When we buy milk we create demand

– So?

– A dairy farmer sells milk to make a living (to make profit)

– More milk = More profit

– This means maximum milk production = Continuous Pregnancy cycle for dairy animals. They are made pregnant as soon as they reach puberty age (around 1.5 years old). And they are made pregnant year after year until they “retire” i.e their body can’t endure any more pregnancy.

– The most common method of pregnancy, as advocated by the Indian government, is called artificial insemination. Google this process and see how invasive it is.

– Maximum profit also means less consumption of milk by their babies (for whom the milk is actually made). Various practices like khalbacha (Google) are used to ensure this.

– Pregnancy leads to the birth of a baby. What’s happening to all the male calves as they are of no use to dairy industry ?

– What’s happening to a retired and infertile mother? Because of the continuous pregnancy process they stop giving milk after 10-12 years of age but they are supposed to live up to 20+ years ?

– Answer to the above 2 points depending on the health, age, breed etc of the animal is either beef or leather industry or left on street or some substandard cow shelter. Cow shelter option is only reserved for Indian breed cows.

– Reconcile Facts

– India happens to be one of the largest producers and exporters of beef and leather industry.

– Dairy, Beef and Leather industry compliment each other and can’t exist without one another.

– We directly participate in this every time we drink milk or eat cheese or curd or any dairy related products.

Yes! It is true that animals eat other animals. But how does it concern us? We never compare ourselves with animals or take inspiration from them on how to behave. Animals do all sorts of stuff that we don’t do or approve of like forcing themselves on their partner etc. It is a part of their instinct.

– Animals do not have a moral agency i.e ability to make moral judgment and decisions and then act on it. A moral agent is someone who has the capacity to act morally and who can be held accountable for their actions. We, as humans, have moral agency so shouldn’t we use it to refrain from unnecessary violent actions like animal abuse or any form of abuse?

– Another point that people try to drive from this argument is “animals are killed anyway” so why can’t we humans kill them? But is it a consistent argument? Because then one should be also willing to kill humans who have a high chance of dying in the near future like people suffering from terminal illness or soldiers going to war.

– P.S There are more herbivore animals than carnivores and omnivores. P.P.S Sometimes people listening to this can make a counter argument that “since animals don’t have moral agency and we do so it is ok to use and abuse them”.

ANSWERED HERE

Two conditions of food chain are

– 1. Happening under a natural construct 2. One species is acting for survival

– i.e if they don’t consume the other species then they will perish

– It is safe to say we don’t satisfy both the above conditions. As most animals are abused in a systematic and human defined process. And there is a scientific consensus that we can thrive on a plant based diet so we don’t consume them for survival

– And just because something is happening in nature as a part of the food chain then that doesn’t justify wrongdoings that can be avoided.

– P.S Animals sometimes cannibalize for food

– eat their own kind. Examples of such animals include leopards, African Lions etc. So if you still subscribe to the idea of a food chain, then you should be fine with this. If you are not fine eating humans but ok with other animals, then the ‘food chain’ is not your reason. At least not logically.

“It is my personal choice. You do you. Don’t force your opinion on me.” Will it be classified as forcing an opinion if we tell a casteist to stop being casteist?

– Will it be classified as forcing opinion if we tell a molester not to molest?

– The point of the above 2 questions is to highlight that a “personal choice” is not personal if there is a victim involved.

– So when it comes to veganism and you say that “don’t force your opinion on me. Let me practice my personal choice”

– you mean one of the 2 things

– 1. Either you are fine with the concept of abuse as it is the perpetrator’s personal choice. If yes, then nothing further to discuss.

– 2. Or you think that animals do not count as victims even if they are abused and slaughtered. If yes, then that is Speciesism. Essentially you are holding a supremacist, oppressive position. Shouldn’t we abolish this mindset? Veganism is a stance against this position.

– P.S Vegans do respect the opinion and life of trillions of fellow animals killed every year for human greed.

As a vegan, our message is universal

– Stop animal use and abuse.

– Today animals are exploited for multiple reasons ranging from food to fashion and what not. We are categorically against all of them. In fact we are against the notion that animals are here for human use. We are against speciesism.

– This logically follows that we are against animal abuse arising from religious and cultural practices. And that makes us question these specific practices. Since now is the time of this specific festival

– we are questioning this. Depending on the season we question and criticize various festivals that involve animal abuse.

