Why did the chicken cross the road? To get away from the slaughterhouse. In 2016, almost 55 million pounds’ worth of chickens were slaughtered in United States federally inspected facilities alone (Poultry, 2017). Not only are chickens and other animals slaughtered at excessive rates, but they are also deemed as lesser organisms as compared to humans. Humans feel the need to assert their dominance over other species, and the mistreatment of nonhuman animals is just one way that dominance is declared. The assumed superiority of humans lessens the recognized intelligence, equality, and overall treatment of animals, causing animal rights and welfare to be diminished. 

Although humans are animals, humans tend to use the word animal to describe organisms of lesser hierarchal standing. There is a superiority issue when it comes to the animal hierarchy. Humans have evolved over time into advanced organisms, so it is natural to think that human beings are superior to nonhuman animals. However, many other animals communicate, feel emotions, and use tools just as humans do. In a TedTalk, Carl Safina said that animals, prior to contrary belief, also feel the emotions empathy, sympathy, and compassion (TED 2015). Safina described how animals communicate and interact with one another just as humans do.

 It is evident that humans like to consider themselves different from animals only when it is convenient to do so. For example, when a pig is in the form of bacon being fried for breakfast, the pig is considered different from humans; when a pig is being scientifically tested on, however, the pig is then considered to be closely related to humans. The position may seem situational, but for whose convenience? It is simply easier to take part in unethical practices if the practice feels justified. To justify the unequal treatment of animals, humans make themselves believe they are superior to other species. Though, maybe humans should try to gain a new perspective about the hierarchy of species. Humans should detach themselves from the animal rights issue and morally think how the mistreatment of animals affects the earth and all of its inhabitants, rather than being so self-interested. 

In his published journal of philosophy, Randall Firestone posed a though provoking question “what principles of justice would [humans] choose to govern the interactions between species if we were not the most intelligent and powerful species on earth?” (Firestone, 266). Firestone describes a hypothetical scenario where intellectual aliens come to planet Earth and try to rule over all preexisting species. The aliens essentially want to treat the humans as humans currently treat animals; the humans will be farmed, eaten, made into forms of entertainment, or anything else the aliens need from the lesser beings. There is a long dialogue where the human tries to reason with the alien and details multiple reasons why humans do not deserve to be treated this way. Yet, each reason proposed by the human then turned around by the alien claiming that their actions reflect the way that humans treat animals. Humans think they are entitled to mistreat animals since they are smarter and more cunning; by the same logic, if any greater organism were to exist or come into existence, they would be entitled to mistreat humans. It is easy to ignore the inequalities forced onto nonhuman animals since no human knows what it is like to be an animal. However, using Firestone’s hypothetical alien situation makes people think how they would want to be treated if they were considered a lesser being. 

Animals are more intelligent and complex than science has previously observed. Just like humans, animals have emotions like compassion, empathy, and sympathy. They form groups and live together with their families in order to care for one another. To validate animal cruelty, humans continue to make the argument that animals are lesser beings since they cannot feel the same emotions as humans can; however, this idea has been disproven many times. In the article Animal Minds, it states “no animals have all the attributes of human minds; but almost all the attributes of human minds are found in some animal or other” (Animal, 2015). There is no existing animal that feels exactly the same emotion, has exactly the same thought process, and reacts to stimuli exactly the same as humans do; that is not to say that no other species on this entire planet feels, thinks, and acts as a human does at times. Humans are evolved organisms who stress their intelligence, but humans, with all of that intelligence, continue to mistreat animals even though it is destructing the very environment around them.  

