environment Agency said in an advisory.

The agency advised healthy persons to “avoid prolonged or strenuous outdoor physical exertion,” and urged the elderly, pregnant women and children to minimize outdoor exposure.

The conditions also cast a shadow over festivities for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, as people headed to mosques to celebrate the culmination of the annual Hajj pilgrimage. While some covered their mouths to block out the haze, none wore masks, as prayers conducted inside the mosque required them to wash their faces. Mustafa Muhamad, 61, said the bad air quality was causing some of his friends to say prayers at home instead for the festival of sacrifice.

“The haze is very bad, there are less people in the mosque this year. Coming to the mosque to pray used to be very nice because we would mingle around after,” the teacher explained. Housewife Asnah Mohamad, 62, said she and a friend used their headscarves to cover their faces as they travelled to a mosque.

“My husband cannot leave the house because he has a heart condition so I represented him to collect the meat offerings,” she told news agency Agence France-Presse, referring to the traditional practice of sharing the meat of a sacrificed goat or sheep. “We hope it gets better soon. But what can you do? Go over there (to Indonesia) and pour water on the fire?”

Businesses complained of low customer turnout, especially for a holiday, local media reported. The Singapore Sports Hub complex suspended all outdoor activities.

Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan-Jin called for calm in a Facebook post late Thursday.

“At all times refer only to official channels for information and do not circulate speculations,” he wrote.

For the past two decades, smoke from Indonesia has been spreading to other parts of Southeast Asia during the region’s annual mid-year dry season, when plantation owners and other farmers deliberately start brush and forest fires to clear land.

Southeast Asia’s most damaging cross-border haze came in 1997 and 1998, when the smog caused an estimated $9 billion in losses in economic activity across the region. Parts of Malaysia and Thailand have also occasionally been affected.

The haze situation has been made worse this year by an El Niño weather system, which produces tinder-dry conditions.

Under pressure from neighboring countries, Indonesian President Joko Widodo has pledged to crack down on companies and individuals behind the burning —a cheap but illegal way of clearing large tracts of land. During a visit to the haze-stricken islands of Borneo and Sumatra this week, Widodo called on local residents to do their part.

“I’m taking this opportunity to ask the community not to carry out burning, whether at the farms, in their own yards or on the streets,” Widodo told reporters.

He said the government was trying its best to extinguish the fires by dropping water from helicopters and inducing rain through cloud-seeding.

Indonesia’s National Disaster Management Agency told AFP that 2,081 fire “hotspots” were recorded on Thursday in the worst-affected region of Indonesia’s Kalimantan territory on Borneo, and 290 on Sumatra.

A total of 27 companies are being investigated in connection with the forest fires, Indonesian authorities said, while 140 individuals are being questioned. A Singapore-listed company is among those under investigation.

We Need to Stop Eating the Oceans

Yana Rusinovich Watson

by Captain Paul Watson

For centuries, the oceans have fed humanity. But in the last century, humans has destroyed oceanic eco-systems with an ecological ignorance that is insane.

The fisherman has now become one of the most ecologically destructive occupations on the planet. It’s time to put aside the outdated image of the hardy, independent, and hard-working fisherman working courageously to feed society and support his family.
No longer does the typical fishermen go to sea in dories with lines and small nets. Today’s industrial fishermen operate multi-million dollar vessels equipped with complex and expensive technological gear designed to hunt down and catch every fish they can find.

One manufacturer of electronic fish locators (Rayethon) even boasts that with their product, “the fish can run but they can’t hide.
And for the fish, there is no safe place as poachers hunt them down mercilessly, even in marine reserves and sanctuaries.

We humans have waged an intensive and ruthless exploitation on practically every species of fish in the sea and they are disappearing. If we don’t put an end to industrialized fishing vessels and heavy gear very soon, we will kill the oceans and in so doing, we will kill ourselves.

Scientists revealed that widespread malnutrition is affecting the fish, bird, and animal populations of our oceans. Not only are we depleting their populations, we are starving the survivors.

We are feeding fish to cats, pigs, and chickens, and we are sucking tens of thousands of small fish from the sea to feed larger fish raised in cages. House cats are eating more fish than seals; pigs are eating more fish than sharks; and factory-farmed chickens are eating more fish than puffins and albatross.

With other factors like global warming, chemical pollution, and ozone depletion causing plankton populations to decline, we are waging a global assault on all life in our oceans. The fish cannot compete with our excessive demands. We have already removed 90% of the large commercial fish from the sea. Chinese demand for shark fins is destroying practically every species of shark in the ocean.