– So to clarify we are questioning this religious festival but not exclusively. So stop justifying animal abuse by deflecting the main issue. This is not a target on your religious identity but a criticism of its practices that involve animal cruelty. Had you been from another religion practicing animal cruelty, you would have still heard from us.

It is a false dichotomy to say you can choose either human rights issues or animal rights issues. More importantly, the ask from you is to go vegan. Being a vegan is a neutral position. That is to stop animal abuse. You can continue to be a human rights activist while being a vegan. It is not an “either/or” situation.

– Also, is it wise to put a hierarchy on social issues? Imagine a feminist saying “Women Rights is a more pressing issue than Casteism”

– To give an argument that Issue X is more important than Issue Y reflects the privilege of the person in context of issue Y. An oppressor will always benefit if the concerned issue is neglected. Non-vegan humans are the oppressors when it comes to the issue of Veganism.

– At its core, most issues are interlinked and its roots could be traced to power dynamics and dominion of one group on another. One should have a consistent anti-oppression stance. Else the oppressor mindset of abusers across issues remains the same. Where an oppressor chooses to ‘otherize’ depends on their bias and ignorance. Some draw a line at caste, some at sex, others at sexual orientation, skin color, race, species membership and so on.

Well it is a fact that the dairy and poultry industry contributes to the economy and provides employment to many people.

– However, by that logic will you be also willing to support Hooomann Tra..ffi*cking industry? As that also creates employment? I am hoping you would say “no”. And if so, then the discussion needs to go one step backward. That you recognise abuse when it was a human victim but not when it was a non-human victim. What is the reason? Aren’t dairy and poultry animals victimized?

– Or are you fine with the use of power to dominate the less powerful for personal financial gains? Isn’t that what happened to us, Indians, during British colonization?

– As a progressive society it is important for us to recognise the Rights of individuals and protect it even if it means reversal of financial gains for the oppressors.

– Also, throughout the history of humankind there have been loss and creation of new jobs due to various macroeconomic factors. If demand for milk and poultry will go down then demand for other plantbased alternatives will increase. As consumption is not going down. (Vegans don’t lose their appetite). So new employment opportunities will open up as well.

If the concept of God is offering us peace and strength then it is fine but if it is inflicting harm and suffering on others then shouldn’t we question our understanding of its teachings and practices?

– One of the core tenets of Hinduism is ‘Ahimsa’

– that is to respect and avoidance of violence towards other beings. अहिंसा परमं सत्यम् अहिंसा परमं श्रुतम्॥ Which means Ahimsa is the highest truth, and Ahimsa is the greatest teaching. Veganism is Ahimsa,

– How can someone classify the dairy industry (even in Indian context) as Ahimsa? Read this to learn about the Indian dairy industry.

– We only need an open mind and honesty to see their (dairy animals) suffering. If someone thinks of their God as all giving, compassionate and champion of Ahimsa then that God will not approve of today’s dairy industry. Also, Sri Krishna, as per Hindu scriptures, was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Let’s not try to emulate God.

– Following something blindly just in the name of “God” has dangerous repercussions as we have learnt time and again. Humans have inflicted massive pain and suffering on humans and animals in the name of “God”.

Yes! Food choices have played a political role in casteism based on the purity element assigned to it. Veganism also forces us to change our lifestyle including food choices. At a superficial level, without having a clear understanding of Veganism or Casteism or both, they may “seem” similar. This perceived similarity is logically flawed.

– Logical flaw

– Contextomy. That is Veganism is placed out of context to reach this conclusion. Premise 1

– Vegans ask everyone (which by default includes people from underprivileged caste) to not consume products like ghee, butter etc. Premise 2

– People from underprivileged castes were asked (forbidden) not to consume ghee, butter etc by oppressor caste Conclusion

– Vegans = Casteists or Veganism = Castesim

– The context of Veganism is completely removed from the premise. So for clarity’s sake

– Veganism is a social justice movement to liberate fellow animals from human oppression. Which means Vegans are against animal use and abuse by everyone in every possible way (not just ghee which is often chosen as an example to highlight this flawed comparison)

– When understood in depth, Veganism is similar to anti-casteism movement as both tend to abolish systematic oppression of the powerful group.

– Casteism also rides on the back of speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species

– leading to justification of human exploitation of animals) which is almost always ignored. Casteism is seen as hierarchical division of human groups based on “purity” as seen through the lens of “Brahminism mentality”

– a term often used by human rights activists. What is ignored is the role of non-human animals upholding casteism. Cows are considered holy, pigs and buffaloes as impure, horses are seen as symbols of pride and so on. Likewise their “usage” is mapped to the corresponding human castes. Being consistent anti-oppression means to break this notion of otherization and abolish the supremacist mindset.

