The notion that a nonhuman, if granted the ability to understand human communication and then given the choice between a bigger cage for themselves or freedom at some unnamed future time for their descendants, would choose to not sacrifice their own life or endure suffering for their descendants, is speciesist, pure and simple.
It assumes that other species, if given a human-capable choice, would not be capable of choosing a noble sacrifice in the same way as a human would. Put simply, it’s a product of the mindset that humans are morally superior to nonhumans and that we are the only ones who are awesome enough to make correct decisions for everyone else based on what we deem necessary for them, based on our undeniably limited understanding and arbitrarily self-created hierarchy of different beings various interests, needs and preferences.
In reality, our decisions are based on what we in our arrogance believe to be the flaws in others that we don’t have in ourselves. So if we feel that humans would be incapable of sacrificing our own lives or enduring incredible suffering for our offspring or sacrificing the lives or suffering of our offspring to ensure freedom for billions of our descendants, we of course assume that no other beings would be capable of doing the same. After all, they’re not human, so they must be less than us, not greater, right?
I think that if we asked all the nonhumans whether they would rather see humans scattered in our advocacy, engaging in speciesist single-issue campaigns, promoting bigger cages, vegetarianism, “open rescues” and other such nonsense, with a good chance of random instances of slightly better immediate conditions for them (What I’m saying here is that this is the idea that humans would present to the nonhumans, not that that is the outcome in reality), or if they would rather see every single “activist” doing nothing except strong, clear Creative Non-Oppressive Vegan Advocacy which has a great chance of freeing all animals in the future (and even if this weren’t true, is still the only morally justifiable choice, as well as still being much more effective than SICs), I think the answer would be clear. Just like the majority of human slaves would choose to have slavery ended completely in the future rather than slightly better conditions in the present, if nonhumans could understand the question, they would choose Abolitionist Vegan Education, and nothing less.
If you want to actually learn rational arguments as to why SICs and other such actions are counter-productive to Animal Rights, check out these links:
If you are really interested in helping animals, stop the Single-Issue Campaigns and do this instead:
If you’re not already Vegan, and you think animals matter morally, then please go Vegan. It’s easy and great for you, incredible for the animals, and wonderful for the planet. If you’re already Vegan, please educate non-Vegans about why they should go Vegan. Please rescue, volunteer, adopt, foster, spay, and neuter the nonhuman refugees of domestication whenever you can. Please feed your nonhuman family Vegan where you can. These things are the most important, morally responsible things to do and are desperately needed by everyone.
To learn more about Abolitionist Veganism and the issues I’ve outlined in this post, check out The Master List Of Vegan Info:
Disclaimer: My only goal with this list is to produce as comprehensive a resource for Vegan information as possible. I am 100% Abolitionist Vegan and 100% against exploitation of nonhuman or human animals, any type of violence against human or nonhuman persons or property, welfare regulation, any form of speciesism, ethnic bigotry, genderism, ableism, heterosexism, etc., any of the large governmental or non-governmental nonhuman animal organizations, “happy meat,” vegetarianism, veg*nism, Meat-Free Mondays, or other forms of reductionism and anything else that makes it seem like any form of violence or exploitation of animals is ok. If any of those positions are endorsed on any site in this list, or any language is used to imply that, it’s not that I included that link because I agree, but simply because I don’t control every bit of information on all of these sites.