Whereas the fishing industry once targeted and destroyed the large fish, they are now focusing on the smaller fish, the fish that have always fed the larger fish. Of the top ten fisheries in the world today, seven of them now target the small fish. If the fish are too small to feed to people, they are simply ground up into fishmeal to feed domestic animals and farm raised salmon or tuna.

And now Japanese and Norwegian fisheries are extracting tens of thousands of tons of plankton from the sea to convert into a protein rich animal feed.

Recently a report on the State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture released by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) concludes that 80% of all marine fish stocks are currently fully exploited, overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion; including stocks of the 7 largest prey fisheries. Very few marine fish populations remain with the potential to sustain production increases, and more have now reached their limit than ever before.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is based on the ecological reality that commercial fishing is destroying our oceans.

We all know this. We are all aware of this diminishment. We feel it in our gut. The ecological reality is not only staring us in the face. The problem is that we are in absolute denial and we refuse to acknowledge that by stripping life from the seas, we will be undermining the foundation for our survival on land.

The public is becoming aware of the gravity of the ecological predicament that threatens life in the sea. And this is very encouraging. I can’t think of anything more important than the preservation of diversity in our oceans. Perhaps we can adapt to global warming, and perhaps we can survive a mass extinction even of species on land. But I know one thing to be an ecological certainty and that is if we kill the oceans – we kill ourselves.

In diversity is the preservation of life.

We must stop eating the oceans. Eating fish is for all intents and purposes – an ecological crime. There are no oceanic sustainable fisheries – not a one. That little sustainability card that some people carry around to pretend to be ecologically correct.

Some may think that a call to ban all commercial fishing is radical. Sea Shepherd view it as a very conservative and essential policy that we must implement to save the oceans and ourselves.

It looks like the fish are turning the tables on humanity. Not by choice but because ecological realities have boomeranged back upon humankind.

Tins of tuna fish now contain warnings that the product should not be eaten by pregnant women or young children because of high levels of mercury and other toxic heavy metals.

Farm raised salmon contain antibiotics, growth hormones and even a dye to colour the flesh a pleasing pink while still alive.

Long-living fish like halibut, cod, orange roughy and swordfish contain large amounts of heavy metals. When you can live over a century like a halibut, you accumulate decades of toxins. When you live high up on the food chain, you build up mercury and other heavy metals.

Orcas in the Pacific Northwest of the United States are the most chemically contaminated animals in the world. Beluga whales in the St Lawrence River are treated as toxic waste when they die.

We treat the oceans like sewers and then act surprised that the fish that is eaten is polluted.

Humans can be wilfully blind and deliberately ignorant when it comes to food. We would never eat a piece of fish sitting in a bowl of mercury, arsenic and PCBs garnished with a lump of human fecal material on top.

Yana Rusinovich Watson's photo.

More from 269: The Animal Rights Movement

By on October 22, 2012

In part one of this series, I spoke with a representative of the group 269 about their action on World Farm Animals Day, where they were branded with a hot iron with the number of an anonymous calf in an Israeli factory farm.

I was curious about how the group regarded the animal rights movement in Israel and the rest of the world, what tactics and strategies they felt were successful and which are not. What followed was a commentary that was more in-depth than could be digested in a single interview.

I am presenting this provocative and thoughtful response in its entirety, however, many readers will find it unpalatable and even antagonistic towards animal activists. Although it should go without saying, please note that the opinions shared are 269’s and not necessarily this blog’s or my own.

I’m very pessimistic about the chances of the animal rights movement to succeed. If you take into consideration just some of the parameters of the animal rights struggle’s condition and its enemy (almost all of the human race), you have to be pessimistic:

People are inherently selfish. The number of animals who are abused and killed is infinite. The Animal Holocaust occurs worldwide, in every culture, in every country. There are seven billion people in the world right now. Over the next few decades, this number will rise to around nine billion. 80 percent of the population is from undeveloped countries; in a few more decades this will rise to 87 percent. These populations are not open at all to the animal rights idea. Even the other 20 percent aren’t open to the idea, save a minimal percentage of them. 97 out of every 100 new people on the planet are currently born in developing countries. The life expectancy in undeveloped countries will rise in the future and their mortality rates will fall. Many undeveloped countries will be industrialized in the next few decades, which means The Animal Holocaust is going to double or triple itself in numbers.
If we judge reality with our open, objective eyes, we come to the conclusion that the situation is worse than ever. We cannot win, especially not with the path we are taking. I’m not familiar with every detail of the animal rights movement in the rest of the world, besides a few similar parameters every animal rights activist I’ve talked to has told me, and that is that the vegan community in their country is very small, there are too few activists in general from the vegan community, and that most of the activists are speciesists, who prefer humans over animals.