– “Adopting a vegan stance would be a way to remove hierarchies that distinguish between pure and impure, between both humans and nonhumans. Therefore, rejecting our own speciesist hierarchy by eliminating nonhumans from the equation would disallow the use of “food politics,” which, as we’ve seen, keeps the human caste system firmly in place.”

– Anti-caste activist Prateek Gautam.

There are 4 issues with this argument.

– 1. Fallacy There is harm caused to someone just by mere existence. That doesn’t justify murder. It is an appeal to nirvana fallacy (also called perfectionist fallacy). It is equivalent to saying that since we can’t eradicate all harm, so might as well harm everyone. Other examples of this fallacy What’s the point of taking safety measures if some accidents are inevitable? Or What is the point of human rights as some humans are also abused in making some products which are a part of our daily lives? That is also, unfortunately, out of our control. It sounds weird, isn’t it?

– 2. Intent Animals dying in crop death is unintentional death. Given the direct action is not intended to kill. Intent is the difference between an accident and a murder. As vegans, our intent is to eliminate all animal (and human) suffering but we acknowledge we live in a non-vegan world. This leads to unintentional and incidental harm. But that is entirely different from being a non-vegan. As a non-vegan choices literally demands suffering.

– 3.Utilitarian Logic More crops are used to feed the 80 billion land animals and more (in fish farming).These are the animals that are killed for human consumption. Most of them are kept on a plant based diet. More resources are used to maintain their diet. So to reduce crop death on this utilitarian point one should definitely go on a plant based diet.

– 4. Non Vegan world constraint Most of the farmers (and consumers) are nonvegans and hence no concern has been raised to minimize crop deaths. Vegan farming

– i.e various techniques to reduce crop related suffering, are used to take this into consideration. It is a long way but we will reach there eventually.

– NOTE

– A revised version of this point will be published soon

First and foremost this statement should be rephrased as “plant-based/vegan food is expensive”. Veganism is not a commodity that can be expensive or cheap. It is equivalent to saying Feminism is expensive.

– This is also one of the saddest arguments as this clearly reflects the lack of understanding about Veganism. When someone says ‘Vegan food is expensive’ it means that they have formed a notion where they equate vegan food with some fancy Western fad diet. Unfortunately, people see it as imported Avocados, Almond Milk, and other expensive food. When the reality is many traditional Indian food is plant-based by default.

– Rajma, Chawal, Dal, Chola, Dosa, Poha, Idly, Uttapam, Fried Rice, Lemon Rice, Peas Pulao, Roti, Mix Veg, Jeera Aloo, Bhindi Masala, Aloo Gobi and so on are all plant-based aka Vegan food. One only needs to watch out for ghee in them which is an expensive food item anyway.

– Another common source of protein amongst Indian Vegans is Tofu which is either cheaper or at par with Paneer

– its ideal replacement. It is also healthier than paneer.

– Another food item that is expensive is Mock meat. But it is to be noted that it is a taste replacement and not a nutrition replacement food source. It is supposed to cater to that audience who are consuming the likes of KFC.

– What about fitness enthusiasts? Again this group is mostly not dealing with cheap food anyway but for what it’s worth vegan supplements like vegan protein are cheaper than whey protein.

– There can be multiple scenarios. However, the larger point is that there is a solution for everyone. The only challenge is changing that part of one’s lifestyle. These queries like “where I will get my protein”, “tea is love” etc are solvable. They are all part of “how to go vegan”.

– The more important question is “why to go vegan”. If one recognises animal sentience, rights and the abuse that they are subjected to, then one will find a way, Else only endless silly excuses.

It is unfortunate that not everyone has access to plant-based food, at the moment, for various reasons like living in barren lands. So what? Most people have access to traditional Indian plant-based food. How can someone’s constraint become a common justifier?

– There are children in terrorist camps across the globe who are forced into violence and trained to be killers. They do not have access to human compassion. Does it mean we get the license to inflict pain and suffering on humans?

– This is one of the most disingenuous arguments against veganism. It shows apathy for both non-human animals and the humans who have genuine accessibility issues.