The mistreatment of animals causes negative impacts in the environment and food webs of natural habitats. Every species on earth exists for some environmental purpose. Many vital species are on the brink of extinction due to human interferences and little is being done to try and reverse human mistakes. By hunting animals, humans disturb the natural habitat and obstruct the entire food web of that environment. If a bear were to kill a hunter in the woods, it would be a tragic event that would probably make headlines in the local paper. On the contrary, if the hunter killed the bear, the hunter would be praised for their hard work and dedication to the sport. The reason these two similar actions are treated so contrarily is due to the preconceived morals that humans have about animals. As if hunting was not creating enough issues, even greater problems stem from profitable hunting as the money is incentive to hunt and kill specific animals. The kind of targeting that profitable hunting creates is a major cause of extinction in specific species. More animal protection laws, specifically against hunting, need to be enforced in order to limit and slow down the extinction of species. 

There is also a concern for animals kept in zoos, aquariums, circuses, or any other restrictive captivity. There are some environments where the confined animals are treated well and are nursed back to health if they are sick, injured, or even endangered. However, the issue arises when animals are locked away in tiny, metal cages and forced to do nothing all day except be gawked at by humans. The solution to the animal confinement issue is simple; people need to stop visiting unethical animal shows and learn to coexist. Also, there need to be stricter requirements for any environment that is housing animals. 

The main exploitation that humans try to justify is the act of consuming other animals. Humans use the warrants that they are physically meant to eat meat, humans are superior to animals, or the simple point that meat tastes delicious. A big concern with not eating meat is the lack of protein in the diet, but there are many food groups that contain a higher percentage of protein than meat does, such as beans. Also, meat, particularly red meat, in amounts like it is consumed today can have negative effects on your body. Many people do not consciously think about the suffering their food went through before consuming it. Some people do think about animal suffrage, but they tend to use the typical concepts to uphold their actions. Those people who use those ideas to loosely defend mistreating animals are the same people who claim that animal testing is acceptable since animals and humans are extremely similar. It cannot be true that animals are both extremely different and extremely like humans; the fact is, humans and animals are similar. A convenient boundary cannot keep being built between animals and humans to give reason for human misconduct toward animals. In order to move past animal mistreatment, humans must realize and except the fact that animals and humans are closely related. 

In order to maintain a constant supply of meat, agriculture had to make many changes in order to meet demand. These changes made the issue of animal inequality in the agricultural systems far worse than before, specifically in The United States. Commercial farming has been a huge part of the American economy for a long time. Farming switched from small, locally owned farms to corporate farms, even if that meant quality was sacrificed. It is no longer about caring for the animals on the farm, like small farmers did; now this idea that the bigger the better stands for every aspect of farming. But is bigger really better? With a standard commercial farm, the animals are pumped with antibiotics, feed the cheapest corn based meal, and kept in horrific conditions. Many people make the claims that the animals do not know of the bad conditions they are being kept in and they are killed quickly with no knowledge of death. However, animals that are kept indoors, in close quarters, or without the proper needs for survival show the same signs of depression as a human would (Haque, 2006). Even if animals were kept in regulated habitats and could roam freely, that does not negate the fact that they will be slaughter and for no other reason than human satisfaction.

Many attempts have been made to try and repair some aspects of the agricultural system; a popular solution is the idea of free-range farming. The actual definition of free-range is loose and, like the organic label, can sometimes just be placed on an item and have no true meaning to it. For an animal to be considered free-range, it must be allowed to roam freely outside for some portion of the day, but can then be placed back in horrific conditions for the rest of the time. However, free-range farming is just another tactic for making a flawed farming system seem appealing to consumers. James McWilliams wrote an article about how free-range farming is not that superior to factory-farming. In the article, McWilliams states, “the idea that free-range is automatically a responsible choice simply because it's more attentive to animal welfare—is morally blurred. Better does not mean acceptable” (McWilliams, 2010). Free-range farming is another way that humans try to pretend that consuming animals is morally right and that there are ways to make animal cruelty less cruel. McWilliams also considers that killing a free-range animal, that is presumably living a happier life than that of a suffering animal, takes more happiness out of the world than the act of killing the depressed, confined animal would (McWilliams, 2010). In the end, whether the animal was free-range or not, it is killed in the same unjust way by the same unjust people.  

