Animal Rights 101: Liberating, Not Eliminating, the Nonhuman World

Posted by Carter Dillard, ALDF Litigation Director on March 8, 2014

The eradication of the nonhuman world hardly registers on the animal rights radar, and it should. The short movie the Meatrix plays upon the idea of going back to the basics, a sort of “Animal Rights 101.” The film shows Leo the pig learning that the bucolic family farm he believed existed was hiding the sickening reality of the factory farm where Leo really lived. When Leo backs out of the illusion the lesson becomes clear: people who care about animals should treat them well, both directly and indirectly through their purchases.


We live with the illusion that the animal rights movement is gaining ground because there are more vegans, more alternatives to animals in research, better laws, more no-kill shelters, etc. Yet the truth is, our planet is undergoing the Holocene or Sixth Extinction—the mass extinction of nonhuman species caused by human population growth as well as increased consumption and pollution, where the rate of extinction is estimated to be 100-1000 times higher than without human influence. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner E.O. Wilson predicts that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) go extinct—at the current rate, one-half of what he terms Earth’s higher life forms will be extinct by 2100. It is a Meatrix-style delusion to say there is a mounting “animal rights movement” while we wipe other species from the planet. If we dispel our illusion the way Leo did our lesson will be clear: we must liberate, rather than eliminate, the nonhuman world.

One recent study of 114 nations found that human population density predicted with 88-percent accuracy the number of endangered birds and mammals. Current trends indicate that the number of threatened and endangered species will increase as human population skyrockets to 8 billion by 2020, and 9 to 15 billion by 2050. And yet few if any animal organizations truly address human population growth or consumption, leaving these issues instead to environmentalists for whom population is also a taboo word. Peter Singer is considered by many to be the father of the modern animal rights movement but he himself had three children roughly at a time when projections showed that having three children on average would increase the world population to 256 billion humans in a mere 150 years.

Animal Rights 101 has to mean escaping the matrix or illusion that humans are doing right by animals by treating only a few species well. Instead, we must imagine the nonhuman world as it would have been had humanity’s numbers not begun to explode exponentially around 200 years ago. Working from that baseline could give us a new concept of animal rights; one that would mean looking at the growth and consumption habits of our species as a whole—because those habits are obliterating the nonhumans we claim to want to protect. The end of animal rights and the way out of the matrix actually means going back to the beginning, and giving animals back their world as best we can.

But what can actually be done? Our movement confronts factory farming by focusing on the worst of the worst, the Tysons of the world, rather than the family farmer down the street. Similarly those interested in confronting population growth and consumption can target those loudly promoting growth, like Jonathan Last, whose writings promote state policies like cutting back on higher education (which is inconveniently timed during prime reproductive years) in order to achieve higher fertility rates. Those promoting human growth are necessarily promoting the extinction of nonhumans, which is something that—cruelty aside—an animal rights movement focused on its 101 has to care about.

4 thoughts on “Animal Rights 101: Liberating, Not Eliminating, the Nonhuman World

  1. Very well written and thought provoking. Thank you.

  2. Teresa Olsen (not related to Stefani but I like her comment) says:

    Thank you for saying what few organizations will speak to for fear of losing funding — the devastating effects of human overpopulation on the whole of the planet and all species.

  3. Laura Jackson says:

    I have always believed that humans are taking way too much natural space from nonhuman species. If the world wasn’t so overpopulated, animals wouldn’t be starving, like the Key dear, and there would be no need for the kill permits given to hunters so they can slaughter the “starving” dear. Does that make sense?

  4. Laura Slitt says:

    So what are we to do? The current media climate, unless tuned into specific AR or Vegan themed venues, doesn’t even broach the subject of public health or environmental issues of animal agriculture, let alone the impact of the most invasive species, HUMAN, on any other life form. No, we are “top of the food chain,” and other animals are considered pests anyway. Our entire dialect was created so that humans could rule and are considered owners of every inch of the universe…How do we change a paradigm in which humans have given themselves the gavel over the solar system? We’ll spend billions through NASA to get to other planets as we turn this one into a manure lagoon.

    I with I didn’t see things this way and I do participate in every event I can to offer vegan food, write lots of LTE about vegan and AR issues, but speciesism ???? You’ll have to speak to the POPE and every leader of every religion and plead with them to honor CREATION by not destroying it.

Be a Partner in Protection!

Donate monthly to help animals.

or make a one-time gift »

ALDF's Online Store

Help fund our lifesaving work!


Stay Connected

Sign up for Action Alerts.

Join Us

Follow ALDF on these networks:

Stay Connected

Sign up for Action Alerts.