This is yet another argument which reflects that the person making the argument has either 1. not understood the actual meaning of Veganism. 2. Or is making an argument “something is better than nothing” and taking pride in the fact that there are worse humans out there. So they should be spared from Vegan ethical rigor. 3 Or both of the above

– Veganism is a social justice movement whereas Vegetarian and Non-vegetarian refer to the dietary aspect of one’s life (in today’s time and age). From the point of view of Veganism both these dietary choices violate Animal Rights. It is a pointless effort to see which of these diets causes more harm to animals. Answer may not be as obvious as it may seem. A vegetarian consuming 200 ml of dairy milk daily may cause greater harm to animals in totality as compared to a non-vegetarian (who doesn’t consume dairy products) who eats chicken flesh once a month.

– It doesn’t matter if one is a vegetarian, non-vegetarian, pescatarian or pure vegetarian. From an animal ethics standpoint they are all the same.

– Also, if someone makes the case they are better off than non-vegetarian then they should be asked on what grounds? If it is in reality that they care about animal ethics then veganism is the obvious choice. If it is not animal ethics then there is nothing to be proud of being a “vegetarian”.

For what purpose anyone is bred for has no bearing on their interest. A farm animal bred for the purpose of human consumption is capable of feeling pain and suffering just like other animals (including humans). They have no interest in being exploited.

– And if someone is saying that the purpose assigned to someone before birth justifies abuse and exploitation then they should be fine with psychopathic abusive parents who abuse their children since birth as they sometimes have a similar mindset. Most people won’t be fine with that. People will give this argument only if the victim is a non-human animal. This just shows the height of human species’ egotism and supremacist attitude.

– Sentient beings are not interested in the reason why they were bred. They only want to live and we, humans, should not play “God” trying to assign purpose to others as per our convenience. It is not our Right.

This is one of the honest arguments that people give without much consideration. Only when probed further, this argument poses a disturbing question: are people that greedy that they are willing to sacrifice an innocent animal for the sake of a sensory pleasure?

– Taste of a KFC burger will last 15 minutes but the death of that chicken is eternal and their life full of suffering is unimaginable.

– If sensory pleasure like taste is a valid justifier for abuse then where can one draw the line? Sexual assault often arises from the desire of the perpetrator to quench their carnal pleasure. Is that also justified then?

– Harming someone for personal gain is reprehensible. And if our life is normalized to do so then it becomes our duty to question the status quo.

– P.S There are many creative chefs who are veganizing all sorts of food. While this is not an argument to go vegan but just a note that Vegans have not given up on their taste bud.

Belief is an individual’s acceptance of the truth or existence of something, often without proof or evidence. What is the belief that you are referring to

– that animals feel pain and suffering? That is scientifically proven. So animals feel pain and suffering is knowledge not belief.

– Or that they shouldn’t be subjected to pain and suffering for trivial reasons like taste, convenience etc?

– It is not a belief rather a consistent stance that all sentient beings should not be treated as commodities. There is no belief involved in advocating for veganism. Rather the idea that animals are here for human use and abuse is a belief

– that has its root in deplorable values such as dominance.

– Now let’s discuss the “forcing” part. Who is forcing here? A vegan advocating for animals making you question your moral values?

– Or forceful impregnation of dairy animals, lifetime entrapment of hens, slaughtering of goats, uncountable deaths of innocent animals for petty human reasons?

– Who is the victim here? One who is “forced” to question their stance on empathy and justice or those beings who are subjected to a lifetime of suffering.

– If you were the true victim, and I would be advocating for you, you would tell me to “Please fight harder”. It is not a belief. It is a stance of justice.

This is an interesting argument as this shows that the person arguing is acknowledging the pain and suffering of animals. But to justify their participation in cruelty, they are rendering it pointless by saying the alternative products/food options i.e plants

– also feel pain.

– Anyway this argument is faulty on whichever account one chooses to assess it. We will look at these 3 parameters.

– Intuition

– Honestly, whoever makes this argument is really saying that slicing cucumber is equivalent to slitting the throat of a dog. If that were true, then why do parents prevent their children from visiting butcher shops (In India butcher shops are open unlike the West) while it is fine to watch them pluck fruits? Even most children are disgusted and discomforted by the sight of animal slaughter videos. This discomfort is not taught to humans but rather comes from within. Eating animals is a learned behavior.