 So, what makes meat of animals that are regarded as unethical to eat any different from the meat of customarily farmed animals? An idea like cannibalism seems absurd to humans, however their standard diet is packed with endless meats of many different species. Skeptics of animal rights argue that a major difference between farmed animals and free animals is that traditions have determined which animals are to be farmed and which animals are to be kept as pets, held sacred, or let roam free in the wild. Animals such as pigs, cows, and chickens are common farm animals while dogs and cats are commonly kept as pets. It became tradition to farm such animals because those are the calmest, easiest to maintain, and yield the most meat. It would be senseless for a farmer to trouble themselves attempting to raise lions when they could simply raise cows instead. Furthermore, if tradition was as important to people as it seems, then maybe everyone should resort back to having their own garden and tending to their own animals as a source of food.  

Humans eating animals is a tradition among most cultures that can be dated back to ancient times. The idea of not consuming meat is beyond unreasonable to most traditionalists. Meat consumption may have been a tradition for a long time, but as was a lot of unethical practices. In the United States, it would seem bizarre to continue to have public executions in town squares solely because it is traditional. What some people do not approve of is change and most lack the understanding of sustainability. When something is sustainable, it can continue for a very long time, successfully. To make change, the modification must be introduced and explained to the citizens of a nation or culture because no one is willing to change for a cause they know nothing about. 

A sustainable way of life that should start to be introduced into regular, everyday life is the idea of vegetarianism and veganism. Vegetarianism and veganism are lifestyles and diets that acknowledge animal rights and strive to support a better environment. Vegetarianism and veganism are often referred to as lifestyles because they are ideas that affect much more than a person’s diet. Vegetarians and vegans are far less likely to commit acts of animal cruelty because they are more ethically aware of the situation.  A vegetarian diet excludes all meat while a vegan diet excludes all animal derivatives such as meat, dairy, and eggs. By partaking in one of these restrictive diets, people increase their compassion for animals. These lifestyles consider the equality of all animals and believe that they deserve better treatment that what they are facing now. The benefits associated with these diets are not limited to animal rights. These diets improve the environment, agriculture, and the overall health of the consumer. 

Meat restricting lifestyles help to repair issues within both wild and farmed environments. Going back to the statistic that roughly 55 million pounds of chicken are slaughtered in a year, think about how the diet change of just a few thousand people would impact this statistic. Ultimately, there is no way to completely diminish such an extreme number, but any little bit of change helps the animal rights cause. The chickens that people do not consume can be saved and returned to live freely in the proper environmental and contribute to the food web as they were meant to. By not consuming meat, people can save the lives of so many animals and restore the proper environments for those animals. Also, meat production is more detrimental to the environment than plant-based production. It is stated that “relative to plant-based agriculture, meat production has a much higher environmental impact in relation to freshwater use, amount of land required, and waste products generated” (Joyce). Meat restrictive diets would limit the need for such an excessive number of farmed animals, which would have wonderful impacts on the environment.

The assumed superiority of humans lessens the recognized intelligence, equality, and overall treatment of animals, causing animal rights and welfare to be diminished. To truly bring equality to all animals, humans must make changes within their own lives; the biggest of these changes being the consideration of reducing or eliminating meat from their diets. Even current animal rights activist need to focus exclusively on animal equality and fully stand behind the cause. In a book about animal activism, Wrenn stated “commit to political veganism instead of just welfare reform and single-issue campaigning” (Wrenn 94). Humans need to rise against the foul agricultural, political, and ethical systems to achieve animal equality. Humans are very powerful beings, “[humans] are the most extreme. We are the most compassionate, most violent, most creative, and most destructive animal that has ever been on this planet” (TED 2015). To create reform, humans must come together, with all their extremities, and pour efforts into the idea that humans are coexisting members of an elaborate ecosystem.