In order to win the animal rights struggle, we need people who will fight, and we need to be stronger than the criminals. As of today, we cannot force animal rights on the human population. There are too little of us, with too little money, and too much of them, with too many advanced technologies. So we need to convince them one way or the other to stop animal exploitation. But, we all know that we cannot convince seven billion people to stop enslaving animals out of their kindness, so in that front – we cannot win.

What we do have is just a bunch of people around the world, not too many, who care for animals, and need to think what can they do. Increasing awareness is no more than a nice way to expand this small circle, but it is sure not a solution to The Animal Holocaust. So we have to think outside the box, in order to beat the vicious enemy.

There are some examples of creative thinking that can lead to a better change in the animals’ condition. Some of them solve it from the root. Some of them can solve it quickly. Some of these ideas are illegal so I won’t write about them here (I’m not talking about ALF of course, it’s not a root solution and surely not a quick one. You can’t liberate 150 billion animals each year worldwide). Some of them are legal and we all should consider them.

For example: acting against human reproduction. It can be even more essential than convincing another meat eater to become vegan. It can also be very effective in underdeveloped countries.
Another way is promoting artificial meat research. I truly agree with David Pearce who said, “In vitro meat [is] perhaps our best hope of getting rid of factory farming everywhere by the middle of the century…I’d much rather everyone listened the moral argument and became vegan today. But we both know how hard it is to argue against moral apathy.”

These are just two examples in the legal pathway. My point is that anyone can find a much better way to achieve animal liberation earlier than by continuing in the failing way of approaching peoples’ kindness. If you appeal only to peoples’ kindness with ethical arguments, you won’t be able to convince many people to become vegan. Every animal rights group around the world includes arguments and campaigns about health, ecology, etc. in addition to the ethical arguments. So actually, by their actions, every animal rights group around the world agrees with me, whether they have the courage to admit it or not. I wouldn’t have a problem with making the world vegan by health reasons if it would succeed, but people don’t care about health, not in numbers that would make 95 percent of the world vegan, and not even 30 percent, but only a few percentage points at all, and only after a certain age (adults care more about health than teenagers).

So by reducing the power of our message from the ethical argument only, to ethical and health and ecology and any other selfish reason, there are two things that happen. One, more people become vegan for reasons other than ethics (selfish reasons). Two, the animal rights movement grows, but the concentration of non-speciesist, committed vegans falls. And that is a procedure that feeds itself, because more speciesist vegans, means more health/ecology campaigns from the animal rights movement, more speciesist people attracted to it, and so on.

The problem with that is what happens here in Israel (and I’m sure all around the world also): many of them stop being vegan after a few years. The ones who stay vegan, are very speciesist and selfish, so they don’t act much and/or won’t care to go far for animal rights even with effective ideas and/or won’t spend time thinking of revolutionary ideas etc. So what we have is an animal rights movement that has reduced its radical message to get the support of more people, but has become so soft and sterile that they are not a meaningful tool in the animal liberation fight. This is what happens when you think short term and not long term; when you are eager to get a few more vegans at any cost.

We are now just in the middle of this evolution of the movement, but as I see it, in the next few decades, the movement in Israel and in some other places (I don’t want to say everywhere as I’m not familiar with what’s going on all around the world will just be a lifestyle movement, very soft, just dealing with themselves and recipes, and here and there tries to convert meat eaters to become vegan, but surely not a revolutionary movement that will be able to make animal liberation happen. Also, if a revolutionary idea for animal liberation comes up, but it contradicts humans’ health for example, this idea won’t be executed by the animal rights movement because it contains too many selfish activists who feel that health of humans is more important for them than animal liberation (examples of this have already happened in Israel and all around the world). So one part of the speciesist activists in our movement are just ordinary people, who became vegan, but from selfish reasons not ethical ones – and they won’t be the key for ending The Animal Holocaust.

A speciesist movement in my opinion will not be able to stop the animal holocaust. If a great idea to liberate animals comes at the expense of humans, those activists won’t execute it. Speciesist people won’t try their best to liberate animals, not by time or money investment, and especially not by hardcore actions that can be effective. That is why it is an important mission for every one of us to try as much as possible to radicalize the animal rights movement, even if the cost is that some activists will be kicked out. Otherwise, we’ll get a kind of a movement that is itself the final verdict to animal liberation. For my opinion it is too late, but I hope I’m wrong.