– Logic

– Basically the argument is since plants also feel pain so it is ok to eat animals. If we use this logic then why stop at animals. It should be fine to eat humans. What type of humans? Ailing humans, malnourished kids, old age people or anyone we feel like. We will not use the “plants feel pain” argument to justify human abuse. Then what is the rationale behind using it as an argument to abuse animals? One can say that they draw the line at homo sapiens. However, that line is arbitrary. What if someone draws the line at race, caste, creed, color etc. For most people it is a dishonest argument coming from a place of dissonance. Let’s assume if there is someone who is genuinely concerned about plant pain then they can take one of the 2 steps

– – > 1. Negative Utilitarian approach to reduce suffering. Then the logical thing to do is to eat plants as more plants are “killed” on animal diet. Those animals are mostly kept on a plant based diet. More than 50% (some calculations even peg it at 70%) of agricultural land is dedicated to animal food production.

– > 2. Don’t eat anything. Or be a fruitarian i.e eat fruits which fall off from trees on their own.

– Science

– The above pointers on logic are not needed actually as the scientific consensus on this is very clear.

– The myth that plants can feel pain has been around for a long time, but it is simply not true. Plants lack a nervous system and a brain, which are necessary for experiencing pain. Instead, plants respond to stimuli in different ways that are rooted in their physiology and genetics.

– If anyone makes this claim

– then they need to share a scientific peer reviewed research paper that plants are sentient beings.

Many skeptics of veganism believe that a world without animal agriculture would either result in an overabundance of animals or the extinction of entire species. However, these fears are unfounded and rooted in a lack of understanding of the mechanisms of animal agriculture.

– Decline in Animal Breeding Animal agriculture operates on a supply and demand system, where farmers breed animals for consumption based on the demand for meat, dairy, and other animal products. However, as the number of vegans grows, the demand for animal products decreases, leading to fewer animals being bred for consumption. A gradual shift towards veganism would lead to a proportional decline in animal breeding, ultimately resulting in the end of animal agriculture.

– The Fate of Domesticated Animals Some argue that a vegan world would lead to the extinction of domesticated animals bred for food, but this argument fails to consider the unnatural modifications these animals have undergone. Dairy cows, egg-laying hens, broiler chickens, and sheep have all been selectively bred and modified to produce far more than they would naturally. They are not equipped to survive in the wild and would require human care to sustain themselves. Therefore, a vegan world would require a choice between sustaining healthy populations of these domesticated animals or allowing them to no longer exist and replenishing ecosystems with their natural biodiversity. That is a consideration for the future. That being said, there are many animal sanctuaries who take care of rescued and abandoned animals. In conclusion, a vegan world would not lead to animal overabundance or extinction. Instead, it would provide an opportunity to restore ecosystems to their natural state and protect our planet’s wildlife.

So? Animal abuse is part of many culture and religion based practices in India and abroad. But how can that become a justifier?

– Human abuse has also been part of many cultures across the globe. But we recognised it and reformed our way of living. Shouldn’t we challenge the status quo and change if we recognise violence and inhuman practices in our culture and traditions.

– How else will we abolish violent practices that were deemed right by some psychotic people in the past. Have we not given up practices like Slavery, Sati etc?

This is more of an excuse than an argument. People saying this think of themselves as an ally to the vegan movement and this notion of “vegan ally” is supported by many vegans as well.

– However, an ally in a social movement is support from people for a cause who are not affected/victimized because of that social issue. A social ally is someone who uses their privilege and influence to amplify the voices of those who are often silenced or overlooked in society.

– In the Vegan movement

– Vegans are the allies. Non-human animals are the victims. Vegans don’t need allies.

– Secondly, how can anyone support veganism by being a non-vegan? Being a non-vegan means direct participation in animal cruelty.

– So people who say “they support veganism” can stop saying that as that doesn’t mean anything.

This argument has 2 issues.

– While it may be better to eat less meat from a total suffering viewpoint, this statement erases the individual identity of an animal. One of the main tools of carnism is to see animals as one single entity as this makes it easier to neglect the individual victim. We often tend to say dogs, cats, hens etc. as if they are all the same. So problem with eating meat (flesh of one individual dead animal) sometimes or even once is that the right of that individual animal who wanted to live is violated.

– How will it sound if someone says that they abuse women only sometimes? If something is immoral, we should refrain from doing it completely. The victim doesn’t care if you only do it sometimes.

– Another issue with this argument is that it tends to reduce Veganism to a diet. In my discussions with people I have observed people say it as if eating meat is a cheat meal. And hence it is important to note that Veganism is a social justice movement and dietary change is just a way to align our actions with our moral values.