We cannot liberate animals by appealing to people’s kindness. We cannot liberate animals by appealing to people’s interest in health/ecology. Although we’ll get some more vegans, but surely not significantly more, and the price for that will be ruining the animal rights movement ideology. That is very dangerous, because the only chance for eliminating the animal holocaust is by having a strong ideology-movement that will produce committed activists that will try to end the holocaust in some other ways than propaganda (that will not end the animal holocaust for sure).
The other part of the speciesist activists in our movement are the activists who also take part in human rights actions. This is a problematic and very crucial issue that I don’t want to get into too much because it is another whole interview, but I have to mention it. It’s unacceptable for anyone who consider themselves a non-speciesist vegan person to promote human rights. Can anyone imagine a partisan who fights at noon to liberate Jews from concentration camps held by Nazis, and at night to make conditions for the Nazis better? It’s a contradiction. We, as people who are committed to justice, cannot ignore that contradiction. We need to understand that theoretically, animals deserve rights just as humans deserve rights. Theoretically we are all equal in the moral status, but in reality, human rights come at the expense of animal rights. It’s a fact. As the socio-economic situation of people improves, more animals are abused and murdered. As more countries become free and developed, the more we’ll see industrialized animal agriculture. We mustn’t ignore this paradox. We need to comprehend that humans are the animals’ criminals. Theoretically, all humans deserve rights, but in reality, rapists’ rights come on the expense of women’s rights. We need to choose sides, the animals or the humans – we can’t choose both. Do we want to be on the victims’ side or on the criminals’ side?
This is one reason why we should invest all our time in promoting animal rights, and not be active for people.

The second reason why we should dedicate all of our time to the animal rights struggle is just by taking into consideration some facts. The amount of animals being exploited and murdered each year by humans is about 100,000-1,000,000 times (!) more than the numbers of humans who endure it. The suffering animals go through has no similarity to the human suffering (vivisection, animal agriculture, premarin from horses, gallbladder/bile from bears, hunting, clothing, etc.). The animal rights movement has much less money than the human rights movement and fewer activists than the human rights movement. The media deals with different human issues all day, every day. Humans can fight for themselves, animals can’t.

So after looking at just some of these parameters, combined with the fact that most people are responsible for the animal holocaust, I think it is obvious why every animal rights activist who fights also for human rights is a speciesist, and is making The Animal Holocaust worse.

I think that a simple example will demonstrate it best. Let’s imagine we are walking on a street and we notice 100 people injured. One of them is on the sidewalk, and he is white, and his injury is a cut in his leg because he slipped while he ran. The cut isn’t so deep, no danger of death, but he is bleeding. Also, there are 20 pedestrians near him helping him to cure.

Right next to him, there are 99 black men, lying on the road, injured because of a bus explosion that was caused by the white man above. They are dying, bleeding, screaming from pain, and only one person is trying to help them. What would you do? My answer is simple, if you’d go to help the single white person on the sidewalk, who has so much help, he is only one person, his injury is not severe, and he is the criminal who is responsible for the 99 people’s suffering – you are either a racist or a very, very stupid man. Let’s say, that no one is that stupid, so there is only one conclusion. Let’s replace in this allegory the blacks with animals and the white with the human population – and this is why animal rights activists who are also active for human rights are speciesists.

I know that now, some readers will give many excuses to justify why it is ok to waste time and money to help humans, and as I said before I don’t want to get to every aspect of it, but I still want to answer one popular argument about that, and it’s “but if we help people and better their conditions, they will be more open to the animal rights idea.”

Again, people are inherently selfish. They always feel like victims. They always want more than they have. We are programmed that way. Helping humans won’t make them be more compassionate for animals, so let’s save the time and help directly to animals, that way we cannot lose.

If this logic was true, all the rich people would be vegans, as they have very good socio-economic status, and we would see many countries that are not occupied and not in a war becoming vegan. But the fact is that we cannot find any vegan country in the world. Not even 50 percent, not even 10 percent. Moreover, we don’t even find such a big difference between different countries; it’s always about zero to two percent vegans, even though we’ve had propaganda campaigns for many decades worldwide. The point is, that even if we make the conditions the best possible, maybe we’ll get some more vegans, but surely not in significant numbers that justify fighting for it vicariously by helping people, and spending so much time and money on it. In my opinion, there is a five percent limit that no country will ever cross (especially not for ethical reasons), and for sure hasn’t been crossed yet.