So this argument is presented to show novelty in the act of milking cows and further playing into the narrative that “We, Indians, treat them like our mothers”. Let’s scrutinize. (Side note

– this problem persists in the West as well who don’t treat Cows like mother)

– No mammal naturally produces extra milk; milk production is triggered by the needs of offspring. True for all mammals. Dogs, Humans, Cats and so on.. so the start of the research should not be “what will happen if cows are not milked” but rather “why cows and buffaloes give extra milk”. There are primarily 2 reasons

– 1. Through selective breeding, genetic modification, and specific management practices like diet optimization, animals in the dairy industry have been altered to produce higher milk yields.

– 2. In the dairy industry, calves, like human infants, naturally require frequent small feedings of milk throughout the day. However, they are often only allowed to feed two or fewer times a day, or sometimes not at all. This practice goes against their natural feeding behavior. Instead, they are introduced to solid food at an early age, which is an unnatural and inappropriate diet for them.

– If calves are not allowed to drink milk from their mothers, the maternal instinct of cows prevents them from producing milk. To circumvent this natural behavior, dairy farmers have developed a practice known as “khal baccha”

– this practice involves creating a deceptive surrogate calf by filling its skin with materials such as foam to mimic the appearance of an actual calf. By tricking the mother cow into perceiving this surrogate as her offspring, dairy farmers aim to stimulate milk production.

– Consequently, the excessive milk produced by cows needs to be extracted through milking; otherwise, it can lead to additional harm. However, it is important to acknowledge that this process is not an act of charity towards the cows. Rather, it is a predicament that has been deliberately created to maximize profits and meet the demand for dairy products. The exploitation of cows’ reproductive capacities for financial gain highlights the profit-driven nature of the dairy industry.

This argument is actually the root of most arguments. So the question that should be answered is what is the trait basis which we say animals are not humans

– which makes it ok for us to abuse animals but not humans.

– Now this is not to say that animals equals humans but to get a sense of understanding that what is the trait that qualifies animals to be subjected to abuse?

– Some possible traits (lack of that is)

– intelligence, higher consciousness, moral agency, ability to think, etc. The problem is that for any given trait, there will be a human who will not possess that trait. And there will be some animals as well who will score higher on those traits than some humans.

– Example there can be some pigs who are more intelligent than some humans like infants or even adults who are suffering from some brain related disease. Does it mean these humans do not deserve moral consideration? Hence use of any such trait is inconsistent unless the person making this argument agrees that the concerned humans, who lack these traits, should also be treated the same way. And that is an ableist position. Read this to learn more about ableism and animal liberation.

– Trait that counts

– SENTIENCE!

– Sentience is subjective awareness; being sentient means that someone who perceives and experiences the world. All sentient beings matter morally and before we adversely affect the interests of any sentient being, we are obliged to justify our action.

Farm animals are animals forcibly taken from their natural habitats and condemned to a life of servitude for human gain. Stripped of their freedom and subjected to unnatural conditions, their lives revolve entirely around serving human interests—be it for profit, entertainment, convenience, or consumption. ​ For many, their existence is reduced to being mere milk and flesh machines, exploited relentlessly to produce resources for human consumption. Dairy animals are subjected to repeated pregnancies, often through invasive methods, and are separated from their young to ensure uninterrupted milk production. Once their productivity declines, they are discarded like broken machinery, slaughtered for their flesh. Similarly, animals raised for meat endure lifetimes of confinement and suffering, treated as mere commodities rather than living beings. ​ The so-called “care” provided to these animals is not an act of kindness but a cold, calculated measure to ensure their basic survival and functionality. These animals are fed, sheltered, and maintained only to the extent that they can continue to perform the roles imposed upon them, whether as food resources, spectacles in circuses, props in photo opportunities, or laborers in harsh conditions. ​ Their individuality, natural behaviors, family bonds, and dignity are systematically erased, leaving behind a shadow of the wild beings they once were. This brutal system not only exploits their bodies but denies their very existence as sentient beings, perpetuating a cycle of violence and oppression masked as necessity.

All said and done, ultimately there is just one reason that we continue to exploit animals. And that is DOMINANCE.

– The fact that non-human animals do not offer any resistance to human exploitation.

– The fact that there is no real world consequence (as of now) for humans.

– While it is the real reason it is by no mean a justified reason to use and abuse animals.

– And this is the same reason society used to perpetuate human to human abuse and systematic oppression. Today we look down on racism, casteism etc. We are disgusted by humans who participated in it as oppressors.

– Tomorrow there will be a time when our future generations will look at Speciesism and its perpetrators in the same way.