We shouldn’t forget the big implication fighting for human rights causes. When we fight for human rights, and make countries more developed, and giving people better socio-economic conditions, we might get a few more percentage points open to the animal rights idea, but we sure also get industrialization, and more economic options for people that increase the amount of suffering of animals, and the numbers that are being produced and being murdered increase. So in total, more animals will suffer, because it is more relevant how many people are meat-eaters, not how many people are vegans (like if we want to calculate women’s conditions, we need to know how many people are raping, and not how many people aren’t).

The problem as I see it is that we have a speciesist movement that will become even worse as time goes by, and will have less and less real influence on ending the animal holocaust. I hope that this branding action we’ve done, will make activists in the animal rights movement think, and to try and look at the whole picture, and take into consideration all the parameters, and become more committed to the animal rights struggle. After many years in the animal rights movement, I’m not optimistic, but it’s not me who said that the difference between pessimistic and optimistic is that a pessimist is an experienced optimist.

So to sum it up, I want to say that we have to realize that we cannot end the animal holocaust by ethical propaganda (about 95-99 percent of the human population doesn’t care about animals), we cannot end the animal holocaust by health/ecology propaganda (most of the human race doesn’t care about it either, and it will ruin the animal rights movement), we cannot end the animal rights holocaust by forcing animal rights on the human population (as we are weaker than the enemy), and we cannot end the animal holocaust by ALF (as we cannot liberate 150 billion animals each year worldwide).

Also, we have to be aware to the reason that the animal holocaust is happening, and it’s not education (we are being educated since day one to help others, not to abuse animals, to be kind etc.), not our message, not lack of awareness, and nothing else but the simple horrible truth – we are facing about 7 billion selfish, careless people. Most of the human race doesn’t care and will never care for animals, no matter how many videos we will show them, and no matter how many times we will repeat that meat is murder. If we don’t comprehend that, we’ll not be able to end the animal holocaust. Ever.

Paul McCartney’s sentence is preposterous. The slaughterhouses ALREADY HAVE GLASS WALLS! People know that meat is a dead animal’s part. People, in the majority, know how animals get killed (throat slit), and the internet is full of videos and pictures shot at factory farms for anyone to see. So the slaughterhouses already have glass walls, and not everyone is a vegetarian – not even close.

So what can people do?
1. Become activists. Being vegan in this sick world, with this infinite holocaust, is just not enough. It is much more crucial to be an animal rights activist.

2. Be active as much as you can. We must dedicate most of our lives to the animal rights fight (and only to it), as there are too little of us, and too many enemies.

3. Understand that people don’t care about animals and that increasing awareness is not a tool for ending the animal holocaust, it is only to enlarge the small circle of committed animal rights activists. Therefore, we should only do ethics-based campaigns, without dealing with any selfish issues like health/ecology. We mustn’t reduce the power of our message just to earn another moderate, selfish vegan, as the importance of propaganda is to increase our small, non-speciesist circle. We have to radicalize our movement, even if brings less activists to it in the near future, they will be more qualitative and effective.

4. If you continue in the increasing awareness path, try and do campaigns like 269, with hardcore, radical actions, and deal only with the ethics of animal rights.

5. To realize that the sentence “Think globally, act locally” is very problematic, and indicates very closed thinking. We should “Think globally, act globally.” Make actions that have the potential to spread worldwide, with the investment of little money, time and activists have the potential to go worldwide. We lack resources, so we have to be very calculated. Every action must have the potential to be viewed by people in every country in the world. We have to be as efficient as possible to maximize our time and money, as they are limited.

6. Try to organize meetings only with non-speciesist, committed animal rights activists, and think about the big picture. Take into consideration all the parameters that we mention here, and try to think of creative (legal or illegal) solutions that can lead to end the animal holocaust, or maybe parts of it – forever.

7. Join the non-conventional paths I’ve talked about, like promoting artificial meat research, acting against human reproduction etc. I’m not sure we’ll be able to end the animal holocaust, it might be a lost cause, but for sure if we do have a chance, it’s only in the non-conventional ways.

“I am Cecil”


Every day we can make a choice to save animals who want to live just as much as Cecil did.

“…most the friends ive seen talking about cecil are meat eaters and it feels crazy that one animal being killed is outrageous because its “majestic”, “pretty” and “exotic” and yet another animals being killed in the thousands daily is totally fine” Emma Smithies